mudcat.org: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'

Larry The Radio Guy 28 Jul 13 - 11:11 PM
Dave the Gnome 29 Jul 13 - 02:59 AM
MGM·Lion 29 Jul 13 - 03:18 AM
Will Fly 29 Jul 13 - 04:09 AM
Musket 29 Jul 13 - 04:19 AM
akenaton 29 Jul 13 - 04:25 AM
Richard Bridge 29 Jul 13 - 04:27 AM
MGM·Lion 29 Jul 13 - 04:42 AM
Musket 29 Jul 13 - 04:46 AM
Dave the Gnome 29 Jul 13 - 05:05 AM
MGM·Lion 29 Jul 13 - 05:13 AM
Steve Shaw 29 Jul 13 - 05:32 AM
gnu 29 Jul 13 - 05:45 AM
Steve Shaw 29 Jul 13 - 05:50 AM
akenaton 29 Jul 13 - 05:54 AM
Steve Shaw 29 Jul 13 - 06:05 AM
akenaton 29 Jul 13 - 06:08 AM
Steve Shaw 29 Jul 13 - 06:11 AM
GUEST,Allan Conn 29 Jul 13 - 06:29 AM
Musket 29 Jul 13 - 09:18 AM
Bill D 29 Jul 13 - 09:18 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 29 Jul 13 - 09:36 AM
Musket 29 Jul 13 - 09:51 AM
MartinRyan 29 Jul 13 - 09:59 AM
Dave the Gnome 29 Jul 13 - 10:03 AM
MGM·Lion 29 Jul 13 - 10:12 AM
Dave the Gnome 29 Jul 13 - 10:18 AM
MartinRyan 29 Jul 13 - 10:20 AM
Dave the Gnome 29 Jul 13 - 10:21 AM
Megan L 29 Jul 13 - 10:21 AM
akenaton 29 Jul 13 - 10:54 AM
akenaton 29 Jul 13 - 11:04 AM
Allan Conn 29 Jul 13 - 11:14 AM
Joe Offer 29 Jul 13 - 12:04 PM
Bill D 29 Jul 13 - 12:09 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 29 Jul 13 - 12:20 PM
maeve 29 Jul 13 - 12:33 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 29 Jul 13 - 12:35 PM
Q (Frank Staplin) 29 Jul 13 - 12:47 PM
Joe Offer 29 Jul 13 - 12:54 PM
Amos 29 Jul 13 - 12:55 PM
GUEST,Musket musing 29 Jul 13 - 01:55 PM
Joe Offer 29 Jul 13 - 02:18 PM
GUEST,Musket agreeing but.. 29 Jul 13 - 03:02 PM
Lighter 29 Jul 13 - 03:07 PM
Bill D 29 Jul 13 - 03:37 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 29 Jul 13 - 04:07 PM
akenaton 29 Jul 13 - 05:02 PM
GUEST,Musket on the button 29 Jul 13 - 05:25 PM
akenaton 29 Jul 13 - 05:31 PM
GUEST,SJL 29 Jul 13 - 05:33 PM
akenaton 29 Jul 13 - 05:51 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Jul 13 - 06:18 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Jul 13 - 06:18 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Jul 13 - 06:20 PM
McGrath of Harlow 29 Jul 13 - 06:41 PM
Don Firth 29 Jul 13 - 06:45 PM
akenaton 29 Jul 13 - 07:00 PM
akenaton 29 Jul 13 - 07:06 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Jul 13 - 07:11 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Jul 13 - 07:19 PM
McGrath of Harlow 29 Jul 13 - 07:27 PM
akenaton 29 Jul 13 - 07:32 PM
Don Firth 29 Jul 13 - 07:34 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Jul 13 - 07:41 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Jul 13 - 07:45 PM
Janie 29 Jul 13 - 07:49 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Jul 13 - 07:53 PM
akenaton 29 Jul 13 - 07:59 PM
Janie 29 Jul 13 - 08:03 PM
akenaton 29 Jul 13 - 08:04 PM
akenaton 29 Jul 13 - 08:05 PM
Bill D 29 Jul 13 - 08:09 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 29 Jul 13 - 08:10 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Jul 13 - 08:32 PM
McGrath of Harlow 29 Jul 13 - 08:32 PM
Janie 29 Jul 13 - 08:34 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Jul 13 - 08:39 PM
Don Firth 29 Jul 13 - 09:26 PM
Joe Offer 29 Jul 13 - 09:37 PM
Bill D 29 Jul 13 - 09:43 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 29 Jul 13 - 09:51 PM
Rapparee 29 Jul 13 - 09:53 PM
Don Firth 29 Jul 13 - 10:06 PM
Rapparee 29 Jul 13 - 10:30 PM
Jack the Sailor 29 Jul 13 - 11:54 PM
Joe Offer 30 Jul 13 - 02:10 AM
GUEST,Musket being patriotic 30 Jul 13 - 02:31 AM
akenaton 30 Jul 13 - 03:18 AM
Musket 30 Jul 13 - 03:26 AM
Allan Conn 30 Jul 13 - 03:28 AM
Musket 30 Jul 13 - 05:14 AM
Steve Shaw 30 Jul 13 - 05:33 AM
Musket 30 Jul 13 - 05:39 AM
akenaton 30 Jul 13 - 06:20 AM
Richard Bridge 30 Jul 13 - 06:51 AM
akenaton 30 Jul 13 - 07:01 AM
akenaton 30 Jul 13 - 07:30 AM
Steve Shaw 30 Jul 13 - 07:37 AM
akenaton 30 Jul 13 - 07:47 AM
Steve Shaw 30 Jul 13 - 07:56 AM
akenaton 30 Jul 13 - 07:58 AM
akenaton 30 Jul 13 - 08:04 AM
TheSnail 30 Jul 13 - 08:11 AM
Steve Shaw 30 Jul 13 - 08:42 AM
akenaton 30 Jul 13 - 08:50 AM
Dave the Gnome 30 Jul 13 - 08:53 AM
Steve Shaw 30 Jul 13 - 08:59 AM
GUEST,Musket curious 30 Jul 13 - 09:19 AM
Dave the Gnome 30 Jul 13 - 09:31 AM
akenaton 30 Jul 13 - 09:34 AM
akenaton 30 Jul 13 - 09:41 AM
Dave the Gnome 30 Jul 13 - 09:44 AM
akenaton 30 Jul 13 - 09:52 AM
Dave the Gnome 30 Jul 13 - 10:11 AM
Larry The Radio Guy 30 Jul 13 - 10:27 AM
Musket 30 Jul 13 - 10:47 AM
Dave the Gnome 30 Jul 13 - 10:50 AM
Dave the Gnome 30 Jul 13 - 11:01 AM
GUEST,Spleen Cringe 30 Jul 13 - 11:50 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 30 Jul 13 - 11:52 AM
Spleen Cringe 30 Jul 13 - 12:03 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 30 Jul 13 - 12:25 PM
Steve Shaw 30 Jul 13 - 12:30 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 30 Jul 13 - 01:03 PM
Bobert 30 Jul 13 - 01:22 PM
Rapparee 30 Jul 13 - 01:29 PM
akenaton 30 Jul 13 - 01:32 PM
Steve Shaw 30 Jul 13 - 02:05 PM
Don Firth 30 Jul 13 - 02:41 PM
Richard Bridge 30 Jul 13 - 03:15 PM
akenaton 30 Jul 13 - 03:30 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 30 Jul 13 - 03:52 PM
Charmion 30 Jul 13 - 03:56 PM
Steve Shaw 30 Jul 13 - 04:15 PM
GUEST,Musket putting line in sand 30 Jul 13 - 04:20 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 30 Jul 13 - 04:22 PM
GUEST,Eliza 30 Jul 13 - 04:25 PM
Charmion 30 Jul 13 - 04:34 PM
Steve Shaw 30 Jul 13 - 04:42 PM
Bobert 30 Jul 13 - 04:46 PM
GUEST,Musket shaking his head 30 Jul 13 - 04:54 PM
GUEST,Eliza 30 Jul 13 - 04:55 PM
Steve Shaw 30 Jul 13 - 04:58 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 30 Jul 13 - 05:03 PM
Don Firth 30 Jul 13 - 05:21 PM
Lighter 30 Jul 13 - 07:09 PM
Richard Bridge 30 Jul 13 - 08:49 PM
Bobert 30 Jul 13 - 08:55 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 30 Jul 13 - 09:06 PM
Bobert 30 Jul 13 - 09:21 PM
akenaton 31 Jul 13 - 02:50 AM
GUEST,musket defining conservative 31 Jul 13 - 02:56 AM
akenaton 31 Jul 13 - 02:58 AM
akenaton 31 Jul 13 - 03:04 AM
akenaton 31 Jul 13 - 03:07 AM
akenaton 31 Jul 13 - 03:17 AM
Musket 31 Jul 13 - 04:47 AM
Spleen Cringe 31 Jul 13 - 05:40 AM
Steve Shaw 31 Jul 13 - 05:55 AM
akenaton 31 Jul 13 - 06:00 AM
akenaton 31 Jul 13 - 06:03 AM
Steve Shaw 31 Jul 13 - 07:55 AM
Bobert 31 Jul 13 - 08:41 AM
Musket 31 Jul 13 - 08:47 AM
Steve Shaw 31 Jul 13 - 09:08 AM
Richard Bridge 31 Jul 13 - 09:40 AM
Dave the Gnome 31 Jul 13 - 09:47 AM
Rapparee 31 Jul 13 - 09:53 AM
Bobert 31 Jul 13 - 09:58 AM
Dave the Gnome 31 Jul 13 - 10:34 AM
McGrath of Harlow 31 Jul 13 - 10:37 AM
Steve Shaw 31 Jul 13 - 11:27 AM
catspaw49 31 Jul 13 - 11:51 AM
Dave the Gnome 31 Jul 13 - 12:14 PM
McGrath of Harlow 31 Jul 13 - 12:50 PM
Musket 31 Jul 13 - 01:27 PM
GUEST,Allan Conn 31 Jul 13 - 05:52 PM
GUEST,Eliza 31 Jul 13 - 06:17 PM
McGrath of Harlow 31 Jul 13 - 06:27 PM
Steve Shaw 31 Jul 13 - 07:00 PM
Rapparee 31 Jul 13 - 07:10 PM
GUEST,Ed T 31 Jul 13 - 07:41 PM
Steve Shaw 31 Jul 13 - 08:00 PM
Steve Shaw 31 Jul 13 - 08:18 PM
pdq 31 Jul 13 - 08:34 PM
McGrath of Harlow 31 Jul 13 - 09:00 PM
Steve Shaw 31 Jul 13 - 09:08 PM
Steve Shaw 31 Jul 13 - 09:12 PM
GUEST,Lord of Misrule 31 Jul 13 - 09:19 PM
McGrath of Harlow 31 Jul 13 - 09:47 PM
Janie 31 Jul 13 - 09:50 PM
Ed T 31 Jul 13 - 09:56 PM
Ed T 31 Jul 13 - 10:13 PM
Rapparee 31 Jul 13 - 10:37 PM
Jack the Sailor 31 Jul 13 - 10:51 PM
Richard Bridge 01 Aug 13 - 03:20 AM
GUEST,Musket curious 01 Aug 13 - 03:43 AM
Richard Bridge 01 Aug 13 - 04:09 AM
Richard Bridge 01 Aug 13 - 04:10 AM
akenaton 01 Aug 13 - 04:47 AM
akenaton 01 Aug 13 - 05:18 AM
Steve Shaw 01 Aug 13 - 06:07 AM
Spleen Cringe 01 Aug 13 - 06:34 AM
Spleen Cringe 01 Aug 13 - 06:41 AM
GUEST,Grishka 01 Aug 13 - 06:48 AM
McGrath of Harlow 01 Aug 13 - 07:04 AM
Steve Shaw 01 Aug 13 - 07:19 AM
Steve Shaw 01 Aug 13 - 07:26 AM
Richard Bridge 01 Aug 13 - 08:03 AM
GUEST,Spleen Cringe 01 Aug 13 - 09:11 AM
GUEST,Spleen Cringe 01 Aug 13 - 09:15 AM
GUEST,Musket musing 01 Aug 13 - 12:48 PM
akenaton 01 Aug 13 - 01:20 PM
GUEST,Musket sans moral dimensions 01 Aug 13 - 01:30 PM
Bill D 01 Aug 13 - 01:50 PM
akenaton 01 Aug 13 - 02:17 PM
GUEST,Musket not wanting to bog down 01 Aug 13 - 03:08 PM
akenaton 01 Aug 13 - 03:26 PM
McGrath of Harlow 01 Aug 13 - 05:00 PM
Richard Bridge 01 Aug 13 - 05:37 PM
akenaton 01 Aug 13 - 05:40 PM
Steve Shaw 01 Aug 13 - 05:46 PM
akenaton 01 Aug 13 - 05:57 PM
Steve Shaw 01 Aug 13 - 06:12 PM
Bill D 01 Aug 13 - 06:29 PM
Steve Shaw 01 Aug 13 - 06:34 PM
Steve Shaw 01 Aug 13 - 06:38 PM
Don Firth 01 Aug 13 - 06:55 PM
kendall 01 Aug 13 - 07:22 PM
Bobert 01 Aug 13 - 07:23 PM
GUEST 01 Aug 13 - 07:24 PM
McGrath of Harlow 01 Aug 13 - 07:50 PM
Bobert 01 Aug 13 - 07:54 PM
Janie 01 Aug 13 - 07:59 PM
Bobert 01 Aug 13 - 08:14 PM
Steve Shaw 01 Aug 13 - 08:21 PM
Bobert 01 Aug 13 - 08:33 PM
Don Firth 01 Aug 13 - 09:29 PM
GUEST,Musket curious 02 Aug 13 - 02:37 AM
akenaton 02 Aug 13 - 04:36 AM
Steve Shaw 02 Aug 13 - 05:05 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 02 Aug 13 - 06:24 AM
Suzy Sock Puppet 02 Aug 13 - 06:43 AM
Steve Shaw 02 Aug 13 - 06:46 AM
Steve Shaw 02 Aug 13 - 06:54 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 02 Aug 13 - 07:04 AM
akenaton 02 Aug 13 - 07:45 AM
Spleen Cringe 02 Aug 13 - 07:45 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 02 Aug 13 - 08:00 AM
Steve Shaw 02 Aug 13 - 09:45 AM
Richard Bridge 02 Aug 13 - 09:45 AM
kendall 02 Aug 13 - 09:48 AM
McGrath of Harlow 02 Aug 13 - 01:58 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Aug 13 - 02:33 PM
McGrath of Harlow 02 Aug 13 - 05:14 PM
McGrath of Harlow 02 Aug 13 - 06:45 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 02 Aug 13 - 07:32 PM
GUEST,SJL 02 Aug 13 - 07:43 PM
Janie 02 Aug 13 - 07:53 PM
akenaton 02 Aug 13 - 08:03 PM
McGrath of Harlow 02 Aug 13 - 08:10 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Aug 13 - 08:18 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Aug 13 - 08:26 PM
GUEST,SJL 02 Aug 13 - 09:43 PM
akenaton 03 Aug 13 - 04:38 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Aug 13 - 07:14 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Aug 13 - 07:22 AM
akenaton 03 Aug 13 - 07:56 AM
Charmion 03 Aug 13 - 09:23 AM
McGrath of Harlow 03 Aug 13 - 09:54 AM
Claire M 03 Aug 13 - 10:01 AM
McGrath of Harlow 03 Aug 13 - 10:17 AM
GUEST,Musket spelling it out 03 Aug 13 - 10:34 AM
GUEST,SJL 03 Aug 13 - 11:07 AM
McGrath of Harlow 03 Aug 13 - 12:46 PM
GUEST,Musket saying don't misquote me 03 Aug 13 - 12:49 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 03 Aug 13 - 01:41 PM
McGrath of Harlow 03 Aug 13 - 03:04 PM
GUEST,SJL 03 Aug 13 - 03:18 PM
Suzy Sock Puppet 03 Aug 13 - 05:51 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Aug 13 - 06:58 PM
Bobert 03 Aug 13 - 08:01 PM
akenaton 03 Aug 13 - 08:19 PM
McGrath of Harlow 03 Aug 13 - 08:28 PM
akenaton 03 Aug 13 - 08:36 PM
akenaton 03 Aug 13 - 08:39 PM
Joe Offer 03 Aug 13 - 10:24 PM
GUEST,Ian Mather 04 Aug 13 - 03:12 AM
Richard Bridge 04 Aug 13 - 03:35 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 04 Aug 13 - 04:55 AM
akenaton 04 Aug 13 - 05:20 AM
McGrath of Harlow 04 Aug 13 - 08:43 AM
GUEST,SJL 04 Aug 13 - 09:34 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 04 Aug 13 - 11:14 AM
Ebbie 04 Aug 13 - 11:34 AM
Richard Bridge 04 Aug 13 - 11:51 AM
akenaton 04 Aug 13 - 12:31 PM
McGrath of Harlow 04 Aug 13 - 01:25 PM
Dave the Gnome 04 Aug 13 - 01:31 PM
Dave the Gnome 04 Aug 13 - 01:36 PM
GUEST,musket on train from test match 04 Aug 13 - 01:56 PM
Ron Davies 04 Aug 13 - 02:18 PM
McGrath of Harlow 04 Aug 13 - 03:03 PM
GUEST,Larry the Radio Guy 04 Aug 13 - 03:09 PM
GUEST,SJL 04 Aug 13 - 06:25 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Aug 13 - 07:15 PM
McGrath of Harlow 04 Aug 13 - 07:25 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Aug 13 - 08:00 PM
McGrath of Harlow 04 Aug 13 - 08:21 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 04 Aug 13 - 11:33 PM
GUEST,Musket sans Ian 05 Aug 13 - 01:08 AM
akenaton 05 Aug 13 - 03:05 AM
akenaton 05 Aug 13 - 03:14 AM
Richard Bridge 05 Aug 13 - 03:35 AM
GUEST,musket being obvious 05 Aug 13 - 03:36 AM
Dave the Gnome 05 Aug 13 - 03:54 AM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Aug 13 - 04:57 AM
McGrath of Harlow 05 Aug 13 - 04:58 AM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Aug 13 - 05:10 AM
Steve Shaw 05 Aug 13 - 08:49 AM
McGrath of Harlow 05 Aug 13 - 10:55 AM
Larry The Radio Guy 05 Aug 13 - 11:47 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 05 Aug 13 - 11:58 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 05 Aug 13 - 12:02 PM
GUEST,The good professor 05 Aug 13 - 12:55 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 05 Aug 13 - 02:08 PM
akenaton 05 Aug 13 - 02:12 PM
McGrath of Harlow 05 Aug 13 - 02:41 PM
akenaton 05 Aug 13 - 02:49 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 05 Aug 13 - 03:12 PM
GUEST,Musket evolving slowly 05 Aug 13 - 03:19 PM
Ebbie 05 Aug 13 - 03:31 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 05 Aug 13 - 03:38 PM
GUEST,Musket curious 05 Aug 13 - 03:45 PM
McGrath of Harlow 05 Aug 13 - 03:53 PM
GUEST,SJL 05 Aug 13 - 04:05 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 05 Aug 13 - 04:08 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 05 Aug 13 - 04:14 PM
GUEST,Bob Ryszkiewicz 05 Aug 13 - 04:19 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 05 Aug 13 - 04:25 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 05 Aug 13 - 04:30 PM
GUEST,Musket curious 05 Aug 13 - 04:40 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 05 Aug 13 - 04:50 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 05 Aug 13 - 05:00 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 05 Aug 13 - 05:20 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 05 Aug 13 - 05:28 PM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Aug 13 - 05:34 PM
akenaton 05 Aug 13 - 05:54 PM
akenaton 05 Aug 13 - 06:04 PM
McGrath of Harlow 05 Aug 13 - 06:45 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Aug 13 - 07:15 PM
TheSnail 05 Aug 13 - 07:34 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Aug 13 - 07:35 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Aug 13 - 07:36 PM
Don Firth 05 Aug 13 - 07:45 PM
McGrath of Harlow 05 Aug 13 - 07:48 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Aug 13 - 08:12 PM
TheSnail 05 Aug 13 - 08:22 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 05 Aug 13 - 08:24 PM
Don Firth 05 Aug 13 - 08:34 PM
McGrath of Harlow 05 Aug 13 - 08:48 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Aug 13 - 08:54 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 05 Aug 13 - 08:56 PM
GUEST,SJL 05 Aug 13 - 09:00 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Aug 13 - 09:04 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Aug 13 - 09:13 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Aug 13 - 09:19 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 05 Aug 13 - 09:24 PM
Don Firth 05 Aug 13 - 09:49 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 05 Aug 13 - 10:13 PM
Don Firth 05 Aug 13 - 11:54 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 06 Aug 13 - 12:19 AM
Larry The Radio Guy 06 Aug 13 - 12:28 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 06 Aug 13 - 12:32 AM
GUEST,SJL 06 Aug 13 - 01:57 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 06 Aug 13 - 02:15 AM
GUEST,Musket evolving slowly 06 Aug 13 - 05:04 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Aug 13 - 05:43 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Aug 13 - 05:52 AM
TheSnail 06 Aug 13 - 06:10 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Aug 13 - 07:46 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Aug 13 - 07:53 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 06 Aug 13 - 08:34 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 06 Aug 13 - 08:47 AM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Aug 13 - 09:10 AM
GUEST,Musket not smooth nor a bore 06 Aug 13 - 10:07 AM
TheSnail 06 Aug 13 - 10:11 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Aug 13 - 10:27 AM
akenaton 06 Aug 13 - 10:44 AM
akenaton 06 Aug 13 - 10:49 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 06 Aug 13 - 01:04 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Aug 13 - 01:42 PM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Aug 13 - 02:06 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 06 Aug 13 - 02:31 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 06 Aug 13 - 02:33 PM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Aug 13 - 03:02 PM
GUEST,Musket evolving slowly 06 Aug 13 - 03:32 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 06 Aug 13 - 04:15 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Aug 13 - 04:31 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Aug 13 - 04:42 PM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Aug 13 - 04:48 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Aug 13 - 04:58 PM
GUEST,SJL 06 Aug 13 - 05:01 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 06 Aug 13 - 05:26 PM
Bobert 06 Aug 13 - 05:44 PM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Aug 13 - 06:09 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Aug 13 - 06:17 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Aug 13 - 06:21 PM
Richard Bridge 06 Aug 13 - 07:07 PM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Aug 13 - 07:33 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Aug 13 - 07:39 PM
Janie 06 Aug 13 - 08:06 PM
Bobert 06 Aug 13 - 08:26 PM
Don Firth 06 Aug 13 - 08:27 PM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Aug 13 - 08:46 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 06 Aug 13 - 09:18 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 06 Aug 13 - 09:28 PM
Bobert 06 Aug 13 - 09:41 PM
Don Firth 06 Aug 13 - 10:00 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 06 Aug 13 - 10:43 PM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Aug 13 - 02:12 AM
TheSnail 07 Aug 13 - 08:25 AM
TheSnail 07 Aug 13 - 08:44 AM
TheSnail 07 Aug 13 - 09:05 AM
GUEST,Musket on his subject 07 Aug 13 - 09:35 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Aug 13 - 09:44 AM
Bobert 07 Aug 13 - 10:07 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 07 Aug 13 - 11:10 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 07 Aug 13 - 11:21 AM
TheSnail 07 Aug 13 - 01:34 PM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Aug 13 - 02:31 PM
McGrath of Harlow 07 Aug 13 - 03:24 PM
GUEST,SJL 07 Aug 13 - 04:42 PM
McGrath of Harlow 07 Aug 13 - 05:24 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 07 Aug 13 - 05:27 PM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Aug 13 - 05:41 PM
GUEST,Musket missing something 07 Aug 13 - 05:46 PM
TheSnail 07 Aug 13 - 05:57 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 07 Aug 13 - 06:04 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Aug 13 - 06:17 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Aug 13 - 06:22 PM
Richard Bridge 07 Aug 13 - 06:24 PM
McGrath of Harlow 07 Aug 13 - 06:41 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 08 Aug 13 - 02:32 AM
GUEST,SJL 08 Aug 13 - 02:53 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 08 Aug 13 - 03:50 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 08 Aug 13 - 04:23 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 08 Aug 13 - 04:31 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Aug 13 - 05:45 AM
Steve Shaw 08 Aug 13 - 05:50 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 08 Aug 13 - 06:24 AM
Steve Shaw 08 Aug 13 - 06:33 AM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Aug 13 - 07:10 AM
TheSnail 08 Aug 13 - 07:37 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 08 Aug 13 - 07:39 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 08 Aug 13 - 07:45 AM
GUEST,SJL 08 Aug 13 - 09:11 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 08 Aug 13 - 10:52 AM
GUEST,SJL 08 Aug 13 - 11:24 AM
Steve Shaw 08 Aug 13 - 12:10 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 08 Aug 13 - 12:10 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Aug 13 - 12:12 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Aug 13 - 12:19 PM
GUEST,Musket again 08 Aug 13 - 01:02 PM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Aug 13 - 01:30 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Aug 13 - 03:06 PM
Suzy Sock Puppet 08 Aug 13 - 03:38 PM
Don Firth 08 Aug 13 - 04:18 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Aug 13 - 05:00 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Aug 13 - 05:08 PM
TheSnail 08 Aug 13 - 05:46 PM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Aug 13 - 05:47 PM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Aug 13 - 07:48 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Aug 13 - 08:05 PM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Aug 13 - 08:27 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Aug 13 - 08:33 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Aug 13 - 08:36 PM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Aug 13 - 08:55 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Aug 13 - 09:04 PM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Aug 13 - 09:51 PM
GUEST,Musket musing 09 Aug 13 - 01:33 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Aug 13 - 03:35 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Aug 13 - 05:49 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Aug 13 - 05:49 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Aug 13 - 05:51 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 09 Aug 13 - 07:22 AM
Dave the Gnome 09 Aug 13 - 07:34 AM
GUEST,Musket evolving slowly 09 Aug 13 - 07:53 AM
Suzy Sock Puppet 09 Aug 13 - 08:27 AM
McGrath of Harlow 09 Aug 13 - 08:36 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Aug 13 - 09:07 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Aug 13 - 09:24 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Aug 13 - 09:44 AM
Dave the Gnome 09 Aug 13 - 10:04 AM
Jeri 09 Aug 13 - 10:25 AM
McGrath of Harlow 09 Aug 13 - 10:37 AM
Little Hawk 09 Aug 13 - 11:53 AM
McGrath of Harlow 09 Aug 13 - 12:20 PM
McGrath of Harlow 09 Aug 13 - 12:22 PM
GUEST,Musket gettin.. can't be arsed 09 Aug 13 - 01:13 PM
TheSnail 09 Aug 13 - 01:34 PM
akenaton 09 Aug 13 - 01:38 PM
TheSnail 09 Aug 13 - 01:56 PM
McGrath of Harlow 09 Aug 13 - 01:59 PM
McGrath of Harlow 09 Aug 13 - 02:55 PM
TheSnail 09 Aug 13 - 04:01 PM
McGrath of Harlow 09 Aug 13 - 07:36 PM
GUEST,SJL 09 Aug 13 - 10:37 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Aug 13 - 10:41 PM
GUEST,SJL 09 Aug 13 - 11:11 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 Aug 13 - 12:01 AM
GUEST,Musket evolving slowly 10 Aug 13 - 02:29 AM
GUEST,SJL 10 Aug 13 - 03:37 AM
GUEST,Musket sans Newton 10 Aug 13 - 04:33 AM
Steve Shaw 10 Aug 13 - 06:55 AM
Steve Shaw 10 Aug 13 - 06:57 AM
McGrath of Harlow 10 Aug 13 - 08:33 AM
GUEST,SJL 10 Aug 13 - 08:52 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 Aug 13 - 11:19 AM
GUEST,SJL 10 Aug 13 - 12:47 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 10 Aug 13 - 02:32 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Aug 13 - 07:58 PM
McGrath of Harlow 10 Aug 13 - 08:16 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Aug 13 - 08:52 PM
McGrath of Harlow 10 Aug 13 - 10:20 PM
GUEST,SJL 10 Aug 13 - 10:58 PM
Ebbie 11 Aug 13 - 12:22 AM
Larry The Radio Guy 11 Aug 13 - 12:35 AM
Ebbie 11 Aug 13 - 02:23 AM
GUEST,Musket curious 11 Aug 13 - 02:48 AM
Dave the Gnome 11 Aug 13 - 03:50 AM
TheSnail 11 Aug 13 - 05:29 AM
TheSnail 11 Aug 13 - 05:51 AM
TheSnail 11 Aug 13 - 06:43 AM
Steve Shaw 11 Aug 13 - 08:44 AM
TheSnail 11 Aug 13 - 10:59 AM
Dave the Gnome 11 Aug 13 - 01:23 PM
McGrath of Harlow 11 Aug 13 - 01:52 PM
GUEST,Musket gettin.. can't be arsed 11 Aug 13 - 03:35 PM
TheSnail 11 Aug 13 - 05:35 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Aug 13 - 06:06 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 11 Aug 13 - 06:19 PM
GUEST,SJL 11 Aug 13 - 06:20 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Aug 13 - 06:33 PM
McGrath of Harlow 11 Aug 13 - 06:56 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Aug 13 - 07:46 PM
GUEST,SJL 11 Aug 13 - 08:25 PM
Ed T 11 Aug 13 - 08:54 PM
Ed T 11 Aug 13 - 09:03 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 12 Aug 13 - 12:14 AM
GUEST,musket vindicated 12 Aug 13 - 01:14 AM
akenaton 12 Aug 13 - 02:21 AM
akenaton 12 Aug 13 - 02:38 AM
Dave the Gnome 12 Aug 13 - 03:12 AM
GUEST,Musket curious 12 Aug 13 - 04:29 AM
GUEST,SJL 12 Aug 13 - 06:01 AM
GUEST,Ian Mather 12 Aug 13 - 07:29 AM
Steve Shaw 12 Aug 13 - 07:31 AM
GUEST,SJL 12 Aug 13 - 09:40 AM
GUEST,Musket between courses 12 Aug 13 - 10:17 AM
McGrath of Harlow 12 Aug 13 - 03:56 PM
TheSnail 12 Aug 13 - 04:12 PM
McGrath of Harlow 12 Aug 13 - 05:06 PM
akenaton 12 Aug 13 - 05:15 PM
TheSnail 12 Aug 13 - 05:30 PM
TheSnail 12 Aug 13 - 05:48 PM
Steve Shaw 12 Aug 13 - 06:14 PM
Steve Shaw 12 Aug 13 - 06:17 PM
Dave the Gnome 12 Aug 13 - 06:18 PM
McGrath of Harlow 12 Aug 13 - 06:45 PM
Steve Shaw 12 Aug 13 - 07:33 PM
GUEST,Musket musing 12 Aug 13 - 07:34 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 12 Aug 13 - 07:47 PM
McGrath of Harlow 12 Aug 13 - 07:49 PM
Bobert 12 Aug 13 - 08:41 PM
Steve Shaw 12 Aug 13 - 08:48 PM
Steve Shaw 12 Aug 13 - 08:52 PM
GUEST,SJL 13 Aug 13 - 12:08 AM
Dave the Gnome 13 Aug 13 - 03:30 AM
GUEST,Musket curious 13 Aug 13 - 03:37 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 13 Aug 13 - 07:42 AM
TheSnail 13 Aug 13 - 07:52 AM
GUEST,SJL 13 Aug 13 - 08:15 AM
Dave the Gnome 13 Aug 13 - 08:31 AM
Steve Shaw 13 Aug 13 - 08:58 AM
Steve Shaw 13 Aug 13 - 09:02 AM
Jeri 13 Aug 13 - 10:01 AM
Dave the Gnome 13 Aug 13 - 10:18 AM
Jeri 13 Aug 13 - 10:27 AM
Bobert 13 Aug 13 - 10:41 AM
TheSnail 13 Aug 13 - 11:26 AM
Steve Shaw 13 Aug 13 - 11:55 AM
Steve Shaw 13 Aug 13 - 11:58 AM
McGrath of Harlow 13 Aug 13 - 01:22 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 13 Aug 13 - 01:57 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Aug 13 - 03:29 PM
GUEST,SJL 13 Aug 13 - 03:31 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Aug 13 - 03:31 PM
akenaton 13 Aug 13 - 05:30 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 13 Aug 13 - 05:44 PM
GUEST,Musket curious 13 Aug 13 - 05:44 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 13 Aug 13 - 05:46 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Aug 13 - 05:57 PM
GUEST,Musket c/w hard on 13 Aug 13 - 05:57 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Aug 13 - 06:00 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 13 Aug 13 - 06:01 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 13 Aug 13 - 06:03 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Aug 13 - 06:20 PM
akenaton 13 Aug 13 - 06:26 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Aug 13 - 07:32 PM
Bobert 13 Aug 13 - 08:00 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 13 Aug 13 - 08:13 PM
GUEST,SJL 13 Aug 13 - 08:41 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 Aug 13 - 01:41 AM
akenaton 14 Aug 13 - 03:39 AM
GUEST,Musket curious 14 Aug 13 - 04:54 AM
Dave the Gnome 14 Aug 13 - 05:38 AM
TheSnail 14 Aug 13 - 06:20 AM
TheSnail 14 Aug 13 - 07:11 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 Aug 13 - 10:47 AM
TheSnail 14 Aug 13 - 11:08 AM
McGrath of Harlow 14 Aug 13 - 11:13 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 Aug 13 - 11:15 AM
TheSnail 14 Aug 13 - 11:39 AM
McGrath of Harlow 14 Aug 13 - 11:47 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 Aug 13 - 12:36 PM
GUEST,Musket err. Forget it 14 Aug 13 - 01:10 PM
akenaton 14 Aug 13 - 01:16 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 Aug 13 - 01:33 PM
akenaton 14 Aug 13 - 01:55 PM
McGrath of Harlow 14 Aug 13 - 01:56 PM
akenaton 14 Aug 13 - 02:15 PM
Dave the Gnome 14 Aug 13 - 02:54 PM
Ebbie 14 Aug 13 - 03:11 PM
TheSnail 14 Aug 13 - 03:42 PM
GUEST,Musket evolving slowly 14 Aug 13 - 03:51 PM
GUEST 14 Aug 13 - 03:54 PM
Dave the Gnome 14 Aug 13 - 04:45 PM
McGrath of Harlow 14 Aug 13 - 05:16 PM
GUEST,Musket musing 14 Aug 13 - 05:24 PM
Don Firth 14 Aug 13 - 05:59 PM
akenaton 14 Aug 13 - 06:02 PM
akenaton 14 Aug 13 - 06:16 PM
GUEST,musket getting it across 14 Aug 13 - 06:23 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 Aug 13 - 06:44 PM
Steve Shaw 14 Aug 13 - 06:55 PM
GUEST,SJL 14 Aug 13 - 06:58 PM
GUEST 14 Aug 13 - 07:01 PM
Steve Shaw 14 Aug 13 - 07:09 PM
Don Firth 14 Aug 13 - 07:14 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 Aug 13 - 07:28 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 14 Aug 13 - 07:36 PM
Don Firth 14 Aug 13 - 07:39 PM
akenaton 14 Aug 13 - 07:40 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 14 Aug 13 - 07:49 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 Aug 13 - 07:53 PM
akenaton 14 Aug 13 - 07:55 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 Aug 13 - 07:57 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 14 Aug 13 - 08:00 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 14 Aug 13 - 08:13 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 14 Aug 13 - 08:20 PM
Ebbie 14 Aug 13 - 08:46 PM
Don Firth 14 Aug 13 - 08:46 PM
Don Firth 14 Aug 13 - 09:13 PM
Ebbie 15 Aug 13 - 12:04 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 15 Aug 13 - 01:17 AM
Ebbie 15 Aug 13 - 02:43 AM
GUEST,Musket curious 15 Aug 13 - 02:53 AM
Dave the Gnome 15 Aug 13 - 02:56 AM
Dave the Gnome 15 Aug 13 - 03:00 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 15 Aug 13 - 03:21 AM
Dave the Gnome 15 Aug 13 - 04:05 AM
akenaton 15 Aug 13 - 04:25 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 15 Aug 13 - 04:50 AM
akenaton 15 Aug 13 - 05:21 AM
akenaton 15 Aug 13 - 05:46 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 15 Aug 13 - 05:49 AM
Dave the Gnome 15 Aug 13 - 07:43 AM
GUEST 15 Aug 13 - 07:55 AM
McGrath of Harlow 15 Aug 13 - 08:02 AM
Steve Shaw 15 Aug 13 - 08:15 AM
GUEST,SJL 15 Aug 13 - 08:17 AM
akenaton 15 Aug 13 - 08:18 AM
akenaton 15 Aug 13 - 08:28 AM
Dave the Gnome 15 Aug 13 - 08:31 AM
GUEST,TIA 15 Aug 13 - 08:48 AM
McGrath of Harlow 15 Aug 13 - 08:56 AM
Dave the Gnome 15 Aug 13 - 09:23 AM
akenaton 15 Aug 13 - 09:46 AM
Dave the Gnome 15 Aug 13 - 10:01 AM
GUEST,Musket evolving slowly 15 Aug 13 - 10:30 AM
akenaton 15 Aug 13 - 10:42 AM
Bobert 15 Aug 13 - 10:50 AM
McGrath of Harlow 15 Aug 13 - 11:23 AM
TheSnail 15 Aug 13 - 12:16 PM
McGrath of Harlow 15 Aug 13 - 12:28 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Aug 13 - 12:56 PM
GUEST,Musket penny dropping on snails 15 Aug 13 - 01:13 PM
McGrath of Harlow 15 Aug 13 - 01:18 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 15 Aug 13 - 02:19 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Aug 13 - 02:44 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Aug 13 - 02:48 PM
Don Firth 15 Aug 13 - 03:00 PM
McGrath of Harlow 15 Aug 13 - 03:08 PM
TheSnail 15 Aug 13 - 05:04 PM
TheSnail 15 Aug 13 - 05:09 PM
Dave the Gnome 15 Aug 13 - 05:13 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 15 Aug 13 - 05:19 PM
Dave the Gnome 15 Aug 13 - 05:25 PM
GUEST,Musket curious 15 Aug 13 - 05:28 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 15 Aug 13 - 05:34 PM
Dave the Gnome 15 Aug 13 - 05:41 PM
TheSnail 15 Aug 13 - 06:05 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Aug 13 - 06:23 PM
TheSnail 15 Aug 13 - 06:23 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Aug 13 - 06:29 PM
TheSnail 15 Aug 13 - 06:35 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Aug 13 - 06:40 PM
TheSnail 15 Aug 13 - 06:46 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Aug 13 - 06:51 PM
Jeri 15 Aug 13 - 06:54 PM
McGrath of Harlow 15 Aug 13 - 07:03 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Aug 13 - 07:58 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Aug 13 - 08:00 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 15 Aug 13 - 08:01 PM
Suzy Sock Puppet 15 Aug 13 - 08:06 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 15 Aug 13 - 08:15 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 15 Aug 13 - 08:18 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Aug 13 - 08:19 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Aug 13 - 08:29 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 15 Aug 13 - 08:44 PM
GUEST,Musket gettin.. can't be arsed 16 Aug 13 - 02:01 AM
Dave the Gnome 16 Aug 13 - 03:38 AM
TheSnail 16 Aug 13 - 04:07 AM
catspaw49 16 Aug 13 - 04:16 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Aug 13 - 05:34 AM
akenaton 16 Aug 13 - 05:37 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Aug 13 - 05:51 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 16 Aug 13 - 06:47 AM
akenaton 16 Aug 13 - 06:55 AM
akenaton 16 Aug 13 - 07:11 AM
McGrath of Harlow 16 Aug 13 - 08:08 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Aug 13 - 08:17 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Aug 13 - 08:17 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Aug 13 - 08:23 AM
GUEST,Musket between courses 16 Aug 13 - 09:47 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 Aug 13 - 10:47 AM
McGrath of Harlow 16 Aug 13 - 10:52 AM
Suzy Sock Puppet 16 Aug 13 - 12:00 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 Aug 13 - 02:22 PM
Suzy Sock Puppet 16 Aug 13 - 02:40 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 Aug 13 - 03:48 PM
akenaton 16 Aug 13 - 04:10 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 Aug 13 - 04:20 PM
GUEST 16 Aug 13 - 04:28 PM
akenaton 16 Aug 13 - 04:46 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 Aug 13 - 05:24 PM
akenaton 16 Aug 13 - 05:37 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 Aug 13 - 06:16 PM
GUEST 16 Aug 13 - 06:39 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 Aug 13 - 07:01 PM
Ebbie 16 Aug 13 - 07:37 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 16 Aug 13 - 08:08 PM
Suzy Sock Puppet 16 Aug 13 - 09:55 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 Aug 13 - 10:47 PM
Suzy Sock Puppet 16 Aug 13 - 11:52 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 Aug 13 - 12:48 AM
Suzy Sock Puppet 17 Aug 13 - 01:28 AM
GUEST,Musket musing 17 Aug 13 - 01:28 AM
Suzy Sock Puppet 17 Aug 13 - 01:33 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 Aug 13 - 11:12 AM
Suzy Sock Puppet 17 Aug 13 - 06:02 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 Aug 13 - 06:45 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 18 Aug 13 - 12:55 AM
Suzy Sock Puppet 18 Aug 13 - 07:50 AM
Suzy Sock Puppet 18 Aug 13 - 10:04 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 18 Aug 13 - 01:48 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 18 Aug 13 - 02:38 PM
GUEST,Musket smiling 18 Aug 13 - 03:16 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 Aug 13 - 03:27 PM
Ebbie 18 Aug 13 - 03:52 PM
Don Firth 18 Aug 13 - 04:27 PM
Ebbie 18 Aug 13 - 04:51 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 Aug 13 - 05:04 PM
akenaton 18 Aug 13 - 05:14 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 18 Aug 13 - 05:16 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 18 Aug 13 - 05:28 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 Aug 13 - 05:50 PM
akenaton 18 Aug 13 - 06:15 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 18 Aug 13 - 07:00 PM
Don Firth 18 Aug 13 - 07:19 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 18 Aug 13 - 07:21 PM
Don Firth 18 Aug 13 - 07:37 PM
Bobert 18 Aug 13 - 07:39 PM
Suzy Sock Puppet 18 Aug 13 - 11:03 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 Aug 13 - 11:22 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 Aug 13 - 11:36 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 19 Aug 13 - 12:36 AM
Don Firth 19 Aug 13 - 01:21 AM
Ebbie 19 Aug 13 - 01:33 AM
GUEST,Musket between courses 19 Aug 13 - 02:18 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Aug 13 - 02:58 AM
akenaton 19 Aug 13 - 04:25 AM
Suzy Sock Puppet 19 Aug 13 - 09:44 AM
GUEST,Musket giggling 19 Aug 13 - 11:56 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 19 Aug 13 - 12:12 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 19 Aug 13 - 12:24 PM
akenaton 19 Aug 13 - 01:26 PM
akenaton 19 Aug 13 - 03:41 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Aug 13 - 04:22 PM
GUEST,Musket swearing again so sorry about that 19 Aug 13 - 04:38 PM
akenaton 19 Aug 13 - 04:54 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 19 Aug 13 - 05:46 PM
Don Firth 19 Aug 13 - 09:45 PM
Bobert 19 Aug 13 - 09:55 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 19 Aug 13 - 10:52 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 20 Aug 13 - 12:43 AM
Larry The Radio Guy 20 Aug 13 - 01:32 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 20 Aug 13 - 01:40 AM
GUEST,Musket laughing 20 Aug 13 - 03:35 AM
akenaton 20 Aug 13 - 03:42 AM
GUEST,Musket shaking his head 20 Aug 13 - 03:55 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 20 Aug 13 - 04:58 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 20 Aug 13 - 06:17 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 20 Aug 13 - 06:22 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 20 Aug 13 - 06:27 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 20 Aug 13 - 06:31 AM
Bobert 20 Aug 13 - 08:24 AM
GUEST,Musket par for the course 20 Aug 13 - 08:33 AM
GUEST,Musket four hours later 20 Aug 13 - 12:46 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 20 Aug 13 - 12:52 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 20 Aug 13 - 12:56 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 20 Aug 13 - 12:59 PM
Don Firth 20 Aug 13 - 02:05 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 20 Aug 13 - 02:17 PM
akenaton 20 Aug 13 - 02:18 PM
akenaton 20 Aug 13 - 02:23 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 20 Aug 13 - 02:34 PM
Dave the Gnome 20 Aug 13 - 02:48 PM
akenaton 20 Aug 13 - 02:55 PM
Dave the Gnome 20 Aug 13 - 03:11 PM
akenaton 20 Aug 13 - 03:16 PM
akenaton 20 Aug 13 - 03:28 PM
Bobert 20 Aug 13 - 03:50 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 20 Aug 13 - 03:52 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 20 Aug 13 - 04:02 PM
Don Firth 20 Aug 13 - 04:07 PM
akenaton 20 Aug 13 - 04:15 PM
Don Firth 20 Aug 13 - 04:37 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 20 Aug 13 - 04:47 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 20 Aug 13 - 04:51 PM
Bobert 20 Aug 13 - 05:09 PM
Don Firth 20 Aug 13 - 05:09 PM
akenaton 20 Aug 13 - 05:33 PM
akenaton 20 Aug 13 - 05:57 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 20 Aug 13 - 05:57 PM
Dave the Gnome 20 Aug 13 - 06:04 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 20 Aug 13 - 06:07 PM
Steve Shaw 20 Aug 13 - 06:20 PM
akenaton 20 Aug 13 - 06:36 PM
akenaton 20 Aug 13 - 06:45 PM
Steve Shaw 20 Aug 13 - 07:00 PM
Steve Shaw 20 Aug 13 - 07:03 PM
Bobert 20 Aug 13 - 07:23 PM
Don Firth 20 Aug 13 - 07:31 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Aug 13 - 12:00 AM
Don Firth 21 Aug 13 - 12:36 AM
Don Firth 21 Aug 13 - 12:41 AM
GUEST,Musket musing 21 Aug 13 - 01:30 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Aug 13 - 01:53 AM
Larry The Radio Guy 21 Aug 13 - 02:19 AM
akenaton 21 Aug 13 - 05:10 AM
akenaton 21 Aug 13 - 05:16 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Aug 13 - 06:50 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Aug 13 - 06:59 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Aug 13 - 07:24 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Aug 13 - 07:34 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Aug 13 - 07:46 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Aug 13 - 07:54 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Aug 13 - 08:43 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Aug 13 - 08:48 AM
Steve Shaw 21 Aug 13 - 09:03 AM
Suzy Sock Puppet 21 Aug 13 - 09:39 AM
GUEST,Musket curious 21 Aug 13 - 10:01 AM
GUEST,Musket getting slightly pissed off now 21 Aug 13 - 10:59 AM
Larry The Radio Guy 21 Aug 13 - 11:30 AM
akenaton 21 Aug 13 - 11:32 AM
Larry The Radio Guy 21 Aug 13 - 11:38 AM
akenaton 21 Aug 13 - 11:48 AM
akenaton 21 Aug 13 - 11:56 AM
GUEST,Musket curious 21 Aug 13 - 11:58 AM
Suzy Sock Puppet 21 Aug 13 - 12:05 PM
Steve Shaw 21 Aug 13 - 12:26 PM
akenaton 21 Aug 13 - 12:30 PM
akenaton 21 Aug 13 - 12:35 PM
Steve Shaw 21 Aug 13 - 12:53 PM
Bobert 21 Aug 13 - 01:05 PM
GUEST,musket angry 21 Aug 13 - 02:14 PM
Bobert 21 Aug 13 - 02:27 PM
Suzy Sock Puppet 21 Aug 13 - 02:30 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Aug 13 - 02:31 PM
Don Firth 21 Aug 13 - 03:36 PM
Don Firth 21 Aug 13 - 03:48 PM
akenaton 21 Aug 13 - 05:51 PM
Don Firth 21 Aug 13 - 06:50 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Aug 13 - 07:36 PM
GUEST,Musket curious 22 Aug 13 - 01:49 AM
Dave the Gnome 22 Aug 13 - 04:07 AM
Suzy Sock Puppet 22 Aug 13 - 04:14 AM
GUEST,musket again, sorry all. 22 Aug 13 - 05:06 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Aug 13 - 07:14 AM
GUEST,Musket sans arrows 22 Aug 13 - 07:43 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 22 Aug 13 - 09:00 AM
Bobert 22 Aug 13 - 09:37 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Aug 13 - 10:17 AM
Dave the Gnome 22 Aug 13 - 10:31 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Aug 13 - 10:36 AM
Dave the Gnome 22 Aug 13 - 10:47 AM
Suzy Sock Puppet 22 Aug 13 - 10:50 AM
Bobert 22 Aug 13 - 11:24 AM
Larry The Radio Guy 22 Aug 13 - 11:28 AM
Bobert 22 Aug 13 - 11:43 AM
Larry The Radio Guy 22 Aug 13 - 12:04 PM
Dave the Gnome 22 Aug 13 - 12:15 PM
Bobert 22 Aug 13 - 12:39 PM
akenaton 22 Aug 13 - 12:43 PM
akenaton 22 Aug 13 - 01:10 PM
GUEST,Musket 22 Aug 13 - 04:00 PM
Dave the Gnome 22 Aug 13 - 04:21 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Aug 13 - 04:59 PM
GUEST,Guest from sanity 22 Aug 13 - 05:18 PM
Dave the Gnome 22 Aug 13 - 05:19 PM
akenaton 22 Aug 13 - 05:55 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 22 Aug 13 - 05:57 PM
akenaton 22 Aug 13 - 06:03 PM
akenaton 22 Aug 13 - 06:06 PM
GUEST,Musket with facts 22 Aug 13 - 06:37 PM
GUEST 22 Aug 13 - 07:02 PM
GUEST,Jack Sprocket 22 Aug 13 - 07:03 PM
Bobert 22 Aug 13 - 07:28 PM
Don Firth 22 Aug 13 - 07:40 PM
Bobert 22 Aug 13 - 07:44 PM
GUEST,Jack Sprocket 22 Aug 13 - 08:00 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Aug 13 - 09:48 PM
Dave the Gnome 23 Aug 13 - 02:55 AM
akenaton 23 Aug 13 - 03:57 AM
akenaton 23 Aug 13 - 04:03 AM
Dave the Gnome 23 Aug 13 - 04:31 AM
GUEST,Musket 23 Aug 13 - 05:17 AM
GUEST,Musket waiting 23 Aug 13 - 06:31 AM
McGrath of Harlow 23 Aug 13 - 09:59 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Aug 13 - 10:12 AM
Bobert 23 Aug 13 - 10:20 AM
Dave the Gnome 23 Aug 13 - 10:31 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Aug 13 - 10:42 AM
Bobert 23 Aug 13 - 11:12 AM
Ebbie 23 Aug 13 - 11:13 AM
GUEST,Musket curious 23 Aug 13 - 12:13 PM
beardedbruce 23 Aug 13 - 12:26 PM
akenaton 23 Aug 13 - 01:38 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Aug 13 - 02:28 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Aug 13 - 02:31 PM
GUEST 23 Aug 13 - 02:31 PM
Don Firth 23 Aug 13 - 02:36 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Aug 13 - 03:03 PM
Don Firth 23 Aug 13 - 03:30 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Aug 13 - 03:52 PM
Don Firth 23 Aug 13 - 03:55 PM
Bobert 23 Aug 13 - 04:40 PM
Dave the Gnome 23 Aug 13 - 04:42 PM
akenaton 23 Aug 13 - 05:23 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Aug 13 - 05:54 PM
Don Firth 23 Aug 13 - 06:46 PM
Bobert 23 Aug 13 - 07:36 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Aug 13 - 12:23 AM
Don Firth 24 Aug 13 - 01:39 AM
GUEST,Musket between courses 24 Aug 13 - 02:27 AM
GUEST,Guest from sanity 24 Aug 13 - 02:34 AM
akenaton 24 Aug 13 - 03:40 AM
GUEST,Musket between courses 24 Aug 13 - 04:21 AM
Bobert 24 Aug 13 - 08:39 AM
Dave the Gnome 24 Aug 13 - 10:22 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Aug 13 - 11:35 AM
Don Firth 24 Aug 13 - 01:53 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Aug 13 - 02:22 PM
Don Firth 24 Aug 13 - 03:30 PM
GUEST,Musket laughing 24 Aug 13 - 03:31 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Aug 13 - 07:35 PM
Bobert 24 Aug 13 - 07:57 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Aug 13 - 08:12 PM
Bobert 24 Aug 13 - 08:23 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 24 Aug 13 - 10:06 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Aug 13 - 10:58 PM
Don Firth 24 Aug 13 - 11:42 PM
Don Firth 25 Aug 13 - 01:05 AM
akenaton 25 Aug 13 - 04:49 AM
akenaton 25 Aug 13 - 05:10 AM
Dave the Gnome 25 Aug 13 - 05:30 AM
Little Hawk 25 Aug 13 - 08:22 AM
Suzy Sock Puppet 25 Aug 13 - 09:15 AM
Suzy Sock Puppet 25 Aug 13 - 09:25 AM
Bobert 25 Aug 13 - 11:41 AM
akenaton 25 Aug 13 - 12:43 PM
Don Firth 25 Aug 13 - 02:11 PM
Don Firth 25 Aug 13 - 02:19 PM
GUEST,Musket not giving an inch 25 Aug 13 - 02:34 PM
Dave the Gnome 25 Aug 13 - 02:36 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Aug 13 - 02:56 PM
Don Firth 25 Aug 13 - 03:39 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Aug 13 - 03:47 PM
Bobert 25 Aug 13 - 04:01 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Aug 13 - 04:18 PM
Don Firth 25 Aug 13 - 04:20 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Aug 13 - 04:30 PM
akenaton 25 Aug 13 - 04:52 PM
Don Firth 25 Aug 13 - 04:53 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Aug 13 - 04:59 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 25 Aug 13 - 05:12 PM
akenaton 25 Aug 13 - 06:03 PM
Don Firth 25 Aug 13 - 06:24 PM
akenaton 25 Aug 13 - 06:27 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 25 Aug 13 - 06:34 PM
akenaton 25 Aug 13 - 06:44 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 25 Aug 13 - 06:49 PM
Don Firth 25 Aug 13 - 07:33 PM
Bobert 25 Aug 13 - 07:49 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 25 Aug 13 - 07:56 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 25 Aug 13 - 08:18 PM
Bobert 25 Aug 13 - 08:23 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 25 Aug 13 - 08:43 PM
Bobert 25 Aug 13 - 09:09 PM
Suzy Sock Puppet 25 Aug 13 - 10:22 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 25 Aug 13 - 10:42 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Aug 13 - 12:25 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Aug 13 - 12:32 AM
Larry The Radio Guy 26 Aug 13 - 12:42 AM
Don Firth 26 Aug 13 - 01:39 AM
GUEST,musket with reading glasses on 26 Aug 13 - 01:49 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Aug 13 - 02:14 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Aug 13 - 02:47 AM
GUEST,Musket curious 26 Aug 13 - 03:00 AM
Dave the Gnome 26 Aug 13 - 04:00 AM
beardedbruce 26 Aug 13 - 08:17 AM
Bobert 26 Aug 13 - 09:11 AM
akenaton 26 Aug 13 - 09:40 AM
akenaton 26 Aug 13 - 09:59 AM
GUEST,Musket happy now 26 Aug 13 - 12:19 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 26 Aug 13 - 12:23 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Aug 13 - 12:24 PM
Don Firth 26 Aug 13 - 12:26 PM
Don Firth 26 Aug 13 - 12:32 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 26 Aug 13 - 12:35 PM
akenaton 26 Aug 13 - 12:39 PM
akenaton 26 Aug 13 - 12:51 PM
Don Firth 26 Aug 13 - 12:56 PM
Bobert 26 Aug 13 - 01:20 PM
GUEST,Musket sad now 26 Aug 13 - 02:54 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Aug 13 - 03:22 PM
Don Firth 26 Aug 13 - 03:43 PM
Bobert 26 Aug 13 - 04:28 PM
akenaton 26 Aug 13 - 05:44 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Aug 13 - 05:54 PM
Don Firth 26 Aug 13 - 06:54 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 26 Aug 13 - 07:20 PM
Bobert 26 Aug 13 - 07:32 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Aug 13 - 07:43 PM
Bobert 26 Aug 13 - 07:50 PM
Larry The Radio Guy 26 Aug 13 - 08:15 PM
Bobert 26 Aug 13 - 08:20 PM
Don Firth 26 Aug 13 - 08:36 PM
Bobert 26 Aug 13 - 08:51 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Aug 13 - 12:48 AM
Larry The Radio Guy 27 Aug 13 - 01:48 AM
Larry The Radio Guy 27 Aug 13 - 01:50 AM
Bobert 27 Aug 13 - 09:16 AM
Spleen Cringe 27 Aug 13 - 12:09 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Aug 13 - 02:36 PM
Bobert 27 Aug 13 - 02:42 PM
akenaton 27 Aug 13 - 03:50 PM
Don Firth 27 Aug 13 - 04:24 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Aug 13 - 05:03 PM
Suzy Sock Puppet 27 Aug 13 - 05:40 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Aug 13 - 07:00 PM
Bobert 27 Aug 13 - 07:37 PM
Don Firth 27 Aug 13 - 09:28 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Aug 13 - 11:28 PM
Don Firth 28 Aug 13 - 02:06 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 28 Aug 13 - 06:35 AM
GUEST,Musket getting his tuppence worth 28 Aug 13 - 07:40 AM
Larry The Radio Guy 28 Aug 13 - 02:09 PM
akenaton 28 Aug 13 - 04:45 PM
Bobert 28 Aug 13 - 04:59 PM
akenaton 28 Aug 13 - 05:06 PM
Bobert 28 Aug 13 - 05:43 PM
akenaton 28 Aug 13 - 05:53 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:









