 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Emotional Subjects
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Dave the Gnome Date: 03 Jun 18 - 02:41 PM No, Jeri. No hidden agenda. Nothing to remember. 'wanting to share' simply means that most people just want to share their opinions and knowledge with others. Hope that helps. Thanks for the reminding us how to deal with flamers and trolls. I am trying to do it but, as you say, one persons troll is another persons interesting post. Best way to deal with it either way is if you think a person is trolling, ignore them. They may not go away but they cannot interact with you if you do not interact with them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: pdq Date: 03 Jun 18 - 02:42 PM It has been said that a skunk cannot smell his own stench no matter how horrible it smells to others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Jun 18 - 02:54 PM "When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea." [Eric Cantona, footballer, philosopher, alpha male] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Joe Offer Date: 03 Jun 18 - 08:37 PM I think the word "troll" gets thrown around here, far more often than it needs to be. Some Mudcatters seem to think that anybody who disagrees with them, is a troll. Trolls are people who come in and post for the purpose of causing trouble. I would suggest that while we've had a few off and on, they're not the "usual suspects" who continually bicker at each other. For the most part, if you believe in what you're saying, you're not a troll. https://www.urbandictionary.com has a pretty good definition of "trolling:
Trolling on-line forums as described above is actually analogous to the fishing technique of “trolling”, where colorful baits and lures are pulled behind a slow moving boat, often with multiple fishing lines, covering a large bodies of water, such as a large lake or the ocean. The trolling lures attract unsuspecting fish, intriguing them with the way they move through the water, thus enticing these foolish fish to “take the bait”. Not unlike unsuspecting internet victims, once hooked, the fish are reeled in for the catch before they realize they have been duped by the Troll/Fisherman This guy made a really rude and off the wall comment about my You Tube video, I think he was just trolling for a response, but I ignored him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 04 Jun 18 - 02:14 AM Joe Wikipedia uses a slightly different definition: a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement. As we cannot know for sure what motivates a particular post we similarly cannot define the intent, but superficially there would appear to be a few posting here fit the bill. But at the end of the day making unsubstantiated attacks on people by attaching unwarranted labels is a sure fire way of getting a response and quickly terminates a thread. It really does not matter whether you want to label it trolling, stupidity or a personal attack |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Bonzo3legs Date: 04 Jun 18 - 02:40 AM Yawn yawn!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Jun 18 - 02:43 AM " making nasty people look nice" It's a little daunting to find that someone who doesn't like you and shows little interested in the subjects you discuss holds the power of life and death over what those subjects we are allowed to share It's rather like being taught by a schoolteacher who hates children - I've met a few of them I don't think there are many, if any "nasty people" on this forum -there are a few who react badly to being talked down to (a few only do that), and there are a few of us who don't express ourselves well in print, but beyond that, we're a bunch of people who have never met each other (I know two people who post regularly on music - both I like and get on with in real life), the rest are strangers who are happy to take time out to share their opinions - that's a sign of not being "nasty" as far as I'm concerned. Any persistent "nastiness" becomes obvious - if it is not sorted out in infects our discussions and degenerates into shouting matches - we all become "nasty" for a time - that becomes all our faults We really do need to be able to sort out the persistent offenders, but when we try, the thread gets closed down A bit of a stalemate really Unless we are able (and allowed to) sort out the wheat from the chaff in our midst forums like this have no future, in my opinion - a crying shame - there's far to little talking to each other in this world as it is. It's relevance may not be immediately obvious, but our old friend, Norfolk singer, Walter Pardon had a family saying which may be of assistance here A Toast “Here’s to those who love us and those who don’t love us. To those who don’t love us, may God turn their hearts. If he don’t turn their hearts, may he turn their ankle bones so we know the buggers when they walk”. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Jun 18 - 10:20 AM You've just had your claim proven Iains - Don't think anybody else does that ras regularly as Bozo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: keberoxu Date: 04 Jun 18 - 11:51 AM overcome with emotion, that last post ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Jun 18 - 12:54 PM "overcome with emotion, that last post ?" Do you remember when English politician John Prescott had a can of paint thrown over him by a protester ? He described himself as being "overcome with emulsion" Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Jun 18 - 01:46 PM ...it's the persons behind the words they utter that must be evaluated and judged... That sounds sensible, but in practice I think it's a mistake. Or rather, it is sensible to hold those kind of things in your mind, but I believe that holding rigidly to the actual words that have been used in a post, when responding is likely to work out better. It keeps the discussion more open to others, for one thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Dave the Gnome Date: 04 Jun 18 - 01:57 PM I don't see the definitions defined above as too different. They both detail behaviour likely to cause arguments. There are those on here that do just that and it has more to do with their attitude than what they are saying. Talking down to people, insulting their intelligence or laying traps for them is just dishonest trolling in my book and I will no longer interact with these people. Whether they believe what they say or not is irrelevant. I recommend everyone just ignores those who annoy them. It is very liberating :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: punkfolkrocker Date: 04 Jun 18 - 01:57 PM McGrath - for the most part, I try to give BS posters the benefit of the doubt and take their words at face value... Otherwise, over-scrutinising for hidden agendas and duplicity... well.. that way paranoia and madness lies... However, over the last decade and a half, certain mudcatters have occasionally caught my attention and raised alarm signals... so they get a bit more attention and critical analysis for their 'real' motives... seems a fairly sane approach...??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Jun 18 - 04:05 PM What I mean is, while it can be right to take into account what you believe the person means, it is self defeating mistake to frame your response in a way that implies that they actually said more than they have. We should never assume that someone may not have modified their views in some way, or may have in some mistake have misstated their actual views in previous posts. Treating each discussion as totally separate from any previous discussion makes sense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 04 Jun 18 - 04:34 PM "overcome with emotion, that last post ? " No! Brain was disengaged and simply hit the wrong button. That is twice today. I had meant to see preview on my previous post, but forgot to tick the box. I was just kicking a few thoughts about to maybe save for later. A white haired moment as opposed to blond perhaps? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Donuel Date: 04 Jun 18 - 04:43 PM While BS may be a long process both wise and tenuous, ya gotta admit it serves as an interesting democratic therapy. Ya can't beat the fee. It's free. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: keberoxu Date: 05 Jun 18 - 02:41 PM No readers? writers only? If I respond with the word "lurker" does that clarify the question? I accuse myself of one heck of a lot of lurking. I lurk about on threads like this one. Sometimes my lurking means repeated perusals, and, I have to say, it's an investment of my time. Must be the time factor, and the value of time as a resource, that is the sore spot. When a posted text is perused, studied, lurked-over -- I prefer to say, when a post is "read" but you say there are no readers -- without a posted response from the, er, lurker, then the lurker's investment of time takes no time away from those of youse guys who say there are no readers. I resent being called "no reader." Simple as that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: punkfolkrocker Date: 05 Jun 18 - 02:55 PM keberoxu - a very important point, and a good reminder... Everything I write here is offered up for anyone who bothers to read it, not just any named member it might be addressed to... That's why I believe we should all show consideration for readers, and take responsibility to keep our posts as brief and concise as possible. I also read more threads than I respond to, 'lurking' is the default mode... Mudcat accounts for a lot of my time online, when I should be getting on with more important chores in the real world. I self-justify this because it is a familiar convenient forum for breaking 'news' and mental stimulation... ..meanwhile, the shower isn't fixing itself, and the back drainpipe is still blocked... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Backwoodsman Date: 05 Jun 18 - 02:58 PM It's not good when your back drainpipe is blocked! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Donuel Date: 05 Jun 18 - 04:15 PM Uh oh /^O |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Nigel Parsons Date: 06 Jun 18 - 09:01 AM I realise it's a bit late now, but should the heading have been "Emotive subjects"? "Emotional subjects" sounds like people throwing themselves on their knees in tears before the Queen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Donuel Date: 06 Jun 18 - 09:11 AM You are a subject I am a citizen but we are both subjected to the inane |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: keberoxu Date: 06 Jun 18 - 11:58 PM A bit like saying that one feels nauseous when in fact one is nauseated, right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 07 Jun 18 - 11:57 AM If subjects are emotive the response should be measured, not hysterical exaggeration or simply outright lies. Example: Grenfell tower Assertion:the obvious fact that the building was shoddily built. Fact: After the Ronan Point disaster high rise building codes were revised, prior to the construction of this tower block. The fact that the building maintained structural stability, despite a severe fire, is a testament to its rigorous design and construction. After all similar buildings in America went into freefall after a severe fire. If the official story is to be believed. The events concerning the fire and it's aftermath are the subject of an ongoing public enquiry. For a complete amateur to assign blame to a specific cause is ludicrous. The issue of cladding, fire prevention and potential overcrowding all need to be unravelled and any other factors the enquiry may feel to be germane. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Jun 18 - 01:03 PM "For a complete amateur to assign blame to a specific cause is ludicrous. T" Like who ? The report is ongoing and we already know for certain that the fire started in a specific kitchen and the cladding selected for cost rather than safety (probably the greatest factor in the spread of the fire and loss of life. The first and last of these was known immediately - it's acceptance led to emergency replacement throughout Britain. At present the Government and the Tory Council are desperately playing pass the parcel between each other as to who was to blame - the track record of the laatter does not work in their favour Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 07 Jun 18 - 01:29 PM The cladding was part of a retrofit to comply with EU legislation. The structural integrity of the building that you commented on is another matter entirely. Are you trying to conflate the two issues deliberately? Remember you said :the obvious fact that the building was shoddily built. The evidence does not support your assertion because the building still stands. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: punkfolkrocker Date: 07 Jun 18 - 01:49 PM What was that cold war mega bomb being developed back in the day...??? The one that was invented to destroy human populations but leave the buildings and infrastructure standing... So the winners could then just march in, clean up, and take over... Remembered now.. the neutron bomb... International building standards need to be a bit higher quality than Grenfell to make that kind of near apocalyptic population control warfare viable for the future... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 07 Jun 18 - 02:12 PM International building standards need to be a bit higher quality than Grenfell. At ground zero you would still need a substantial buried bunker. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Jun 18 - 02:28 PM "Are you trying to conflate the two issues deliberately?" NO I AM NOT Are you deliberately trying to get this thread closed by using abusive language Please refrain from doing so UNBELIEVABLE PASSING THE BUCK Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Jun 18 - 02:28 PM "Are you trying to conflate the two issues deliberately?" NO I AM NOT Are you deliberately trying to get this thread closed by using abusive language Please refrain from doing so UNBELIEVABLE PASSING THE BUCK Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Jun 18 - 02:32 PM AND AGAIN Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Jun 18 - 02:32 PM AND AGAIN Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: robomatic Date: 07 Jun 18 - 03:23 PM Okay I'll join in, we've got plenty of 'usual suspects' in the pile already, let me go back to something Big Al Whittle posted last week that went under the radar: Like the statues argument. The statue may be anachronistic. However - does that mean that the person and the reasons for erecting that statue were without honour or just cause? Depends on the statue. I think a thread could be devoted to the American demolition of the Saddam Hussein statue early during the Iraq war. The more recent statues that have been taken down are for Confederate military leaders, this has been intensely interesting because in more than one case living descendants of said Confederate leaders have endorsed taking them down. And the same with language. You'd have to be more specific. The English language is a street fighting language with multiple changes per year, many of them contradictory (because they're out fighting in the streets). Oliver cromwell did all kinds of damage , vandalised all sorts of beautiful artefacts - even the crown of England. Churchill's wife ripped up the Graham Sutherland 's painting of the old man. Sutherland was a much greater artist than her old man. I don't know what Oliver Cromwell vandalized, but during the Puritan revolution, all sorts of statues were removed from Churches within England because in the Puritan view they violated the Second Commandment. Sometimes the statues were destroyed and sometimes they were stored and reappeared during the next phase of the revolution. I've seen Sutherland's portrait of Churchill and I'm not surprised at Churchill's reaction. Presumably Pamela destroyed it because of her concern for her husband's feelings. We destroyed all the Nazi works of art we could lay our hands on after the war. But did we miss a truth hidden somewhere? I'm aware of lots of Nazi works of art undestroyed and so I'm wondering what you are talking about, Al, and also what 'hidden truth' did we miss? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Jun 18 - 05:45 PM I wonder about "Nazi works of art." What I think of first is propaganda, and stuff glorifying the perfection of the Aryan human form. Is there some that's worth preserving? Wikipedia has an article titled Art of the Third Reich that's quite interesting. I was stationed in Berlin for 20 months, 1972-73. The city had days when residents could put out junk for pickup, stuff that didn't fit in garbage cans. We Americans enjoyed going out junking, looking for treasures the Germans had thrown away. One think I found was a grandfather clock with a swastika on the face. It had a severe, Germanic style to it, but I kinda liked it. I wanted to take it home, but my ex-wife talked me out of it. It would have been an interesting thing to have, I think. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Jun 18 - 06:11 PM Interesting topic. If you're talking about Nazi works of art, what about Wagner? There's no doubt that, had he lived half a century later, he would have been Hitler's cheerleader and would have applauded the Holocaust. He's not alone. If you love Carmina Burana, or have ever sung in it, a bit of research into Carl Orff's predilections may make you uncomfortable. The conductor Herbert Von Karajan was an enthusiastic signed-up Nazi party member during the war. Daniel Barenboim, a Jew, one of my very few musical heroes, caused a stir by conducting Wagner in Israel. I won't listen to any Wagner (I find his music to be an overblown, egotistical musical blind-end in any case, but of course I'm biased) and I turn off the radio if a piece with Karajan conducting is broadcast. That's just my visceral reaction, not a moral crusade. I think I'm keeping within the spirit of the thread: I'm being emotional! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 07 Jun 18 - 06:33 PM Jim the building was not shoddy.It is likely the later addition of cladding was, but that has yet to be determined by the public enquiry. Your original statement is factually incorrect. The WTC high rise buildings collapsed in a fire, Grenfell tower retained it's structural integrity. I do not believe it is abusive to point out your errors.Would you like me to refresh your memory where you recently asked me to? https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-Grenfell-Tower-still-standing-after-burning-for-almost-24-hours-while-the-WTC-Towers-collapsed-after-burning-for-just-a-few-hours |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Jun 18 - 07:44 PM "Jim the building was not shoddy." I never mentioned the standard of building Iains - you did "International building standards need to be a bit higher quality than Grenfell." I said, "the cladding selected for cost rather than safety (probably the greatest factor in the spread of the fire and loss of life). You responded "The cladding was part of a retrofit to comply with EU legislation. " - and went on to accuse me of deliberately "conflating the two issues" Within weeks an enquiry into the cladding used was carried out - the result, presented in a BBC documentary, found that the cladding was dangerously inflammable (a terrifying demonstration of how inflammable was part of the documentary) It was also discovered that the originally cladding suggested by the planners was rejected by the Builders because of the cost From what has emerged so far, it is obvious to all that someone is to blame - this was an accident waiting to happen, hence the undignified rush put things throughout the country where similar materials have been used In the early part of December last year the estimated cost of that replacement had reached £600 million According to the BBC at the time "The figure is likely to be a considerable underestimate because many public and private landlords in the UK are still calculating their budget for safety works prompted by the fire in North Kensington six months ago." Nobody is going to come out with clean hands from this; certainly not by dragging out red herrings about "illegal immigrants" or "illegally passing on homes to other tenants" or "false claims for compensation" Public pressure has forced this into the public eye as much as was the O. J. Simpson trial It would not surprise me in the least if indictments for manslaughter were to follow this enquiry Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: robomatic Date: 07 Jun 18 - 08:31 PM Supposedly Verdi said: "Wagner has great moments but terrible half hours!" That's such a good line I haven't researched it for accuracy. I believe the Bayreuth observance is still pretty anti-Semitic, but of course, it long predates National Socialism. I love Carmina Burana, and I'm sort of aware that Carl Orff was not a good guy by our current standards. But what about German science, the development of nuclear theory on the threshold of the Atomic Age? You can't put that back in the bottle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Jun 18 - 01:07 AM Maybe because ideology is not all that important to me, I guess I measure music and other art by how the art impresses me, not the ideology or conduct of the artist. I'm glad the #MeToo movement is changing the attitudes of the entertainment industry (and others), but I don't see a need to remove all performances related to the offenders. I still like reruns of Prairie Home Companion and Weinstein movies, and I'd probably still enjoy watching or listening to Bill Cosby. And I like (some) Wagner and von Karajan. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 Jun 18 - 02:31 AM "I do not believe it is abusive to point out your errors" Neither do I Iains, but your accusation that I deliberately put up false information was highly offensive - that is the type of behaviour that closes threads You still haven't explained who your "For a complete amateur to assign blame to a specific cause" referred to I was a self employed maintenance and installation electrician for over 20 years, the area covering From Chelsea, through Notting Hill, up Ladbroke Grove and into Westminster was my busiest area for ten of those years Not only did I work in and became very familiar with much of that property including the high-rise dwellings adjacent to Grenfell Tower, I also became very aware of the highly explosive property battlefield it became following Mad Maggie Thatcher's 'Buy your own homes' scam. The appalling 'Lady Porter (Mad Maggie's close friend) scandal' took place within walking distance of this fire Porter "temporarily" moved the occupants out of an entire block similar to Grenfell under the pretense of modernising it She then informed them that the property was to be sold off to private buyers (a ploy to alter the balance of the electorate from Labour to Conservative) - it transpired that the property they had been moved into was riddled with carcinogenic asbestos. Porter's behaviour led her being penalised to the tune of £42 million. She eventually settled in 2004, paying a "full and final settlement" of £12.3 million, owing the British taxpayer the balance - in order to avoid paying her dept in full she took up permanent residency in Israel, depriving Britain of the benefit of one of the most ruthlessly crooked brains in the Thatcher arsenal. Property dealings in areal like this in the South-East rich underbelly is representative of everything that is evil about this terminally sick system - I doubt if this wiill be part of the enquiry. "Wagner has great moments but terrible half hours!" Rossini is reputed to have first said it but Bernard Shaw used it often - I agree with it wholeheartedly (except for the "great moments" bit!) Interestingly, I've just checked it for accuracy and the only place it appears on is "Stormfront" - the World-wide White Supremacy" site WAGNER AT HIS VERY BEST Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Iains Date: 08 Jun 18 - 05:50 AM Jim your post Jim Carroll - PM Date: 05 Jun 18 - 07:42 PM containing the words I copied "obvious fact that the building was shoddily built" was deleted. Very convenient for you but you have a history of criticising building standards in London. Would you like examples? Are you still going to deny it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 Jun 18 - 06:06 AM "obvious fact that the building was shoddily built" Prove it - as far as I can recall none of my postings have been deleted I made my position quite clear - I saw the programme on the cladding when it was broadcast I know that these buildings were in fact not shoddily built, hence Lady Porter's move to gentrify one of them Please respond to what I have said rather than what you mistakenly thought I said Feel free to provide examples of criticising building standards in London - I have a massive admiration for its Victorian architecture and little experience in any other period As a whole, London building standards are quite high, as is the case throughout the country. I was part of the building trade for long enough periods of my life to be aware of that Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Donuel Date: 08 Jun 18 - 01:22 PM g'bye Jim Carroll you ol irascible virtual friend and passionate advocate for your cause. I didn't listen as well as I could have. They're not listening they do not know how they're not listening now. . To underscore this notion of not litening I will point out I have given away millions of dollars in several invention and investment ideas up to 3 years before they were eventually marketed. Granted. plenty of hard work would have been required but there is no replacement for a valuable idea. Also I do not know how many if any did listen. They would not want me to know. examples ; my evercool pillow idea posted 10 years before "my pillow" My smart phone door bell posted 4 years before its introduction and several bigger ideas hidden in plain sight in black and white |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Jun 18 - 01:22 PM To clear it up: "Wagner has beautiful moments, but awful quarters of an hour." Rossini on Wagner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Donuel Date: 08 Jun 18 - 01:50 PM it don't sound as good as it is M. Twain |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: keberoxu Date: 08 Jun 18 - 11:35 PM Talking of Nazis, try this on for size. History of the Salzburg Festival |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Jun 18 - 11:46 AM Or try the history of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra. Don't forget to contemplate the misogyny thereof while you're at it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: punkfolkrocker Date: 09 Jun 18 - 12:06 PM The reality is a lot of highly esteemed artistic creative folks, are, one way or another, really shitty human beings... So.... do bastards and arseholes make better art than happy kind hearted nice folks...???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Jun 18 - 12:39 PM It's OK to have individual human failings. Beethoven never emptied his potty, even when guests arrived, and Mozart was obsessed with smutty jokes about poo and bottoms. Sibelius gave up composing and lived on champagne and lobsters for decades. Picasso was an inveterate womaniser and Schubert probably died of syphilis contracted from one of the many prostitutes he used. It isn't OK to have a fascistic ego bigger than my arse and preach that Jews were poor composers because they are an inferior race, or cheerfully promote the Nazi party during the war in your concerts. Such individuals suffer from far more than common human flaws. I don't see how they can create beautiful, life-affirming art when they're like that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects From: punkfolkrocker Date: 09 Jun 18 - 01:13 PM phew... at least as far as we know evil kiddie fiddler Gary Glitter wasn't a n@zi... ..so I can still continue enjoying his greatest glitter glam rock hits behind closed curtains on headphones... Same with Led Zep despite their 1970s satanistic excesses... |
