 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: George Papavgeris Date: 10 May 05 - 07:15 AM Over the last few years I have seen a number of threads created to discuss the specific misbehaviours or misdeeds of individuals: either performers, or MCs/organisers of clubs, or just plain members of the folk community. Invariably such threads sooner or later descended to what I would call "mudslinging levels", with allegations piling on top of the existing ones, or with posters simply reiterating their disgust at whatever unseemly behaviour the individual has exhibited. Yet there is a place here for genuine complaints. Alerting the rest of the Mudcatters to someone's bad behaviour is one thing, quite legitimate in my view, as it warns others. But persistence in the accusations when such behaviour has been explained or excused, or when an apology (however weak) has been made, is starting to smell bad; and it leads to people being tried by cangaroo court on the internet. When the livelihood of individuals is threatened that way, or when people's artistic aspirations are being damaged by such mudslinging, where do we draw the line? What is legitimate and OK to state, and what is not? What is acceptable for us to discuss, and what is not? Please discuss, without specific references to individuals. Where despite my plea, specific references are made to incidents or people in this thread, I will request from the clones that such postings be deleted. Let's keep this a generic and civilised discussion. George |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST Date: 10 May 05 - 07:25 AM If an unprofessional drunk expects folk to pay money to go to a gig and watch him/her act like an arse, they are fair game for a no holds barred discussion. Just as his/her behavior was a no holds barred disgrace. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Dave the Gnome Date: 10 May 05 - 07:49 AM If an unprofessional drunk expects folk to pay money to go to a gig and watch him/her act like an arse Johny Vegas makes a good living out of it:-) And he's a professional unprofessional! Back to the subject in hand though. Unfortunate though it is most critisism will degenerate into argument and most argument will lapse very quickly into unaccepatable behaviour such as mudslinging or violence. Alerting others to someone elses bad behaviour is critisism of that someone else and they have the right to defend against it. In polite society or that goverened by rules, such as governmental debates, it is simply a case put forward; a reply and a decision based on those arguments. End of story usualy. In normal society and to an even greater extent on the impersonal pages of a discussion forum these polite rules often fail. The answer? Possibly moderation, possibly self government, possibly anarchy. Who knows? I'm certainly not going to visit that debate again! My personal view is that all points of view are valid and should be put forward for the rest of us to make our own minds up. When that degenerates into an 'I'm right and all others are wrong' food fight I go home! Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: George Papavgeris Date: 10 May 05 - 07:52 AM If the performer acts like an arse during the performance, it is one thing. But if they act like an arse in their own time, then it's another. Then they are judged as an ordinary person, not as a performer, surely? Another differentiation could be made on the extent that the performer "acted like an arse". Were others involved? Was anybody hurt physically? Was there any other kind of abuse? Was there provocation? etc etc. To blanket-cover it all as "fair game" seems to me to be essentially unfair. The laws covering celebrity reporting make some provisions, based on "public interest". Surely, the protection available to celebrities should be also available to mere mortals? But even beyond legalities: Where does legitimate warning of others end, and voyeuristic mudslinging begin? There is immorality involved beyond a certain point; but what is that point? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Dave the Gnome Date: 10 May 05 - 07:52 AM Oh - Apart from when I am right and all the rest of you morons are wrong of course... :D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 10 May 05 - 07:54 AM The paying public has a right to expect the paid perfomer to deliver the goods, over the years going back to the 60's when I first frequented folk clubs various perfomers have been noted for one or more of the following, failure to turn up for gigs, drunkeness on stage, abusive nature, rabid egotism etc etc Now in an era where such information can be freely exchanged via the net, is it wrong to share it, do the paying public have a right to know in advance that certain individuals may not turn up, or may be drunk or may be intensely self centred and thus have the opportunity to "vote with their feet" and avoid such situations. I believe they do, I for one would not attend a concert if there was a strong possibility that all I would witness was a drunked wretch on stage unable to play their instrument or remember the words of their songs, I have better things to do with my money |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST Date: 10 May 05 - 07:58 AM Hey dave, don't knock jonny vegas! That's fighting talk. Also a (as you know) poor comparison, as far as I know he doesn't head butt members of the audience. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: George Papavgeris Date: 10 May 05 - 08:19 AM GUEST, I don't know anyone who headbutted a member of the audience during a performance. I don't believe anyone ever has - not during a performance. But I do know someone who was vilified for having an affair. And I do know wifebeaters. And I do know drug addicts. And I do know alcoholics. All of them somehow involved in the folk scene, in fairly prominent positions. Nevertheless, I don't feel it would be fair to discuss that aspect of their private lives here. Do you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: jacqui.c Date: 10 May 05 - 08:22 AM I would agree with Raggytash here. If I'm going to pay money to see someone perform I expect them to do the job and provide entertainment. After all, it's the audience who are paying their wages, be it a guest night at a folk club or a gala night at the Royal Albert Hall. The audience deserve the respect of the performer in general terms and if any performer is abusing the priviledge then I don't want to give them my cash - there are plenty of GOOD performers I would rather spend money on - or waste my time watching them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: freda underhill Date: 10 May 05 - 08:37 AM there's a line between a review and a personal attack. A review is fair enough, commenting on a person's performance. a personal attack drags everyone down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST Date: 10 May 05 - 08:38 AM el greko I didnt say it was during a performance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: jacqui.c Date: 10 May 05 - 08:39 AM Freda - that sums up my feelings about Mudcat posters as well. Most make me think but a few just make me want to throw up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: George Papavgeris Date: 10 May 05 - 08:58 AM Agree, Jacqui. I wouldn't pay money to see someone who is likely to be drunk or abusive on stage. But what if that person has been reported as being abusive off-stage (Noel Gallagher for example)? What is "fair game then"? Would you go to see him (assuming you are a fan of his music)? And more important, would you try to persuade others not to go and see him? As freda says, it is a very fine line, and most of us overstep it from time to time in the heat of the moment. I just wish we could define that line. GUEST, no, you did not specify "during a performance", but you said "audience", which implies it. That is why I made the distinction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Dave the Gnome Date: 10 May 05 - 09:04 AM I love Johny V - But he does headbut the audience, verbaly anyway. Left me with a headache many a time:-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: freda underhill Date: 10 May 05 - 09:12 AM i have not seen a woody allen movie ever since he started a sexual relationship with his daughter. I just couldnt. but i havent discussed this before now, it was just a personal reaction. for me, if i have a negative encounter with a musician or artist, their product becomes tainted and not as enjoyable. i think it is easy sometimes to put great performers on a pedestal, and expect them to be fantastic people. sometimes, if you enjoy the music, its just better not to know. when someone with a particular political profile does or says something that seems to betray the previous persona, people can get outraged. but i think we like to package people as a commodity - someone who safely reinforces what we want to hear. people are flexible and change, and have different views over different issues. we don't own them. but we can choose whether to listen to or watch their product. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: jacqui.c Date: 10 May 05 - 09:20 AM George - a difficult one. I do remember a work colleague who wouldn't even listen to a certain artist because the man was gay. It was my opinion that he lost out on a lot of good music as a result. I do like some of Oasis's music and the offstage behaviour wouldn't put me off going to a concert, much though I might dislike that behaviour. Nowadays, with the net and the media, performer's lives are much more open to scrutiny than has been the case in the past. Think of all the big stars in music and on the screen whose performances we have enjoyed in the past. At the time who knew that some of those people were vicious drunks, spouse beaters or drug addicts in their private lives? I know of one very well known comedian whose ex wife said that she could tell if she was in for another session of violence by the way his car came up the gravel drive - this is a man who is well loved by the general public. Much though we might regret it I do think that if we judged all performers by what they do in private as well as on stage there would be very few left who could make a living. Maybe their private behaviour is part of the price that is paid for their talent, maybe it is that private behaviour that makes them what they are on stage, who knows? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: freda underhill Date: 10 May 05 - 09:29 AM its true that many people "pay a price" for talent as you put it, jacqui. I'm not saying every artist has to be unstable or has to have had a lousy life. but some great artists have so much rage and grief or humiliation inside them. some people just think differently, feel different, have mood swings. the mood swings can be part of the creative process. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST Date: 10 May 05 - 10:08 AM el greko please don't assume what I implied. I implied nothing. Audience is a fairly simple word to understand. If I assumed the incident occurred whilst the gig was in full swing, I would have stated that. As I know it didn't, I didn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: DebC Date: 10 May 05 - 10:10 AM As a professional musician, I know that the way I behave in public reflects upon me and also can reflect on the venue that employs me. I am also of the opinion that if I attend an event as a non-performer, my behaviour also reflects upon me. What I do within the privacy of my own home is my business. I also believe that it is appropriate to discuss negative behaviour that took place in public in a public forum. That is a consequence of a person choosing to behave the way they did IN PUBLIC. I also think that by discussing the behaviour in a public forum, and naming names, it gives the person a chance to respond to the discussion. This is the difference between a public forum and just passing gossip back and forth over the phone or in a discussion in the pub. What one does with the information is up to them. If someone decides that they will not support a performer's livelihood because of public behaviour, that is their decision and I have to respect that. As for "mudslinging", that is never appropriate, IMO. Deb Cowan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: George Papavgeris Date: 10 May 05 - 11:32 AM Sure it's a toughie, Jacqui. And I've already been accused both of being a shit-stirrer, and of being holier-than-though, just for starting this thread. That's both sides of the fence that don't feel comfortable with this subject, then. No surprise - neither do I, nor do I have any answers (though interestingly, I stopped enjoying Woody Allen from the same point as freda; we must share some taboo). By the way, GUEST, if you are a member, please do PM me; I seem to have somehow rubbed you up the wrong way with my assumption about "audience". If indeed you are the same GUEST that accused me of "self-importance" on the other thread, I would appreciate a chance to clear my name! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST Date: 10 May 05 - 11:37 AM No problem el greko. I just wanted to disagree with you telling me what I was implying. When quite clearly I wasn't implying anything. But I'm with you on the woody allen taboo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 10 May 05 - 11:44 AM I thought incest was OK as long as you kept it in the family |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: jacqui.c Date: 10 May 05 - 11:55 AM Never liked Woody Allen anyway, his films never hit the spot for me and I wasn't surprised by what happened. There are a number of performers that I respect for their body of work but have no time for as individuals - those that have no time or courtesy for their fans come to mind - and I must admit that does take the edge off of my enjoyment because you are aware that you are not seeing the true personna on stage. Kendall and I were lucky enough to have dinner with Tom Paxton the other day before his concert in Bath and a nicer man you couldn't hope to meet. I can think of a couple of other celebrities that I've come across at signing sessions who were clearly there just because they HAD to be, and were simply tolerating the fans who had come to meet them. Each time I've seen those performers since I still remember their attitude and that does change my view to some degree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: kendall Date: 10 May 05 - 11:56 AM Off stage Stan Rogers was a crashing boor but I sure wish he hadn't left us. I'd love to see and hear him again. Woody Allen? never liked him anyway.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 10 May 05 - 12:00 PM Posts and discussions about the worth of fellow posters (good or bad) should perhaps not be posted publicly? Posts addresed to fellow named fellow posters and of no general interest - perhaps also should not be posted publicly? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Ebbie Date: 10 May 05 - 12:08 PM Hey, the concensus on this Woody Allen thing bothers me. Having multiple adopted children in my family - from my parents to two sisters to a niece, I am fully aware that those children ARE now by law my relatives. But surely a distinction can be made regarding 'incest'? If my brother falls in love with an adopted sister (which has NOT happened, by the way) SURELY it is not INCEST but a legal entanglement instead? My guess is that it is a problem that could be resolved legally. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST Date: 10 May 05 - 12:19 PM The legality of the situation never crossed my mind. The morality of aming love to someone that he raised as a child did cross it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: jacqui.c Date: 10 May 05 - 12:20 PM But in this case it was effectively a father/daughter relationship, albeit adopted rather than biological and that does make a difference, particularly since the girl, if I remember rightly, was still in her late teens when the relationship began. Allen was her parent and, as such, had special responsibilities to his child and this new relationship left a nasty taste in the mouths of many people. From its nature it had a tinge of abuse at the time that concerned a lot of people. There is a lot of fuss when a teacher/pupil relationship is uncovered, even if the pupil is above the age of consent, how much more so when a parent/child relationship occurs, be they biologically linked or not? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 10 May 05 - 12:54 PM Who adults fall in love with is not always convienient. Or acceptable to others - but it is a fact that this love is usually too strong for others judgement and taste to have very much effect on. In these cases - it is probably a matter best left to the judgement and tastes of the adults concerned. A bit like threads here. Those threads started may not be to the tastes of some. In which case - these posters can ignore them and find or start another thread that may be to their taste. Asking for another poster's choice of thread to be closed or deleted - is not necessary - if we just mind our own business. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: jacqui.c Date: 10 May 05 - 07:06 PM Don't think that is the case on this thread, is it Shambles? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Ebbie Date: 10 May 05 - 07:54 PM "Soon-Yi was 8 years old when adopted by Ms. Farrow and the conductor Andre Previn during a trip to Korea. "Ms. Farrow, who starred in many of Allen's films, was his companion for more than a decade, although, as Allen has pointed out, the couple never lived together, and spent their nights at separate homes. In 1992, the relationship between her adopted daughter and Allen came to light when she discovered nude pictures of Ms. Previn, who was then 21, in Allen's apartment." http://www.ishipress.com/soon-yi.htm Keep in mind that Allen did NOT adopt the young woman; she was the adopted daughter of Farrow and Andre Previn. I don't know how old she was when Allen and Farrow married but she was NOT a young child. I've never even seen a film of Woody Allen's. Neither am I holding a brief for him but fair is fair. |
|
Subject: Damien Barber alleged assaul From: Richard Bridge Date: 10 May 05 - 08:22 PM Now wait a minute! Two threads closed? We should delete details of a possibly criminal assault because it embarrasses someone - even a (maybe) star)? Get a *** grip! DB may be a person with self-confessed alcohol problem - but this was a public assault (if the facts are rightly reported) and he is not entitled to edit history. No more should Joeclones be.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Damien Barber alleged assaul From: Malcolm Douglas Date: 10 May 05 - 08:44 PM The threads were closed partly because they were rapidly filling up with self-righteous pontifications (some clearly malicious) from people who weren't there and didn't know what they were talking about. Perhaps the opportunity to make anonymous attacks was too much for the poor wee souls to resist. I hadn't thought of you as a troublemaker until now, but I really do think that this new thread is ill-judged and stupid, if not actually malicious. The matter has been discussed and dealt with. It is time to let it drop. |
|
Subject: RE: Damien Barber alleged assaul From: GUEST,Jon Freeman Date: 10 May 05 - 08:47 PM There has been no editing of history, just an attempt not to prolong the thread. I had sent this as a PM to Joe Offer after reading the threads which but I suppose I will go public now. ---------------- I don't really know Damien but I did meet him a few times maybe 10 years ago as he used to be a regular visitor to the bi-annual Bangor (North Wales) Festival (a weekened of pub sessions and party after pub closed). What I read in that thread is nothing like the Damien I've met. Sure he had and has drink problems but there was never any "oh my god Damien's here take care or he'll nut you" - in fact he was well liked. One festival after a party, we both ended up stopping at the same house and he asked me if I fancied some of his home made wine which he had in the boot of his car, I wound up drinking and exchanging songs with him until maybe 6am. It remains one of my favorite "folk memories". This brings me onto the "they are all crap" comment. I didn't even know that Damien was an up and coming "folk star" until a year later. He wasn't the sort to push himself - clearly an outstanding musician but just another session player as far as I was concerned. I know the reported behavior was completely unacceptable but going by the little I know about him, he was acting completely out of character on that occasion and I'd hate to see him "condemned for life" for what I assume was a one off - particularly (although I've never been involved in public displays of violence) as I know the problems of wrestling with alcohol only too well. ------------- Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Malcolm Douglas Date: 10 May 05 - 09:09 PM I should, I suppose, mention that Richard Bridge's post, and my reply to it, have been moved to this thread from yet another new thread on the subject started by Richard. I'm glad to see that it's been terminated, but a note to the effect that the messages have been transferred from another context might avoid misunderstandings later on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,Jon Date: 10 May 05 - 09:11 PM (for the record, my post was also to the new thread Malcolm mentioned) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 11 May 05 - 02:07 AM Brilliant! Now because some anonymous volunteer has closed yet another thread and moved these two posts here - this thread (or Jon's posted re-posted PM with it persoanal references) will have to be deleted. As the originator of this thread is now going to demand (yet more) imposed censorship action from our volunteers. Perhaps our anonymous volunteer could have actually read the original post in this thread first? Please discuss, without specific references to individuals. Where despite my plea, specific references are made to incidents or people in this thread, I will request from the clones that such postings be deleted. Let's keep this a generic and civilised discussion. George Can we just leave matters of personal taste to each poster to decide? No one is being forced to read or respond to any thread. Choosing to open the thread or not - to read the posts or not - to respond or not - is enough judgement already. Can we and our volunteers just mind our own business and concentrate on what we post - rather than judge and be encouraged to pass judgement - on what everyone else posts. If Jon's post is not to be removed and George's wishes are to be ignored by our volunteers - perhaps The apology posted by the individual now named in Jon's post - can be placed here also? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 11 May 05 - 02:13 AM If our volunnteers can ignore the thread originator's wishes - perhaps we all can follow this example? Subject: RE: The REAL Demon Barber Roadshow!! From: GUEST,Damien Barber - PM Date: 04 May 05 - 10:55 AM Hi All I've just been put onto this thread by a friend. Whether this thread is a suitable topic for this forum is debateable but as I am a professional musician in the public eye it could be argued that it's fair game to bring such situations to the attention of others. The argument is now irrelevant as it is already in the public arena. Probably the best way I can talk about what happened on Saturday is to explain a bit about myself. One of the reasons I became involved in folk music and remained involved was the tolerant and relatively placid nature of the people who make up the folk scene, this makes what happened on Sat night all the more contradictory. Ironically though, I've been in a fair number of situations at folk festivals where I've had to calm situations down and stop fights that have occurred through excessive drinking, quite often at late night unofficial parties. I've had a turbulent relationship with alcohol since I was young and its close proximity to the music industry (especially folk) has always been a concern. Some years ago I moved to Ireland and all but gave up being a professional musician. In those days I couldn't see a way forward without drink and continued on a downward spiral, eventually working up to around 5 bottles of whiskey a week when I was binging. It took me another three years to eventually realise that just to stay alive I would have to stop. Since returning to England I made the decision not to drink when performing and gave up general social drinking, limiting myself to the odd piss up after festival shows and when rapper dancing. Admittedly these have become more frequent. My memory of Saturday night is obviously blurred as I think it is undeniable that I was in a complete state. Saying that, the guy I hit was also in a bad way. I used to have a brother who was as frightening a man as you could want to meet when drunk although never physically violent to anyone but me. The guy in the shower reminded me of him to the extent that it brought up very emotive memories, at the time all I could see was my brother. My brother was the only person I've had a serious fight with since leaving school and these fights with my brother were not light scuffles but very violent. When (In my opinion) the guy in the shower went for me I reacted in a way that was familiar. I don't believe the reason for using my head had anything to do with protecting my hands (those of you who know me will know that I'm pretty useless at looking after them anyway and it certainly wouldn't occur to me to protect them when drunk) but is because (and this isn't a macho statement) I know how much damage a punch can do. Some of you may have a difference of opinion on this but I speak from my experience mentioned. I also don't believe that I hit him particularly hard as I'm sure there would have been more serious consequences if I had. In saying this I am not condoning what happened but hopefully offering an explanation of how my actions most likely came about. As for apologies, that goes without saying, I apologise to the guy I hit and everyone I've offended. I've witnessed a lot of violence over the years, by and to some of the people I used to associate with, and although I am reasonably numb to it I can understand how upsetting it must be to those who aren't. We all make mistakes and we all do it in different ways, mine have usually involved alcohol. Some of us do it more extremely and frequently than others and I've unfortunately done it more times than I care to remember, although this ironically puts me in a position of being able to forgive people for a lot of stuff, especially when it involves drink. Those of you who understand any of this will hopefully continue to support my music, those of you who don't, probably won't. Unfortunately there is nothing I can do about what happened last weekend other than to apologise, continue making music and to keep off spirits. I hope that next time I write to Mudcat it will be on a happier note. Cheers Damien |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 11 May 05 - 02:59 AM This in (brown) editing writing when closing the 'Apology To Damian Barber' thread. The topic is certainly appropriate for discussion. What's inappropriate is to name names, especially in thread titles. I'm closing this thread because a number of people have convinced me that it is personally and unnecessarily embarrassing to an individual. Shambles, if you have any concern for the person concerned, I suggest that you accept the fact that this thread has been closed for his benefit. -Joe Offer- All of this imposed censorship (involving the imposed closure now of 3 threads)- like always - has only brought attention to something that most posters would have been unaware of and not interested in. The minute folk see all this fuss on our forum - they tend to want to know what all the fuss is about. There certainly is little point now in our volunteers closing the thread where the individual concerned has posted his explanation and apology. This only stops posters from seeing this important contribution. Joe if you and your volunteers don't know what to do for the best. The very best thing you can do - is to mind your own business and do nothing. Then at least you cannot be accused of making matters worse by meddling. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 11 May 05 - 03:11 AM The first closed thread The REAL Demon Barber roadshow The second closed thread An Apology to Damian Barber |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 11 May 05 - 03:25 AM And oh yes - and the third thread Damian Barber alleged asault A click on that link - will now bring you back to this current thread. So is that thread now closed or is it deleted? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 11 May 05 - 03:28 AM Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 10 May 05 - 04:46 AM Hi, Dewey - we don't ban any of the things on your list. We do take action on racism, Spam, personal attacks, and a few other things that are generally understood as abuses. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,Jon Date: 11 May 05 - 04:33 AM Well shambles, as I said before, I don't always expect to agree with Joe's decisions (although I have the oppertunity I didn't take late last night to discuss the matter with him) and this is one of the few I think he got wrong. I do however disagree with you. I do believe the closure of the first two threads was correct. An apology had been made, the thread was degenerating as Macolm described and I no possibility of anything other than damage to a professional musican coming with the thread continuing. A personal attack if you like. The trouble IMO was caused by Richard Bridge in posting a third thread rather than respecting the reasonable actions taken by Joe and an oppertunity presented by El Greko to discuss the matter and related matters in a non personal way. It was that, not thread closures that prompted my response. Where I agree with you is the placement of my post is inapproppriate - in fact I'd rather deleted than here. Anyway, if we are to discuss this further, can we take it to a Censorhip thread. I've posted this here to follow your comments but I really don't think starting all this off here is showing El Greko any respect either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Joe Offer Date: 11 May 05 - 05:40 AM Well, I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. There's no way any one decision could satisfy everyone. Some people wanted everything deleted, but I couldn't justify that. After receiving a number of requests, I closed the first thread in this four-thread series after the discussion died down, and I hoped that was the end of it. Nope - then somebody had to start another thread to apologize for the first thread, which reopened the wound. So, I closed that second one after this one was opened. When a fourth thread was started, I figured the best thing to do was to move those three messages here - knowing full well that wouldn't be satisfactory to a number of people. Ya just can't win sometimes. Gee, and it gave Sh----es a chance to post 6 messages in a row, all in the same thread. Isn't he clever? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 11 May 05 - 05:52 AM Yet another thread hijacked from the poster's intent, to become a Shambles(I hate censorship) fest. I'm gone! DT |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 May 05 - 06:02 AM Well this is the first time that I have felt that the Mudcat proprietors (if that is the right term) have acted in a wholly inappropriate and unacceptable way. DB nutted someone. Why does he deserve protection by the concealment of that fact? It's a fact. He did it, he should live with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,Jon Date: 11 May 05 - 06:15 AM DB nutted someone. Why does he deserve protection by the concealment of that fact? It's a fact. He did it, he should live with it. There is no concealment of the fact - the threads were closed, not deleted. They will remain on Mudcat for years and he has to live with it... He has even apologised. What do you want? Blood? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 May 05 - 06:21 AM Just the facts - unconcealed. Closing the threads means the offender is protected from the discussion of his wrongdoing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 11 May 05 - 06:45 AM Richard, Whilst I agree that the thread to which you refer should not have been closed so soon and an individual has escaped with little censure of his actions, this thread is supposed to debates the merits of complaints versus Mudslinging. Before Joe closes this one it may be an idea to stick to the original premise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: manitas_at_work Date: 11 May 05 - 08:15 AM "an individual has escaped with little censure " Quick! Raise the hue and cry! Are we judge and jury here, now? Besides, the individual HAS been censured and has apologised and explained ( not "justified" as someone claimed). |