Subject: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 28 Jul 13 - 11:11 PM

There was a great thread started by Gnu about how it was nice to see so many old friends posting again on the Forum, and suggesting that the disrespectful language being used in posts was one factor that has 'turned off' a lot of people who would be posting valuable and insightful information and opinions.

Unfortunately, the thread descended into name calling once again, and was closed.

There have been calls for tougher moderation....deleting such posts. However, I don't think it's fair for one or two people to have to do that.....and, as was pointed out, there then end up being accusations of unfairness.

I'd like to suggest something.

I know that often controversial posts can lead to some strong and passionate opinions, and sometimes we end up letting our negative emotions take us to a place where we might 'over-do' our zeal.

Rather than risking all the discussion becoming academic and flat, I'd like to suggest that we all agree on one 'boundary' statement, which is that we will not accept one person consistently calling another person a name that is meant to demean them.   

I can think of two instances where I witnessed this and was really turned off.   In Gnu's thread one person posting kept referring to Jack as Wacko (I think that was the name). And I witnessed a previous thread where another regular poster kept referring to a person who's opinions he didn't respect as 'goofball'.   

If everybody made it clear that this will not be tolerated, posted a huge STOP!!!! after any post where that is happening, let the poster know that this insulting name is not acceptable, then refused to engage with this person in that post or any other post until they apologized and promised to cease and desist from such behaviour..........my guess is that this kind of behaviour would become rare.

Who's in?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 02:59 AM

You mean the thread started by olddude that is now closed? I think you are expecting a lot if you don't think this thread will go the same way. You are against name calling and then go on to name two people who you believe are guilty of it. Well, OK, not name them exactly but post enough detail so everyone knows who you are referring to. There are dozens of people who call others names. Why those two specifically? Why give those two your 'special' treatment? Some may think you just want to have a go at certain people, in which case I am definitely not 'in'.

Cheers

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 03:18 AM

How about an agreement also not to use what they used to call '4-letter words' [a usage started in the Lady Chatterley trial iirc] quite so readily, even with asterisks? One gets so tired of the constant reiteration of 'fuck' and 'cunt' and 'shit', or even 'f**k' &c. When I joined the Cat 4 years ago, I used to employ such, as everyone else did so. But then I realised the extent to which such knee-jerk obscenity, apart from the filthy-manneredness of it all, so counter-productively detracted from the effect of one one said, and resolved to stop such locutions ~~ a resolution which I have, I think, maintained about 98%, with just the very occasional lapse in moments of high stress or dudgeon; and have become something of a joke in some circles, I am told, for falling back on such unspeakable obloquies as 'scoundrel' or, in moments of real anger, 'swine'. I really do, seriously, think the Cat would be a much more agreeable environment without all of this tiresome, tedious, relentless fucking·&·blinding.

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Will Fly
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 04:09 AM

There used to be a saying in the British Army's officers' messes that one never discussed "politics, religion and the memsahibs". You might laugh at that old-fashioned idea but, in a small society, it made sense to avoid topics that would create dissension, anger and bad feeling and disrupt the important cohesion of that small society.

I avoid most topics (BS) below the line except for one long-standing thread on old pocket watches. And I avoid them because, in many cases, the participants - and it tends to be the same participants - seem unable:

(a) to see any logic or reason in points of view other than their own
(b) to argue strongly without unnecessary swearing
(c) to argue strongly without unnecessary name calling
(d) to argue logically and in a reasoned way

Just my take on it. I can't think offhand of any argued thread I've read below the line where a participant has actually changed their point of view - and sometimes never conceded or recognised a single opposing point.

Above the lines may have had its ups and downs - but just look at it at the moment. Varied and reasonable threads asking for, and passing on information and ideas.

No contest.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 04:19 AM

I do think it hilarious that someone starts a thread wanting everybody to go in the garden and pick flowers holding hands, but then has a pop at "those bastards over there."

You mentioned Goofball and Wacko. Don't forget some of the others. Bridge for instance rather likes the soubriquet "Rumpole of the Volvo" and "M'Unlearned Friend" and I take "Mither" when coming from him. We also disagree on many points. But you know what? not a problem. Also, Jack the Sailor and I appear to have a loose ceasefire going. I haven't altered my stance and he cannot alter his, (sorry, couldn't help it..) but you are right when saying that name calling between two people is tedious to others.

But it isn't always aimed at others. I only hold one person in contempt. Sorry, let me qualify that. I only know of one person whose views I hold in contempt.

if there is a difference between culture here, and I doubt there really is, then both sides need to give slack, not just one. I don't expect our cousins to understand piss taking and disguised irony, and I can't aways take a post at full face value. This is an international forum, let's not forget. This isn't an American sit com where there has to be the moral at the end. It can also be British farce where someone ends up with egg on their face, and everybody else pointing and laughing.

Hey Michael! I hear what you are saying about bloody swearing, but you know what? Brevity is the soul of wit. You can either post paragraph after paragraph to get someone to see what you think of what they said, or you can sum it up with "fuck off."

Me? I find the latter cathartic at times, and lack of ambiguity is sometimes needed around here...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 04:25 AM

Well due to my views on homosexuality and "gay marriage", I suppose I receive more verbal abuse than any other member, i've been called dozens of derogatory names, been sworn at, accused of bigotry homophobia, as well as numerous stupid comments on my own sexuality.

None of it bothers me too much, as these tactics always reflect badly on those who use them. We (most of us), dont come here for a shouting match, we come to put forward our thoughts for discussion. When I first came here, I was a strict atheist, but after listening to some here, especially Little Hawk, I have come to understand something about the benefits of allowing a little spirituality into our lives.

BUT...I do agree with Larry about the use of habitual derogatory name calling. When you address a message calling someone "stupid", you are not there for debate!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 04:27 AM

Oh Damn and Blast! I agree with Mither again (save in one respect, namely that I can think of a number of posters for whom I feel no respect, and a number of others about whom I respect nothing save for their ability effectively to use Google to support their prejudices).

I think there is much to be said in favour of a disrespectful nickname, and it is very different from the sort of abuse that used to be disseminated by Gargoyle and Martin Gibson and occasionally one other who I will not immediately name as I think he still posts here and was not quite so offensive. The beauty of a nickname lies in the accuracy with which it lampoons.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 04:42 AM

Ian ~~

"I disagree" ~~ only one typespace more than the rejoinder you recommend.

So be off with you, prithee!

Ah ~~ κάθαρσις !

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 04:46 AM

Akenaton. Serious question. If Littlehawk can move your position on spirituality, can the rest of Mudcat move you on your stance regarding gay people?

I enjoy having my perspective tweaked by reading some of the excellent varied comments on Mudcat. Others can alter too.... Bridge appears to be applying to be secretary of my fan club at this rate. (Don't tell him, but I occasionally, not always, nod appreciatively when he sums up a situation far more eloquently than I am willing to do. I prefer to shoot from the hip.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:05 AM

Yes, but if you say "I disagree" people feel that you are obliged to say why. If you say the other there is no explanation necessary :-)

I was wrong about this thread. It looks like it is not going to turn nasty. Hilarious, yes. Nasty, no.

Cheers

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:13 AM

Oh, I don't know, Dave. The other could equally provoke the question "Where to?", couldn't it?

So avaunt ye! Scram! Shoo! Skedaddle! Vamoose!

Or "I disagree"...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:32 AM

Wacko, huh (well, Hawk called me a "fucking asshole" last week... :-))? It's hardly a take on his real name, is it? He himself is much inclined to refer to me as "Shaw" or "Mr Shaw", both of which I assume are intended to provoke (they don't). For reference, everybody I know calls me Steve. Even the doctor, dentist and postman and the bloke at the fish shop. In real life anyone calling me by just my surname has received bloody short shrift, I can tell you. So what's so much worse about "Wacko"? So he doesn't like it. His best bet would be to regard it as a term of endearment and proceed from there. I might just suggest that the big fibs Wacko told about my posts in that now-closed thread could be regarded as far worse slurs that a gently-ribbing nickname, but hey, that's double standards for ye.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: gnu
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:45 AM

STOP!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:50 AM

Well due to my views on homosexuality and "gay marriage", I suppose I receive more verbal abuse than any other member, i've been called dozens of derogatory names, been sworn at, accused of bigotry homophobia,

Your views as stated are illiberal, prejudiced, ill-informed and out of touch, and if you choose to go public with them you need to be prepared for a backlash. I have some pretty solid views about religion and the actions of some of the people who practise it (such as forcing religious observance and instruction on their children, which is one of the nastiest things anyone can do to a child). I get plenty of backlash here for expressing these opinions loud and clear, but that's what I expect, and it includes name-calling, misrepresentation and insults, and I think I'm probably a bigger "victim" of all that than anyone else here (no, really!). Not that I do victimhood, so what the hell. If you think you're being insulted, look at it in one of two ways: either the person insulting you is a complete twat and will be seen as such by all readers, or he's frustrated because you persistently refuse to listen to reason (in which case insulting might not be such a great tactic I suppose, but hey). Like Musket, I quietly absorb lots of people's views expressed here, even coming from people I don't like. It helps to give a better perspective of the kaleidoscope of opinion and might even help me to adjust some of mine.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:54 AM

Ian, there is simply no way of proving spirituality or faith, it is in the mind of the "spiritual" or the "faithful."
My stance on homosexuality is reinforced by studies,statistics and all of the official health agencies.

I dont think you are a bad or bigoted person for believing that male homosexuals can regulate their behaviour and fit into conventional society, but the evidence so far says that they are unwilling or unable to do so. Your stance may not be in the long term interests of homosexual health....but that is for you to come to terms with.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:05 AM

Your stance appears to be based on cherrypicking predicated on your pre-existing bias against homosexual people, whom you simply don't understand. It looks revolting to me. And to a lot of other people, I'd suggest. And that is for you to come to terms with. In this matter you are an aggressor, not a victim, no matter how much name-calling you think you attract to yourself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:08 AM

Steve...In the area in which I reside and in truth the country that I live in, my views appear to be mainstream.
Scotland has always been a socially conservative nation.

Its all a matter of perception.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:11 AM

I'm sorry, but claiming strength in numbers does not alter the argument one jot.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:29 AM

I don't believe Scotland is any different from the UK as a whole when it comes to attitudes towards homosexuals. Nowadays we are far more accepting of people than we were for instance in the 1970s when I was a teenager.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:18 AM

Strange? I don't find Scotland any different to anywhere else. When I managed a place in Airdre, the pubs were full of the same bar room barristers as in Chesterfield. When I spend time in Edinburgh, it is as multicultural as London. My wife was in Inverurie at the weekend and enjoyed her time there. She wouldn't have bothered if the room was going to be full of bigots.

No. Other than the midges in summer and the depressing weather the rest of the time, Scotland is the same as the rest of our country. In every sense.

Scotland has always been socially conservative? Now we are talking! I can enjoy arguing that without having to have a wash afterwards, as I feel important to do when discussing gay issues with you.

In that case, Scotland is full of socialist pandas. It was, I believe, one of your heroes who first pointed out there are more pandas than conservative MPs in Scotland?

if you mean conservative in the other sense, then yes, there are some miserable presbyterian dour buggers, especially around Fife.

But to say Scotland supports your Gay stance?   {chortle}   Alex Salmond supports equality, gay marriage and inclusiveness. Now... would he say that if there weren't votes in it?

Wake up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:18 AM

.... watching.... hoping....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:36 AM

""If everybody made it clear that this will not be tolerated, posted a huge STOP!!!! after any post where that is happening, let the poster know that this insulting name is not acceptable, then refused to engage with this person in that post or any other post until they apologized and promised to cease and desist from such behaviour..........my guess is that this kind of behaviour would become rare.""

One of the joys of this forum is that it is not hedged about by the restrictive oppression of those whose aim in life is to make everybody conform to there own idea of what is right or wrong.

The best way to decimate the membership would seem to be curtailing the right of free speech.

The bottom line is that there are two sections. The most important being upstairs, the folk music section.

The BS section down below is a freewheeling snake pit of conflicting opinions, but I'd venture to state with conviction that regular contributors would, almost without exception, admit to having learned, from the discussions, things which they hadn't previously known.

And guess what?......Nobody is compelled ever to open any thread in that section.

And BTW, it seems that you have chosen strangely mild epithets to moan about.

Goofus? I've been called much worse than that and I'm still here. So is Goofu...er....GfS!

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:51 AM

I still like fugitive from sanity. He can't complain because a) I tend to be choosy who I allow my dog to make a fuss of and b) I write him poetry.

Tell you what, it isn't the ones like me people should be wary of, its those who insult without knowing they are doing it. Funnily enough, most of those seem to be wanting us all to agree with each other. Nothing more frustrating than those who can't understand why you won't fit in their perception box or if you don't share their outlook, there must be a reason for it. That alone has filled the BS swearbox coffers lately.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: MartinRyan
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:59 AM

Hhhmmmmm....

The so-sad thread Obit thread for Katlaughing had a high content of "I don't come here very often anymore" openers from old friends. I wonder why...

Regards


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:03 AM

Errrrr, isn't that how this thread started, Martin?

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:12 AM

I still say it's the 'fucks' rather than the [imo rather anodyne] names! Too boring not to be able to read two lines without a fuck or a shit or a bollox or a cunt. Not witty. Not "cathartic". Just vulgar & childish.

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:18 AM

If you had left the 'bollox' off there, Michael, that would have been hell of a confession. It certainly would have been taken out of context and come back to bite you on the bum :-)

Cheers

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: MartinRyan
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:20 AM

Errrrr, isn't that how this thread started, Martin?


Hadn't seen the original thread - sporadic Internet access over the past week or so.

Regards


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:21 AM

No probs - At least you know now.

Cheers

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Megan L
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:21 AM

The problem is when we all lived in villages we knew who had mental or emotional problems which resulted in them repeating themselves ad-nauseum. Unfortunately the internet has expanded the village but not the knowledge.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:54 AM

Oh! Scotland is socially conservative all right, I've lived here when it was a Conservative heartland.

Rural Scotland has always been socially and politically conservative I know because for many years I was.."the only Communist in the village".
Only the rise of the Scottish Nationalist Party, has weaned folks away from political conservatism.......but social conservatism is still very much the mainstream.
Many people still use the Church for BM&D, read "The Broons" and have their "purritch" in the mornin' :0)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 11:04 AM

"But to say Scotland supports your Gay stance?   {chortle"

My stance is to cut the horrific new infections of all STD's in male homosexuality.......Doesn't EVERYONE (who knows about them) support that stance Ian?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Allan Conn
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 11:14 AM

We're just going to have to disagree on that Ake. The Scotland you know seemingly differs from the Scotland I know.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 12:04 PM

I've found that most efforts to control negativity in an Internet forum, usually only make things worse. "Standing your ground" against Internet bullies, only eggs them on. Any sort of attention serves to feed the trolls who cause trouble to serve their craving for attention. And those who seek combat, also seek an audience - so any attention paid to them, gives them just what they're seeking. Then there are the troublemakers I hate most - the self-righteous prigs who feign innocence and start discussions in areas that are bound to end in chaos. They, also, are craving attention.

I have a theory that many or most of these people are driven by their sexual inadequacy. They can't have a normal sex life, so they go on the Internet and cause trouble. When they succeed, it's an orgasm for them, so they masturbate. I'd hate to put my fingers anywhere near their keyboards.

There are all sorts of things that people think will control these distasteful people, but none of them seem to work. The only sure-fire tactic against Internet troublemakers, is silence; and the discipline of a silent response is almost impossible to maintain in a forum like this.

I did my best to try to keep the peace here for well over ten years, and then retired to doing music editing and indexing and tech help and registration. I'm much happier doing that, and there's no end of work to do. I'd like to see a "DTStudy or "Origins" thread exploring every single song in the Digital Tradition Database - and verifying the sources and lyrics of each song in the DT. I'd like to see more answers for our Unanswered Requests database (in the QuickLinks dropdown menu). I'd welcome help posting and exploring all the songs in Carl Sandburg's American Songbag. And I'd like to see people volunteer to update untended PermaThreads.

As I said, all the efforts to control the nastiness, just don't woirk. There IS one thing that works, however, and that's the music content here at Mudcat. When there are healthy, interesting music discussions, everything else seems to fall into line. People forget about the bickering, and the bickerers get bored. So, if you care about this forum, contribute something worthwhile to its content. Ask an intelligent question or make an intelligent comment in a thread. Look for interesting, older threads with the Filter and resurrect them by adding new information or questions. Post the text (not just a link) of an interesting article you've come across, and then say what you think about it. Posts that contain links and no information, are more-or-less worthless - if you care enough to post a link, take one step further and summarize what's in the link and say what you think about it. Take the time to use the Filter to look for existing threads to resurrect and continue on a subject before starting a new thread on something that's been discussed forty times before. Use care when giving a title to a thread, so it tells the community what you want to discuss.

In short, it's the positive things we all do, that make a difference here. Negative energy, even when it's meant to make things better, just creates more negative energy. Control of the bad things really doesn't work, although our Moderation Team works hard to keep the worst of the nastiness under control. But if you contribute intelligent questions and information, especially about folk music, you'll be amazed how much better this forum will be.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 12:09 PM

*smile*


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 12:20 PM

Thanks Joe. I respect your wisdom.   I was going to ask if there is one thing re. what is and what isn't appropriate that virtually all mudcatters would agree on.......but I think you just posted it.

I'm now going to take a look at some of those unanswered requests and see if I can find any of them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: maeve
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 12:33 PM

Thank you, Joe.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 12:35 PM

Joe, I know this isn't the right thread for this......but in the unanswered requests one I submitted a while back is missing.   A song called "The Hope Princeton Highway".   Maybe I'll refresh it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 12:47 PM

I will no longer post anything below the line. I may remove myself altogether; I am tired of facing excremental sewage from 3-4 who are here only to make trouble.

"Moderation Team"- I see little evidence that one exists. If one does, it should have clearly stated rules.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 12:54 PM

One topic that has intrigued me, is The Songs of Percy French. And the Percy French question that has burned in my brain for decades, is: Did Percy
French really write Abdul Abulbul Amir? I mean, how could a man with a name like Percy, write a song like THAT???
Yes, we have a DTStudy thread on the song, but I'm still not satisfied that we have conclusive evidence that Percy was the songwriter.

Another burning question that has not been thoroughly explored: how is Francis James Child tied to the song titled One Meat Ball?


-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 12:55 PM

Dedicated

To those unknown singers
Who made songs
Out of Love, Fun, Grief
And to those Many Other Singers
Who Kept Those Songs
As living things of the Heart and Mind
Out of Love, Fun, Grief


Thus the dedication written by Carl Sandburg long ago in his American Songbag.

Worth keeping in mind when the threads overheat. None of us would be here if not for some echo of this sentiment.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket musing
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 01:55 PM

Hey Joe!

You are right in your ideal for the music side. Many of my posts are indeed about local folk clubs, finding old mates from the circuit many years ago and chipping in with information on particular songs, tues and instruments.

However, there is a BS section. It has little or no bearing on the music side and I fail to see comparisons. In fact, in someways they could be different websites. I certainly converse with different people.

With regard to what is respectful, I am sure someone with a well polished halo and sheltered upbringing has a different view of the boundary than where the likes me me enjoys rolling with the pigs. Before anybody starts crying to the moderators, they should differentiate between actual abusive behaviour and forcefully disagreeing with a stance.

I for one was bemused to see a sanctimonious prig reckon that an odious viewpoint put politely was better than reason applied with a round of fucks. Fascinating...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 02:18 PM

Yeah, Musket, but it's something I've observed over the years, to the point that I really believe it's true: if the music discussion here is rich and healthy, that healthiness spills over to the BS side - all with very little control.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket agreeing but..
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 03:02 PM

Assuming friendly discourse teases out issues?

If you smell bullshit, you don't get anywhere complimenting their aftershave. If the object of the exercise is to debate, influence and see different views, where in the name of all that is holy (Clapton generally speaking) is the need to end the debate with consensus?

In the final analysis, this isn't, as I noted elsewhere, a sitcom from your neck of the woods. We don't need to end it with a moral whilst all nodding in agreement. It's ok to disagree. It's not really a problem to pull someone up for being beyond decency by blunt methods. Anything less and you ain't getting anywhere....

Doesn't affect the music.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Lighter
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 03:07 PM

When everyone starts rolling with the pigs, they become pigs.

If summit meetings employed the level of insult in question, we'd be at World War XII by now.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 03:37 PM

"...a sanctimonious prig reckon that an odious viewpoint put politely was better than reason applied with a round of fucks."

Loses something in the translation to MusketSpeak...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 04:07 PM

"If the object of the exercise is to debate, influence and see different views, where in the name of all that is holy (Clapton generally speaking) is the need to end the debate with consensus?"


I agree, the object in these kind of discussions isn't consensus. But if it is to debate, influence, and see different views, let's do it in the way that is most effective.   And calling people names just shuts them down....or, in some cases (as Joe points out) gives them undeserved attention.

It's much easier to influence somebody if that somebody feels that in some areas you are one of 'them'....and that you have some understanding of---and yes, even compassion---where they are at.

I think it's a skill. And I guess not everybody on mudcat is interested in learning it. But.......I do think it's wise to know your own intention.   Is it verbal masturbation? Pissing people off? Letting the world know how amazing you are?   Convincing people that your right and decent take on things really is right and decent? To help others who are asking for help? Or to feel/demonstrate a 'connection' with others in the mudcat community?

And once you know what you want.....then you can learn to do it well.

Frankly, if the intention of most people who post ends up being totally different from mine (the last three), then I'll probably stop posting. And my guess is that others with that same intention will also end up with less energy to post.

Then who do we have left?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:02 PM

Facts is facts Ian.....if you dont like them,complain to HPA/CDC ...dont abuse the messenger.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket on the button
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:25 PM

Here is an example.

Akenaton? Fuck off.

See? It's easy.

Bill, the translation doesn't need a Rosetta Stone, nor indeed a babel fish. Akenaton demonstrates it clearly above. He is aware of those involved in UK healthcare on Mudcat and uses every opportunity to spread his wish to outlaw gay lifestyle, the HPA/CDC reference being his use of HIV figures to justify his disgusting stance. He follows me around because I am involved in trying to deal with health issues, planning and funding NHS care.

So... These boundaries that we wish people to respect? Is gay hatred more acceptable than telling him to fuck off?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:31 PM

Absolute rubbish, you had just accused me of spreading "odious opinions"......I do not, I give the official figures which say that there is a serious problem with male/male sex.....and that something radical needs to be done.

Do you want the same useless procedures to continue?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:33 PM

Just because someone calls someone else goofus or wacko or bearded bullshit (that's my personal favorite), doesn't mean they are that. Joe, I don't think there is any real cause for concern here. I reject your psychoanalysis, I think I'd use the term "existential crisis" and include myself in this group. As for the insults, it's largely shtick. The boys down below like to play rough. It's a good thing they are not in the same room. There could be injuries.

Liar bothers me a lot. That's YOU Jim! People have different experiences, they read different books, they have different ways of processing information. That doesn't make them liars. Keith is not a liar. I make up my mind about people and I am just as stubborn as you are. Liar is a bad word to use in any discussion. Once you use that word, the other person is not even listening. How can they? When someone calls me a liar in the course of pushing their own agenda, I know it's over.

Now Joe, if you and the other moderators want to make Mudcat a better place, here's one teeny thing you could do for me. If you see a thread that says, "To Edward Snowden, With Love" or ""Aye, It's a True Song", that means I am totally trashed and just casually conversing with my iphone. If you see anything like that, nip it in the bud.

Michael, you are right. There's no need for foul language. Something could fly out of someone's mouth, but writing is a very deliberate process. Every now and again, it might be appropriate, but used to excess, it shows no class.

gnu, great song. Love my Supremes!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:51 PM

Ian....I have much better things to do than follow you around.
I am at present engaged in working out my dogs grading for next week's race at Sittingbourne.....much more interesting than reading your foul ranting.

We were involved in debate on another thread regarding MSM infection rates, when you were unable to answer the questions I posed to you, you resorted to abuse and it is being continued here in an attempt to get yourself off the hook with the moderators.
If you wish to voice your opinions on important issues,make sure you have the facts clear in your mind, because you dont take well to being corrected.

Afew years ago, your accusations and sneering attitude would not have been tolerated.....I on the other hand have broken none of the rules of this forum, never having had a post deleted or a even warning from admin....in ten years.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:18 PM

We were involved in debate on another thread regarding MSM infection rates, when you were unable to answer the questions I posed to you, you resorted to abuse and it is being continued here in an attempt to get yourself off the hook with the moderators.

This is sheer misrepresentation. I also took you on over your campaign to smear gay people with your infection statistics and you ignored me. The conclusion can only be that you are on some kind of anti-gay crusade. If I call you a bigoted homophobe, some would see that as name-calling and an insult. Unfortunately for you, there is the severe danger that I would actually be stating a fact.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:18 PM

We were involved in debate on another thread regarding MSM infection rates, when you were unable to answer the questions I posed to you, you resorted to abuse and it is being continued here in an attempt to get yourself off the hook with the moderators.

This is sheer misrepresentation. I also took you on over your campaign to smear gay people with your infection statistics and you ignored me. The conclusion can only be that you are on some kind of anti-gay crusade. If I call you a bigoted homophobe, some would see that as name-calling and an insult. Unfortunately for you, there is the severe danger that I would actually be stating a fact.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:20 PM

That keeps happening with me. I promise that I only click the bloody thing once.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:41 PM

"I for one was bemused to see a sanctimonious prig reckon that an odious viewpoint put politely was better than reason applied with a round of fucks."

I'd have thought the point is that whether what is involved is an odious viewpoint or reason applied it is much better put politely than with a round of fucks. Swearing at someone in an argument is completely irrelevant and distracting. Politeness is in fact a far better weapon in inflicting damage on a faulty argument.

As for a teem like "sanctimonious prig" - the point isn't whether someone is a sanctimoniousr prig, it's whether they are right or wrong. Unfortunately sanctimonious prigs can often be right, just as people with appalling view can often be modest and charming.

One problem that arises when we refer to someone by a nickname etc., whether offensive or friendly, is that it can make it hard to know who is being referred to, especially when a number of other people have posted in the intervening period.

Incidentally I couldn't see that the thread that got closed, which Larry the Radio Guy mentioned in the opening post, was in the least toxic by the time it got shut down. It's a hard call to make I suppose.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:45 PM

In response to the opening post:

Larry, I confess to referring to one of the posters here as "Goofball." This is a variation on the "handle" he uses (his preferring to stay anonymous for very understandable reasons!).

I readily admit that this is not the maturest course of action, but I didn't start doing this UNTIL he attacked me—not the arguments I was posting, but me personally—because I had the temerity to disagree with many of his statements. He didn't argue with my rebuttals, he just started calling me names and trying to run down my moral character.

And he took to playing with MY name, (which is my real name, by the way) by calling me things like "Dork Froth."

Furthermore, it was not long before I noticed that he was stalking me from thread to thread.

No, I do not respect him, because his arguments are silly and fatuous, and he obviously—and gratuitously—takes the opposite view on most discussions, apparently looking for a confrontation with a number of different people, including me. And most of what he posts flies in the face of reason and provable facts, which he blows off as being held by "so-called 'liberals.'"

Along with this, if I happen to post any personal information, he twists it into the worst possible light and attacks me in terms of my morals and ethics.

And if this weren't enough, he salts his posts with four-letter obscenities (his favorite adjective appears to be "fucking") and gratuitous insults of the sort that he would not DARE use to someone's face.

A foul mouthed, cowardly stalker with all the earmarks of a troll.

"Goofball" is mild compared to what he has called me, and granted, I should simply ignore him, but sometimes the lies he tells simply have to be set straight.

There have been such people before who did not know how to behave among normal human beings (such as the notorious "Martin Gibson") who have been blocked. I wish the Powers That Be here at Mudcat would banish this person in a like manner. He adds nothing to the forum.

And then, there is Songwronger. He has posted more misinformation on this website than anyone I know (with the possible exception of Beardedbruce and Akenaton). One of his threads was the claim that polio vaccine is contaminated with cancer cells. This is simply NOT TRUE, and referred to some contaminated vaccine some sixty years ago which was quickly taken off the market once discovered, and actually had no apparent effect on those who did receive the contaminated vaccine. Yet—there he was, trying to frighten people into NOT getting the vaccine when recommended by their doctors.

I pointed out that he bears a moral responsibility if he frightens someone into not getting the vaccine and then they subsequently contract polio. And in that post, I referred to him, not as "Songwronger," but "Scare Monger." Which is a highly accurate description of what he was doing.

Some people who insist on posting on the web are just damned irresponsible!! And those who know better are remiss if they do not speak out.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:00 PM

Steve...I didn't ignore you out of spite or because I am on an "anti gay crusade"...I did so because I was answering others at the time, who seemed to actually know what they were "talking" about.

How can it be "anti gay" to draw attention to these horrific figures?
Surely it is much more "anti gay" to attempt to conceal them and continue with a policy which obviously,to every sane person IS NOT WORKING.

Look, in all honesty, it seems that you people dont care a damn about the epidemic which is affecting homosexuals all you really care about is some mad "equality" agenda
Where serious health issues are concerned the "rights" of the individual take second place to stopping the epidemic.

Is that REALLY hatred?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:06 PM

Don...where have I posted "misinformation"?

You may not like what I have posted, but it is taken directly from official health agency sites......so why do you traduce me as the biggest liar on Mudcat?
I expected better of you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:11 PM

I've noted the despicable nonsense levelled at you by Guffo, Don (OK if I call him that? :-)) and I also note the frustration you express in your post about people posting misinformation. I'd add to that one of the cardinal sins of the internet, one which is much worse than direct insults: misrepresentation. Wacko did that twice with me in that shut-down thread, claiming things about my posts that were simply false and utterly unsupportable. What he said were blatant untruths, so why shouldn't I call him a liar? He knew exactly what he was doing! To be honest, I'd rather be called a "fucking asshole" by Little Hawk than be misrepresented (though he manages both things at once). Then you have people like slippery pete who charms everyone with his deliberately-false self-deprecation before posting the most ignorant and insulting nonsense you've ever read. The icing on the cake there is the gullible souls who crowd round him to pat him on the head, indulge him and tell the rest of us not to be so nasty to this nastiest piece of work. Right, end of rant. These navel-gazing meta-chats are lovely, aren't they, but what a bloody waste of time they are. I feel I may have to question my own sanity. Not you, Guffers. Go back to sleep.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:19 PM

Steve...I didn't ignore you out of spite or because I am on an "anti gay crusade"...I did so because I was answering others at the time, who seemed to actually know what they were "talking" about.

I was proposing much better education for all in sexual matters whilst you were doing the triumphalist bit about your devastating figures in order to show how horrid gay people are. How dare you suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about. Is it OK if I call you an intolerant and ignorant git with tunnel vision, because that's what I'm thinking right now?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:27 PM

"Guffo" "Wacko" "slippery pete"

I'm sure Steve Shaw knows whom he's referring to. Perhaps they do as well.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:32 PM

OK by me Steve...feel free, if I'm to be insulted I prefer it to be in impeccable English.   :0)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:34 PM

Ake, I didn't call you the "biggest" liar on Mudcat, nor did I call you a "liar." I said that you, among others, post a great deal of misinformation.

Your CDC figures are highly selective, slanting your viewpoint. I have read the figures myself, and I come up with considerably different indications.

AND--you argue against the one thing that would do the most to mitigate the spread of HIV/AIDs: reducing promiscuity by encouraging stable relationships.

Which YOU say homosexuals don't want, but most homosexuals say they DO want.

Misinformation, based on your own prejudices.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:41 PM

Guest from Sanity, Jack The Sailor and Guest pete from seven stars link. God yes. They know who they are all right.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:45 PM

I was answering others at the time, who seemed to actually know what they were "talking" about.

This peculiar fellow rails against others who he sees as insulting him yet can, apparently without irony, still come out with this. Amazing how self-described insult-victims can actually be among the worst dishers-out of insults, innit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Janie
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:49 PM

How about respecting the boundaries of this thread and moving the discussion regarding gay rights/homophobia to an existing thread where that is the topic.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:53 PM

Nah. Thread drift is a wonderful thing. Nearly every thread I've ever started on the interwebby thingie has been hijacked. Roll with it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:59 PM

The fact that you cannot recognise irony Steve, does not mean that it doesn't exist.

Mr McGrath...is our acknowledged expert....and most humerous exponent, PM him for assistance.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Janie
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:03 PM

If hijacking rings one's chime, and what matters most to one is getting one's chime rung (ringed? rang? runged?) then I suppose one goes for it. Enjoy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:04 PM

I'm up to late..*humorous*


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:05 PM

too.....zzzzzzzzz


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:09 PM

"...the gullible souls who crowd round him to pat him on the head, indulge him and tell the rest of us not to be so nasty..."

I think I'll write a book about my adventures in cyber-land and call it "Gullible's Travails"

I think it may frustrate Steve more to see polite debate than to see the "stupidity" he frets over, when he is so sure those "gullible souls" are taken in by "deliberately-false self-deprecation".

I posted before that pete is known PERSONALLY by two members here, both of whom took the time to assure us that Pete is an nice, honest guy who is totally sincere. I take their word for it, and I see it myself, even as I try to counter most of what Pete claims. I am able to keep "respectful boundaries" about (most) people even when I have serious problems with their opinions & beliefs.

"These navel-gazing meta-chats are lovely, aren't they, but what a bloody waste of time they are."

A waste of time? Oh...right.... like spending hours telling others they are stupid and others that they are spending too much time being gullible.

And they say there's no such thing as perpetual motion! :>)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:10 PM

I think that so often we make assumptions about the intent or motives of another person based on a little bit of information......and instead of checking it out (which I find is best done by communicating our judgments then asking them if they agree, we resort to name calling.

It happened to me in one of my first posts to mudcat where I became involved in a discussion.   I don't even know where I'd look to find it, and I said something that proved to be incorrect.

And Don Firth, since, you don't seem to be afraid to put yourself forward, I'll take the risk and let you know that it was you.   I doubt if you'll remember....but I think it had something to do with me confusing the 7th chord with what is called the 'dominant 7th' chord, and, while I can't remember the words used, the impression was that somehow I was pretending to be a know-it-all who was spreading false information about topics I knew nothing about. In actual fact I was only trying to get some feedback on what appeared to me to be a point of confusion.....the different way that I believed chords were labelled in the pop music and the classical music tradition.

I wasn't looking for an argument, a fight, praise, or a personal putdown (I got the latter).   

It's true that I had been wrong, and I think it was important that I was corrected.....and I appreciated the correction.    But the 'tone' of the correction inhibited me from posting much more.....until fairly recently.

And I guess it affected me because I still remember it. And I'm glad to be able to have the opportunity, with the greatest respect for you, to put this forward.

While I think it's good to develop a strong backbone, I have to agree with McGrath from Harlow when he writes "Politeness is in fact a far better weapon in inflicting damage on a faulty argument."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:32 PM

I posted before that pete is known PERSONALLY by two members here, both of whom took the time to assure us that Pete is an nice, honest guy who is totally sincere.

He is one of the most insincere people you could ever wish to meet. He spouts his nonsense and insults honest scientists at every opportunity and he does not listen to a word you say. Soft faces, hard cases.

"These navel-gazing meta-chats are lovely, aren't they, but what a bloody waste of time they are."

A waste of time? Oh...right.... like spending hours telling others they are stupid and others that they are spending too much time being gullible.

And they say there's no such thing as perpetual motion! :>)


I did tell you I was thinking of questioning my own sanity. But, with pete, you are extremely gullible. He clearly relishes your exchanges yet he does not alter his position one inch. You indulge him and as a result he continues to clutter up the forum with his nasty rubbish. You have a fair bit to answer for on that score, which is presumably why you feel the need to get all defensive, but what the hell. You and pete are nothing if not fun to behold.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:32 PM

Perhaps it is wisest to avoid referring to anyone else as "the nastiest piece of work". That is an epithet that is only too likely to be redirected at any person who confers it.
...............

The problem with threads that go toxic isn't that their presence, and the presence of the few people who make them toxic somehow corrupts the Mudcat, or that somehow it's got worse. It's that potentially interesting and enjoyable discussions, or exchanges of good natured comments (including good natured insults) get diverted. The threads either fade away nastily, or they get terminated, sometimes prematurely. It's a shame, but one the Mudcat has lived with always.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Janie
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:34 PM

I admire the honesty and integrity of what you just posted, LtRG. I also think such a post does have the potential power, over time, to shift things.

You have courage, and are not yet weary.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:39 PM

Read his posts, a good many of which manage to diss perfectly good science in the cause of his young-earth creationism. The latter is fine by me as we're all entitled to our delusions, but serially insulting scientists, who have done all the work whilst he has done none, is vindictive, prejudiced and nasty, and deserves to be jumped on. You can fool some of the people some of the time...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:26 PM

Larry, I don't remember that at all, and would appreciate it if you could point it out to me so I can see what I actually said.

I have studied music formally (in University and in a conservatory) and I've taught music for years. I'm not about to make a mistake in that area. nor, as a teacher, am I about to blow someone off the way you describe.

So--please document your allegation.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:37 PM

[Sigh]
Sometimes, I think we need to have a playpen, where the more childish of us can be sent to

beat each other silly!!!!



Ahhhh. That felt better.


At one time, I devised a very clever Mudcat Certified Asshole Award. I thought it worked quite well, giving credit where credit was due; until one recipient went and tattled to Max. Max gave me a directed meditation on the Zen of Forum Moderation. Ooooooom.

-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:43 PM

"we're all entitled to our delusions, but serially insulting scientists,.."

**IF** it's a delusion, it's not necessarily an insult. An insult, to my way of thinking, is intentional. And if one is entitled to a delusion, he should also be free to defend it as best he can.

"He clearly relishes your exchanges yet he does not alter his position one inch." What a surprise! After all, he "has a delusion"! Maybe if I YELL AT HIM IN CAPITALS he will change!

Let me have MY delusion and just conduct a debate about evolution & such. I state the premises about it pretty strongly, hoping that any drop-ins will see the science prevailing over the religious circular reasoning.

"You and pete are nothing if not fun to behold."

Well.. glad to be of service.... now, 'shhhh' just watch and giggle. (If Pete returns to this next week)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:51 PM

I have no doubts whatsoever about your musical expertise, Don.

I have no idea how I would even find the post....I don't even remember the topic. I'll try look for it, though, because I'm kind of curious too, as it made quite the impression on me.

But my point is that sometimes the tone of voice.....even if it isn't intended....can discourage many people who might have a lot to offer from putting themselves forward.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:53 PM

I was speaking with God just this morning and She told me to be nice at the Mudcat Cafe.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:06 PM

I've looked at the titles of all the threads in which you have posted, Larry, and I've run a "Super Search" for "7th chords."

I can't find anything that seems likely.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:30 PM

I must admit that there are times, both in real life and on the Web, that I wish I could say, "Sir, my friends will call upon you", bow politely and leave stiffly -- and mean it. I often wonder how different manners would be if expressed opinions and subsequent insults had to be defended with the speaker's or writer's life.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 11:54 PM

" What he said were blatant untruths, so why shouldn't I call him a liar? He knew exactly what he was doing!"

That is a lie and I proved by quoting you.


I said that Mr. Shaw insults someone in most of his posts. Look at this thread. Is that point not proved here?



I don't call him Steve because he is not my friend. I call him Mr. Shaw, or Shaw because it is a polite way to ensure that other people know that I am talking to him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 02:10 AM

Mr Shaw and Mr Sailor, get a room!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket being patriotic
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 02:31 AM

I've got a good feeling. Can't quite put my finger on it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 03:18 AM

Don... I would answer the points you make in your 7:30 post, ut as Janie says perhaps this is not the thread to get into detail.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 03:26 AM

Ah! That's it.

The devil is in the detail.....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Allan Conn
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 03:28 AM

"But my point is that sometimes the tone of voice.....even if it isn't intended....can discourage many people who might have a lot to offer from putting themselves forward."

I think the real intention of posters doesn't always come across the way that it would for instance in a bar over a pint. You can't see the twinkle in someone's eye hence the reader doesn't always interpret the post as it is meant to be. They might think the post is condescending when it is not meant to be. Short of lacing every line with smiley faces (which I can't imagine anyone wants) then maybe the best idea is if you are unsure if a post is being negative to you or not then give the poster the benefit of the doubt. Initially at least!

On the wider issue of course some posts are insulting. However, and I am not meaning to be complacent here, compared to most elsewhere on the net the posters in here are actually really civil. I used to post in newsgroups. In particular soc.culture.scottish and in the end it just became a joke as the thing was over run by really nasty trolls which chased most of the proper posters away. Likewise just visit youtube and the behaviour on many threads is awful. On here though even the threads where people continually argue with another individual (for example the Keith and Jim threads) are for the most part people putting actual points to each other. Not just filled with insults etc. So I am not being complacent as of course things can deteriorate but we are a long way off that at the moment.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 05:14 AM

Scottish culture eh? At least you don't have to wait long for the page to refresh after posting...


How do you do a bloody smiley face?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 05:33 AM

I don't need a room. Suffice to say that that last post from Wacko completely misrepresents the exchange in the now-closed thread.

Sorry, Bill, but pete does a damn sight more than defend his delusion. He frequently takes the opportunity to bad-mouth "darwinists", Darwin, "evolutionists" and the like. Yet he abundantly demonstrates time and time again that he doesn't have even the faintest understanding of the stuff he criticises. By any measure this is extremely unpleasant behaviour. He demonstrates no respect for honest scientific endeavour. This, in case you haven't noticed it, is my big issue with him and his ilk. I don't give a stuff about his delusion but I'll keep on at him until he decides to refrain from his attacks on good science and honest scientists.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 05:39 AM

Raparee. Interesting question, that if your life depended on it etc, would it change your perspective. Me? I'd still call a spade a spade on the internet and an earth inverting horticultural implement to someone's face.

I'd just have a bloody big dog at the side of me. (I do, but he is a greyhound so he doesn't count, unless you dress up in a rabbit costume and start running.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 06:20 AM

Be fair Steve, neither we nor the scientists have any more idea of how the universe began than the creationists.

Lets admit that on that issue we are all in ignorance?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 06:51 AM

I think Pete from the 7 Stars genuinely believes in his nonsense. Every song he sings is about God-bothering. But it is frustrating to see such irrationality.

Fugitive from Sanity and Ding-Dong and several others I believe to be malicious. But at least I can glean some idea of what they want.

Ake - I have no idea. I can see what he hates - gypsies, gays, every political party (some more than others), probably a load of other things too - but I am damned if I can see what he would like to see.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 07:01 AM

A world after Capitalism.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 07:30 AM

Richard....I don't know and have never met any "gypsies", I have no reason to hate them.
My neighbour, who moved here from Yorkshire, hates them with a passion, He says they would steal the sugar out your tea.....I have no way of verifying that so ...innocent till proved guilty in my eyes.

In this area, we have community of Scots/Irish tinkers, I have just this week been robbed by them to the value of over £500
When we last discussed this matter they were involved in drug dealing and money lending(to young drug addicts)....repayments were enforced at knife point.....subsequently, several have been jailed and the encampment closed "for maintenance".
Due to their protected special status their drug dealing activities went on uninterrupted for several years.

There are thieves and drug dealers in all sections of society, but "special status" makes this sort of activity easy ....it is the legislation that I am against, not the people.

Homosexuals? certainly not, I wish to see them defeat the horrific rates of infection which afflict them.

Political Parties?....Probably so, as they all work for their Capitalist master and he is the Great Satan......why do you and Ian not save a little of your bile for him? I'm sure he deserves it as much as I do?.....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 07:37 AM

Be fair Steve, neither we nor the scientists have any more idea of how the universe began than the creationists.

Lets admit that on that issue we are all in ignorance?


That's a nonsensical piece of false equivalence and, in any case, it is not the issue. Science tries to get to the truth by gathering evidence and applying all our intellectual prowess to it. Creationism is based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever and flies in the face of all natural laws. We are entitled to challenge and ridicule notions that are constructed in this way, but creationists are not entitled to dish the dirt on good, honest science. Science requires hard work and application. Creationism requires no work at all, just whimsy, denial and delusion. It ill-behoves the latter to dish dirt on the former. Or, at any rate, they do so at their peril as far as I'm concerned. Creationists who possess that delusion but keep quiet about it are probably very nice chaps. Creationists who attack good science are nasty pieces of work. Just look at the effect they have in the US education system. Horrible people, persuading four yanks in ten that evolution is a lie. We should neither indulge them nor let them get away with attempts to propagate their malicious nonsense, not even here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 07:47 AM

But surely the fact of the universe itself flies in the face of all natural laws?
I am not disagreeing with you...I cannot come to terms with the creationist belief, but many of the beliefs held by we "sane" people are just as incredible?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 07:56 AM

Of course it doesn't. As far as science goes in general, and the origin of the universe in particular, we don't have to "believe" anything. We come to conclusions after considering evidence. The conclusions may be conditional, but "beliefs" is a word best reserved for other areas of human endeavour that trump (in the minds of adherents) the need for evidence. That avoids confusion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 07:58 AM

Another aspect, what possible good could it do humanity to know the origin of the Universe? Are we not better to believe in creation and a benevolent deity....perhaps we could become better people by suspending cynicism?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 08:04 AM

Sorry Steve..cross posted, but I must take you up on your point.

The "cornerstons" of our society are not scientific facts, but beliefs.

"Freedom, Equality and Democracy"....dont REALLY exist.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 08:11 AM

I confess. I once called Steve Shaw a Muppet.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 08:42 AM

The "cornerstons" of our society are not scientific facts, but beliefs.

That's as maybe, but the cornerstone of scientific endeavour is evidence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 08:50 AM

Yes, but some "sane" people cleave to these beliefs as if they were real.

They have sandwich boards with "Equality is the Reality" written on them in big black letters!! :0o


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 08:53 AM

Anyone who believes equality is real ain't a full shilling!

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 08:59 AM

Another aspect, what possible good could it do humanity to know the origin of the Universe?

The quest for that knowledge helps us to elucidate the nature and properties of matter, knowledge which is vital to our continuing technological advance. And we would like to know the truth (or at least get a bit nearer to it), some of us.

Are we not better to believe in creation and a benevolent deity

Absolutely not. We are better off seeking truth in honest fashion (in other words, by hard work, mental toil and endless investigation, not by fanciful guesswork and suspension of part of our intellects), even if we never get there. Real truth I mean, not "greater truths", before some religious fellow or other chimes in.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 09:19 AM

Eyup Dave... Equality is subjective. Doesn't mean you can't have it. It didn't take scientific discovery to say anybody in love can marry for instance, just a debate and Parliamentary vote. If you are in a car crash, the ambulance scoops you up on medical need, not race, gender or age.

True equality means we are all the same height, weight and political outlook. Diversity is good though. Even gnomes can buy me a drink if they so wish.




Please.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 09:31 AM

Fairy Nuff, Musky, but the examples you quote are not universal. Can anyone in love marry in some of the more oppressive regimes? Is health care the same for everyone the world over? I think not but, yes, if we restrict it to our own experience you are right. And I'll buy anyone a pint as long as they buy me three back. I'm trying my best to become a Yorkshireman...

:D tG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 09:34 AM

I have seen no evidence of real equality in my lifetime Dave.

Unless you see the "marriage" of two men as equal to the marriage of a man and a woman?
There is one natural inequality there!

The rich and the poor are as far apart as ever...more so in fact.
Its still the rich wot gets the pleasure, and the poor wot pays for it


Judicial equality is a sick joke!
Two years in jail for stealing toilet rolls.....and a million pound bonus for buggering up the economy!

Need I go on, if you were any kind of socialist I wouldn't need to.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 09:41 AM

Steve...I know you're a decent guy, and I more or less agree with you MOST of the time, but, in your heart do you not think that as a species, we have forgotten much more of real value than we will ever learn through science and technology?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 09:44 AM

if you were any kind of socialist I wouldn't need to.

Not quite sure what you mean by that. Are you suggesting that that my social conscience is anything other than fair? I think this is what we are talking about when it is said that some people overstep respectful boundaries. I will give you the benefit seeing as we seem to agree that equality is not there yet. Would it not have been better to find out something about me rather than impugning my character?

Cheers

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 09:52 AM

Of course I didn't mean that Dave, I'm sure you have an admirable social conscience. I cross posted and apologise if you feel impugned.
I was wrong to write that sentence.

We have squabbled pretty amicably over the years.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 10:11 AM

:-)

Glad I gave you the benefit of the doubt and thanks for the confirmation.

Cheers

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 10:27 AM

To akenaton,, Dave the Gnome, Steve Shaw, and Musket,

Your current discussion is very consistent with this thread, and it reinforces my own concept of reinforcing respectful boundaries.

I like it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 10:47 AM

Well don't let me spoil it then...

Dave, equality globally cannot be achieved by me & thee. We members of the human race though accept that it doesn't mean you try to treat people equally where it is possible to do so. Judicial reasoning on each case on merit can throw out some howlers, but justice is overall blind, and those who compare cases for their own agenda have a rather warped view of justice.

The gay marriage bit is an excellent example. Nothing to stop people in love from getting married. I'm not gay and I haven't loved a bloke, fancied a bloke or shagged one, but as there is no reason why two lovers cannot commit to marriage, we now have chiselled a bit of equality. The fact that I cannot begin to see the attraction in that sense of a man is neither here nor there. it doesn't affect me so it doesn't matter. Each to their own.

There are some who still see gay people as second class citizens, but time always wins.

Some religious people want to see their restrictions imposed on others. Some non religious people want to see religious restrictions removed. Neither are supporting equality and neither can prevail. Democracy may not be the best system, after all it gives us the bloody government, but as nobody has come up with anything better, (and you would need, ironically, the democratic will of the people to remove it,) we are stuck with everybody having a bit of a say, however small. (We don't have full equality and never shall.)

Sorry for addressing this to you rather than to anyone else, but if I address this to the {person} above who states just there, at the top of your screen or scroll up a bit, yes - just there... that gay marriage isn't equal to something or other.. I'd have to disappoint Larry the Radio Guy, and by saying time always wins, I am sailing close to the wind as it is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 10:50 AM

I believe that most people on Mudcat do indeed show some respect where it is due and often when it is not! I always assume that respect is warranted until proved otherwise. As is sometimes the case :-(

The issue I have is where people insist that they are right and therefore everyone who disagrees with them is wrong, unfeeling, uncaring or just plain stupid. There are not many and I will not name them but I think you would find some surprising exponents of that philosophy if you were to dig a little through past threads.

Cheers

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 11:01 AM

No probs, Musket. I like the Bob Dylan line in To Ramona.

I've heard you say many times
That you're better 'n no one
And no one is better 'n you
If you really believe that
You know you got
Nothing to win and nothing to lose

I think a lot of people forget one side or another of that equation when they talk about equality. Particularly those, ahem, how can I put it? Of a certain ecumenical persuasion.

Rest of it is Mr D's usual combination of pretension and obscurity but a nice song all the same :-) (Now, there's a way to start a row!)

Cheers

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 11:50 AM

Despite the word 'spleen' in my anagram, I tend to think venting it online is a bad move. I do ocassionally snap at people I think are talking bollocks, but more often than not don't bother engaging - especially as I am quite capable of talking bollocks myself. Unless it's when someone is grunting and moaning about the evil nature of cyclists, of course... then I might have something to say!

I do think that odious shite wrapped in pretty ribbons is still odious shite, though I totally accept that to someone out there it's going to be lovely, sweet-smelling shite. I also think that if in making your point you're directly abusive to another, no matter how much you disagree with them, it reflects more badly on you than the person you're having a pop at. The battle of ideas is surely where it should be at? Though admittedly it's sometimes tempting to throw the odd barb...

I also think that wading into arguments, discussions and conversations purely in order to slightly snottily look down on the participants as some sort of lesser species engaged in their petty mortal squabbles is deeply unseemly. As is the approach taken by some of the posters here which seems to be "why can't all nasty people whose views I disagree with stop posting so we can simulate a world of peace and harmony where everyone thinks like me (or if they don't think like me at least they should keep their dirty mouths shut)." Finally, I am always slightly bemused by the people who tell us it was all lovely in the old days. I avoided Mudcat for ages because it had a reputation as a haven of bad tempered old gits... when I started coming here I discovered that everything they'd warned me was true... ;-)

Finally, some of us don't actually have the time or inclination to spend hours and hours here and become an integral part of the "community", aren't that bothered about earning a niche as a well-loved character and maybe get embarassed about the idea of emotioning on line to the entire world. That's actually ok, though.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 11:52 AM

""Moderation Team"- I see little evidence that one exists. If one does, it should have clearly stated rules.""

The thing about that Q, is that most people came here to get away from fora such as Auntie Beeb's various offerings, in which you could barely say "NO!" without being slung out.

Mudcat is divided in two for a reason.

It allows the moderately good mannered discussion of folk music, but also supplies a place in which you can call a fool a bloody idiot, without being banished.

IMHO, a good thing on balance. YMMV!

The point is, as I said earlier, there is nobody outside the door seizing passers by and throwing them inside. You, and you alone make the decision whether or not to expose yourself to the responses you will certainly get, so railing against offence is, in a way, decrying your own bad decisions.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 12:03 PM

Bah, "emotioning" isn't a word. I meant "emoting"...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 12:25 PM

""I think it's a skill. And I guess not everybody on mudcat is interested in learning it. But.......I do think it's wise to know your own intention.   Is it verbal masturbation? Pissing people off? Letting the world know how amazing you are?   Convincing people that your right and decent take on things really is right and decent? To help others who are asking for help? Or to feel/demonstrate a 'connection' with others in the mudcat community?""

The simple answer to that Larry, is that it is all of the above.

Since one encounters a range of differing personas, with differing perspectives and intentions, your (entirely desireable) wish to interact with them all in the same cordial, helpful and well mannered, though rather bland way, is unlikely to elicit the responses you expect.

In a melting pot of mixed cultures, it is necessary to be aware of that variety, and treat each person as an individual, though that may mean steeling yourself to call somebody a fool, if that is what you honestly believe him to be.

Racist or xenophobic posts do indicate strongly the presence of a racist or xenophobe at that particular keyboard, and deserve strong condemnation

A learned, measured and well constructed argument needs to be answered in kind.

There is nobody on this forum who engenders in me, feelings of hatred.

There are many, some of whose attitudes I deplore, detest, or otherwise find unpleasant.

There are a few that I would never be likely to call friend, and many that might, in the real world be good singing and drinking buddies.

There are a few whom I already number among my friends, and some of those I disagree with on certain subjects.

How could I possibly treat all of the above in exactly the same way?

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 12:30 PM

...in your heart do you not think that as a species, we have forgotten much more of real value than we will ever learn through science and technology?

Ah, the myth of the Golden Age... No I don't. And I also think that science gets us closer to truth, along with art. Though we do seem to have forgotten how to write a good symphony.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 01:03 PM

""I have no idea how I would even find the post....I don't even remember the topic. I'll try look for it, though, because I'm kind of curious too, as it made quite the impression on me. Larry""

I think you said it was early in your time on Mudcat Larry.

OK.

Top of the page, click on personal page, and then activate the link "click for list of your personal thread messages".

This gives you everything you have ever posted in batches. At the bottom of the page there is box which says "posts starting with oldest"

Click on that, then run down the resulting list till you see a music thread and check it. It shouldn't take forever to find the one you want.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 01:22 PM

I'd like to see a lot less cut 'n pastes... They rarely add to an discussion... Some folks just string half a dozen of them together... Most are blogs that cannot be readily fact checked without having extra hours every day to do so... I think that limiting them to either links or using a single paragraph of them would be a vast improvement...

CAPS is a no, no... Every knows it yet some folks continue to SCREAM at others...

Also, when people make up stuff that they claim other people have said and then argue with the made up stuff it gets pretty old fast... Plus, it is dishonest...

Also, if I present an position and you challenge me on it, fine... If in my response I ask direct questions to someone who has challenged me and they refuse to answer them then that is also dishonest...

Also, there are people here who aren't even musicians who come here just to rile people up and they are very good at it...

Lastly, if you challenge me, fine... Allow me the time to respond before adding another half a dozen challenges... Some people have real lives other than sitting in front of a computer all day... I know I do... I work outside at least 7 hours a day... Sometimes more... Lots of us work and don't have hours and hours to plow thru those stacked up challenges...

Oh, and lastly, part 2... If you have OCD and locked in on another poster, get help for your addiction... I've had several stalkers here... One stalked me from another web site... I complained to Joe Offer... I still have at least one OCD-er here that I am ignoring because he is not rational... Hey, stalkers... Get help...

That's about it... Now back to work...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 01:29 PM

Bobert, I disagree. Not respectfully. Your opinions are my own, and now your claiming them as yours.

Sir, my friends would call upon you but I don't have any.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 01:32 PM

Thanks Larry :0).....Its easy if "ye jist keep the heid"... as we say in Scotland!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 02:05 PM

Also, when people make up stuff that they claim other people have said and then argue with the made up stuff it gets pretty old fast... Plus, it is dishonest...

This is the biggest crime here in my opinion. It's annoying to spend time correcting misrepresentation and it happens a lot. I'd rather be called names than misrepresented. If you ever get that feeling that you need to type "just read my post, will you..." you'll know what I mean.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 02:41 PM

Re:   Bobert's post of 30 Jul 13 - 01:22 PM, just above.

I agree totally!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 03:15 PM

There are plenty of people I feel no need to respect.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 03:30 PM

Richard....you make statements about people here which are patently untrue, when they call you on them, you vanish into the ether then turn up again saying there are "lots of people here that you dont respect"

Well i suspect few here respect someone who uses these tactics.
Try being a man, not a mouse.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 03:52 PM

"It's annoying to spend time correcting misrepresentation and it happens a lot. I'd rather be called names than misrepresented"

Yes, I find it annoying too.....and it's a fact of life. Because nobody can totally read my mind, and all forms of communication are 'imperfect' means of portraying our reality, misrepresentation is inevitable.

And I find that so much frustration is the result of trying to correct this.   I've found the more I try to correct it, the more fodder I leave for even more misinterpretation and misrepresentation.

So I ask myself......"is this the mountain I want to die on"? Or "in 5 years time is this really going to matter"?

My challenge....and I feel I have some success in meeting this.....is to just keep representing myself the best way I can. And, hopefully, more people will also start representing me that way I'd like them to.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Charmion
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 03:56 PM

You would do us all a favour, Richard, if you would nevertheless go through the motions of respect, especially when you don't feel the need.

The prime function of courtesy is to make one's passage through life easier for other people to endure.

When two or more contributors to a thread drop their gloves on the ice and start whaling away at each other, I bail out and never return to that thread. (Is that a fine mixture of metaphors or what?) Reading an exchange of insults, accusations and spiteful rejoinders among Mudcat members distresses me almost as much as witnessing a family fight at the dinner table -- and I'm sure I'm not alone, or even unusual. I just can't stand it.

Some people claim that a permanently polite approach to dispute is insincere, that whatever point they are taking issue with has made them angry and it is only honest to express that anger. I believe that this position is disingenuous, mere cover for a childish delight in savaging a despised opponent.

Whatever the reason for it, an on-line brawl clears the notional room just as surely as a bar fight in real life.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 04:15 PM

Yes, I find it annoying too.....and it's a fact of life. Because nobody can totally read my mind, and all forms of communication are 'imperfect' means of portraying our reality, misrepresentation is inevitable.

Very true, Larry. But I put a lot of effort into expressing myself simply and clearly. Much of the misrepresentation here is quite deliberate, for the reasons Bobert gave. I can and do put up with facts of life. In fact, I don't think I'm too bad at keeping my cool here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket putting line in sand
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 04:20 PM

Charmion. The problem with going through the motions of respect is that people are led to think you respect views that are patently not worthy of it. And that would never do.

Akenaton for instance has views regarding gay people that is despicable and quite frankly tantamount to personality disorder. Add his awful spewing out about Eastern Europeans in his area and you have to ask yourself, "do I feel dirty by conversing with such a specimen?"

No consensus on behaviour on Mudcat is going to convince me to do anything other than challenging hatred. I refuse to meet it halfway and I refuse to offer it anything that would be construed as respectability.

Views that are different to mine? Sure! Lets debate. Views that have no place in 21st century society? Kick them back into their pit and let them fester.

Just because we try to debate nicely where we can, it doesn't mean you have to smile when confronted with bigotry and hatred of people based on their labels.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 04:22 PM

Don Z: Thanks for those tips about finding my old posts. I didn't know about that method about finding one's posts.   

Unfortunately I still can't find the post.....and I even did a search under my 'guest' name.   So it must've been in a thread that 'drifted', or possibly, when my cookies were down, I didn't sign my name.

Sorry about that Don Firth.

But I'll keep searching.

-Larry.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 04:25 PM

Musket, who decides whether views are 'different to yours' or, alternatively, 'have no place in 21st century society'? Surely it's a matter of opinion, and that's where the problem lies.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Charmion
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 04:34 PM

Musket, you should ask yourself whether your approach is doing any good. From what I can see, not much: those you castigate entrench themselves further to save face and fling bombs of their own, while the rest of us run and hide. Further, I gather that you are engaged in a struggle against hate; I would suggest that the campaign you are waging here is as likely to succeed as the original crusades: i.e., not.

There is no point in "debating" points of faith or ideology with its adherents; logic has little if anything to do with belief. Every single protracted wrangle on Mudcat, from gun-control to the nature and quality of folk music, arises at least in part from this error.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 04:42 PM

Well, several viewpoints are expressed here that I would cheerfully include as unworthy of respect. That gay people should be hounded into "changing their behaviour". That evolution is a lie. That the attitude towards people who insist on propagating religious faith to children should be "live and let live". That it's OK to go round everywhere with a lethal weapon in your pocket. That we should deny women the right to abortion. These are antediluvian standpoints that are worthy only of being shot down. Every one of them involves complete lack of respect for anyone on the receiving end. Yet we're supposed to respect the people who put these views forward, are we?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 04:46 PM

The people who misrepresent what you say understand perfectly well what you said... The problem is that it doesn't fir their narrative so they take your words and twist them into a pretzel and then debate the pretzel... But make no mistake about it, it's 99% on them 99% of the time...

Poster A says, "I think slavery was wrong"...

Pretzel Twister Poster B responds, "Poster A doesn't seem to mind that so many people only earn the minimum wage... Poster A thinks as long as they are getting paid it's not slavery? What is wrong with you, Poster A?"...

And on and on and on it goes...

The one member here who I am ignoring has pulled this on me at least 100 times over the years...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket shaking his head
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 04:54 PM

I don't need lessons in debate. I don't need lessons in diversity.

If anyone thinks that it is good for society for such views put on the same level as choice of musical taste, I start to agree with the law we have in The UK regarding hate crime.

I just cannot believe that someone who wishes to criminalise lifestyle, compulsory testing and restricting their right to happiness can be seen as "having a view." Having spent years interviewing prisoners and people sectioned under The Mental Health Act, including the forensic end of the market, there are plenty of "views" around. Society has ways of protecting people from many of them. Fascism isn't fought with respecting views,it is fought by giving no quarter. If that seems ironic, then welcome to reality.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 04:55 PM

Quite an important question might be, 'Is it possible for someone to change their viewpoint gradually over time by considering a different angle expressed by another person?' One might think not, but personally I've changed many of my opinions quite a bit over the decades after listening to other ideas and mulling them over. You may think a poster is 'dyed in the wood', but actually, they may be thinking about what's been said and modifying their standpoint.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 04:58 PM

Yep. Very tiresome. I hope you're not ignoring me. I've just agreed with you at least three times.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 05:03 PM

Two quick comments.

1. I agree with Eliza's last post. I've had very similar experiences.

2. Sorry to Don T by 'misrepresenting him' by calling him Don Z.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 05:21 PM

I also agree with Eliza.

Thus, we learn.

However, it's a lot more likely that I'll consider someone else's view of things if they can express them without calling me a stupid ass for holding the views I hold.

That's rather poor salesmanship.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Lighter
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 07:09 PM

> it's a lot more likely that I'll consider someone else's view of things if they can express them without calling me a stupid ass for holding the views I hold.

Exactly.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 08:49 PM

History teaches that civility to the right wing only encourages them to steal more from the poor. Remember it took a lawsuit that financially crippled the KKK to go some way to taming it and racism still stinks up this and other places. Did civility to Colonel Gadaffy or Saddam Hussein help to convince him to play nice? Letting scum know that they are scum and are anathema may go some way to making them at least hide their loathsome views. It may not change the views but it may disempower the holders. Tolerance gives them a platform they should not have. Tolerance of idiocy leads to harmful false equivalence - for example the teaching of creationism as if it were equivalent to science, in schools - and indeed the child abuse (there was a thread about it here) where children were taught idiotic creationist myth as fact.

Ake - you STILL have told us nothing of what you actually want. Your platitudes in that area are meaningless. And as for your hate for gypsies travellers tinkers and I think maybe you also called them pikeys - remember the thread - even while purporting to justify yourself you spouted off again.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 08:55 PM

What Richard says... Being civil to the uncivilized is taken by the uncivilized as weakness...

We see just how uncivil the right wing can be... They will kill you in a New York minute and grin in your face while doing it...

The left ain't like that... At least, not in the US...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 09:06 PM

Bobert, do you paint all right wingers with the same brush? Or do you think there are some who, because there parents were right-wingers, they were educated with a right wing mentality, and they've never been exposed (or allowed themselves to be exposed) to anything that has motivated them to explore other possibilities.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 09:21 PM

People ain't born hating...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 02:50 AM

No Richard you are wrong, i have never used the word "pikey" in my life....dont even know the derivation.
Dont know much about "gypsies" either...they seem to have an interesting culture and a long tradition....i think I would rather like them as many families are now legends of the greyhound racing scene.
How can I tell you all that I want.....nobody knows what they want..or where their wants have to stop.

My greatest hope is that people wake up to the way the money system is warping every facet of human life...all cultures and traditions are being slowly swallowed up as the monster expands.

Although I am a radical socialist at heart, I'm sorry to say that most of the "hate" on this forum is from so called liberals towards anyone with socially conservative views......I think they are afraid of these people, they know that they are ruled by common sense and they fear for their "liberal" agenda.
They are mostly ex socialists who want to be on the winning side for a change, so have invested the last years of their lives in fooling themselves.....Best Wishes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,musket defining conservative
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 02:56 AM

David Cameron said, during the debate, that he doesn't support gay equality despite being a conservative but because he is a conservative.

Your move.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 02:58 AM

Fogot to add...there is a need in most of us for the "spiritual side"...at certain times.....it is a need which cannot be explained away by science or technology.....so it is feared and attacked by people like those above.

Just some of my thoughts, are they not more reasonable than screaming "equality" over and over again.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 03:04 AM

Perhaps you haven't noticed Ian, but David Cameron is a politician.
I was referring to real people.

As I have said a million times all politicians are focused on short term advantage, and as such are wedded to the media, especially the entertainment media which screws up more minds than the whole of Whitehall combined.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 03:07 AM

BTW...this is a thought provoking thread perhaps we should make sure it doesn't become another "you versus me" one?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 03:17 AM

Sorry to post again Ian, but why do you insinuate that I wish to "criminalise" homosexuality,(post 4.54) when I have always said that I was against that course of action?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 04:47 AM

Because your stigmatising solution, forced screening and tracing, is criminalisation. No other way of putting it. Unless you force everybody who has sex, not just gays, to screen for HIV, chlamydia and herpes, you are criminalising one section of society. You cannot force medication or invasive clinical procedures, including screening swabs on anybody unless you either section them or a law is passed. As being gay isn't a mental illness in the civilised world, you need criminal law to back up enforced screening and tracing. To touch a person for clinical reasons without consent is assault, unless you make the person being assaulted the criminal. (I think I have that about right. I just about quote from The Health and Social Care Act 2008, preface to The Regulated Activities Regulations 2010. I am aware Scotland has a similar act, mirroring its predecessor, The Care Standards Act 2000, although that one didn't cover The NHS, just all other healthcare interventions.)

hence you are in favour of criminalising lifestyle, as you insist that enforced testing is the only option, when away from all of that, the health, substance misuse and social care professionals are seeing demonstrable success, set back only by idiots seeing a cluster and relating it nationally. Complacence is bad, but so is judging success by the size of the task ahead.

I don't hold you in contempt, after all I have no idea who you are. But I really do hold your views on gay people in contempt. Your pessimistic take on society in general is something I could debate, but knowing that somewhere, this irrational fear will pop out to play.

It isn't you versus me. I have yet to find someone who shares your "solution" for gay lifestyle. It is you versus respectability.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 05:40 AM

From Bobert's post further up: Also, there are people here who aren't even musicians who come here just to rile people up and they are very good at it...

Whilst I'm sure this is true, it does raise a question for me. Is there an assumption that to be part of Mudcat you have to be a musician? I thought it was about being interested in folk and/or blues, not being able to play...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 05:55 AM

Well said, Richard. There is plenty of evidence on this board which substantiates your point. At least one person on this board expresses religious views that, one could argue, are so ridiculous that we could just laugh them off. Unfortunately, his views, though probably harmlessly risible in our own context here, chime with a very significant anti-science movement which has harassed thousands of science teachers in the US and persuaded many millions of people that evolution is a lie. By any measure, this is sheer wickedness. I don't think the perpetrator in question is necessarily being intentionally wicked himself (he hasn't revealed anything like the intellectual prowess for that), but he does not deserve to be patiently indulged and humoured and thereby legitimised. His views are insulting trash and they need to be trashed. Mercilessly, I'd say. He gets free speech and so should we.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 06:00 AM

Most people would see "criminalisation" as making homosexual practice illegal.

You think my views are "contemptuous" and "indecent", I think your views are coloured more by your "equality" agenda than in any genuine desire to assist in the ending of the epidemic of sexual disease amonst MSM. As such they are cowardly and hypocritical.

But I'm sure at some time in my life, some folks have thought my views on other subjects cowardly and hypocritical,just as they must have viewed some of yours as contemptuous?

We look at things differently, calm down and perhaps the real issue, which is the epidemic, may be better addressed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 06:03 AM

I repeat, It think it better that this subject should be dropped on this excellent thread.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 07:55 AM

The thread goes where the thread goes. You don't get last words that way.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 08:41 AM

Yo Spleen Cringe,

Then why don't these so-called music lovers post above the line in the music discussions if they are so interested in music???

Just wondering???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 08:47 AM

Write a song about UK politics, religion versus indifference to religion, gay marriage or multinational corporates, and I am sure the debates can easily go above the line...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:08 AM

OK, Bobert. I do post above the line every now and again but nowhere near as much as below it. But I do play traditional music (traditional Irish, Scottish, Northumbrian sort of thing) and people who hear me play don't generally think I'm too bad at it. My kind of music doesn't get that much attention above the line on the whole and neither does the instrument I'm doomed to play (the harmonica). I'm not especially interested in folk song (except sometimes), being far more of a tunes bloke. But I read threads there every day. My engagement above the line may be relatively quiet, but I am engaged.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:40 AM

I think everyone knows where I stand on folk song.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:47 AM

Bobert - Stick and wrong end spring to mind. I am sure Mr Cringe can speak for himself but his question was simply whether you need to be a musician to post on Mudcat. Not sure what yours was about as it does not seem to address any of this threads issues. Can you explain?

Cheers

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:53 AM

It's simple for me: if you make mindless, unthinking, remarks I will walk away. I won't fight someone who's unarmed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:58 AM

Again...

If these people are here because of an interest in music then you'd expect them to post above the line now and then...

This isn't aimed at musicians... It's aimed at folks who have no interest in music but come here to rile other folks up...

I'm all for freedom of speech but, geeze Louise, don't musicians have a right to make the observation that non-musician with no apparent interest in music are using Mudcat as their personal litter box???

I mean, this thread is about "respect", isn't it??? Where is the respect being shown to Mudcat by these people???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 10:34 AM

Bobert, I know I may be stupid but I really don't understand what you are on about. SC made an observation that you said "there are people who aren't even musicians" etc. etc. He went on to comment that this could be true but it opened the question of whether you, or the Mudcat in general, assumed that this was a forum for musicians. I can see how his logic worked there as mine did the same.

What I cannot see is how you turned that round to a rant, seemingly aimed at Mr C. Yes, there are people who are possibly 'not even musicians' who cause problems. There are, more than likely, very good musicians who do the same. This is a completely open forum, or should be, why use 'people who are not even musicians' to classify some as, presumably, second class citizens?

Cheers

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 10:37 AM

I do wish people wouldn't assume that everyone who might visit this thread has been fulltime studying and corelating everything they have posted in a variety of threads, and is fully up to date with the various names they bestow on the people at whom they are enraged or scornful...

...................................


The suggestion that retaining forms of courtesy towards opponents somehow diminishes the effectiveness of an attempt to overcome them does not convince me. Whether it's a matter of words or bullets, losing your rag is likely to mess up your ability to aim correctly and effectively.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 11:27 AM

I actually think it's OK to challenge people who rarely or never post "up there" as to whether they actually have any interest in traditional music. It isn't right though, to insist that we're all musicians, and I imagine that could have been something that the poster of that remark might have wanted to correct. This is one website, not two. As I said, you can be interested in a lot of the activity there without necessarily posting much. I feel guilty at times that I can't find more to post about above the line but at least I've stated honestly where I am with all this.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: catspaw49
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 11:51 AM

After 173 posts I think it is about time someone told y'all to go fuck yourselves.


Go fuck yourselves........



Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 12:14 PM

I tried, spaw, but I couldn't get round to it...

:D tG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 12:50 PM

I think spaw's suggestion had already been put into practice even before he made it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 01:27 PM

Yeah, Spaw, I have the same bending limitations as most others. Good job I'm hung like a donkey.

Anyway, I did basically tell a few to go fuck themselves. Do keep up, there's a good chap.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 05:52 PM

"Musket, who decides whether views are 'different to yours' or, alternatively, 'have no place in 21st century society'? Surely it's a matter of opinion, and that's where the problem lies."

Surely though it is a matter of opinion up to a point only. There are lines that can be crossed where an opinion becomes offensive and people may feel the need to speak out or disassociate themselves form the other person. For instance we were visiitng my wife's friend, and her husband, when he came out with the following.

When speaking about me having platonic female friends he said "I can see no reason to be friends with a woman unless I was getting to f*** her" Now this wasn't said as a joke it was deadly serious and said in the company of both our wives.

Then he went on "You know there are three things I hate, "Pakis, single-mothers" then he looked round pointedly at his wife and continued "and fat people".

So he was expressing opinions, and I can live with people who differ in opinion from me, but I didn't really want to socialise further with someone who in my mind held pretty horrible viewpoints.

It is the same on-line. There is a line where one's opinions become unacceptable. The vast bulk of people have an idea of where the line should be and it may differ from person to person but it is still there.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 06:17 PM

I appreciate your point Allan. Quite a few 'opinions' are indeed so offensive that almost anyone would be disgusted. But there are many which present a 'grey area' and one cannot assume they're self-evident truths. For example, the issues of abortion, carrying guns, marital infidelity, religious practices are all open to widely opposing views. If someone who holds a strong position expects that everyone else should agree, and insults and abuses those who don't, we end up with unedifying slanging matches. But nevertheless, I still think people might reflect afterwards and gradually modify their views. It may take years but it can happen.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 06:27 PM

That bloke would have been an ill-mannered toe rag, Allan, whatever century he was living in. I hope you told him so, and walked out of the house.

But it's not a question of chronology. Or for that matter, to use a phrase Richard Beidge I think used way back in this thread, of "not being in touch", because all that means, I take it, is not agreeing with a perceived consensus, and frequently a perceived consensus can be plain wrong on important matters.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 07:00 PM

But there are many which present a 'grey area' and one cannot assume they're self-evident truths. For example, the issues of abortion, carrying guns, marital infidelity, religious practices are all open to widely opposing views.

The fact that some matters are "open to widely-opposing views" doesn't mean that all of those views are legitimate. If you oppose abortion, well done you. You are misguided but I can see your point of view. If you propose that women should be prevented or restricted from having abortions, you are disgusting. Why? Because, by your own argument, there are opposing views. But a view is a view, not a cast-in-stone truth. So you have no right to insist that women should all have to adhere to a policy dictated by what is simply your view. That is what the anti-abortion movement wishes to achieve and that is why it is a baleful and wicked movement. It does not acknowledge in the slightest that any other view could be valid. You do have the right the make the case against abortion, weak though it is, but that's where it ends. You have the right to practise whatever religious delusion you like, and I'll defend that right to the hilt. But your religious belief is one point of view, not a truth cast in stone. So you have no right to foist that view on anyone else, or tell people that you are the possessor of the one and only truth. Unfortunately, the sine qua non of organised religions is to foist their beliefs on to as many people as they can, including babies. Such people are not executing their point of view as a point of view, are they? They don't recognise, by so doing, that other views are legitimate. If you want to argue that people should be allowed to carry guns willy-nilly, you are arguing that people should be allowed to go around always prepared to kill other people summarily. I can't think why else a gun should be carried in the pocket. That flies in the face of everything we're supposed to espouse about justice. Yes there are lines that can be crossed, etc., but I will never accept that those lines are infinitely elastic so as to allow disgusting opinions to be expressed without firm rebuttal and ridicule.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 07:10 PM

Rebuttal is a supposedly reasoned opposition to someone's assertion. Ridicule is not acceptable in argument any more than insult is.

If I state flatly that I think everyone should be required to carry a handgun, that is my opinion. If I present a reasoned argument to support this opinion you are welcome to dissent and express your opinion. You are not free to insult or ridicule me. Nor are you free to state that I believe that everyone should be required to carry a handgun, as an "If" statement in this context is exemplary. (I believe everyone should carry a sawed-off shotgun.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 07:41 PM

I see that there ere are some errors in logic in Steve's last post, that are likely evident to many. But, I see little purpose in pointing them out, or getting into a "pissing match" over such.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 08:00 PM

I see every reason for you to do so. Do apprise us.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 08:18 PM

Actually, Rapparee, I said nothing about being required to carry. But I'll let that pass. Here's the point about why an opinion that everyone should be allowed to carry a gun is misguided. Many people who would have a gun in their pockets would not be responsible people. You are allowing psychopaths, many undiagnosed, and would-be criminals to carry a gun. Even responsible people would, in a panic situation, quite likely shoot to kill. You wouldn't exactly have time to consider which part of your target to aim for. A person attacking you may well have criminal intent. Most criminals, if caught, are subject to the judicial process of your country. Very few would be killed by the state (none, hopefully) at the end of that process, yet you are giving unqualified people who won't be making a measured decision the means to circumvent that process in summary fashion. Only an extremely irrational person would think this is right. Our countries are supposed to be civilised, remember? Unfortunately, because the challenge in the US to this misguided position is so weak, and the gun lobby so strong, the number of gun deaths is enormous. If you think you have a legitimate opinion as to why I'm wrong in any of this, do address it point by point. Perhaps not in this thread, and bearing in mind that we have been down that tiresome road too many times already.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: Lyr Add: Whenever Kindness Fails ~ REK, Kr.
From: pdq
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 08:34 PM

"Whenever Kindness Fails"

                            Bobert Earl Keen, Jr.

I crossed the desert on a dining car.
In the spring of ninety-one.
I met some people drinking at the bar.
They were laughing, having fun.

I told 'em that I hadn't heard the joke.
That was so hilarious.
They said that I was just a dumb cowpoke.
I didn't want to make a fuss.

So I shot 'em down,
one by one.
Then I left 'em 'long the rails.
I use my gun Whenever kindness fails.

The moon was in the sign of Scorpio.
The sun was at my back.
I didn't know how far the train would go.
Until the law would find my track.

I saw the brakeman and the engineer.
Drinking wine and eating Brie.
I asked 'em who would brake and who would steer.
They started pointing back at me.

So I shot 'em down,
one by one.
Then I left 'em 'long the rails.
I use my gun Whenever kindness fails.

I only have a moment to explain.
Just a chance to let you know.
When it's time for you to board the train.
There are two ways you can go.

You can ride the wheels into the sun.
Feel the wind upon your face.
Or you can laugh into a loaded gun.
And you'll likely lose your place.

So I shot 'em down,
one by one.
Then I left 'em 'long the rails.
I use my gun Whenever kindness fails.

Yeah I shot 'em down,
one by one.
Then I left 'em 'long the rails
When I use my gun,
that lonesome whistle wails.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:00 PM

The first essential in any kind of argument that's got a hope of getting anywhere useful ought to be to identify precisely where the differences are, and equally precisely where the agreements are.

It's an essential that gets neglected only too often, which is the main reason most arguments, here or in most places, I fear, tend not to get anywhere. All too often the real argument is put on hold while there is are two battles with straw men.

There's a valuable mediation technique in which the ground rule is that both parties have to succeed in summarising the other party's position in a way that is seen as accurate by the other party. Only then can a real exploration of the differences start - and those differences may be much less irreconcilable than originally appeared to be the case.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:08 PM

There's a valuable mediation technique in which the ground rule is that both parties have to succeed in summarising the other party's position in a way that is seen as accurate by the other party.

That's why so many arguments arise here. But we don't have mediators, so anyone who maliciously misrepresents another's position not only wastes everyone's time but also causes a massive amount of frustration in forcing people of good intent to have to continually clarify their position.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:12 PM

See how I couldn't respond to Rapparee until I'd first clarified a position that was already crystal clear? A minor example of what I was saying, but the sort of annoying thing that happens all the time here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Lord of Misrule
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:19 PM

Anarchy! I love it!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:47 PM

I think all of us might do well to focus our attention on whether we do that consistently ourselves, Steve, rather than on the times when the people we are engaged in arguing with fall into the trap of misunderstanding or mis-stating our views.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Janie
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:50 PM

Steve, this is strictly in the fwiw department.

Moral judgments are not about science or evidence. They are about values, beliefs, paradigms shaped by life experience, social learning, culture, and emotion. Human beings make moral judgments.

You are human. You are making many, many moral judgments. That is fine. We humans all do that. I simply invite you to recognize that moral judgment is not based on objective science, and the fact that you are a scientist does not exempt you from being human.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:56 PM

Good solid points Janie.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 10:13 PM

"Why?"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 10:37 PM

Rebellious subjects, enemies to peace,
Profaners of this neighbour-stained steel,--
Will they not hear? What, ho! you men, you beasts,
That quench the fire of your pernicious rage
With purple fountains issuing from your veins,
On pain of torture, from those bloody hands
Throw your mistemper'd weapons to the ground,
And hear the sentence of your moved prince.
Three civil brawls, bred of an airy word,
By thee, old Capulet, and Montague,
Have thrice disturb'd the quiet of our streets,
And made Verona's ancient citizens
Cast by their grave beseeming ornaments,
To wield old partisans, in hands as old,
Canker'd with peace, to part your canker'd hate:
If ever you disturb our streets again,
Your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 10:51 PM

"I see that there ere are some errors in logic in Steve's last post, that are likely evident to many. But, I see little purpose in pointing them out, or getting into a "pissing match" over such. "

Good point. If one points out the flaws in his logic, he accuse one of hating all atheists. :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 03:20 AM

The idea that all views are of equal validity is idiotic.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 03:43 AM

Any chance of signing up for a longer voyage? We've missed your agenda led pop at anybody who doesn't cuddle the little baby Jesus.

Bridge. Fully agree, except the right to express a view is equal, and the reaction is the test of the validity.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 04:09 AM

Hence I react!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 04:10 AM

And 200


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 04:47 AM

I agree with Rapparee....No opinion is "contemptuous" if it can be backed by a logical argument.
Shouting, Racism, homophobia or any other words of contempt is not a rebuttal.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 05:18 AM

We are very fortunate that this little forum is full of intelligent people....probably brought here by a common love of traditional music.

We should use this area of the forum to intelligently explore different ideas unconstrained by "political" influences

If not we end up like facebook or twitter with everyone screaming their political stances at one another.....its too boring!
Equality,Freedom, Democracy as we know them, are patently not above debate.
At one time we had a rule about personal attacks on other members..why has it been abandoned?

Cursing directly at other members should be discouraged by everyone, not only the mods, I dont like it and its obvious a huge number of other members dont like it either.
Trying to suppress the opinions of other members presented in a logical manner, by personal abuse or intimidation, should also be ruled out of order.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:07 AM

All views, as Richard said, are not equally valid. I should like to make the distinction between holding a view that is just wacky and holding that wacky view and wanting the whole world to adhere to it. Personally, I regard any view that involves the existence of a deity as irrational. Wacky if you like. Whether or not you are ever able to be persuaded away from that view is up to you. That's entirely respectable. What is not respectable is telling people that you hold the truth, making your children go to mass or religious instruction or telling scientists that they are wrong about the origins of everything without any evidence of your own. The trouble is, these things are so deeply ingrained due to religion successfully making itself the world's default setting that it looks intemperate when some little voice pipes up to oppose them. Look at the example of herding children to Sunday Mass. What more benign family occasion could there be? You get nicely dressed and you meet other members of your community in a friendly and sociable setting, away from the daily grind. Very nice! But, inside that church, every prayer said, every hymn sung and every piece of the liturgy is replete with certainty about a God for whom there is not a scrap of evidence. That is at the heart of what you are really exposing your children to. As a responsible and loving parent you try to get the best school for your kids where the education is second to none. You want your children to come away with the the vital life skills of questioning what they are told, wanting knowledge and knowing how to get it. Yet you allow this big hole to appear in all that in which you expect them to accept the bogus certainties of your faith without question (try interrupting the priest to ask how he knows what he's asserting!). It doesn't matter how nice a fellow you are, that simply can't be right. It might look valid and respectable but that's because religion has had thousands of years to apply this benign patina to cover the nefarious activities such as homophobia, misogyny, fear of science and religious bigotry which lie just beneath the surface in most major religions. The respectable position would be to privately practise your faith, tell your children what you're up to and why, and let them decide what to do about it for themselves when they are adults. But, for some reason, this decent and reasonable path is viewed with horror. Janie, I have no quibble as to what values, beliefs or paradigms shape the thinking of individuals and I'm not making any moral judgements about them. Holding beliefs, even delusions, is the inalienable right of everyone. If how you act on those beliefs, treating them as certainties when they are not, impinges on other people, then that's a different matter altogether, and that's where respectability ends, no matter how benign the external appearance.

Ed, do tell me where my logic failed in that post.

McGrath, if I misrepresent someone in a post I expect to be pulled up for it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:34 AM

That's my view too - that a privately held faith is totally up to the individual - and I think that sharing stuff about your faith with others on a level playing field with no power dynamics coming into play is fine too. But a line is stepped over when an element of compulsion creeps in - on the part of the individual or institutions - "I believe this so as a result you will do that". But for some reason when you point out this simple notion the sky falls in.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:41 AM

Having said that I think on one level all views are equally valid - insofar as everyone tends to think their own views are essentially correct. Whether there is hard evidence that a particular view is objectively wrong is usually neither here nor there to the holder of that view.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:48 AM

Some fundamental facts about threads in public forums (as opposed to online chats) are often not sufficiently taken into account:
  • they can be read by everybody for decades;
  • they will normally be read from the top to the bottom;
  • readers will thus be more attentive at the top;
  • many will lose interest midway.
  • Therefore, there is no point in repeating one's statements in reply to malicious misrepresentation - attentive readers will have detected the discrepancy themselves, the others will be further bored;
  • and it is largely irrelevant who has the last word and declares himself "winner" at the end.
  • Even if a poster deserves an attack, the attackers must be very careful to avoid damaging their own reputation. Make sure that all readers know the reason for your moral judgment.
The best idea is to state one's opinion concisely and comprehensively in one's first post, and let the readers judge if other opinions follow. Only respond if new aspects arise, or if you fear serious misunderstandings. If you feel bad-tempered or otherwise impaired, just wait with your post for a couple of hours. Before posting anything, read it with the eyes of a stranger. Impossible? No, quite easy in 95% of all cases. Don't content yourself with 50%.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:04 AM

"The idea that all views are of equal validity is idiotic."

I suspect that this is something where there is general agreement. There might of course be differences about the implications to be drawn from it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:19 AM

Sometimes these things are not matters for moral judgement. The question of abortion is an entirely practical one as far as I'm concerned, for example. The only reason we have an anti-abortion movement is that abortion has always existed. The so-called pro-lifers have turned, nefariously in my view, a medical and practical issue into a bogus moral matter, and they employ all the dishonest tactics to make it appear so, particularly with regard to their use of emotional language and the hectoring of vulnerable women. Do I have evidence for this? Why, yes: nothing the anti-abortion lobby does ever actually reduces abortion. In fact, quite often the anti-abortionists also rail against the very measures that would cut the numbers. Think of Mother Teresa, queen of all anti-abortionists, preaching that ignorance is a virtue and her Church teaching that contraception is wrong. The way to cut the numbers is glaringly obvious: education. I won't blather on again about my views on that. The same applies to Akenaton's disingenuous pleadings over his homophobic ranting about disease among gay people. It is a purely practical issue. The answer lies in education. It always does. But he ignored me when I made that case and he now tells me it was because I didn't know what I was talking about! Nothing as suspect as someone with an agenda...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:26 AM

That's my view too - that a privately held faith is totally up to the individual - and I think that sharing stuff about your faith with others on a level playing field with no power dynamics coming into play is fine too.

That's well put, with an economy of words I can only aspire to! ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 08:03 AM

It's fine until you are doorstepped by a Mormon or Xtian "Scientist" and politeness inhibits your slamming the door on their nonsense. It's fine until you go to a "folk club" and find every song one bloke does expects you to be joining in yelling "Halleluja". It's fine until (etc, etc, etc). In short - No it's not fine. You wave your cock about, you mostly get arrested. You wave your religion about, you mostly don't. Level playing field, what level playing field?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 09:11 AM

If you control the door you have the power. The inhibiting factors are manageable and overcomeable for many people via evidence-based approaches such as CBT. If you're too polite to close the door on Mormons, I'd suggest the problem is going to be debilitating in other areas of life. Meanwhile, if the hallelujah bloke is offensive to thine ears, cut them off. Or short of that, go to the bar when he plays or at least refrain from joining in. None of these things will destroy us.

There is a level playing field in some circumstances, not in others. Sometimes you have to use whatever tools are available to you to make sure it is as level as you can make it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 09:15 AM

By the way, to pick up on an earlier part of the conversation. Bobert, I wasn't suggesting it's ok for non-musicians (or musicians for that matter) to come to Mudcat to cause trouble. I was just suggesting that not all of us who love folk music of various types are musicians. I probably post upstairs more than downstairs, but I'd hate to have to stop posting just because I can't bash out more than a few basic chords...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket musing
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 12:48 PM

If you wave your cock about and get arrested you are doing it wrong Bridge. Most of us get begging letters....

People wave their religion around when they feel we all have to be as them. The ones who do so have no concept of how annoying they are, as they have a mission to save heathen bastards like me and embarrass people who are comfortable with their faith and see no need to try and convince anybody.

And don't get me started about banjo players...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 01:20 PM

Steve, I dont think many would agree that the issue of abortion is simply a medical and practical matter.

The creation of life should always be taken seriously.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket sans moral dimensions
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 01:30 PM

So should the preservation


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 01:50 PM

(a side point about definitions... "valid" is a word that has been so often used in widely varying ways that most don't even realize that it really ought to be used in fairly technical ways ...in legal documents ..."a valid title" ...or in logic to mean a conclusion which follows from certain premises. Thus, it is possible to have a 'valid' argument which is totally false.)

Valid shouldn't be used to just mean 'okay' or 'acceptable'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 02:17 PM

Of course Ian, IF there are two lives at risk.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket not wanting to bog down
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 03:08 PM

The moral debate, which I leave to others and genuinely don't feel I have a position on is when a multiplication of cells becomes a tenable life.

The medical profession debate the word tenable and those with a moral aspect to offer debate the word life.

Having been involved in the nationwide unannounced inspection week of all England's registered termination facilities a couple of years ago, I am at one with the report published from our work that said regardless of other debates, The Abortion Act 1968 requires serious review with regard to consent and second medical opinion. The quality patients receive was similar to any other service, but the ambiguity the act gives can be construed too widely.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 03:26 PM

Perhaps the figures for abortion where the mothers life is at risk, could be compared to abortion for other reasons.

I have no knowledge of such figures, but personally I dont think abortion for the sake of convenience should be legal.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 05:00 PM

" I won't blather on again about my views on that."

No?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 05:37 PM

I don't believe that women should be subservient to anyone - certainly not to an accumulation of cells.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 05:40 PM

We are all an accumulation of cells Richard.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 05:46 PM

I can if you want me to, McGrath. If you have nothing to say, don't say it, old chap.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 05:57 PM

Surely the "scientific" answer as to when life begins, is the moment the sperm penetrates the egg?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:12 PM

Steve, I dont think many would agree that the issue of abortion is simply a medical and practical matter.

The creation of life should always be taken seriously.


There is no creation of life any more than there is creation of anything else. Life is a continuum and has been for 3.5 billion years. You see, what you're trying to do here is use fine words to legitimise some notion you espouse. Life on earth may be wonderful but it is also a mundane and commonplace thing. There is nothing about life that is more sacred than anything else that's wonderful about the universe. The biggest of all wasters of life is God. 99.9999% of "created" organisms bite the dust before they see the light of day, and 99.999% of those who do make it struggle with competition, disease, famine and ruthless predation. It's quite clear that God takes life far less seriously than even the worst human being. Stalin and Hitler had nothing on God when it comes to wasting life.

As for abortion, well it's always been with us. The world we live in is still basically one in which men tend to have their wicked way with women. Therefore women, as ever, have needed to shed their unwanted foetuses. There is an anti-abortion movement, led by religion, that is a reaction to this. But the anti-abortion movement (including the Catholic Church) does not want to see a reduction in abortions. If they did, they would espouse the need for free contraception, contraception advice and good education for relationships in schools. But they don't want any of this. A reduction in abortion numbers would emasculate the anti-abortion movement and loosen the grip of the Catholic Church on women. That would never do (if you don't believe me, research the teachings of Mother Teresa, who preached ignorance as a virtue and who will, undoubtedly, soon be sainted). Good education for personal relationships that helps both boys and girls to respect themselves and each other, along with free supply of and free advice on contraception, would reduce the abortion numbers drastically. It's a question of training and funding. That's a practical matter. Leave your bloody "morals" at the door before you come in. They just get in the way.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:29 PM

"Surely the "scientific" answer as to when life begins, is the moment the sperm penetrates the egg?"

Perhaps...but that is not really the issue that most who oppose abortion are concerned with. There is the usually unspoken assumption that some sort of 'soul' enters that Morula. This is a religious assumption which not everyone agrees with. There is a secondary issue about when that collection of cells becomes a 'human' and can survive outside the womb. Even then, there are VERY complex issues which depend on medical facts and culture.

You want one? Read about triploid. I have firsthand experience with that one.

You cannot reduce the answer to the 'morality' of these things in any simple way!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:34 PM

The moral debate, which I leave to others and genuinely don't feel I have a position on is when a multiplication of cells becomes a tenable life.

It's a typical and lamentable example of how we've allowed moralisers to define the argument. We can, and do, argue 'til we're blue in the face about "when life actually begins" (ake's at it again on this thread, I see). But it is a pointless argument without end. For years now I've refused to engage with it. Even if we could get a definition that we could all agree with (you'll see winged piggies overhead the same day), it would not alter the abortion debate one jot. Big religion loves to ride on the wave of a two thousand-year-old default. Well abortion has been around for much longer than that. Women having abortions has been the default for centuries. It's a very bad thing and we, as civilised human beings, women and men alike, need to address it. But if we fail to address it purely as a practical matter we will inevitably lapse into misogyny. I'll talk about this with people of good will who leave their morals at the door. All the rest are misogynistic scoundrels, and I don't mind telling 'em so. "Pro-life"? Don't make me laugh.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:38 PM

You cannot reduce the answer to the 'morality' of these things in any simple way!

And worse, if you try, you lose the debate, which never belonged on their side anyway.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:55 PM

I'm given to snort at the expression "Pro-Life."

I've known too blasted many "Pro-Lifers" who are rabidly opposed to abortion, and often birth control as well, who don't give a don't give a bloody damn what happens to mother and baby after the baby is born.

"Pro-Lifers" that I've met have mostly been very Right-Wing and often into fundamentalist religions as well, and while adamantly opposed to abortion and birth control, are also opposed to any social programs such as welfare or social security.

"Get 'em born, then let 'em starve," seems to be their modus operandi.

PTUI!!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: kendall
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:22 PM

I miss the old mudcat


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:23 PM

Pro-Lifers want to strip Food Stamps which are used to feed babies born to poor people...

Pro-Lifers want to end public education so that baby will grow up without the skills to get a job, end up on the wrong side of the law and then incarcerated...

Pro-Lifers are for the death penalty...

Exactly where is the "pro" in their pro-life world views???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:24 PM

Most of the aNTI CHOICE typesI've seen are:
1. Men
2. Women past child bearing age
3. Women too ugly to get laid.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:50 PM

I could well have plenty to say, on all kinds of topics, but I don't think this thread is the right place for it. And if that was an implication of the words of Steve which I quoted, I wholly concur.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:54 PM

I agree, McG...

My bad for getting sucked into a sidebar...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Janie
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:59 PM

Thanks Bill D. for your remarks about the usage of the term validity. I couldn't figure out how to say it in less than 3 paragraphs.

If I invalidate a person because of their ideas, I am making what amounts to a moral judgment about that person. I am conveying that person has less intrinsic value than do I or do others whose ideas and views I find less objectionable. I am implicitly communicating that people who don't think like me are worth less than people who do think like me. I am implying they have less right to exist and be than do I.

Whether I believe that or not, that is the message I am conveying.

There are people I deeply dislike and don't have much respect for. That doesn't make me better than them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 08:14 PM

I don't invalidate people but I know when it's time to shake the dust off my robe when people stalk me and are obsessed with me...

Yeah, I am very passionate about my views/values and I attract a lot of people who see me as some kind of dogmatic person who they need to obsess over...

I have tried to live with them and be respectful but there is a point when you become a center of someone else's obsession that you just have to cut them loose... It's not good for them and not too much fun for me, either...

Most people here know the people who have obsessed on me over the years... It's not a secret... I even started a thread about being stalked...

This discussion is about "boundaries"... Stalking and obsessing steps way over that line...

Yeah, I get torqued at these people... I mean, I see no reason for anyone to go 100 posts in a row that attacks "Bobert"...

I apologize to the Mudcat community, in general, for the times when I have had enough of these people and "go off"...

Believe me, I'd rather just have a discussion without these people's issues...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 08:21 PM

Well, Bobert and McGrath, I could apologise for raising controversial issues in this thread that might appear not to belong. But I was simply trying to show where the bounds of respectability are in discussions. I used abortion and religious faith as examples where there should be clear demarcation between your views and the enforcement of your views. Having views that we can fearleesly espouse is one of the greatest achievements of the free world. What we're talking about here, though, is the manner in which you force those views on other people.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 08:33 PM

I'm okay with it, Steve... I forget sometimes what the thread is about and just respond to the last few posts...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 09:29 PM

I agree with what Bobert said. I have been (and am still) in a similar position, and have a distinct aversion to being followed from thread to thread and insulted and lied about.

After so much, it's pretty hard not to lash back.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 02:37 AM

Steve. I hear you but I don't think it lamentable to not have a view on the point a life begins. It would be subjective to say the least. Enough of those views in the system already.

No. The moral argument I would and have had to discuss is vulnerability of young women, the popularity of termination as a contraception in the social sense and issue of having a service that can be readily accessed but not easily abused.

Ireland has recently woke up to a high profile example of what happens when polarised views become the society norm. On the other end of the scale, in rural parts of China, WHO found babies being aborted at the point of birth by injecting formaldehyde into the skull of a crowning baby.

If ever a subject needed a middle ground to remain the norm, this is it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 04:36 AM

The reason I mentioned science in the context of "beginning of life" is that Steve seems to be rather inconsistent in his use of science as a benchmark.

If we carry on down the road of viewing life as merely dispensable, either through war or abortion, we really are heading for "hell in a handcart"

There are no more simple issues than there are good songs these days, hense we should be prepared to debate all views whether we find them "obnoxious" or "hypocritical"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 05:05 AM

I won't debate the issue of the point at which human life begins because it is not a debate that will ever, in a million years, get us anything like close to consensus and I've banged my head against a brick wall too many times on that one. I also won't let myself get sucked into a debate about abortion time limits. Inevitably, that one gets my goat because of the sheer dishonesty of the anti-abortion lobby in campaigning to have it shortened, when they really ought to be taking the position of having it banned altogether if that's what they really think. Playing tactics of that sort with abortion is disgraceful. Of course, there is a discussion to be had about time limits, but I'm not joining in with it if those evangelical scumbags start sticking their oar in. Yes there are revolting practices surrounding abortion and I'll face up to that. But let's not forget that many of those revolting practices involve ignorance and poverty and knitting needles and you can make up as many laws as you like and preach morals at women until the bloody cows come home and you will always have those. More so if the laws are toughened, a dilemma never confronted by the anti-abortion brigade. The answer lies in education, especially of boys and men, free contraception and driving out discrimination against girls and women wherever it arises. Easy to say, I know, but read my lips: unless we address that, abortion will continue to be rife. Moralising popes and nuns, preachers of abstinence and dealers in ignorance are the champions of abortion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 06:24 AM

""Steve...I know you're a decent guy, and I more or less agree with you MOST of the time, but, in your heart do you not think that as a species, we have forgotten much more of real value than we will ever learn through science and technology?""

Is it OK to call someone a luddite?

It may not have occurred to you Ake, but pretty soon we are going to need to spread out to other worlds, as we have used up most of the resources of this one.

Any such migration will require technology a quantum leap ahead of anything we have now, and our research into the origins of the universe just might supply the answers.

I don't believe that standing still and waiting for God to provide is going to help in the slightest, and neither do you.

Or does your interest in the human race not extend to those you leave behind?

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 06:43 AM

Why don't you guys start a thread on the abortion issue? It seems like you all have a lot to say. I have a lot to say about it myself. I'd start one but I'm not going to start any more threads. I don't seem to have the knack for it.

GUEST, I didn't find your remark particularly relevant, misogynist more like.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 06:46 AM

If we carry on down the road of viewing life as merely dispensable, either through war or abortion, we really are heading for "hell in a handcart"

There ya go. Exactement the kind of misrepresentation I rail against. That is not my view of life, and I've posted enough times of the wonderful diversity, beauty and complexity of life on earth for you to know that. Life on Earth is that way exactly because of the struggle for existence, including competition for eggs by billions of sperms, predation, starvation and disease. That is a fact and is regardless of my personal take or my cynical (and tongue-in cheek) take on God's attitude to life. I also note, in the sentence above, the sneaky inclusion of a bit of false (or at least very debatable) equivalence. A nice tactic of the kind prevalent among anti-abortionists and not one to further the discussion in any constructive way.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 06:54 AM

Why don't you guys start a thread on the abortion issue? It seems like you all have a lot to say. I have a lot to say about it myself. I'd start one but I'm not going to start any more threads. I don't seem to have the knack for it.

Yeah, my fault I suppose. It was supposed to be a shining example of how people can step over the line of respectability and respectfulness and now it's taken on a life of its own. But I'll tell you what. We're discussing it within a context of trying to behave ourselves. Not too uncivilised so far. Start yet another thread on abortion and the sound of yawns will be rapidly superseded by the sound of shit hitting fans. :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 07:04 AM

""Is there an assumption that to be part of Mudcat you have to be a musician? I thought it was about being interested in folk and/or blues, not being able to play...""

No such assumption S C!

I think Bobert just found the wrong word in a moment's inattention.

I'm certain he meant ALL Folkies.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 07:45 AM

I dont mind you calling me a Luddite Don....its a bit of a compliment the way I see things.

Regarding life on Earth, I am absolutely CERTAIN in mind that we will never colonise the galaxy,that would be a long term project and humans hate long term projects....they cant even think forward a couple of decades, they prefer to let things happen TO them.

No I'm quite sure that when we have poisoned this planet, divised ever more horrific Frankenstein science and constructed enough obscene viruses and bacteria, humanity will accomplish the finest of its achievements....self destruction.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 07:45 AM

Ah, thanks Don! That's what I was hoping...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 08:00 AM

""I have no knowledge of such figures, but personally I dont think abortion for the sake of convenience should be legal.""

So what about abortion when the pregnancy is the result either of rape, or the refusal of the man to either use contraceptives or abstain?

It strikes me that the number of women who decide to terminate for convenience is a tiny proportion of the whole, given the physical amd emotional stress of the procedure.

I don't believe that women take the denial of their most natural function as lightly as some men would like to believe.

Like you, I have no figures, but I believe that women have the right to decide for themselves.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 09:45 AM

I agree with that, Don. I'd also add that another tactic of the anti-abortion brigade is to look for extreme examples of bad practice at the periphery and go large with them. The more horror the better. Convenience-abortions and late abortions are grist to their mill, despite their representing a tiny proportion of the overall abortion numbers. They are bad things all right and there is a debate to be had, but minority rogue practices at the margins should not be used as a big stick to beat all women who need abortions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 09:45 AM

Damn and blast! There I go agreeing with Don again!

And an example of the sort of stuff that merits no respect at all is Ding-Dong's thread about Democrats wanting to disarm Blacks. Stupid and malicious.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: kendall
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 09:48 AM

Don, not to mention the cost.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 01:58 PM

I see I was right to be a bit sceptical about the words I quoted from you, Steve...

But your point that the original topic for this thread might be a way of keeping discussions relatively courteous (given the occasional "scumbag" and stuff like that) does have some merit. Which would suggest it then might drift on to other issues where tempers flare, such as gun control, Israel/Palestine, Irish history, and quite a host more. Turning into a version of the "Mother of All Threads", but with a focus on controversy. And going round in perpetual circles.

I don't really think so. But perhaps there'd be something to be said for it being possible to set up a thread about a controversial subject with predetermined different moderating ground rules from the rest of the Mudcat.

No swearing, no spitting, no gouging of eyes... Threads that would be guaranteed to stay respectful, without interfering with the hurly burly in the threads generally which would continue to be more relaxed about that. (In fact you could have another set of threads which would be predetermined to go to the other extreme, and only the sickos would go there...)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 02:33 PM

Well it's working so far. And scumbags did not refer to people posting here. Incidentally, I haven't got time to do all the processing required to comprehend your point about your quote from my post, etc. You do have this somewhat enigmatic man-o'-few-words way of putting things at times that defeats me unless I do about ten minutes' hard labour. Just thought I'd mention it. I have tunes to play on Fridays, you know.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 05:14 PM

My point was that I was sceptical about you being able to keep to the promise "I won't blather on again about my views on that."

Of course I suppose there is a possible, or at least an arguable, ambiguity in the precise meaning of word "blather" in this context...

But playing tunes is more sensible than arguing about stuff like that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 06:45 PM

And I thought the promise (in this thread) made a lot of sense.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 07:32 PM

""The more horror the better.""

Well Steve, if it's horror they want, they'll be hard put to beat the recent incident in Ireland, in which a fully equipped and qualified surgical team, stood and watched a woman die, because they would not terminate the non viable foetus which was poisoning and killing her.

That, IMNSHO, is a greater obscenity than any they have yet produced.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 07:43 PM

Well here's my main thought on abortion. Men don't get a vote. But I can't pretend to have come up with that stroke of genius on my own. Several years ago, I asked my Renn Faire friend Ed, a pagan, what his opinion on the issue was. He told me that he didn't have an opinion and that women's reproductive health as a whole is an area that should be decided by women only, collectively, and men should be excluded. I shared Ed's opinion with my mother and she agreed completely. And every time I state this to another woman, most times she is up to it, like, when do we get started?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Janie
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 07:53 PM

The gist of the OP statement (imo.)   

I know that often controversial posts can lead to some strong and passionate opinions, and sometimes we end up letting our negative emotions take us to a place where we might 'over-do' our zeal.

Rather than risking all the discussion becoming academic and flat, I'd like to suggest that we all agree on one 'boundary' statement, which is that we will not accept one person consistently calling another person a name that is meant to demean them.


Personalities. Everybody's got one. I am heartened in many ways by the evolution in the way several of the frequent posters to this thread, many of whom are frequent posters to threads that rapidly devolve, appear to be modifying how they communicate, apparently "listening" and becoming more mindful and less demeaning of the personhood of the people with whom they disagree.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 08:03 PM

Ye need "smeddum" tae be richt coorse....or richt kind......LGG.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 08:10 PM

I suspect that the suggestion that laws about abortion should be decided exclusively by women would be welcomed by a lot of critics of current legislation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 08:18 PM

My point was that I was sceptical about you being able to keep to the promise "I won't blather on again about my views on that."

Gosh no, You'll never get anyone on the interwebby thingie to stick to "promises" made in threads! One only has to observe the people who say they're so disgusted, etc., that they're outta here. Invariably, they're back within hours (know what I mean, Wacko? :-) ) When I said that, I didn't realise I'd have to enlarge on it. One goeth with the floweth, innit!

Good tunes tonight, by the way - and lotsa free beer!


Just don't say it...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 08:26 PM

Well I don't think the laws on abortion should be decided just by women - because I don't think we need that many laws on abortion in the first place. We need education, not laws. I look forward to the day when education for relationships has been so good that abortion clinics, freely available to all women, will be having to make people redundant due to lack of demand. In the interim, laws on abortion should be formulated by people of good will of both genders and none. I would be struggling to see how anyone from a religion of any kind could possibly qualify as one of those law-makers.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 09:43 PM

See? That's the problem. You'd have to get the men to agree first.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 04:38 AM

I'm afraid Janie, some people just cant help themselves.
Steve's just done it in the form of a joke, others will do it in anger, to make themselves feel better .....but most often, to cover gaping holes in their stance on particular issues.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 07:14 AM

Done what in the form of a joke?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 07:22 AM

Ah, you mean I covered up some big gaping hole somewhere because I called Wacko Wacko? How's that work, then, ake?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 07:56 AM

No Steve, I think you were doing it as a joke, but addressing Jack as you continually do, does not open the door to constructive debate.

You and I disagree about several things, but we dont address our post to one another in a manner which suggests mental deficiency?

Jack and I always argue about something or other, but I have always found him intelligent and civil. Why the need to demean him before even starting into the debate, if not as an undermining tactic?

Ian does the same to me all the time, when I point out that his procedures are not working and that MSM infection rates are still rising rapidly, he does not address the issue, but resorts to personal attacks, accusing me of homophobia, holding my "odious views in contempt", saying I should be ignored by other members and what I say should be regarded as "hate speech"
All this as an alternative to discussing WHY the procedures he supports are not working and what alternatives are available.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Charmion
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 09:23 AM

akenaton, please tell me what you mean by "MSM".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 09:54 AM

I suppose there's a place for insulting or belittling nicknames when it's a question of cutting someone down to size, as a kind of verbal cartoon. But it doesn't belong in a genuine discussion, online any more than face-to-face.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Claire M
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 10:01 AM

Hiya,

I doubt people who are so rude on the Internet would be the same face-to-face. If I should get a nasty comment, (which I have, many a time) I simply leave the website it's on – I've got enough problems w/o adding to them; that's why all my networking is interest-based or not done.

Words like "scoundrel" need to be brought back; they'd be a lot better than the modern equivalent. I prefer "go forth & multiply" – sounds nicer & essentially means the same thing. There are a few people here (housemates, not on Mudcat) I'd like to tell that to!
If someone said to me, "be off w/ you, prithee" I'd just melt.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 10:17 AM

I remember when I took my young son to a football match. Some incident happened, and the insults started flying. My son stood there and bellowed "Buffoons!"

I felt rather proud of him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket spelling it out
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 10:34 AM

Akenaton. You do not have a view. The Nuremberg trials set the precedent that some ideas are beyond human decency. Your enforced testing, profiling and partner testing of gay people as a solution to one particular sexual transmitted disease, partnered with your refusal to even acknowledge that straight people spread them, coupled with your insistence that gay marriage is wrong...

Your views are beneath contempt, and make respectable people wish to wash themselves having been made to read them.

Hopefully, that makes my position clear.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 11:07 AM

Akenaton, I have an aunt who is gay. It might interest you to know that she is very old school. Doesn't believe in gay marriage. She said she is not different to be the same as everyone else. She feels it is a false sense of equality and just plain weird. What she wanted from her life- the unconditional love and acceptance from her family first of all, her friends, society's blessing to be herself- she feels she got. She's not in favor of restructuring society, feels it is unnecessary and probably not a good thing. She believes sexual orientation should be handled by society with discretion until adolescence, meaning no gay marriage and no exposure to homosexuality until it matters.

My aunt is my favorite aunt. She was always the kindest and most sensitive of my aunts. My aunts took turns babysitting us and when it was her turn it was like, "Yay! Gonna be an easy night!" one of my aunts was kinda mean. Not her. She is one out of five girls. My poor grandpa was overrun.

But to make a long story short, Akenaton, I don't automatically categorize you as a hater. Politically incorrect yes, but hater no. Muskrat, don't assume you are defending everyone within a given category. People are individuals. Muskrat, society is not served by making the real homophobes worst nightmares come true. Divisiveness is not where it's at.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 12:46 PM

I'd say there is a moral imperative on everyone to know that they aren't carrying HIV before they embark on any behaviour that might entail passng it on, and a moral right of everyone to know that's true of the other person.

Whether that should be backed up in some legal way is another thing, and probably not - but it is reasonable that anyone who infects someone else with HIV because they hadn't ensured that that wouldn't happen should be liable.

Everyone. In our society it may be predominently gay men who are at risk, but of course that isn't the case in many other places where patterns of behaviour are different.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket saying don't misquote me
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 12:49 PM

He is a hater. Your Aunty has no valid view to not believe in Gay marriage either. Just by being gay doesn't mean your failure to see equality as a right. Views that restrict the legitimate rights of others are not views, they are personality disorder. Full stop.

Views that limit the rights of others when the subject doesn't concern you are very damaging views. I think I am right in saying all Mudcat members are in countries that claim to be democracies, even if we have dim views of how seriously governments see that fact. Democracy means equal stakeholder. If one couple are allowed to marry and not another, you are oppressing people.

Full stop.

If you wish to force people to be medically assessed without consent, or assault as the police call it, you are oppressing people.

Full stop.

Akenaton wishes to have the respect of people when he decries the work done by health and social care in the field of sexual health. He does it by rubbishing the work by stating the size of the task means it is failing. That is a considered opinion, therefore an outrageous lie. He has form on these threads of promoting compulsory testing and sexual partner tracing of a minority of people with sexual transmitted diseases based on their sexual orientation. In the same sentences he calls the recent gay marriage act, that promotes monogamy when you think about it, as a distraction.

A distraction to his solution.

I find his quiet, reasoned approach rather chilling. As someone who has interviewed many patients in forensic care, I find his approach familiar too. No other way of putting it.

If someone wishes to debate the merit of his odious views with him, fine. But me? I shall risk censure if necessary, but can never allow pathetic hatred like that to be normalised, so. Where I see it, I challenge it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 01:41 PM

""Muskrat, don't assume you are defending everyone within a given category. People are individuals. Muskrat,""

Don't you think that your own credibility might be enhanced by learning the difference between an obsolete smoothbore firearm, and a rather smelly small rodent?

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 03:04 PM

It is perfectly possible to object to the linguistic innovation which is involved in redefining marriage to cover a wider range of relationships, without this implying any hostility towards people in single-sex unions. And there are in fact some people in such unions who see the development as a message that they need to assimilate in order to be accepted - which would appear to be the view of SJL's aunt - "She said she is not different to be the same as everyone else."

The world is complicated.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 03:18 PM

Mc Grath, you've got it. May level heads prevail.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 05:51 PM

OK, we'll leave it at that. Muskrat, everything's cool. .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 06:58 PM

No Steve, I think you were doing it as a joke, but addressing Jack as you continually do, does not open the door to constructive debate.

You and I disagree about several things, but we dont address our post to one another in a manner which suggests mental deficiency?

Jack and I always argue about something or other, but I have always found him intelligent and civil. Why the need to demean him before even starting into the debate, if not as an undermining tactic?

Ian does the same to me all the time, when I point out that his procedures are not working and that MSM infection rates are still rising rapidly, he does not address the issue, but resorts to personal attacks, accusing me of homophobia, holding my "odious views in contempt", saying I should be ignored by other members and what I say should be regarded as "hate speech"
All this as an alternative to discussing WHY the procedures he supports are not working and what alternatives are available.


Well, you see, ake, I asked you to justify your assertion that I was leaving a gaping hole in my argument just because I called Wacko Wacko. Thus:

Ah, you mean I covered up some big gaping hole somewhere because I called Wacko Wacko? How's that work, then, ake?

I note with dismay that you choose to post aimless verbiage instead of addressing this point. So, I repeat (sort of). You are not keen on my calling Wacko Wacko. But what exactly is it about that that means I have covered up some big gaping hole somewhere? I note that you have not addressed this point, instead posting a bunch of obscurantist waffle (see above).

Found Wacko intelligent and civil, huh? What a lovely fellow you quite possibly are, but one does have to doubt your judgement on this one. Doubt? Nah, bollocks. It's rubbish!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 08:01 PM

"Can't we all just get along" (Rodney King)...

But seriously... This thread wasn't supposed to turn into yet another pissing contest...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 08:19 PM

Guest SJL.....Your aunt sounds a lovely and very very sensible person.
She conveys my feelings on homosexuality almost exactly.
My stance against homosexual "marriage" has always been, as Ian rightly says, about health statistics and how the "marriage" issue has been used as a distraction by activists....many of whom are not homosexual themselves.
There are several valid arguments against same sex marriage, but I have heard nothing from the pro "gay marriage" activist except the myth of "equality".....An etherial concept which does not and will never exist under our present socio/economic system.
Your aunt makes excellent points on "false equality" and "unnecessary reconstruction of society"....please give her my best wishes.


You are correct and Ian is wrong, I am no hater, I cannot even bring myself to hate someone who describes me to my fellow members in such terms.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 08:28 PM

I'd think the point being made was that belittling nicknames in a discussion divert from the real issues. And that kind of thing is very often used as a way of skating round points that deserve to be addressed - and that happens often in both directions, with the other person responding to the irrelevancies instead of the issues.

I'm pleased to see that, perhaps with a few exceptions this thread hasn't spun into a shouting match. That's not really what the Mudcat is about. (For a reminder of what is central to this place I suggest opening up the current threads about a member who recently died, katlaughing.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 08:36 PM

Sorry Charmion, I missed your post, MSM is a term coined by the sexual health agencies ("men who have sex with men") basically male homosexuals and bi-sexual males.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 08:39 PM

Mr McGrath....agree 100%....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 10:24 PM

Oh, gee, I had some friends who started a company and named it "MSM, Inc." That was in 1980, so I guess it didn't affect them.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Ian Mather
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 03:12 AM

I have read the sage and reasonable discussion but on reflection, I still see no reason to change my stance. As it is a stance, I suppose it is better posting it as me not the silly moniker Musket.

Gay people make up a very small percentage of the population of The UK so the efforts made in trying to stigmatise them and deny them the same rights as other voting tax paying contributors to society isn't a reflection on Gay issues, it is a reflection on the task still ahead in creating a just and decent society.

So addressing this thread. Reinforcing boundaries, assuming that is a good idea in principle, should perhaps focus on perpetrators of boundary breakers, however softly spoken as well as those like me who react.

Back when I used to investigate lapses in the quality and safety of health and social care, my favourite retort to complacent management of poor care was "to permit is to promote. " I see parallels here, hence not letting go, not wishing to assume condoning through not challenging.

Sorry if it sounds boorish but not sorry for making a stance. It isn't enough to like the music of Tom Paxton, Si Khan, Vin Garbutt etc etc. Sometimes you have to ask if you like the words.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 03:35 AM

Wannabee Pharoah has form on hating minorities. Not just homosexual ones. It is quite alarming to see the usually perceptive McGrath prepared to extend civility to such an one.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 04:55 AM

""All this as an alternative to discussing WHY the procedures he supports are not working and what alternatives are available.""

Could it be because those procedures have worked an are working, to the extent that HIV, while not YET curable is, according to the medical profession, reduced to the level of a manageable condition which should cause no significant decrease in life expectancy?

You have made much of your concern for those Gay men who are at risk.

Yet, when asked whether your objections would cease if HIV were eradicated, youresponded that there are other reasons.

Why should anybody believe your protestations when you don't believe them yourself?

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 05:20 AM

I'm Sorry Richard, but I rarely see you debate anything on this forum, so I doubt that you are the one to give Mr McGrath advice on "perception"

You make accusations, which you are never willing to explain, then vanish from our screens...Just saying that I "have form on hating minorities" is not good enough and amounts to a repition of Ians claim that I "hate" everything and everybody.

Actually I am a cheerful and outgoing guy in real life, I enjoy my sport, my music and frequent discussion on any subject....I love this group of people and think myself fortunate to have stumbled on Mudcat so many years ago.
I look on you all as friends, even those who disagree with me most vehemently.....tho' I am especially fond of the Americans and Canadians, who appear to be without the artifice and cynicism of we from the UK.

Larry, thank you for starting this thread, I think you may have initiated a sea change for the better in this forum.....AKE.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 08:43 AM

It is always right to extend civility to others. That applies whatever you think of their opinions or behaviour.

There's a French family comedy series that was on a couple of months ago on a French channel. (Fais pas çi , fais pas ça - if you get a chance to see it that sometime I recommend it). At one point one of the families were entertaining someone, and in the curse of the visit she started coming out with the kind of racist views you often find among "nice" people, who assume you feel the same as they do.

There's a dilemma in such situations - do you flare up and denounce the views, or stay silent and effectively collude. But what the host does is neither. He politely says to the viisitor something on the lines of "You should be aware madam that you are on enemy territory", and indicates that she should leave without delay.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 09:34 AM

I agree Mc G. It's like quitting any bad habit. At first you think, "What will I do without this or that familiar vice?" As it turns out, you do fine.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 11:14 AM

On the subject of hated minorities, I might logically claim to be a minority of one, whom Akenaton has decided to hate, and therefore to treat as though he doesn't exist, IMO, as rude and pig ignorant as name calling, if not more so.

Or it might be that he has nothing to offer in the way of an answer, in the face of evidence from those who might be supposed to know more than he, namely the medical profession.

Who knows?......If he doesn't answer, he is safe from the ignominy of having to admit being wrong!

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 11:34 AM

Kevin, I too have had the occasional accursed visit. :)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 11:51 AM

Oh, congratulations, Wannabee Pharaoh, you've just proved you don't won't or can't read.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 12:31 PM

Don, I wasn't ignoring you, but I thought we had all agreed to leave specific issues out of this thread from now on?
I'm always happy to debate, as long as the debate is honest and civil.
As I said earlier there are quite a few valid arguments against the redefinition of marriage.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 01:25 PM

I suppose everyone is in one sense a minority of one, potentially subject to hate and rejection by others.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 01:31 PM

300 :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 01:36 PM

...oh, and in keeping with the spirit of the thread.

Fuck you

:D tG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,musket on train from test match
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 01:56 PM

Nobody agreed to save you your embarrassment. In fact Steve Shaw said as much and I totally ignored your request as it is not in the gift of those posting hitherto to say what comes next.

Are you going to answer the points raised by others, not, you will notice just me? Will you ignore difficult questions or take this opportunity to see reason and like many of us, allow your outlook to be influenced by others on the forum?

Your move.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 02:18 PM

So we have this thread, which seems to be completely unobjectionable. People would be stumbling all over themselves to vie with each other in agreeing with the premise.

I figure they could take care of that in , say, 50 postings.

But all of a sudden, it's over 300 postings.

What? I say.   There must be an argument somewhere.

Bingo.

Situation normal.

The best things in life don't change.    Dewar's whiskey (I think it was) and Mudcat arguments.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 03:03 PM

"There must be an argument somewhere"

I get a feeling that that is rather what is wanted by some...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Larry the Radio Guy
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 03:09 PM

What I'm enjoying about this thread is that as we 'drift', we keep coming back to thinking about boundaries. I don't have a huge problem w. the violation of boundaries---it's a normal part of the human condition, particularly since 'boundaries' by definition are flexible and easily penetrated.

All we can do is state our own boundaries and call people on it when you feel they are violating them (whether it's through polite and seemingly reasonable conversation that expresses opinions that we feel disrespect certain people (violating their boundaries) or whether it's a violation of 'style'..i.e. swearing, calling people names, adults acting like 6 year olds, etc.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 06:25 PM

Mc Grath, thank you for your exceptional wisdom. A discussion does not have to revolve around polemics. In fact, it's better if it doesn't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 07:15 PM

Don, I wasn't ignoring you, but I thought we had all agreed to leave specific issues out of this thread from now on?

How odd. I don't recall being asked... "All agreed"?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 07:25 PM

We've had lots of threads about the issues that have flared up in this thread, and generally they have spun down into shouting matches between a couple of people, while other contributors have slipped away.

The fact that the focus of this thread is on "respectful boundaries" has seemed to (largely) prevent that. I think there are still some aspects of that which could be usefully explored, and perhaps throw up some ideas for dealing with the discussion of those specific issues of controversy and similar hot potatoes, when they come up in other threads.

The thing that seems to cause difficulty for some is a sense that when faced with views they find intolerable, it is necessary to express this in language that conveys contempt and a wish to offend, and that it impossible to reconcile that with maintaining the forms of courtesy. I'd argue that that is is not true.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 08:00 PM

That is far too simplisitic. "Intolerable" (according to my point of view) and "uninformed, obnoxious, insulting, prejudiced and misrepresenting" are entirely different matters. Entirely. The distinction is well worth learning.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 08:21 PM

I'd disagree. The fact that we see someone's position as "uninformed, obnoxious, insulting, prejudiced and misrepresenting" are reasons we are likely to regard the views as intolerable. Clearly we do not respect the views, but that does not require that we treat the person holding them without respect. We may at the same time despise them for holding them, but that is another matter.

It occurs to me that some people may feel that to treat someone with respect while despising them is somehow dishonest or inauthentic. That is not a view I hold, but perhaps it might be worth considering.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 11:33 PM

I'm with McGrath (for what it's worth).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket sans Ian
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 01:08 AM

Respect is a two way street. Just because you are not the subject of disrespectful views does not mean you need to respect them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:05 AM

I think what Ian a Steve need to understand, is there are hundreds of people in this forum, many do not take part in the discussions, but are happy to read and feel part of the on line community.
It is not all about THEM and what they can tolerate.

Folk should be able to come on here and express reasonable views without being immediately attacked in an aggressive and personal manner.

None of the issues we have been discussing are simple, but some people will condone nothing but their view of the world to be expressed. It is disingenuous to promote the idea that these issues can be solved by adhering to simplistic ideology.
Open and frank discussion of the subjects is what is needed....not an "odium barrier".....that does deserve to remain in the armoury of the facsists.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:14 AM

We would all do well to go back and re-read the obviously heartfelt post by GUEST SJL, concerning her relationship with her aunt and the wisdom contained within.
It would solve many problems for those who find themselves in an ideological straitjacket.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:35 AM

Still disagree. First, it is a tired but still true saw that respect must be earned and is not an automatic "right". Secondly posters of loathsome views must expect to be called on them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,musket being obvious
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:36 AM

Try expressing some reasonable views then, and see what happens.

You may be surprised.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:54 AM

There is the crux of the matter, ake

express reasonable views

Who decides what is reasonable. I, for one, am quite happy to accept what society tells me is reasonable. It is reasonable to enjoy some types of music over other. It is reasonable to express your disgust about how people in power act. It is reasonable to be against the policies of oppressive regimes. It is NOT reasonable to force minorities to undergo intrusive medical procedures. It is not reasonable to differentiate people by colour, creed or sexuality. It is not reasonable to try to force your views on others.

Cheers

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:57 AM

No-one perceives their post to be unreasonable.
If I find a post unreasonable, I will argue against it.
I will say how and why I disagree.

I think that is more conducive to some mutual understanding than slapping on a derogatory label and walking away.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:58 AM

There's an ambiguity in the word respect. How I'd put it is that while it may be true that someone has to earn respect in order for us to feel respect, in all circumstances we have a duty to act with respect towards them.

Feeling respect towards someone is not the same thing as treating them, including addressing them with respect.

The term "reasonable views" is unfortunate here. Whether views are reasonable or not is a separate matter. We may not respect views which. Are unreasonable, but we houkd still treat the person expressing them with respect, even if we do not feel respect towards them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 05:10 AM

I agree McG.

Another problem is assumptions.
"If you hold this view, you must also hold these loathsome views too."

I advocate debating the disagreement and lay of the name-calling and labelling.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 08:49 AM

The Earth is around 6000 years old, all so-called fossil evidence is fake, radio-isotope dating methods are all a big con, Darwin was deluded (even though I've never read his book), all evolutionary biologists are dishonest and in denial of the real truth which is that God created the world and everything in it in one big go, and the Bible is the literal truth. I'm so certain of all this that I support organisations that aggressively promote it, try to abolish the teaching of evolution in schools and diss honest scientists at every turn. In fact, we've been so successful so far that four yanks in ten don't believe in evolution. Adelante! And don't expect me to listen to counter-arguments - my ears are sealed!

Chaps and chapesses, we've all seen this attitude displayed here. So do tell me. What respect do I owe this fellow? What respect has he shown to scientists and educators, and to the unfortunate intended recipients of his nonsense? If his ilk get their way, and millions of children are persuaded of this stuff, is that not abuse? A pack of lies sold as truth? So I'm supposed to be nice to him, to reason with him? We have a chap here who does just that and he's made precisely nil progress with him, and never will. Next suggestion, please!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 10:55 AM

You don't respect the views, fine. You look down on anyone who can hold such views, reasonable. But regardless of that, in my view, there is a duty to behave towards the person, as reflected in any communication with them, respectfully, which overides such feelings. Feelings just don't come into it.

I recognise that this is not how we are likely to behave, but I believe it is the standard towards which we should aim.

The trouble is, online abuse, however justiafied it can sometimes feel, is something which can easily build into something pretty damaging. I think there are rare occasions when it can indeed have a place, but they are as rare as the situations when a blow to the face is the right response.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 11:47 AM

"it is a tired but still true saw that respect must be earned and is not an automatic "right"." ((Richard Bridge).

"while it may be true that someone has to earn respect in order for us to feel respect, in all circumstances we have a duty to act with respect towards them."(McGrath).


Where is it written down in any kind of 'law' that respect must be earned?

Personally, I'd take McGrath's point a step further and say that while feeling respect may not be a 'duty', it's an excellent goal to be able to feel respect for everybody without them having to earn it.   Just because there is a part of everybody that is common to ourselves....and learning to respect that part can then enhance our own self-respect.

Think how the world situation would change if all of us decided to focus on the respect we had for each other.   (which doesn't mean, of course, that we have to agree with them or let them get away with doing things that are harmful).


Here's how I think of it in terms of self-respect. There are things about myself I don't like and want to change. But how can I change them if I don't 'know' what they are.   And how can you really know these things unless I fully understand and embrace it.   

It's this kind of deep understanding and acceptance about myself that allows me to make those important shifts.

And why shouldn't this apply to others as well? If I can turn my abhorence of something or someone into a 'curiosity', I'll come to a much deeper understanding......and I think that's an important step toward facilitating a shift.

So I don't just want to behave with respect (although I think that's a good start). But I want to eventually be able to feel that respect as well.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 11:58 AM

The thing that gets heated discussions really going, is when some 'wannabe relevant activists' starts ennobling, some fringe disability, and/or character flaw in which to hide their guilt about a troubled past..and launder it out in the latest 'political cause d'jour'.
Frankly, "We can forgive those that bore us..we can never forgive those that WE bore." ..and until those 'activists' get their 'absolution', they just get nastier, and nastier...even making stuff up, to get nasty about!..but the fact is, they are both in error, and boring.
I've warned a couple of them, that if you shove me, I'll shove back...and the reason is, a lot of metal cripples hide behind a 'political' cause, dragging people with them.....and as a 'sweet loving guy', I'd just hate to see that happen, unanswered! I, in not calling them out on it, would be guilty of condoning their lying bullshit, misinformation, and laundering of their crap, onto unsuspecting, naive, political leaning, nincompoops..just waiting to latch onto 'something', to make their lives more relevant, than just being the 'center of nothing'!

Respectfully,

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 12:02 PM

Corrected typo..this one is correct..

The thing that gets heated discussions really going, is when some 'wannabe relevant activists' starts ennobling, some fringe disability, and/or character flaw in which to hide their guilt about a troubled past..and launder it out in the latest 'political cause d'jour'.
Frankly, "We can forgive those that bore us..we can never forgive those that WE bore." ..and until those 'activists' get their 'absolution', they just get nastier, and nastier...even making stuff up, to get nasty about!..but the fact is, they are both in error, and boring.
I've warned a couple of them, that if you shove me, I'll shove back...and the reason is, a lot of mental cripples hide behind a 'political' cause, dragging people with them.....and, as a 'sweet loving guy', I'd just hate to see that happen, unanswered! I, in not calling them out on it, would be guilty of condoning their lying bullshit, misinformation, and laundering of their crap, onto unsuspecting, naive, political leaning, nincompoops..just waiting to latch onto 'something', to make their lives more relevant, than just being the 'center of nothing'!

Respectfully,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,The good professor
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 12:55 PM

Woof! Grrrrr. Woof!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 02:08 PM

' The good professor, Constructive discussion, I see....
..and then you 'blame me'!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 02:12 PM

Guest from Sanity makes a very good point and Ian demonstrates why this thread is necessary.
Ian and Steve have political positions and anything which runs contrary to these positions is deemed "unreasonable", "odious" or "contemptible"

Who makes the decision on what is "reasonable" or not?
Regarding the epidemic of sexually transmitted disease amongst male homosexuals, is it not "reasonable" to want that epidemic curtailed or stopped?
Despite what Ian waffles about, the rates of disease are rising steadily and quickly in that one demographic....Ian and Steve both say that homosexuals need more education, less discrimination and stigma.....well that is what they have been getting for the last decade, with NO positive results. Additionally almost all of the aids budget has been directed towards homosexuals, with absolutely no improvement in their infection rates. To me THIS position is totally unreasonable.
They say I am contemptible for suggesting compulsory testing and contact tracing, yet the health agencies are asking for routine testing of all NHS patients within designated areas.....even people from groups which are hardly affected at all by HIV/AIDS.
They know prfectly well the demographic in which the epidemic is centred, yet political correctness demands that all should be tested in designated areas.......Is that "reasonable"?
I write here with the best of intentions regarding health..this is a very serious problem, ignored by many here, and willfully distorted by a few......Dont lecture me about my views, I want to see disease beaten, not turn my back and pretend progress is being made....it isn't.....just read between the lines of the CDC and HPA conclusions for proof.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 02:41 PM

While in our country HIV is more prevalent amoung gay males there are no grounds for seeing that as fixed. It certainly isn't the case in some parts of the world. The only sections of society that can feel really secure are lesbians, celibates and uninfected people in rigorously faithful relationshipa. Some kind of routine testing of everyone else makes a lot of sense. (And all those three exceptions are in fact potentiably permeable categories.)

I'm not at all clear what Guest from Sanity's point actually is. However the use of 'cripples' as an insult makes me doubtful whether that signing off '"Repectfully' can be given too much credence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 02:49 PM

The point I was referring to Mr McGrath, was about people who's agenda determines what is contemptible, odious or unreasonable.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:12 PM

I think these 'fringe disabilities' go through a cycle.   First they're ignored (judged by those who don't understand as being a character flaw), then they're noticed and considered a disability and drug companies come up with strategies to make themselves money and supposedly 'able' those who are judged as 'disabled'.

Then, eventually, we start to recognize that some of those with those seeming disabilities have more abilities then the rest of us.   People with ADHD, Aspergers, other forms of Autism, etc. find ways of accepting and embracing their uniqueness.

And I see much of that same process within mudcat.   How many mudcatters are out there for whom we shift back and forth between contempt and admiration (I know I do)?

Putting people in a category is something we do for ourselves.....to simplify our lives a bit.   But who in their right mind takes these categories or labels seriously?   

There are even times when I am able to transcend my own 'self-righteous prig' category.   

Not too often, though.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:19 PM

Wishing to restrict people for no other reason than the gender of their partner is a political view. A view with chilling precedent but a political view.

I doubt my pointing it out is itself a political view. After all, it isn't on the same level. I don't wish to restrict free speech but I sure will point out when it ironically limits the free choice of others. When it is backed up by misrepresentation of the facts it needs challenging regardless of how odious it is.




Goofus. The good professor made a relevant point. He replied at the same level as your observations. Your inability to understand his point is the point. ...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:31 PM

"...a lot of mental cripples hide behind a 'political' cause, dragging people with them.....and, as a 'sweet loving guy', I'd just hate to see that happen, unanswered! I, in not calling them out on it, would be guilty of condoning their lying bullshit, misinformation, and laundering of their crap, onto unsuspecting, naive, political leaning, nincompoops..just waiting to latch onto 'something', to make their lives more relevant, than just being the 'center of nothing'!"

Oh, yeah. Lots of respect there. (I believe it is called 'flailing'.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:38 PM

I admit I laughed when i read the good professor's post. I understood it.....it reflected my own thoughts about the previous post.

But then......what if he had done that to one of my posts?   hmmmm........    I probably wouldn't have understood it at all, until I took a 'step back'.   But stepping back is scary when you fear you are on the edge of a cliff.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:45 PM

Yeah but Goofus snd the good professor have form. They converse a lot on Mudcat.

The good professor (real name Rio the greyhound) latches onto Goofus because he talks the bollocks the good professor misses since the vet took them away.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:53 PM

The only point I can see in Guest from Sanity's post is that there are some people who he doesn't agree with, and this colours how he reacts to them. I think.

I assume that for all of us our "agenda" will determine what we see as "contemptible, odious or unreasonable".   How we behave towards people who we see as holding such views is quite another matter.

Goofus? That's a kind of saxophone isn't it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:05 PM

I've noticed a regular pattern with many posters on Mudcat where they first insult their opponent and then follow up with two or three very articulate paragraphs stating their viewpoint very intelligently. It's something where you could just clip the preliminary insult right off the top without blunting the actual rebuttal. But I have also found humor in some of this insulting language, usually it wouldn't be something like "stupid idiot" or "liar" or what have you, but in the mocking of another poster's screen name. For example Musket is easily transformed into Muskrat. Because of the way he makes variations on his own handle regularly, what a treasure trove that could be - "Muskrat sans Clue" etc. And when Spaw told us we should all go fuck ourselves, I couldn't help myself, I just howled. At the beginning of this thread, when all the offenders burst forth to accuse one another at once, very comical. Joe's response to that, even more comical. Then you have people like Lighter who can land a zinger that comes across more as uncanny wit than any sort of nastiness. So the idea of setting boundaries comes with a certain amount of ambivalence. I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy some of it. Also, I think for some it is a like a breather from polite society where you must constantly mince words so I suppose that if someone must out with it, I'd rather have that than have them disappear.

And thank you Akenaton for your kind remarks about my aunt.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:08 PM

""How odd. I don't recall being asked... "All agreed"?""

Me too neither! As a cop out from answering the question, it has a certain weak efficacy.

""As I said earlier there are quite a few valid arguments against the redefinition of marriage.""

There are certainly a few arguments which are valid in your opinion Ake, but that isn't quite in sync with the rest of your staunch declarations that you only object to the establishment of long term stable relationships because of the health risks which they would undoubtedly reduce.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:14 PM

""I advocate debating the disagreement and lay of the name-calling and labelling.""

After you Keith!

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Bob Ryszkiewicz
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:19 PM

PISTOLS AT DAWN!...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5Q8AqYLKro

Meeting on the field of honor...the final solution. ;0)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:25 PM

""Just because there is a part of everybody that is common to ourselves....and learning to respect that part can then enhance our own self-respect.""

Very pretty sentiment Larry, but how far do you carry it.

Respect Hitler,........Pol Pot,........Dr Mengele,.........Pinochet? It isn't just their actions and ideals I despise, it is very definitely the men themselves (using the word men very loosely).

Where is the line drawn, and who gets to draw it?

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:30 PM

""I'd just hate to see that happen, unanswered! I, in not calling them out on it, would be guilty of condoning their lying bullshit, misinformation, and laundering of their crap, onto unsuspecting, naive, political leaning, nincompoops..just waiting to latch onto 'something', to make their lives more relevant, than just being the 'center of nothing'!""

And there is the level of both logic and intellect which we are being asked to respect and which has recently closed a thread.

Don T


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:40 PM

Don. Surely by the art of posting, we are all getting our crayons out and drawing the line? I keep alluding to the line for what good it does. There is an assumption in some threads that everybody may be similar to yourself on the basis of enjoying a type of music, the type of which causes the largest arguments here when defining it. Anyone who feels the threads above the line are less combative should search on "what is" or "1954." You haven't experienced ego issues till you wade in on that one. ..

SJL seems to enjoy parody. I think? I wonder what fun I could have with his or her initials? Might just keep my powder dry.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:50 PM

Once again, SJL makes a great point, that others seem to miss. A LOT of it IS done in humor, AND at the same time, is meant to make some people THINK outside the box...and yes, there are some genuine idiots on here, who's intellectual prowess falls considerably short of making it very beyond preassigned 'talking points'...and then they expound on the 'talking points' as if they were issued as a revered science of fact!..when in all actuality, they are only propaganda, meant to distract from the main issues, and misinform, those who refuse to THINK!....and what is so wrong about calling that to attention, especially to those who believe they are so 'hip'? You'd THINK that somebody would research an opposing position, BEFORE spouting off the next preassigned 'tactic', by whatever political persuasion, they happen to shortsightedly subscribe to! You can pretty much bet on that if a political party is pushing and supporting it, they were paid by a corrupt lobbyist to do so!!..for their 'special interests' to profit from it!...but if they wrap it in a 'so-called liberal' or 'Conservative' banner, and wrapping paper, the idiots at large won't look any further as to the source or why.
There was a time when folk music and 'protest' seem to point the way..but those times have been long gone, since the 'protest movement' has been co-opted by the Democratic Party!..who at the time, was just another part of 'The Establishment' to whom we were all protesting!! As the way it is now, folk and protests is song are just assumed to be a part of the Democratic Party, even when the party is in bed with the very people who we were protesting!!!
The Democratic and Republican Parties, are no better than the 'Establishment' that were so block-headed in the mid 60's...but now that they issue neatly wrapped deceptive 'talking points', protest of their corruption is out the window!...and it really IS time for some group, whoever it may be, to foment a new dialogue, other than the pure horse-crap, being feed to eagerly hungry ears!..and that's what 'talking points' do, replace common sense, with off the track pandering, to those who THOUGHT themselves to be genuinely concerned about the status of what's really going on!..They, (with your gullibility), are making you totally irrelevant!...and then you bitch and whine because nobody is listening to you!..What did you expect?? Someone to marvel at your repeating a talking point, or expounding on it..when the whole premise is false from the beginning???
Some of you people are NOT inspiring people to THINK, but to fall into lone, and 'repeat', as if to re-confirm some sort allegiance to some cause, that has long ago been washed clean of anything of value!
Like I said, when I first came on here, about five years ago, or so, about turning people onto HOW to think, instead of WHAT to think. The latter, renders the 'believer' totally stupid and ignorant of what they are even talking about, and blind, as to any for-sight!..But that's OK..as long as we all belong to 'the club'.
You've GOT to be kidding me!
Sometimes it's refreshing to see an attempt at an 'original thought'...even some humor....but the antics of some of the diehard wannabe 'political activists', are as pathetic as going to a glorious funeral for a bad idea!

So, if you happen to THINK, beyond the 'talking point' mentality, congratulations!...it might just be a breath of fresh air!
..Besides, to all those who actually still write their own lyrics, a little THINKING, from a different angle, and a new twist of a phrase, might just be nourishment to your souls!
Meanwhile, the 'brain-locked' just can't get it!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 05:00 PM

"Respect Hitler,........Pol Pot,........Dr Mengele,.........Pinochet? It isn't just their actions and ideals I despise, it is very definitely the men themselves (using the word men very loosely).

Where is the line drawn, and who gets to draw it?"

Don T.....As a group facilitator/therapist, I found that to be a question that so frequently came up, and a great question!   The ability to feel some respect for people like that....people who's actions are so abhorrent that it seems almost impossible to find any humanity in them.

I spent much of my life as a therapist working with men in prisons who had committed some of the most sickening offences one could imagine.   I was able to do this work only as long as I was able to find some shred of humanity in each one of them.    For most of them this wasn't difficult at all, surprisingly.   For others?   

Well, let's just say that feeling respect for everybody isn't something for wusses. (And my inner 'wuss' comes out frequently).

But......I wonder if Hitler, Pol Pot, Mengele, and Pinochet would have turned out that way if they had been shown respect at an earlier time in their life?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 05:20 PM

""there are some genuine idiots on here, who's intellectual prowess falls considerably short of making it very beyond preassigned 'talking points'."

Well thinking man, while you are at it give a bit of thought to the difference between "Who's (who is) and "Whose" (belonging to whom), then add some consideration for correct use of punctuation and your rubbish might become moderately comprehensible rubbish.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 05:28 PM

I take your point Larry, but as a therapist it's part of your job.

It isn't mine, and only the requirements of employment would persuade me to show (I could never fell) such respect.

As to your take on the treatment they received early in life, I rather think that is a grasp at a very far away straw.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 05:34 PM

There are no Hitlers or Pol Pots in our membership Don.
We should be able to exchange differing views without abuse.
(or making things up Don)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 05:54 PM

Mr McGrath....I see some posts here as unreasonable, but never "odious" or "contemptible", so long as they are stated opinions and not direct orders.
I see no racism or other hatred here just opinions on immigration, health, legislation, religion and other issues.
Exactly who are these "haters" that we keep hearing about? Who spills the bile here? Who are those who wish to suspend debate?

BTW. could you please post the names of the countries where male homosexuals by demographic, are not over represented in the hiv/aids infection statistics...I can't seem to be able to find them.

SJL.....You are very lucky to have such a person in your life, I also did....long ago.
As I am nearing the end of my life, my advice would be to listen and learn carefully, you will encounter few like her on your journey.

Slainte mhath.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 06:04 PM

From Don.

""Muskrat, don't assume you are defending everyone within a given category. People are individuals. Muskrat,""

Don't you think that your own credibility might be enhanced by learning the difference between an obsolete smoothbore firearm, and a rather smelly small rodent?"


Well personally, I dont see how anyone could confuse Ian with an obsolete smoothbore firearm?.... :0)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 06:45 PM

There are estimated to be more than 24 million people in 19 countries in Africa with HIV/Aids. The vast majority are heterosexual. I don't know whether the proportion is higher among male homosexuals, but that doesn't really seem particularly significant either way. It wouldn't make any significant difference to those figures if every male homosexual was infected, or if none of them were.
.........................................

People keep on confusing feeling respect for people and treating them in a way that is respectful.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 07:15 PM

You don't respect the views, fine. You look down on anyone who can hold such views, reasonable. But regardless of that, in my view, there is a duty to behave towards the person, as reflected in any communication with them, respectfully, which overides such feelings. Feelings just don't come into it.

I recognise that this is not how we are likely to behave, but I believe it is the standard towards which we should aim.

The trouble is, online abuse, however justified it can sometimes feel, is something which can easily build into something pretty damaging. I think there are rare occasions when it can indeed have a place, but they are as rare as the situations when a blow to the face is the right response.


But the views expressed by the man I was referring to are extremely abusive in themselves. He gets away with it, ironically, because his abuse is aimed at the millions of people he would, presumably, like to see following his delusion (why else does he declare such derision of science and, especially, scientists, in such evangelical terms?) rather than at named individuals. If his ilk ever fulfilled all their goals we would be back in the dark ages of magic, superstition and fear. They have already had some success in that regard. He may be a gentle and soft-spoken fellow down the pub or when he's patting his dog but his views are a threat to the advance of civilisation. Four in ten Americans not believing in evolution, so please don't tell me I'm overstating the case! He demonstrates his disrespect for people here by churning out the same nonsense again and again in spite of all the reasoned arguments ever put to him. We might as well have said nothing at all. Peddling dangerous and regressive nonsense to a lot of people is far more damaging than his being called a well-deserved name or two!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 07:34 PM

So Steve, could you explain why you bombard me with infantile abuse when all I have ever done is to try and present modern scientific orthodoxy against your "Evolution is True" stance?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 07:35 PM

Ian and Steve have political positions and anything which runs contrary to these positions is deemed "unreasonable", "odious" or "contemptible"

This a double misrepresentation and is pretty childish as well.


Regarding the epidemic of sexually transmitted disease amongst male homosexuals, is it not "reasonable" to want that epidemic curtailed or stopped?

You are homophobic because you have made it some kind of mission of yours to single out homosexual men for your severe wannabe policies. You want to curtail epidemics, huh? Well where's your campaign to close down every McDonald's and pizza shop? To ban all processed convenience foods? To outlaw confectionery and sugary drinks? To force everyone to wash their hands after blowing their noses? To screen people for faecal bacteria on their hands as they emerge from public toilets? To ban alcoholic drinks? To make possession of tobacco illegal? To force everyone to take exercise? To punish obesity by law? Any one of those measures would have at least as great a benefit on public health as what you're proposing for gay men. The fact that you are obsessed by that one issue, which you claim to be your target for improving public health, can really only lead to one conclusion. It isn't really public health you're worried about at all. You just don't like gay people, do you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 07:36 PM

So Steve, could you explain why you bombard me with infantile abuse when all I have ever done is to try and present modern scientific orthodoxy against your "Evolution is True" stance?

Because you're a bit of a stalker, aren't you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 07:45 PM

Well--

Excuse me for saying so, but this thread seems to have degenerated into a graphic illustration of the very problem stated in the initial post.

Sorry, but I think that should be pointed out.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 07:48 PM

So you don't feel a sense of respect towards the person. So is it that you feel that it is more effective in such a case for that to be reflected in the tone of the language used to challenge his views, or is it that you would,see it as a matter of it being dishonest if you didn't?

I would see being effective as the priority in such cases, and restrained language as an important element in being effective. In any online argument the most relevant parties are the bystanders, not the adversary.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 08:12 PM

I am trying to make the point that not even the most respectful, careful, restrained and considered approach has made one scrap of difference to the man in question. It's all been tried. So you have a choice. Let him keep on with it (and he will, as all evangelical types do), or slap him down. As far as I'm concerned, if he disrespects scientists without grounds or evidence he deserves every bit of flak chucked at him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 08:22 PM

Thanks Steve, ad hominem attack and complete failure to answer the question.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 08:24 PM

Firth: "Sorry, but I think that should be pointed out."

Not only did you point it out, your first few posts demonstrated it perfectly! You DO have a 'tendency' to accuse others of your own tactics!...and then try to pass off as 'oh so sweet, innocent, and well read'!..Which really isn't quite the case.
..and that IS the truth...and more than myself has pointed it out to you. Why not pay attention, and present a solid side to what you think you have to say, without your usual attacks?

You might find an honest exchange, is better than bickering.....
But then you also might learn something....something 'know-all-ogists' hate to do...learn something!...especially, if it as fact that goes contrary to your favorite political whim of the moment!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 08:34 PM

There are various characteristics of an internet troll, but three of those characteristics that appear in forums where people are trying to have a serious discussion about important issues are:

1. All of your carefully researched arguments, and the evidence that supports them, will simply be ignored.

2. Whatever you say will be reworded into something else.

3. Anything you say, especially if it happens to be of a personal nature, will be twisted and used against you, often to try to denigrate you or call your character into question.

Anonymity, or an easily discarded "internet name," makes the troll feel safe to say things that he would not dare say to someone face to face.

The internet troll is basically a coward who uses trolling as a means of inflating his own shaky ego.

The usual advice is "don't feed the troll," which is to say, don't respond to him and he'll go away. But more often than not, somebody will respond to him, and he manages to disrupt and divert discussions that otherwise might be fairly productive. But the troll is not interested in the discussion itself. He only wishes to disrupt it, or divert it to focus on himself.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 08:48 PM

Does anyone expect to change the views of anyone through argument? What can happen is that there is a greater understanding of where the differences are, and in some cases a recognition of areas of agreement. At the same time we can get a better appreciation of what we believe ourself, and perhaps modify that. And we can hope that other people who are undecided may find our views convincing.

None of that is helped by throwing flak around, or slapping people around. And what relevance is that they might deserve it, when "it" does not in any way damage them?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 08:54 PM

Ad hominem? Hmm. Undiplomatic, true, but factual as well. Care to count the number of times you've popped up out of the blue to have a pot at me when I've mentioned evolution? Now compare that with the number of times you've ever engaged me on other topics. Looks embarrassingly obsessive, eh? My position is clear and has been for ages. I've wasted a lot of time on you, frankly. Perhaps the rebuke will shake you off once and for all. I have far better things to do than indulge your gripe. So do you. It really isn't anywhere near interesting enough to keep on resurrecting.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 08:56 PM

Lots of wisdom in that last post, McGrath of Harlow.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 09:00 PM

Steve, evolution does not explain everything. The Theory of Intelligent Design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. This is not the same as Creationism. What's more, as it was the intellectual trend in Darwin's day to transfer the model for the study of the natural sciences to social science, Darwinism led to Social Darwinism. Social policies reflecting the "survival of the fittest," applied to social affairs have been a complete disaster except for those in the privileged classes and defy anthropological evidence that man survived his early trials through cooperation rather than competition within the group. How ironic is it that so many conservatives still ascribe to Darwinistic social policy while they reject science in favor of religion?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 09:04 PM

Does anyone expect to change the views of anyone through argument? What can happen is that there is a greater understanding of where the differences are, and in some cases a recognition of areas of agreement. At the same time we can get a better appreciation of what we believe ourself, and perhaps modify that. And we can hope that other people who are undecided may find our views convincing.

But you have just described exactly how views can be changed by argument!

None of that is helped by throwing flak around, or slapping people around. And what relevance is that they might deserve it, when "it" does not in any way damage them?

Who said anything about aiming to damage them? I don't care what pete or anyone else believes in. The aim is not to "damage them" but to discredit their unpleasant, insulting and unsupportable views, as publicly expressed, especially if there is an evangelical element involved. There is no point in indulging idiots. An idiot is an idiot.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 09:13 PM

The social policy you refer to has nothing to do with Darwin. The usurping and warping of a man's honourable ideas after he's dead for nefarious causes should not be used to besmirch his name. And there is no "Theory of Intelligent Design". There is the delusion of intelligent design. Find other ways of expressing wacky notions other than in dishonestly-scientific language. Evolution has had almost four billion years to accumulate the diversity and complexity of life on this planet. That's more than enough time to create the illusion of design. Unfortunately, accommodating intelligent design goes hand-in-hand with a complete (possibly deliberate) misunderstanding of evolution. I can recommend a good book if you like, published in 1859.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 09:19 PM

Incidentally, evolution by means of natural selection does indeed explain all of life on Earth. It might even go a long way towards explaining the origin of life. It's a good bet that it would explain life anywhere in the universe, come to think of it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 09:24 PM

Well it sure seems that Firth understands what he is talking about on his last post!!!
Now if he would only not deflect it, as if it was applying to someone else, besides himself...truth to tell..

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 09:49 PM

"Intelligent design" is a sort of reverse engineering.

I recall seeing a supposed "science" program on television a few years ago. Very well produced, much like a "Nova" presentation, called "Our Privileged Planet." With "Nova"-like graphics, it talked about the place of the earth in the universe, and how conditions were perfect for the existence of humans, as opposed to many other planets with no water, atmosphere, or other necessities of life. After most of an hour, it zeroed in on its main thesis: all of these wonderful, life-sustaining conditions HAD to be evidence that there was an "Intelligence" behind it all!

It wasn't until that close to the end of the show that I realized that it was a bloody elaborate commercial for "Intelligent Design!"

Damned sneaky!

The simple fact is that if the earth didn't have an oxygen-rich atmosphere, have water, and wasn't far enough from the sun for water to be in liquid form, and for the temperature to be in the "Goldilocks zone"—not too cold, not too hot, but just right, and a whole host of other conditions conducive to the emergence of life—we wouldn't be here to speculate on how we came about.

"Intelligent Design" is merely Creationism in a lab coat.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 10:13 PM

I created this thread. Look what it's evolved into. How much of this is evolution and how much is intelligent design?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 11:54 PM

It started out with a good premise, Larry, but I think after evolving for awhile, it shows little signs of intelligent design.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 12:19 AM

Then maybe you should read, instead of posting....see what happens. Maybe it will evolve into a new creation!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 12:28 AM

Good idea, GFS.   Sort of like if the creator would just sit there and mind his/her own business. (And assuming there is a creator, that's probably what he/she is doing).   

Unless the creator is like Randy Newman's creator in God's Song.



http://youtu.be/vEKuGcmW70I


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 12:32 AM

Well, you never know....in the beginning God created man in his own image, and ever since, man has been trying to return the favor!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 01:57 AM

Steve, so how do you explain irreducible complexity? If a given irreducibly complex biological entity is absolutely nonfunctional without the full sum of its parts, how could it have evolved through natural selection? Any irreducibly complex entity, in order to be what it is, had to have manifested whole and functional.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 02:15 AM

SJL, I just brought that up less than a week ago, that natural selection, and 'evolution' as Darwinian devotees put forth, are not compatible. Thank you, for broaching the subject, again, in your way.

GfS

P.S. Then on the other hand, there is another 'evolution' aspect that makes them choke as well....We'll see if it goes there.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 05:04 AM

Devotees? them?

Even your shorter contributions make the good professor sigh wistfully for the return of what you speak.

Keep banging the rocks together Goofus. ....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 05:43 AM

I do not have to explain irreducible complexity to you, because, in the world of living things, there is no such phenomenon. Again, you betray a complete (and possibly deliberate) misunderstanding of evolution. The bogus notion of irreducible complexity is no more than a facile attempt to run evolution backwards. Well you can't do that because evolution has no forwards. No goals, no acme of perfection to seek. Any example of irreducible complexity you wish to claim can be refuted by recourse to many examples of "simpler" structures representing a whole range of evolutionary steps. They all work perfectly well for the organism in question and in no way represent faltering steps along the way to some kind of finished article. What you're utterly failing, possibly disingenuously, to get your head round is the vast length of time natural selection has had to accumulate changes. Not only that, there is plenty of evidence that components which have one function can not only be adapted for other functions but can also be combined with other components to provide an improved or a novel function (the oft-quoted example of the flagellum, for example, a famous bogus example of irreducible complexity). Once again, I can suggest a good book, published in 1859. I especially refer you to Chapter 6, in which Darwin deals, frankly and elegantly, with the alleged irreducible complexity of the eye. He ends with a diplomatic little dig at irreducible complexity merchants' rather presumptious attitude toward their own alleged Creator. Nice one, Charles. But being nice didn't work. There are still clods around, even in 2013, who are so obsessed with religion and the idea that it's impossible for God not have created absolutely everything that they just won't listen to evidence. And they wonder why some of us get so annoyed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 05:52 AM

And, if you want a true example of irreducible complexity, there's always God! He must have had the biggest and most complex brain ever in order to create absolutely everything just like that, sort out all the laws of nature, and, on top of it, be all-seeing and all-knowing and have time to listen to billions of prayers a day and judge millions of souls a day.

He must have had - wait for it - one hell of an intelligent designer!

(Steve, expecting to be told how many different kinds of God there are...)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 06:10 AM

SJL, you might find this Wikipedia article useful - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

One particular sentence stands out -

Some critics, such as Jerry Coyne (professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Chicago) and Eugenie Scott (a physical anthropologist and executive director of the National Center for Science Education) have argued that the concept of irreducible complexity, and more generally, intelligent design is not falsifiable, and therefore, not scientific.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 07:46 AM

Unfortunately, falsifiable does not mean false. Putting that argument is simply leaving the issue open to creationists to claim some credibility. They're experts when it comes to that: God is always placed deliberately beyond science so that his existence cannot be refuted by evidence and reason. The case against intelligent design is that, in the 21st century, it is an argument from a position of deliberate, eyes-shut ignorance. Classic God of the Gaps stuff (though its supporters never actually see the gaps closing fast). In 1859 Darwin anticipated intelligent design (a move that was sine qua non for his theory) and refuted it beautifully in Chapter 6. We have far more evidence today, much of it in the fields of genetics and biochemistry, than Darwin couldn't even dream of having, and there is no excuse for putting an argument that ignores it, let alone ignoring all the excellent work done which comprehensively debunks the notion of a designer. What a shame that supporters of intelligent design deliberately display a lack of the main attribute of their proposed designer: intelligence. You can't argue with idiots. Well, it can be fun to try.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 07:53 AM

That post would read much better without the first sentence. :-(


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 08:34 AM

""(or making things up Don)""

Acording to you who have been known to be terminologically inexact on numerous occasions, especially when slagging of the ethnic minorities you despise (and Irish Republicans).

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 08:47 AM

""Well personally, I dont see how anyone could confuse Ian with an obsolete smoothbore firearm?.... :0)""

Well, my half asleep friend, you may be the only person on Mudcat too inattentive to have noticed Ian posting as Musket!

And what is a musket?.......An obsolete smoothbore......need I go on?

Mind you, inattention would seem to explain much of your input.

e.g. your overlooking the latest position on HIV according to specialists who have spent years researching and devising treatments, eventually reducing it to ""a manageable condition which should not significantly reduce life expectancy"", which puts it within the realms of incurables like diabetes, cirrhosis and COPD.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 09:10 AM

All these posters saying "you" to a range of different unnamed people must make this thread extremely confusing to readers who aren't obsessive thread and post analysers... more especially where a number of other posts from different people have intervened.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket not smooth nor a bore
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 10:07 AM

Dream on suckers...

Be buggered if I know where the nickname came from, except I've had it since I was at junior school and am now old enough to be a bore, hence trying desperately not to be so.

Except when questioning absurd and hateful positions. I'll happily be boring then cos I won't give up. Not for a minute.

Smooth bore? No. Well honed with a decent helix. Like peering up James Bond's arse.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 10:11 AM

Steve Shaw

That post would read much better without the first sentence. :-(

Indeed it would and it's to your credit to acknowledge the fact. The second sentence is a bit strange as well but you'll have to take that up with Professor Coyne. Do you still reject the concept of falsifiability?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 10:27 AM

If I'm wrong I'm wrong. That was a brain fart. But, I mean, what made me think you'd pounce on it? Do try to move on. As for falsifiability, very interesting. Not relevant to this chit-chat, but do continue. By constantly raising heady philosophical points in front of creationist idiots you're simply encouraging them. They'll end up thinking they're on your level. I much prefer to tell 'em what I really think. And I think you think the same as me really, don't you? :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 10:44 AM

Don...I was having a little ironical joke, but if you have to explain these things, they dont work.

Read it over a few times and it will come to you.
(clue, its not really about the musket)
Dont know why you are so upset, we dont argue very much these days.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 10:49 AM

Additionally Don, you cannot infect anyone else if you suffer from diabetes.
I think it may be in another realm Don?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 01:04 PM

Steve Shaw: "If I'm wrong I'm wrong. That was a brain fart. But, I mean, what made me think you'd pounce on it?"

Well, if it was a 'little brain fart' that would be one thing..but you keep running for shelter every time your 'little brain farts' are discovered to be more like a series of overwhelming flatulence.

You ought not dismiss such a long 'run' of 'inconsistencies', that prove to be poking holes in your main premise....but then, if you decided to move on, what's next?...dysentery??

Perhaps your 'concept' of 'God', is nothing more than a rejection of how or what it was portrayed to you, in your youth, by a bogus 'religion'. You may consider that within 'God' are all the properties of physics, both seen and unseen by the naked eye...a whole new realm of existence might open up to you as well...because your rejection, of what you term as 'God', might be the first step in the right direction!.....
..and that is meant, respectfully.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 01:42 PM

Heheh. If that post was respectful then I'm the bloody Queen of Sheba. Congratulations, Guffers, on being the first to remould God to your own predilection since I predicted it. It's a slow start but I hope there'll be more to come. A force blowing through everything, perhaps, or the invisible intelligent energy driving the universe. Maybe even an old bloke with a beard with Jesus sitting on his right hand! Sounds like fun...

Oh well, that's me consigned... :-(


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 02:06 PM

There is in fact a real distinction between "falsifiable" and "false". All kinds of things are not realistically falsifiable but at the same time reasonably considered false. For example it is not possible to prove that Elvis Presley is not well and living in the Andromeda Galaxy.

Again it would be pretty hard to prove false the claim that Steve Shaw and Guest from Sanity are the same person...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 02:31 PM

But aren't all 'proofs' really based on probabilities that increase as we get more and more evidence?   So that we can prove that something is false, but we can only keep obtaining more evidence to support a 'truth'. (sorry if I'm off base, but my scientific methods courses are way in the past).

Can we potentially prove that it's false that Steve Shaw and Guest from Sanity are the same person?

And evidence for it's truth? Well, we all know about the 'dark side'........and the surprising ways that that side of ourselves comes out.   So here we have Guest from Shaw (or is it Steve from Sanity?) wrestling with those two parts of him/her self.   

Let's watch all their further posts to see if we can gather some further evidence to support this hypothesis.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 02:33 PM

Addendum: I guess it would involve all of us noticing the similar characteristics of these two identities.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 03:02 PM

"And I think you think the same as me "...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 03:32 PM

Of course we can prove Steve Shaw and Goofus aren't the same person.

1. My dog only gets interested in those who talk bollocks in remembrance of his own.

2. Steve is my co Messiah (see atheist thread that at long last has evolved into something good. A new religion without any of that embarrassing God stuff.) I woul definitely know if I had entered into a trinity with Goofus. I choose my harmonica players and gnomes seriously. )

We can also prove that this thread just goes to show that bigotry and creationism will raise their silly little heads regardless of the given debate.

Maybe a good idea not to have a pop at reactions but find the cause?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 04:15 PM

Larry the Radio Guy: "So here we have Guest from Shaw (or is it Steve from Sanity?)"

Steve from Sanity?..You have reached a disconnected number, try again, later.

GfS!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 04:31 PM

It's perfectly simple. I'm literate. I'm not homophobic and I don't brag about someone dying in my arms. Etcetera! :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 04:42 PM

Incidentally, I think that as soon as the word "prove" comes into any discussion of science or religion we should be able to invoke a law at least as powerful as Godwin's. I've got a bit of ego in me, so I'll formulate it here and now:

SHAW'S LAW:

The first time anyone in a thread asks for or claims proof or disproof of the existence of God, or who says they can prove or disprove any scientific theory, the thread will immediately dissolve into raucous belly-laughter at the poster's self-inflicted descent into twatdom."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 04:48 PM

Don T.
Acording to you who have been known to be terminologically inexact on numerous occasions,

I have never knowingly posted anything untrue.
You were caught out inventing an incident that never happened, just to help you make your case in the cycling thread.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 04:58 PM

I have never knowingly posted anything untrue.

Also sprach the right-wing master of denial and revisionism.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 05:01 PM

I didn't say natural selection was bunk. I said it doesn't explain all. To me, natural selection is incorporated in design. Living things adapt. i don't think anyone would dispute that. But scientific method is limited. Did you ever hear of this guy?

http://erraticwisdom.com/files/exp_s1_n1.pdf

Hey Steve, if you want to start a thread about evolution vs. intelligent design, I'll join you. Snail can come along too. It might take him a while to get there...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 05:26 PM

"SHAW'S LAW:

The first time anyone in a thread asks for or claims proof or disproof of the existence of God, or who says they can prove or disprove any scientific theory, the thread will immediately dissolve into raucous belly-laughter...."

Well...come to think of it some of your posts have been rather hilarious!...

...but then 'beauty', as well as 'ugly', is in the eye of the beholder!

Some people see all those trees, and think they are just lost in the forest!

Enjoy your hike.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 05:44 PM

Enough science has been proved to allow the Mars Rover to have traveled millions of miles and landed on a rock way the heck a long way off...

Just food for thought...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 06:09 PM

Steve, I do not understand your comment.
Is it an accusation?
Please be specific because I repeat, I do not lie.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 06:17 PM

Well guffo, I do like think I have comedic qualities. Bobert, that is the appliance of science. I'm talking about science as a process for explaining the universe. SJL, there can be no such thread. There is no intelligent design. You can't seem to get your head round the fact that billions of years of evolution are more than long enough for evolution by natural selection to accumulate all the attributes of living things that make the world so wonderfully diverse. Open your eyes. Every aspect of evolution by natural selection can be explained by the laws of nature that we know. There is no need, no space for an "explanation" that is anything but, something that will take infinitely more explaining than the stuff he's supposedly here to explain.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 06:21 PM

Steve, I do not understand your comment.

I tend to speak plainly.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 07:07 PM

People seem to have overlooked that mathematical proofs are absolute.

And that the experience of general revulsion may tend to encourage those with loathsome views to hide them. Why, only tonight a man dared to call himself a Thatcherite in the pub. But then he went to the bar to avoid my condemnation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 07:33 PM

Or perhaps he wanted a drink, Richard?

My impression is that often are quite pleased to be scorned by people they scorn. Consider the case of readers of the Sub or Daily Mail. Criticism from the left confirms their attudes. In the same way, if the Sun declared support for something I supported I would worry that I'd perhaps got it wrong.

The same applies I imagine in relation to some people posting here, for most of us. Of course we wouldn't all be thinking of the same people.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 07:39 PM

Well, Richard, God is beyond not only science but mathematics too. His adherents have formulated him so. There may well be proofs in mathematics, but applying those proofs to the real world and to the universe is a whole nother issue. We don't usually know enough. It's a delicious problem though, much relished by honest scientists.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Janie
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 08:06 PM

Egos. Everybody has one.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 08:26 PM

Some a lot bigger than others...

I don't give a rat's ass about mine... Hey, I'd rather be on the correct side of issues, truth and reality than the wrong side...

No brag, just fact...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 08:27 PM

Actually, natural selection does explain it all.

"Intelligent Design" is another way of saying, "God did it." And if that's true, that raises a serious question about whether or not God is really perfect (the assumption being that God IS perfect because, after all, He's God). As environmental conditions changed over the eons, there were dead ends with a number of species, species that died out because they couldn't adapt, or their adaptation to new circumstances didn't work.

If "designed," then not really all that "intelligent." More in the nature of experimentation to see if some adaptation works or not. And—POOF!!—there goes "omniscience!"

But be of good cheer. This does not necessarily imply that God does not exist. It could mean that God knew that evolution was the way to do it. He started the process, then let it work without having to mess with it.

Let me be clear:   I am not asserting here that God either does or does not exist, I am just showing that, considering the number of species that died out because they could not adapt to new environmental conditions, "Intelligent Design" isn't really all that Intelligent, and it has the further flaw of calling God's omniscience into question.

Have a care, lest you shoot yourself in the foot.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 08:46 PM

Actually some varieties of "intelligent design" not involving God crop up quite frequently in Science Fiction narratives. For example, 2001 - A Space Odyssey.

The idea that evolution involving natural selection is the way divine purposes are achieved is pretty well the standard teaching in mainstream Christian churches. Whether that counts as "intelligent design" is an interesting question. It's not got much to do with notions of a "Young Earth" or "Creationism".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 09:18 PM

"The idea that evolution involving natural selection is the way divine purposes are achieved is pretty well the standard teaching in mainstream Christian churches".

That's the Christian chuch's attempt to find a 'respectful boundary' between some Christian beliefs and evolution.

(wasn't that a clever segue back to the thread topic?)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 09:28 PM

chuch
        
"To have God in everything you do" -- Snoop
I'm gonna holla at one of these fine hunnies. chuch.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 09:41 PM

Religion and science don't have to be enemies...

Believe me...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 10:00 PM

They aren't really. Except in some peoples' minds.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 10:43 PM

Steve Pshaw: "I'm talking about science as a process for explaining the universe. SJL, there can be no such thread. There is no intelligent design. You can't seem to get your head round the fact that billions of years of evolution are more than long enough for evolution by natural selection to accumulate all the attributes of living things that make the world so wonderfully diverse. Open your eyes. Every aspect of evolution by natural selection can be explained by the laws of nature that we know. There is no need, no space for an "explanation" that is anything but, something that will take infinitely more explaining than the stuff he's supposedly here to explain."


"SHAW'S LAW:

The first time anyone in a thread asks for or claims proof or disproof of the existence of God, or who says they can prove or disprove any scientific theory, the thread will immediately dissolve into raucous belly-laughter...."

Well...come to think of it some of your posts have been rather hilarious!...

...but then 'beauty', as well as 'ugly', is in the eye of the beholder!

Some people see all those trees, and think they are just lost in the forest!

Enjoy your hike

GfS

P.S. The irony of it all!...Then he wonders why people can't take him seriously!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 02:12 AM

Also sprach the right-wing master of denial and revisionism.

That is not plain speaking Steve.
Is it aimed at me and is it an accusation of lying and of being right-wing?

I think it a good example of the behavior in question.
Unfounded personal attack in lieu of debate.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 08:25 AM

Steve Shaw

If I'm wrong I'm wrong. That was a brain fart. But, I mean, what made me think you'd pounce on it? Do try to move on.

Good Grief! I give you credit for acknowledging you own mistake and you complain. There's no satisfying some people.

As for falsifiability, very interesting. Not relevant to this chit-chat, but do continue.

As I said, take it up with Professor Coyne but in every court case I have looked at where they have tried to keep creationism and intelligent design out of US schools, the fact that intelligent design was not subject to falsification has been a significant part of the evidence given by the scientific expert witnesses.

By constantly raising heady philosophical points in front of creationist idiots you're simply encouraging them. They'll end up thinking they're on your level.

So you want me to come down to their level and throw away the core of what makes science different?

I much prefer to tell 'em what I really think. And I think you think the same as me really, don't you? :-)

As far as I can make out, you think that the sheer weight of evidence makes Evolution and Darwin's Theory of Evolution TRUE. According to this article -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design, intelligent design is presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". Spot the difference. If the best you can do is bang your little fist on the table and scream "Evolution is true. Evolution is true. It's true. It's true. It's true." I don't think you're going to achieve very much.

No Steve, I don't think the same as you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 08:44 AM

Bobert

Enough science has been proved to allow the Mars Rover to have traveled millions of miles and landed on a rock way the heck a long way off...

Actually, Bobert, the Mars Rover got there using Newton's theories which have been disproved, superseded by Einstein's relativity.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 09:05 AM

GUEST,SJL

Hey Steve, if you want to start a thread about evolution vs. intelligent design, I'll join you. Snail can come along too. It might take him a while to get there...

No thanks. SJL. Intelligent design is a massive piece of intellectual dishonesty. Even its proponents don't really believe in it. It was a cynical ploy to try and smuggle creationism into the US education system where it is illegal to teach religion in public schools.

Did you read that article I linked to?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket on his subject
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 09:35 AM

Newtonian science was not superseded by Einstein. The workings of The Principia can be shown to calculate the trajectory, escape velocity required and every other force calculation required for the Mars landings. You could put in the numbers straight to my copy in my study, in the original Latin, unedited.

What relativity did was to remove the "absolute" state that Newton put forward to give a baseline, an anchor to what he saw but couldn't totally comprehend, later defined under relativity. It was the rationale not the laws that changed. Don't confuse it with quantum mechanics, which have no bearing on physical force calculations as the quantum world has its own set of physics, which we are beginning to map out. Quantum mechanics have no place for thermodynamics as we comprehend for the world we can observe. Newton explained relativity without realising it when he showed every body to have mass and a gravitational pull on all other mass centres. He just thought there was absolute time and position, which Einstein showed to be unnecessary.

Out of interest, my PhD thesis on mechanical vibration took the Newtonian f= ma and introduced the relativity aspect of vibration of an otherwise inert body. As in vibrating relative to what?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 09:44 AM

The idea that evolution involving natural selection is the way divine purposes are achieved is pretty well the standard teaching in mainstream Christian churches. Whether that counts as "intelligent design" is an interesting question.

It simply doesn't work. You can't attach God in any way whatsoever to evolution. Evolution and design are mutually totally exclusive. The biggest intellectual copout is to say God started it all off. A couple of things. There is no need for a God. The laws of nature look after everything to do with evolution. Even right at the beginning of life (possibly even before). There isn't a single aspect of natural selection that can't be explained by the laws of nature. God, in terms of kick-starting or running evolution, is totally redundant. And the other thing is that evolution has no goals. No end-products. It is not striving for perfection or ever-increasing complexity. "The idea that evolution involving natural selection is the way divine purposes are achieved..." But evolution has no purposes, divine or otherwise. There is nothing to achieve. If you think otherwise, you simply don't understand evolution at all. This woeful attempt at accommodation with science by religion is valiant (an effort to keep its more science-minded adherents on board, that's all), but ultimately misguided.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 10:07 AM

Oh geeze, Snail... Not once ounce of science in the Mars Rover???

So much for "rocket science"...

Get real, dude (or dude-ess)...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 11:10 AM

""Smooth bore? No. Well honed with a decent helix. Like peering up James Bond's arse.""

If true, you are not a musket and I shall henceforth refer to you as "RIFLE".

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 11:21 AM

""You were caught out inventing an incident that never happened, just to help you make your case in the cycling thread.""

And you have access to the records of every magistrates court in the UK?

And you also know the ins and outs of the CPS, including the changes they may make to a particular charge prior to trial?

Of course you don't!

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 01:34 PM

Bobert

Oh geeze, Snail... Not once ounce of science in the Mars Rover???

Not what I said. You spoke of the journey, not the contents of the Rover and the critical word is proved. Newtonian mechanics is good enough to get to Mars; "disproved" doesn't mean "doesn't work".

Sorry Dr Mather but it might not work quite so well for Mercury and if your sat nav didn't take relativity into consideration you might find yourself getting quite lost.

I have no inetention of confusing it with quantum mechanics.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 02:31 PM

And you have access to the records of every magistrates court in the UK?
They are all searchable, as is local reporting.

You stated that the fine was for Furious Riding.
Are you changing that?
Furious Riding only applies when a pedestrian is injured.
You did not mention an injury.

The whole ludicrous story is made up.
Your claim to personally know five people whose cars have been damaged in collisions caused by but not involving cyclists is also unconvincing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 03:24 PM

"The laws of nature look after everything..."

Very god of them. That was a typo, but perhaps I'll leave it.

.........

I'm mildly curious what Keith and Don are on about, with all this Furious Posting.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 04:42 PM

Steve, you keep saying that challenges to the Theory of Evolution are holding back progress. What progress do you mean? Do you mean the social progress that imagine would occur if people gave up thoughts of God and religion and confined their thoughts of reality to the material world? It seems so.

Earlier we seemed to be in agreement that Darwinism should not be misapplied to social affairs. Why not? If it's good for nature, why isn't it good for man? Methodological naturalism as social "science," why not? What's the ethical quandary there? Is there one? Whether Darwin intended it is irrelevant.

Bobert, while science informs technology, they are not the same thing. Technology is DESIGN. Things that miraculous as you described just don't assemble themselves and start working. Man himself becomes the analogy. This is why machines came first. At the time, man's conception of himself according to science was mechanistic a la Descartes. After DNA, you get computers. It's not that the mechanistic aspect is not still there, it's just that it's likely to be a combination of both and much lighter on the hardware. They started out clunky and they got smaller and smaller and smaller. I'm typing on an iphone. It's a phone, a texting device, a calculator, a camera, a music player, a notebook, a datebook, an address book, a time piece, an alarm clock, a compass, an internet browser, an NSA tracking device...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 05:24 PM

The term "progress" involves a metaphor. It envisages change as forward movement, getting somewhere, having a direction. It doesn't really fit too well with recognising evolution as change which does not include any notion of "progress".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 05:27 PM

I have been on holiday and while away all his has blown up.
so this is my FIRST post here,...so thankyou steve for raising the question of creation again!
has anyone else noticed how he just cant leave it alone?
he will deny it but I suspect he's struggling with something, or maybe SOMEONE!
Then there are his repeated charges that I diss honest,hardworking scientists, yet it never seems to occur to him that it is he that disses hardworking,honest scientists that hold opposing views to his.
of course , he will claim that those views are unscientific .....but I believe that is known as begging the question.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 05:41 PM

Kevin, it was the bicycle thread.thread.cfm?threadid=151274&messages=401

05 Jul 13 - 03:00 AM

01 Jul 13 - 11:05 AM

04 Jul 13 - 07:58 AM

04 Jul 13 - 08:06 AM


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket missing something
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 05:46 PM

Dozy sod. Setting a trajectory that is parabolic due to gravity takes time and distance into account. The relative position between three objects and allowance for movement through time is pure three dimensional. Complicated yes, but can be demonstrated without moving outside of The Principia.

Einstein's special theory isn't in the frame. Relativity tells us time would be a variable with regard to velocity. Whilst a spaceship is fast, it would not need correction as the increase in mass (not within measurable bounds) would retard the velocity to correct the time dilation. But none of this is measurable beyond theoretical models. Other than beagles, such things don't get lost.....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 05:57 PM

GUEST,Musket missing something

Dozy sod.

You lookin' at me?"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 06:04 PM

pete from seven stars link: "he will deny it but I suspect he's struggling with something, or maybe SOMEONE!"

I've pointed that out to him on several occasions, something in his youth and his hangover from being Catholic. It screams out louder than his obsession about creation vs evolution.
That being said, he'd be the first to deny, that if/when humans 'evolve' higher, that the first to make it through to the next evolutionary stage was false, too!
Go figure.

BTW, anyone come to mind?

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 06:17 PM

Steve, you keep saying that challenges to the Theory of Evolution are holding back progress. What progress do you mean?

"Keep saying it"? I don't recall having said this at all! I love challenges to the theory of evolution as it happens. But those challenges need to be based on evidence before I'll listen. Not based on the insertion of a fellow for whom there is no evidence and who needs infinitely more explaining than the stuff he's supposed to explain. Simple!

Earlier we seemed to be in agreement that Darwinism should not be misapplied to social affairs. Why not? If it's good for nature, why isn't it good for man? Methodological naturalism as social "science," why not? What's the ethical quandary there? Is there one? Whether Darwin intended it is irrelevant.

Darwin was a scientist who confined the conclusions of his research to the natural world. You have no right to extrapolate beyond his expressed intentions. That's what the Nazis did, remember? Do you for a single second think that Darwin would have shackled himself to the Nazi cause? By saying "if it's good for nature, why isn't it good for man?" you are displaying, I'm sorry to say, pig ignorance of what evolution by natural selection is. Go thou and read Darwin's fabulous book. Take your time.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 06:22 PM

pete from seven stars link: "he will deny it but I suspect he's struggling with something, or maybe SOMEONE!"

I've pointed that out to him on several occasions, something in his youth and his hangover from being Catholic. It screams out louder than his obsession about creation vs evolution.
That being said, he'd be the first to deny, that if/when humans 'evolve' higher, that the first to make it through to the next evolutionary stage was false, too!
Go figure.

BTW, anyone come to mind?

GfS


What's this incoherent mess supposed to be about? Guffers, sober up (or go cold turkey) and try again tomorrow! :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 06:24 PM

Twat. Machines don't breed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 06:41 PM

Machines don't breed? Yes we do.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 02:32 AM

Steve: "What's this incoherent mess supposed to be about?"

Look, you don't have to play 'stupid'..........just be yourself, that will do!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 02:53 AM

Steve, earlier in this thread you complained of another poster, "his views are a threat to the advance of civilization. Four in ten Americans not believing in evolution, so please don't tell me I'm overstating the case! "

Ok, so you wrote it once, but you stressed it so emphatically that I thought I read it more than once. "Advance of civilization" I interpret to mean progress, social progress to be precise. You certainly gave the impression that you believe that the four in ten Americans who don't believe in evolution are threatening this advance. I don't think I took your words out of context and I think it's a valid question.

Exactly how is non-belief in evolution "a threat to the advance of civilization"?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 03:50 AM

Hi, SJL...As an addendum to your post, you wrote, "Advance of civilization" I interpret to mean progress, social progress to be precise."
I just wanted to underline, that 'social progress' without the spiritual aspect, is an impossibility....

OK, now back to your question posed to Steve.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 04:23 AM

""You stated that the fine was for Furious Riding.
Are you changing that?
""

The initial charge was furious riding, the conviction was for lesser offences including riding on a footpath and failure to show due consideration.

You have accused me of making things up on several occasions, including some for which I have been able to supply proof.

In every case your accusation was a lie.

Of all the posters on this site you are the most biased, the most bigotted, the most xenophobic and the most dishonest.

You have no business being present at a discussion of respect, a concept of which you have no knowledge.

In future, no post from you will receive a response from me.

To me, you do not exist.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 04:31 AM

""I'm mildly curious what Keith and Don are on about, with all this Furious Posting.""

Kevin,

On threads where I dare to disagree with know-it-all Keith, if I post about any personal experience, he accuses me of making it up.

The clown doesn't know anything about me, so he makes it up as he goes along, then claims that I am the liar.

There are numerous examples in threads about Muslims, cyclists and many others.

He doesn't want his pet likes to be shown up in a bad light, so no true examples will be accepted.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 05:45 AM

Don's story.
"Where I live, there is a maze of footpaths offering shortcuts through the estate, which frankly are a death trap for pedestrians, especially the elderly, disabled or blind, since the local cycling fraternity don't seem to know what the word "footpath" means

I have to use one of those to get to my GP's surgery and about two years ago stepped into the end of it to be confronted by a cyclist doing about 20mph.

This halfwit yelled "Get out of the way, you fucking useless old cripple". I flattened myself against the fence in this 3 foot wide alley, and my walking stick unfortunately hooked his handlebar. It was a complete accident, but I have neither sympathy nor regret for his trip to the hospital in an ambulance, nor for the £80 fine he got for "furious riding"."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 05:50 AM

"His views" go well beyond denying evolution. He takes a literal view of the Bible and would probably like to see us all living by it. He has demonstrated illiberal views on abortion. His eyes are shut to solid scientific evidence and wide open to quackery of the worst kind. On his own he is just a silly and deluded man. But he isn't on his own. His spirit is shared by a fair number of charismatic fundamentalists (not only Christians, either) whose certainties have convinced them that it's right to foist their views forcibly on others and to deny good science. Witness attempts to get equal billing for creationism with evolution in schools, or, worse still, to prevent the teaching of evolution altogether. Now if you think that a world significantly influenced by people like that wouldn't be less civilised even than the one we have now, well I'm not with you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 06:24 AM

well maybe the world we live in has got worse.
it certainly aint got no better.
and why should purveyers of violence and crime worry if we are only re=arranged pond scum and they think the law wont expose them , and there is no final judgment either.
and of what practical use is Darwinism, other than dispelling suppossed ignorance - but then we are back to begging the question are we not?!
I can tell you again where it has hindered practical science.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 06:33 AM

Dispelling ignorance, in which I include persuading people to accept evidence instead of magic and superstition, has made a massive contribution to civilisation. Maintaining ignorance, as executed by the saintly Mother Teresa and every pope for centuries, simply works the other way. Your personal brand of ignorance, which you are only too happy to convey to us, is simply at one extreme on the spectrum.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 07:10 AM

I'm not too sure how a belief that Society advances, unless prevented by people who don't see natural selection as the only game in town, is consistent with the principle that evolution has no room for the concept of advance or progress.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 07:37 AM

Musket missing something

Right. I've worked out that it is me you're calling a "Dozy sod". You've been spending too much time with Steve Shaw.

The relative position between three objects and allowance for movement through time is pure three dimensional.

Not under General Relativity it isn't. It isn't about time dilation due to high velocity, it's about the curvature of space in the presence of massive bodies.

In applied science, Newtonian mechanics is fine for all ordinary, everyday purposes like playing billiards, jumping off tall buildings or sending a spaceship to Mars. It might give you problems with Mercury because, being so close to the Sun, its orbit does not follow Newton's predictions but it does follow Einstein's.

The clock in your sat nav is deeper in the Earth's gravitational well than the clock in the satellite so runs slower. If the programme didn't allow for this there would be an error of something like ten miles. Newton's theories are very, very good but there are real life situations where they give the wrong answer.

As a theory of pure science, General Relativity gives an entirely different description of how the Universe works. It supersedes Newton.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 07:39 AM

""I'm not too sure how a belief that Society advances, unless prevented by people who don't see natural selection as the only game in town, is consistent with the principle that evolution has no room for the concept of advance or progress.""

I don't know McG, I see that as mixing two arguments.

Evolution has little to do with the development within a species in the period during which it exists, other than having led to that species and determined its longevity or otherwise.

What that species achieves during its lifespan is a matter of ability, not evolution.

The concept that evolution has an agenda, or concern for an end game is false.

It is not a reasoning entity and lacks any capability to care about the end results of its operation. The first species to develop true self awareness happened perchance to be mankind, and self awareness permits the existence of an agenda.

IMHO, of course! YMMV.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 07:45 AM

""The clock in your sat nav is deeper in the Earth's gravitational well than the clock in the satellite so runs slower. If the programme didn't allow for this there would be an error of something like ten miles. Newton's theories are very, very good but there are real life situations where they give the wrong answer.

As a theory of pure science, General Relativity gives an entirely different description of how the Universe works. It supersedes Newton.
""

I never knew that.

One of the joys of Mudcat is learning most unexpected things from people of whose knowledge and skills one was unaware.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 09:11 AM

Steve, I sensed that you perceive religion as this threat to the advance of civilization because most of the people who reject evolution are, well, fanatically religious. So then, is it really the science you are concerned with here or is it the politics of the religious right that is correlated with non-belief in evolution? If it's the latter then I can see your point.

I believe in the separation of church and state and I think it is well supported by scripture. I do not believe that the religious right respects this separation. They obsess on "social issues," which they narrowly define as issues relating to sexual (and reproductive) morality in a very Victorian way, even though Christ had very little to say about such matters because they were simply not his priority. Love, charity, not judging others were his priority. The religious right shows very little evidence of following Christ's teachings in their political maneuverings. So happy to spend on "defense" while unconcerned with whether people go sick or hungry.

Instead, it is the political left who seem more inclined to hold values that reflect Christ's teachings. That is why I commented that it is ironic that so many conservatives still ascribe to Darwinistic policy while overtly rejecting science in favor of religion. You'd think they would reject Social Darwinism along with Evolution wouldn't you? It's rather disingenuous of them not to.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 10:52 AM

SJL: "Instead, it is the political left who seem more inclined to hold values that reflect Christ's teachings. That is why I commented that it is ironic that so many conservatives still ascribe to Darwinistic policy while overtly rejecting science in favor of religion. You'd think they would reject Social Darwinism along with Evolution wouldn't you? It's rather disingenuous of them not to."

I don't think either the 'right or left' adhere to Christ's teachings as a fundamental platform for their religious views. The 'right' while using 'religion' to further their agenda, seems more inclined to adhere to 'survival of the fittest'....ask any corporate/banking/political head!..While the 'left' seems to favor state control, over self control, and yet they run for cover, and fear the very thing the press on toward!

Truth of the matter is, the propaganda by both, 'right and left', is meant to confuse the subscribers of both, to mask their intentions, motives, means and agendas. 'Religion' is to 'spirituality' as 'politics' are to the 'truth'. BOTH are exclusive of each other. People confuse the terms 'religion' as having ANYTHING to do with the Spirit, and 'politics' with Freedom and Liberty. Both politics and religion are the biggest frauds perpetrated on the human race to control masses of people....whereas being tuned into the Spirituality, defies control of either.

This from the 'Thinkerator' thread...Little Hawk NAILS IT!

Subject: RE: BS: Defective Thinkerator Syndrome (DTS)...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 09:51 AM

"God made me to know him, love him and serve him"

You hear that from some people....but it seems to propose a separate God. That is, there's God...."over there"...wanting to be known, loved, and served by this person, that person, etc...

But God is supposed to be infinite.

And what is infinite is not just "over there", it's everywhere.

And it doesn't need to be loved or appreciated by anyone because it is already complete, therefore it needs nothing.

What if we are God (but not all of God) just like a drop of water is a part of the ocean, but isn't all of the ocean? And what if a drop of water thought it had to worship the ocean? And feared that the ocean would judge it and find it wanting? But didn't realize that it IS the ocean? In microcosm. Just as each one of us is life itself...individualized...the entirety of life being what some people refer to as "God"?"

Now if God is love, and all of it's properties of physics, both seen and unseen, what a vain attempt, by both 'religion' and 'politics'(either side), it is to try and control 'It', make its dictates, or deny the existence, and offer 'solutions' that are mere excuses to hold onto a temporal 'power' and 'control' over people's lives!

BTW, the end result of ALL politics is tyranny!
Then end result of all religions is conformity for control!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 11:24 AM

Ah yes, and then there's the truth. Politics is a strategy of divide and conquer. Religion punishes heretics. One thing is certain, the elite of either side of a political or religious divide will not be subject to the rules they lay down for you.

Anthropologically speaking, the first class apart from the community was the "priesthood." (more on this when I locate my notes). The state is nothing more or less than a secular priesthood.

GfS and Little Hawk, both of you are really in the zone! Don't know why anyone would call GfS Goofus. It really doesn't fit.

Muskrat, I need a new name. You really can't do much with SJL. Someone mentioned Suzy Sock Puppet but I don't know. I'll have to get back to you :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 12:10 PM

Steve, I sensed that you perceive religion as this threat to the advance of civilization...

Well you can just stop right there. I have not said anything like that. I was referring to those with extreme views who deny evolution, which is good science, and who try to replace it with creationism, which is a pack of lies based on superstition and no evidence. Religious people have been in the forefront of civilisation in many fields. Carrying one delusion doesn't stop people from doing good stuff.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 12:10 PM

What a delightful series of posts! I think that all the mudcat posters have a brilliant ability to look at the 'big picture', analyze, it, and challenge each other's analysis.   

What gets in the way? It's almost like something internal becomes triggered, and both the big picture and our own self-insight becomes (at least temporarily) obliterated.   Then all semblance of respect goes out the window.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 12:12 PM

You'd think they would reject Social Darwinism along with Evolution wouldn't you? It's rather disingenuous of them not to.

No I wouldn't. The two things have got absolutely nothing to do with each other.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 12:19 PM

I'm not too sure how a belief that Society advances, unless prevented by people who don't see natural selection as the only game in town, is consistent with the principle that evolution has no room for the concept of advance or progress.

Society does not advance by evolution via natural selection. Some of you guys really need to find out what evolution actually means. This bloke I've heard of published a great book about it in 1859. Get thee off to Amazon.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket again
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 01:02 PM

Not too sure of your point regarding sat nav. The corrections are built in.

The extraterrestrial trajectory to Mercury has such a low velocity in terms of c,, time dilation is irrelevant. Earth control time delay is a factor but Newtonian calculations will land you where you need to be. You have to reach 0.8c before time and mass start getting interesting.

General relativity was profound and upset a key tenet of the Principia, that of absolute space, absolute time,absolute position. The conundrum is explained with Newton's bucket. But in the observable realistic achievement stakes, f=ma can help plot your trajectory with gravitational slingshot to such a local target quite easily. Interstellar distances with high acceleration, I grant you, we need to take time and mass as variables that would alter the target had we stuck with Newtonian calculations, but even then we would be introducing variables, not superseding.

It is disingenuous to suggest removal of the need for fixed state supersedes the gravity, force and mass concepts. The concepts are there, the mathematical relationships are there, the ratios between them represent his clarification.

Relativity did remove other sacred cows such as the ether, but we need to look at the work of Planck, through to Heisenberg onwards to begin to dismantle the Principia, as we look at the quantum world. Space probes are in the physical word though...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 01:30 PM

The speculation around the notion of 'dark energy" has a lot in common with that around the notion of "ether".
............................
While Social Darwinism was a misapplication of a misunderstanding of Darwin's theory, it definitely drew its inspiration from Darwinism, and also gained a lot of the respect paid to it, and its ability to be effective, from that connection. It seemed scientific. And it hasn't ever really gone away.

The idea that that "progress" is a meaningful metaphor for human society, rather than, say, growth, or simply change, is one that bears examination.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 03:06 PM

It doesn't mean it doesn't stink. Darwin would turn in his grave.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 03:38 PM

Steve, I'm stopped! Please understand that I'm not promoting Creationism. Nor do I believe that Intelligent Design is the same thing. We'll probably never agree on that. And I'm well aware that religious people do good stuff, for example, the Quakers have probably done more than any other religious group to bring about social justice. But I stand by my assessment of the religious right. This is how I see them.

Like it or not, there is a connection between Darwinism and Social Darwinism. The timeline looks like this:



In 1848, August Comte published "A General View of Positivism." In he argued that the same methodology used in the natural sciences should be applied to "social science." He is considered the father of sociology.
In 1859, Darwin published the "Origin of Species." In 1862, Herbert Spencer published "The Social Organism" which began a new philosophical trend that came to be known as Social Darwinism. It was he who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest."

Of course the ethical quandary inherent in Social Darwinism is that it releases one from any obligation whatsoever, social, economic or otherwise, toward one's fellow man.

I'm sorry you can't see ID as anything but a stepping stone to Creationism. Evolution is not some worthless theory. ID doesn't say that either. It just isn't the whole ball of wax.

Steve, are you a science teacher? This seems to be a topic that you're passionate about.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 04:18 PM

Social Darwinism is a belief, popular in the late Victorian era in England, America, and elsewhere, which states that the strongest or fittest should survive and flourish in society, while the weak and unfit should be allowed to perish.

The theory was chiefly expounded by Herbert Spencer, whose ethical philosophies always held an elitist view and received a boost from the application of Darwinian ideas such as adaptation and natural selection.

The number of people who have embraced social Darwinism is quite revealing. One of the most prominent was no less than Adolf Hitler.

Social Darwinism tries to justify the oppression and suppression of the weak by the strong and the powerful, claiming that it improves the human race in general if the strong succeed and the weak just die off. Thus, the human race leapfrogs ahead and becomes the "übermensche," or Superman, envisioned by Friedrich Nietzsche.

Although she would never have admitted it, this was the very philosophy that was espoused by Ayn Rand.

And she proudly proclaimed herself to be an atheist.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 05:00 PM

Thank you, Don. You see? Absolutely nothing at all to do with Charles Darwin, the gentle naturalist whose great idea concerned only the non-random survival of heritable attributes within species. Not a bandwagon ever to be jumped on to be abused in other spheres of human endeavour, unless you're a charlatan. Darwin himself was at pains to point out the dangers of the misuse of natural selection outside the context of his work.

Read the book. You can't beat it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 05:08 PM

Please understand that I'm not promoting Creationism. Nor do I believe that Intelligent Design is the same thing.

You've been misled. They are two cheeks of the same ugly, unwashed arse.

Evolution is not some worthless theory.

It is if you believe in intelligent design/creationism. The two are entirely incompatible. If you don't see it, you don't understand evolution. Not only does evolution not need a God/creator/designer, there is no room in evolution for one.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 05:46 PM

Musket again

Not too sure of your point regarding sat nav. The corrections are built in.

Corrections? What corrections? The programmes in your sat nav use General Relativity to calculate your position because it gives a far more accurate result than if they had used Newton's Theorys.

The extraterrestrial trajectory to Mercury has such a low velocity in terms of c,, time dilation is irrelevant. Earth control time delay is a factor but Newtonian calculations will land you where you need to be. You have to reach 0.8c before time and mass start getting interesting.

Yes, I know. From my previous post - It isn't about time dilation due to high velocity, it's about the curvature of space in the presence of massive bodies.

But in the observable realistic achievement stakes

Yes of course. In the observable realistic achievement stakes Newtonian mechanics works just fine (most of the time). It is a very useful tool for calculating how long it will take you to hit the pavement and how fast you will be going if you jump off a tall building or for working out how to navigate a spaceship to Mars. (It might have a bit more trouble with a game of billiards but, in principle, it can be done.) That isn't enough for a scientific theory. If a theory makes a prediction and it doesn't match the experimental results. it ain't a theory no more. Mercury doesn't go where it should and clocks in orbit don't run on time.

Interstellar distances with high acceleration, I grant you, we need to take time and mass as variables that would alter the target had we stuck with Newtonian calculations, but even then we would be introducing variables, not superseding.

What are you saying? That General Relativity is just Newtonian Mechanics with fudge factors? I think there may be more to it than that.

Why do you keep on about Quantum Theory?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 05:47 PM

Dark energy is more than a notion.
The expansion is speeding up, and that requires energy.
There is a little doubt that it really is speeding up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 07:48 PM

Dark energy is a term used by scientists who are trying to make sense of evidence that things are even more complicated than they thought. Basically it's a marker saying, "watch this space." The word "notion" doesn't imply casting doubt on the observations, but recognising the degree of uncertainty which scientists feel tabout how to make sense of them.

.............
"Creationism" and "intelligent design" both share a belief in "God" as the shaper of the world. But formally they start from different places. "Creationism" starts from a belief in God, and from a literal belief in an interpretation of ancient writings, whereas "intelligent design" starts at least formally from consideration of scientific evidence, and draws from
this the conclusion that the explanation for this is an intelligent designer, in other words "God".

So far as issues around life is concerned the counter explanation is that with sufficient time, random association of molecules is adequate to explain the development of pre-life to life, and natural selection sufficient to account for everything else. So far as issues around the "fine-tuning" of the universe one suggested explanation is the existence of an enormous number of universes, so that the unlikely things that allow a life-bearing universe have the chance to occur. And others argue that the "fine-tuning" is a misunderstanding. There is no consensus.

The point is, this is about interpretation of evidence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 08:05 PM

"intelligent design" starts at least formally from consideration of scientific evidence

You legitimise it too easily. Intelligent design pretends to "consider" scientific evidence, but it doesn't really. It plucks examples of what it views as irreducible complexity (which are never true examples) and invests them with completely unscientific notions. Darwin anticipated this and dealt with it beautifully and comprehensively (with a gently fatal blow), but, of course, that isn't the kind of evidence that intelligent design merchants want to hear about. Intelligent design is the pseudo-intellectual wing of creationism, no more, no less. Two cheeks of one rather smelly arse.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 08:27 PM

Arguing like that Steve you are never going to engage with anyone who is undecided about those things, and in fact you are only too likely to push them into accepting the questionable arguments of advocates of "intelligent design".

They are "questionable", and that implies being ready to question and challenge them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 08:33 PM

Well we don't know enough about the origin of life. "Random" worries me a bit. I can imagine differential survival of compounds, or associations of compounds in droplets, in a process not far removed in nature from natural selection (which I prefer to reserve for non-random survival of heritable traits so as not to gainsay Darwin). There might have been millions of potential sites, but one got lucky. A bit like your millions of universes, or planets in Goldilocks zones. A million times, the right compounds were around but it just didn't happen. Then one day, in one puddle of warm soup...? I do love to speculate. But at least I'm speculating about the highly-improbable, not the damned impossible. After that, we have nucleic acids and alleles and mutation as givens - no need for speculation there. Natural selection is such a brilliant explanation for all of life because we need to make next to no assumptions. We have the materials and the mechanisms and we can see how it works. Bang for bucks a-plenty. Creationism makes massive assumptions before it can run at all, and burdens itself with having to do far more explaining that it explains. Useless!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 08:36 PM

Well they wouldn't have much about 'em if they went that way. Beyond saving, I should think. And there's nothing "questionable" about creationism, etc. It's arrant nonsense.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 08:55 PM

If you start from a definite assumption, that's where you end up. That applies if your assumption is that God exists or that the very idea of God is meaningless rubbish.

Basically it comes down to what Sherlock Holmes said "...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 09:04 PM

Unless you're looking in the wrong place.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 09:51 PM

Sorting out what is impossible from what is extremely improbable is of course not an easy thing to do. And nor is deciding which is which.

...so as not to gainsay Darwin does sound rather like treating the book as The Book... Holy Writ.






.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket musing
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 01:33 AM

I'm not going on about quantum theory, I merely state that if anything questions the fundamentals of the principia that is it, not general relativity. The beauty of general relativity is that it can apply in the quantum place as well as the observable universe to a degree, mass calculations can't.

I don't wish to start a tedious argument about this but your remark that general relativity supercedes the principia requires challenge. They relate, not differ. The absolutism was removed by Einstein but not the fundamental relationship, which was relativity anyway. ...

Regarding ether and dark matter. Good point but ether was just a convenient way of wondering how anything can propagate in a vacuum. Dark matter raises the question sgain, but not as a convenient hypothesis for vacuum propagation as I see it. Although it isn't and never was my field. My earlier professional interest in force and mass no longer exist since selling up 10 years ago for that matter. I remain fascinated but leave the advances to others.   Enough on with beer, pickled eggs and The NHS...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 03:35 AM

And what about dark matter?

It is known that the matter we learned about in school, and still teach in schools, forms only about 10% of the Universe.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 05:49 AM

...so as not to gainsay Darwin does sound rather like treating the book as The Book... Holy Writ.

That's a pretty silly remark. Darwin demarcated natural selection, for the purpose of his theory, as the non-random survival of heritable factors within species. You draw up one of the greatest of all scientific theories not by being sloppy but by defining your frames of reference carefully. I'll leave it to the "social Darwinists" or eugenicists, far lesser men than Darwin, to tendentiously redefine his terms, thank you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 05:49 AM

...so as not to gainsay Darwin does sound rather like treating the book as The Book... Holy Writ.

That's a pretty silly remark. Darwin demarcated natural selection, for the purpose of his theory, as the non-random survival of heritable factors within species. You draw up one of the greatest of all scientific theories not by being sloppy but by defining your frames of reference carefully. I'll leave it to the "social Darwinists" or eugenicists, far lesser men than Darwin, to tendentiously redefine his terms, thank you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 05:51 AM

I really shouldn't have to keep repeating myself, you know.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 07:22 AM

I,ve been here long enough to gauge that steve treats Darwin with the same authority as I treat the bible.
one difference is my book teaches me not to be foulmouthed ! - bless him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 07:34 AM

So the bible teaches you not to swear? It also says do not kill or steal but some religions seem to ignore those things provided they are done to members of other sects or non-believers. Why is that?

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 07:53 AM

His bible teaches him to keep slaves, subjugate women and kill people for being gay. Luckily, every single Christian is a hypocrit with a pick and mix attitude to the conviction they spout in the face of the rest of us.

Nobody asks or is asked to"believe" in Darwin as his observations are not a belief system. Shallow idiots call it thus as it interferes with their historic place in society, having power over others.

There's more than just evolution to question the factual basis of superstition. There's common sense and educated people too. Are they faulty constructs too pete?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 08:27 AM

God bless us, everyone.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 08:36 AM

No one may be asked to treat Darwin as a belief system not open to revision, but sometimes there is a tendency to do so, as with other 19th century giants, such as Marx. "So as not to gainsay Darwin" sounded as if Steve might be in danger of falling into that.

It is evident that in some areas assumptions he made do need modifying, notably his ideas about 'the tree of life'. That is hardly surprising, we know a great deal more about some things than he possibly could - and there is still a great deal to learn.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 09:07 AM

He made no assumptions about natural selection that are wrong in any substantive way. In fact, the beauty of natural selection is that we have all the facts to hand. Very few assumptions are needed, unlike any "explanations" involving God. You see what you've done here. You've got poodle pete jumping on your bandwagon - even after I'd explained why your remark was so silly. Beware of unintended consequences. Carry on like that and you'll end up in the naughty corner with Wacko, Ron, pete, Hawk and Guffers.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 09:24 AM

steve treats Darwin with the same authority as I treat the bible.

Well, you see, I don't accept "authority" of any kind unless I've checked its authenticity. In order to do that, I need evidence. The only evidence I have about the Bible (and gosh, I have read it, you know, good Catholic boy that am) is that it is incomplete, often of dubious authorship, cherrypicked (gospels of Mary Magdalen and Thomas, anyone?), occasionally rather suspiciously interpreted or translated and, in parts, somewhat replete with strange forms of magic. Along, of course, with healthy doses of misogyny and chosen people. I'm afraid it falls a little short of my "validated authority" test. On the other hand, as a biologist I have also read On The Origin Of Species (unlike you). Over a hundred years after it was published, a time of huge advances in genetics and biochemistry and evidence accumulation, I studied evolution at university. I know all about the evidence, a huge body it is too, and the disputes and corrections and new discoveries made since Darwin. I've done field studies involving natural selection. Taught the stuff in schools for 25 years, keeping myself updated. I know the difference, unlike you, between solid facts supported by evidence and pure speculation. So the reason I treat Darwin with such respect is that I've read him, studied him and watched the follow-up. Done a fair bit of thinking. Unlike you, the lazy master of predigested, prejudiced, received "wisdom" that is actually nothing of the kind.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 09:44 AM

It is evident that in some areas assumptions he made do need modifying, notably his ideas about 'the tree of life'.

Incidentally, saying that this was an assumption is a complete misrepresentation. He was speculating. He wrote "I think" next to his famous tree diagram. He was assuming nothing. He was always exceptionally honest and diffident about notions that occurred to him that he couldn't sufficiently support with evidence. Read the book.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 10:04 AM

Anyone around here read Tolkien's 'Silmarilion'? I read it a long time back but my lasting impression was that if we picked someone who know nothing of religion or literature he would be very hard pushed to tell which was the book that millions of people treated as the basis for their faith. They should probably both be in the same section of the library :-)

Cheers

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 10:25 AM

First off, it's hilarious to watch people try to shove a thread about respect into their own personal scripts on their pet hates.

Second, as long as we're here, Genesis 1:26: "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

The really interesting thing that's happening here is that "God" has been translated from the world "Elohim" which is a PLURAL noun. God is apparently talking to some other beings which he includes with the use of "our".

The Other People is interesting.

Lastly (probably): while I can respect a person as a human being, and I can respect their non-provable beliefs to a certain extent, anyone who thinks science and religion are equivalent are stupid. I don't blame them. I blame an education system that doesn't adequately explain the difference.

Yes, I "believe" in evolution. I believe in physics and chemistry. I believe in astronomy and that there is a universe that the Earth is not the center of. I believe in things that have been scientifically proven, right up until they are not. Science draws conclusions from the available proof. If the proof changes, so may the conclusions, and science is continuously challenging itself.

Religion, not so much. It doesn't change, EVER for the literal-minded, brittly rigid, and anything that doesn't fit is dismissed. I know very few religious people who fit that description, because they've found how everything can fit together.

Those of rigid beliefs aren't really worth arguing with, IMO. You can't argue with a person who won't accept reality and makes up rules as they go. You're never going to prove anything to them, and onlookers either don't give a shit or think you're as dense as the person you're arguing with: "Oh, let me try this again today, because it wasn't effective the last 352 times."

Sometimes, the only "respectful boundary" involves not engaging...as if.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 10:37 AM

I suppose I should have said "ideas", which covers both speculations and assumptions. My point was that what Darwin wrote over 160 years ago is subject to revision. That is not som ekind of attack n him, and I would be pretty sure that Steve actually accepts that to be true,

An interesting light on Darwin's attitude towards the ideas underlying Social Darwinism is shone by a letter by him carried in    this article on a California University website.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 11:53 AM

"Sometimes, the only "respectful boundary" involves not engaging..."

That's right, Jeri, and in real 3-D life that is usually not much problem to deal with. You pick up really negative signals or suspect having nothing in common with someone? You don't engage with them. On the Internet, however, you have no idea who is listening in on a conversation and who is going to react negatively to what you have just said...and therein lies the problem.

It's as if you were having a pleasant conversation over a cup of coffee with a couple of other people about something you're mutually interested in...not realizing that the conversation is being broadcast by a hidden microphone to everyone in the entire shopping mall...and there are bound to be some people in that shopping mall who disagree totally with you and all your values, and what if they came bristling up to your table and starting immediately fighting with you about your "stupid beliefs" (whatever those might be) and insulting you in every way they can think of?

Would that be conducive to continuing a good conversation? Uh-uh.

That's what the Internet is like. That's what happens here. It's creepy. It's unnecessary. It's unproductive. It's anti-social behaviour. It helps no one. I deal with it after a bit by just going off and doing something else instead. That means less time on Mudcat, which is probably just fine, actually.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 12:20 PM

Agreed, Little Hawk. And that of course is a powerful reason why we all owe it to ourselves by not raising the temperature by getting hot and bothered and throwing out in the course of our very public conversations.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 12:22 PM

Agreed, Little Hawk. And that of course is a powerful reason why we all owe it to ourselves not to raise the temperature by getting hot and bothered and throwing out in the course of our very public conversations.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket gettin.. can't be arsed
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 01:13 PM

We might as well all piss off then.

Ignorance thrives without challenge. Good job I'm thick as pigshit eh?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 01:34 PM

Musket musing

I don't wish to start a tedious argument about this but your remark that general relativity supercedes the principia requires challenge.

You're probably right since our ideas of what relativity is and is not seem so fundamentally different.

As a parting shot, you might find this article interesting - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Time,_Space,_and_Gravitation


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 01:38 PM

Shouting abuse is not challenging an argument Ian. I've been here ten years and have argued with loads of people, sometimes we agree, most times we agree to disagree.
I have never felt the need to call other members odious contemptible or wish them dead, because of their views.

No personal abuse was the only hard and fast rule of this forum, I think we should respect that rule....if nothing else.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 01:56 PM

McGrath of Harlow

"intelligent design" starts at least formally from consideration of scientific evidence, and draws from
this the conclusion that the explanation for this is an intelligent designer, in other words "God".


I'm afraid not, McGrath. The fact that it's called Intelligent Design is a bit of a giveaway.

From this website - http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.


In other words, they start from the assumption of intelligent design (and, therefore, an intelligent designer) and then go and look for evidence to support that idea.

Similar things from the Dicovery Institute here - http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign

No one may be asked to treat Darwin as a belief system not open to revision, but sometimes there is a tendency to do so, as with other 19th century giants, such as Marx. "So as not to gainsay Darwin" sounded as if Steve might be in danger of falling into that.

It does rather, doesn't it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 01:59 PM

So in order to challenge the suggestion that challenging something requires being discourteous, I'd need to call Michael something insulting, which would defeat my challenge..

So instead I'll just say I think it is completely wrong.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 02:55 PM

Formally what is described there, Snail, is a process in which a hypothesis "that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" is tested by looking for evidence that are consistent with it. In principle that's the same procedure as was involved in the search for the Higgs Boson.

My point isn't that this "research" stands up to critical analysis, but that critical analysis is the correct way to challenge it.
...............
It occurs to me that if the idea were accepted that the way to explain the apparent improbability of the "fine-tuning" of the universe (and other apparent improbabilities) is to propose that this arises because there is a large or indeed infinite number of universes, and we inhabit one which allows us to exist, this in fact does imply a kind of programmed selection or design, with the designer being us, acting retrospectively.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 04:01 PM

Sorry McGrath but I've got gigs to practice for so I can't spend much time on this. The Higgs Boson was predicted by existing theories. Searching for it was a test of those theories. The existence of an intelligent designer is wishful thinking. In terms of analysis, ID falls at the first fence. It is nor testable; it is not falsifiable.

Have a read of this -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

and this -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

I particularly like "argument from incredulity". I can't explain this so it must be God what did it.

It is pseudoscience and should not be given credibility by critical analysis.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 07:36 PM

A range of theories that are properly counted as scientific cannot be falsified at present and quite possibly never (eg Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation).   However what can be done is to seek alternative explanations which deal with the anomalies involved more satisfactorily.

If this can be done the credibility of the theories involved are reduced, if it cannot be done, the credibility is strengthened. That involves critical analysis. The suggestion that critical analysis which reduces the credibility of a fallacious theory at the same time gives it greater credibility is hard to sustain.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 10:37 PM

Holy Cow McGrath! That Darwin is certainly a find! What until Steve sees that. Of course,the real issue is the positivist model for social science research. That is what gave the idea that we could apply the methodology of natural science to human affairs. The reason the positivists won out over idealists like Max Weber was that there was a desire for social control. They wanted power over "the masses." Statistics were originally called "political arithmetic." Always the economy. God awful stuff.

Little Hawk, very nice.

Steve, you have read all the Gnostic Gospels? How exciting! Listen, the one you should read is this one:

http://books.google.com/books/about/Jesus_the_Wicked_Priest.html?id=uwFdIAAACAAJ

McGrath, you should read "In Search of the Primitive" by anthropologist Stanley Diamond. Mr. Diamond discusses the western notion of progress in great detail and does not shy away from ethics.   

From Wikipedia:

In memoriam in the journal which he founded, his legacy was recognized thus: "Diamond was one of the first anthropologists to insist that researchers both acknowledge and confront power relations, often colonial and neocolonial, that form the context of their work. His sympathetic portrayal of the Arab mountain villages, and analysis of psychodynamics on the Israeli kibbutz — as stemming from an incomplete critique of stetl life — was as much against the grain of contemporary research then as it is today. His concern for countering racism found its way into a number of trenchant popular and scholarly writings and, always, in his teaching" (Dialectical Anthropology, vol. 16, p. 105, 1991).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 10:41 PM

"No one may be asked to treat Darwin as a belief system not open to revision, but sometimes there is a tendency to do so, as with other 19th century giants, such as Marx. "So as not to gainsay Darwin" sounded as if Steve might be in danger of falling into that."

It does rather, doesn't it.


No it doesn't, and I've comprehensively explained why. This tiresome comment betrays the fact that you're a feckin' eejit. Nighty night!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 11:11 PM

Excuse my typos. Tiny phone with autocorrect.

Steve, I'm disappointed that you feel offended. Everybody here respects you. You're a wicked intelligent dude.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 12:01 AM

I couldn't make this kind of idiocy up!...Steve Shaw is ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that there is no God (in whatever definition he chooses)...and then says this, Steve Shaw: "Well we don't know enough about the origin of life. "Random" worries me a bit....."

But ONE THING FOR SURE, any concept of God beyond his early days as a Catholic Altar Boy, had NOTHING to do with it!!!!!!!!!

Coupled with this: "Carry on like that and you'll end up in the naughty corner with Wacko, Ron, pete, Hawk and Guffers."

Coming from you, and your 'idiot-logic', I'll take that as a compliment!

You really need to take a rest, and try to think it through. Don't hurt yourself.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 02:29 AM

This thread is about respect.

And yet.

Akenaton. Don't lecture me on abuse when your comments abuse every gay person.

Goofus. Somebody has a message for you, don't you boy?

Woof! Woof! Grrrr. Woof!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 03:37 AM

Woof! Woof! Grrrr. Woof!

C'mon boy!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket sans Newton
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 04:33 AM

Here Goofus! SJL is taking the piss out of you!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 06:55 AM

Steve Shaw is ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that there is no God (in whatever definition he chooses).

Steve Shaw, as Steve Shaw has asserted God knows how many times, hasn't a clue whether there's a God or not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 06:57 AM

Steve, I'm disappointed that you feel offended.

Never assume that, because I bite, it's because I'm offended. I don't really do offended.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 08:33 AM

"No fighting, no biting!"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 08:52 AM

Muskie, I was "talking" to you. Ah-roooo!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 11:19 AM

Steve Shaw: "Steve Shaw, as Steve Shaw has asserted God knows how many times, hasn't a clue whether there's a God or not."

OK..then if there is a God, and He's supposed to be about 'Love', ask Him to reveal Himself to you...don't make up what you think the answer should be, nor put a time limitation to it... and just pay attention. If there is a God, who is about love, then He would show you something, wouldn't He?..if your request was sincere. If you get nothing at all, then blow it off.
The is NO way that could insult you, harm you, restrict you, or any other bummer, you might imagine.
Try it...be patient, do not make up answers, nor disregard input that follows.

Respectfully (this time),

GfS

P.S. For the sake of brevity, I used the words, 'Him' and 'HE'...not to be confused with any religious gender or figurehead.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 12:47 PM

My grandson loves this one:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U6UWNA-WQgI


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 02:32 PM

SJL, thank your grandson for showing us that rare video of mudcatters actually agreeing on something-----as they reinforce and respect each others boundaries.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 07:58 PM

No worries, guffers, I've asked God to reveal himself on many occasions. No joy. Perhaps if I had a sex change, lost 40 years and turned meself into a thick French peasant somewhere near Lourdes...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 08:16 PM

'Thick' Now that is a term where I strongly object when it's used as a sneer. If you were in my home and said that I am afraid I'd feel bound to respond in the same kind of terms as the character I quoted in an earlier post who found he had a racist at his table. "I am afraid you are on hostile territory here." And I'd ask you to leave.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 08:52 PM

Well, dear McGrath, I do believe I was talking about a long-dead French peasant girl, not someone here. I note that you don't level the same strictures at pete, who, whilst not directly insulting people on the board, insults Darwin and every scientist connected with evolutionary biology. You don't exactly rush to defend them, yet you rush to defend a deluded and manipulated peasant. What a strange fellow you appear to be.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 10:20 PM

I strongly object to the use of the term "thick" as a sneer. Whether it's me, someone ls on the cat, or anybody else, living or dead.

(Incidentally, glancing back at the posts in this thread I couldn't see any from "pete" which were noticeably insulting to Darwin or anybody. Not that that's particularly relevant.)

I doubt if you intended to write in a offensive way. It's easily done.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 10:58 PM

Not strange Steve. Just trying to promote respect online. Because it's just too easy for people to behave in a way that they probably would not face to face. You can go anywhere online and find that sort of negativity. If Mudcat were a site where that didn't go on then it would different, special.

Sure, you could probably clean it up by simply eliminating the BS threads and I might have thought that would be a good idea if I hadn't had this wonderful professor. He taught us that the political elites want us to disengage from politics and one of the ways they do this is promote the idea that art, music are separate from politics whereas in reality they are related. Folk music in particular has a strong tradition of political engagement. My old prof is a big time folk music lover himself.

It's a good to be engaged, it's good for free speech, good for democracy, but all this hacking away back and forth with no attempt to find common ground? We can do better than that. Maybe you're a tough one and nothing offends you, even so I think it's better if we treat others as we would want to be treated. That's the secret Steve. That's how people end up liking one another. On that silly kid's video I posted, there were comments below and the first one said:

"But remember kids, you can always bite your enemies."

Yup, there's always that.

You're aces McGrath, keep up the good work.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 12:22 AM

But- but what happened to 'You only hurt the one you love'?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 12:35 AM

But that's the one you shouldn't hurt at all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 02:23 AM

(It's from a song, Larrytrg)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 02:48 AM

Some people need to have a good long think about the word respect before typing out sanctimonious tripe.

A reaction to a post that is considered disrespectful often fails to take into account why the post is there.

I find it hilarious that I have been berated by people (who take themselves seriously) for shouting down bigotry, for reacting to lies and for taking the piss out of absurdity.

Do try going up a post or two before becoming judgemental, there's good chaps.. shouting may be boorish but it does bring attention to weasels and opinions that are in themselves not exactly respectful of others, regardless of whether the others read Mudcat.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 03:50 AM

don't make up what you think the answer should be, nor put a time limitation to it...

So, in a nutshell, if you don't believe in god you just have to ask it to show you a sign and then wait indefinitely for the answer? Until you have done so, you have not really tried? As that means that no-one could ever say there was not a god because you may wait until you die before the sign it would be very clever. If you were dealing with those who could not spot the flaw in the logic that is.

As this thread is supposed to be about respect for others I must say that I find that one of the most the most disrespectful comments on it! It assumes that everyone reading it is stupid enough to believe it. As others have said before, a little name calling and bad language is nothing compared to the disrespect that the god-botherers are showing to others!

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 05:29 AM

Musket curious

Do try going up a post or two before becoming judgemental, there's good chaps..

So why did you call me a "Dozy sod"?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 05:51 AM

McGrath of Harlow

'Thick' Now that is a term where I strongly object when it's used as a sneer.

You didn't object to him calling me a "feckin' eejit" for ageeing with something you said.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 06:43 AM

McGrath of Harlow

A range of theories that are properly counted as scientific cannot be falsified at present and quite possibly never (eg Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation).

Although it seems to get loosely refered to as such, Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation and its many offshoots and rivals don't fit any criteria for being called theories. Hypotheses at best, conjectiure maybe but speculation would be nearer the mark. A quick peruse of the internet suggests that nobody has much idea what he was on about.

However what can be done is to seek alternative explanations which deal with the anomalies involved more satisfactorily.

WOOZLES!

If this can be done the credibility of the theories involved are reduced, if it cannot be done, the credibility is strengthened. That involves critical analysis.

All the necessary critical analysis has been done. Did you look at those links I gave you? It's tosh and fraudulent tosh at that.

The suggestion that critical analysis which reduces the credibility of a fallacious theory at the same time gives it greater credibility is hard to sustain.

As long as they are being talked about, they are still in the game and are happy. Don't feed the troll.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 08:44 AM

Well, Snail, McGrath was using that time-honoured and disrespectful tactic of trying to tar someone promoting scientific notions (and one of the greatest scientific notions of all time to boot) with the religiosity brush. You decided to chime in on the slur, camp-following behind pete even, well after I'd put him right. If you are so willing to demonstrate such doubt to the world as to whether you have any original thoughts of your own, preferring instead to cash in on others' ill-considered remarks, then you can expect a bit of flak, I reckon. If you don't like the abrasion, don't do that again.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 10:59 AM

Perish the thought that anyone should ever show you any disrespect Steve.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 01:23 PM

You didn't object to him calling me a "feckin' eejit" for ageeing with something you said.

Maybe because he agreed that you are a "feckin' eejit"?

:D tG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 01:52 PM

Tarring Steve with the religiosity brush would appear to say that when I suggested that his regard for Darwin's writing was veering towards the over reverant I was accusing him of religiosity. I think that would be over-egging the pudding, to vary the metaphor.

And it's got nothing to do with my objection to what he now recognises as "an ill-considered remark".   (At last I think that's what he says.) Quite where the "disrespectful" comes in I'm not sure.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket gettin.. can't be arsed
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 03:35 PM

I don't have a working hypothesis on human snails. If I called you a dozy sod it would be deduction from observation.

Dozy sod.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 05:35 PM

What was the title of this thread again?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 06:06 PM

Cheers for that, Dave. I was (heh bloody heh!) far too respectful to post that meself, sorely tempted though I was!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 06:19 PM

what some call disrespectful really amounts to having a different opinion , despite no insulting or foul words being employed by the posters.
- a somewhat subjective definition?!.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 06:20 PM

Chongo, you might better send Cheetah over for the rest of the bottle.

Muskrat, i've had about enough of you twisting everything around to suit your dogma. And Steve, what's this about you saying "died in my arms etc." I only wish. I wish I had been there more for my friend Pat during the ten years he suffered with Aids.

I won't bore you with details about Pat. On the other hand, maybe I will. First off, he was 1000 % Irish. Not by anything he said but his entire being. Flaming red hair and freckles all over. Had a voice as soft and sweet as a whisper, eternally non-judgemental, the type of person you could open up your heart to without being afraid. Should have been a priest.

We became friends in high school when we were in the same musical and hung out after that and went off to the same Ivy League School 25 miles from home so we could back. We watched comedies. We shared everything- especially dinner. As soft and sweet as his voice was, when he laughed, it was so loud and raucous, I think it reverberated off the walls. It did.

So now, I must tell you that I also agree with Akenaton on this second point. There is no campaign too extreme to get rid of this thing. McGrath, you mentioned the situation in Africa. That just goes to show you how bad it can get without the appropriate intervention. Look at how we treat TB. Same thing without the stigma. I'll take the stigma if that's what it takes. Pat was a baby. He never even reached the age of 30. He left me behind.

What can I say? Some of us prioritize life and death over propriety. As my grandma would say, "Put that in your pipe and smoke it."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 06:33 PM

what some call disrespectful really amounts to having a different opinion , despite no insulting or foul words being employed by the posters.

I mean, how pathetically wrong can you be? Hitler had a different opinion about Jews, so are you saying he wasn't disrespectful? In most of your posts you show the ultimate disrespect to all scientists. You yourself are pig-ignorant about every aspect of science, as you have abundantly shown, and you are bone idle in that you won't even read scientific works before pontificating on how shite the author is. You are an ignorant and insulting charlatan, and it's a bloody good job that you're so laughably insignificant that you can have very little influence in promoting your stupid ideas.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 06:56 PM

Godwin's Law. Had to happen...

"Godwin's Law states that as an online argument grows longer and more heated, it becomes increasingly likely that somebody will bring up Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin's Law has effectively forfieted the argument."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 07:46 PM

Absolute bollocks, McGrath. I'm surprised at you. Apart from the fact that Godwin himself was eventually severely embarrassed by his "law", there is no problem with the mention of Hitler and the Nazis if it fits into the context of the thread. You're a very fine fellow in many regards, McGrath, but you're edging nearer and nearer to that naughty corner.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 08:25 PM

McGrath, you are light years ahead of me.

I have it on good authority, that of a high school teacher who specializes in teaching about the Holocaust, who also taught a course at university which I took called "Democracy in Education," that Hitler never had one original idea. He'd have been little more than a joke if he hadn't come to power.

On Democracy in Education: First day she said, "Well, there's very little of it. But we're going to talk about it anyway."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 08:54 PM

When in doubt on Mudcat thread topics and drift, I refer to the Urban dictionary for an answer. Here is an entry, (to be used as an example of a disruptspectful mudcat thread act:


Masturbathe -
To pleasure oneself sexually whilst washing or immersing one's body in water.
Friend 1: Andi hasn't left her room in days.
Friend 2: Yeah she's been really upset since she and Rodney broke up.
Friend 1: What she needs is to brew some herbal tea, run a warm bath, and masturbathe in it.
Friend 2: True. It'll improve her miserable mood as well as her poor hygiene.


Disruptspectful -
one who caries on in such a way as to be both a disruption and disrespectful all at once.

:)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 09:03 PM

Disrespect? you old fuddy- mudcaters are doing a poor job at it, at best.

Whatever happened to real insults like "Do your keepers a huge favour: do a triple summersault through the air, and disappear up your own asshole"?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 12:14 AM

Dave the Gnome: "As that means that no-one could ever say there was not a god because you may wait until you die before the sign it would be very clever. If you were dealing with those who could not spot the flaw in the logic that is."

I guess you could do that, while waiting for someone to show up with the 'missing link'!..Except when you get the answer, you prayed for, you'll KNOW!!!

Now, what about that faulty logic, with accompanying insult???

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,musket vindicated
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 01:14 AM

My turn to be smug.

Rather than read my comment, just reread SJL's post above again.



Especially the bit about agreeing that gay people existing means we need a solution.

Oh and the posts around it on the Godwin stuff.

Especially those using Godwin to close down uncomfortable comparisons.

I love a good flush out now and then. Don't you?





Oh, forgot Goofus.   On reflection that seems a good idea.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 02:21 AM

Don't really understand that post Ian, could you explain it for those of us who are "off message"?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 02:38 AM

Vindicated? "shurely shome mishtake"?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 03:12 AM

GfS Now, what about that faulty logic, with accompanying insult???


The faulty logic is that it suggests you wait for an answer indefinitely. The insult is expect other people to accept this. But I suspect you will never get that will you.

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 04:29 AM

Surely as a wannabe architect of the solution, you'd be on song?

Mind you, if it were genuine ignorance, it says something of the mindset that presses the keys on your computer.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 06:01 AM

"Especially the bit about agreeing that gay people existing means we need a solution."

Curiouser and curiouser. That statement barely makes sense but I'm pretty sure you're trying to tell us all where I'm coming from. But you don't have to do that because I am fully capable of doing that myself.

Ian is it? Love that name. I always feel better after a good cry, don't you Ian?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Ian Mather
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 07:29 AM

"There is no campaign too extreme to rid us of this thing. "

Seems like a solution to me.   Good cry? Yeah, that people can say such things would make any bugger want to have a good sob about the cruel heartless hatred masquerading as concern.

You know, my parent's generation fought to try and rid Western society of fascism. At least real fascists don't hide under stones eith compassion written on them.   If you say you agree with Akenaton, either read what he puts or come off the fence yourself and polish your jackboots ready to educate sub humans.

Fuck me, you'd think Mudcat would be mainly burnt out hippies, weird beards in fair Isle sweaters and sandals and Guardian readers in ethnic skirts. We certainly are a broad church eh? The odd heavily starched shirt in black and close cropped hair to boot. Who'd have thought it.?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 07:31 AM

Oi! I don't wear skirts!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 09:40 AM

What do you mean? I was talking about the disease that took my friend. If I felt the way you say I feel, I wouldn't care. I'd say something like, "Let them contract it, let them die." Believe, I've heard that kind of thing from less than human individuals along the way. Those are the people you need to worry about. Do you really think that mandatory testing is persecution? I don't. Everyone at risk should be tested. Haven't you said you work in a health profession?

I grew up in the first generation where it was halfway acceptable to be openly gay. If I was gay myself, I wouldn't have any problem being myself. I'd probably be like my aunt if I were. Ah, forget it Ian, this is an impasse. My bad for bringing it up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 10:17 AM

Good idea.

Just be careful when agreeing with Akenaton. He advocates enforced screening, history tracing and steps to prevent gay people being sexually active. By agreeing with him, I doubt your true thoughts were what we read. ..

The first generation were whenever homo sapiens first walked. The last generat