Bob Brozman legal issues

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST,Adelphi
Date: 12 May 13 - 01:28 PM

Glen, because it wasnt worthy of a response, particularly since you obviously know litte to nothing about "The Real" Takoma Records History.

However Glen, since you seem bound and determined to make up outrageous lies about me, we can put it all to rest very quickly.

Arguendo, if you are Fangs Cousin, you'd be a pretty old man about now, probably 75 years old more or less, since fang was even older then me, and I'm 70plus now!

But we can put your allegations here to rest very quickly, by bringing up on this site Leland Talbot, Fangs Very close friend until Fangs death, but more importantly The Secretary of Fang's Company Music Research/Piedmont Records, from 1966 until the the late 70s/early 80s....more importantly before that, he worked as the legal secretary for BJ Powell, Fangs Guardian as well as Fang's Personal and Corporate Attorney. Leland was present during the Takoma/Piedmont "merger years and also a close "Fahey friend......

So give us your Real Name, and I"ll contact Leland who will come up here and will no doubt have some great questions for you, and comments for you, OK?

I see no reason why you'd have ANY problem with this right Glen?

G

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: catspaw49
Date: 12 May 13 - 01:59 PM

So who is it Leland fucked or got fucked by or had picture taken with or of? Was his a another case of pedophilia or maybe just some afternoon sodomy?

Remember folks this thread is supposed to be about that kinda' crap so stay on topic!


Spaw

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: kendall
Date: 12 May 13 - 02:07 PM

YAWN

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: jacqui.c
Date: 12 May 13 - 02:10 PM

SINSULL - This is also the Gene who attacked the management at the Getaway and tried to get Mudcat attendees to overthrow the management and put him in charge.


Sandrolin As for the rest of your, out of context, nonsensical comments about yelling at the Getaway management. You are hurtfully lying.

I have to defend my friend SINSULL here so I did check out thread history. She did not mention yelling at the Getaway management.

read from the post 11 Oct 4.54am

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST,Fang's Cousin
Date: 12 May 13 - 02:13 PM

The annihilation of Mike Stewart's character by one Mr. Gene Rosenthal was beyond the pale and libelous. I could not continue to read his rants about Firk and Fahey (and others) without stepping in and pointing out an obvious irony.

That being said, I have no desire to get into a pissing match with you, Gene. I (we) know that's your modus operandi but I really don't have time for your reindeer games.

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: SINSULL
Date: 12 May 13 - 03:03 PM

Yes, Jacqui. I was referring to that thread.
One of the more rational posters on this thread PM'd me and suggested that I not respond to Sandrolin's denial as it would only escalate into more ugly confrontations. Hence my silence. I appreciate your clarification.
SINS, not returning to this thread.

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST,Helen Roche
Date: 12 May 13 - 03:33 PM

'From: Stilly River Sage
>victims' families have been trying to seek redress for quite some time.

>>Sorry, it doesn't hold water. Call 911

Good grief. SRG, you seem to imagine that the child goes to the parent immediately after whatever happened, and tells them right out. I know one victim of childhood abuse who STILL hasn't told his family, because the knowledge would explode the family unit - and he's in his 40s. When he was younger he knew that the abuser would contradict him and he would not be believed. There are lots of complicating factors.
It often takes years, even decades, before the victim tells the parent. Or sometimes the child tries to tell the parent but doesn't have the vocabulary for it (they may even be too young to speak - two or three years old), or sometimes the parent does not believe the child at first. Often the child is too ashamed or embarrassed, or has been threatened or manipulated by the abuser.
There are all sorts of reasons why the authorities are not immediately contacted, you should surely know this? Have you not heard any reports about the Savile case?!
You say you picked up 'the vocabulary' from your social worker parent, but you don't seem to have picked up much detailed understanding.
I'm sorry, but I'm very angry that you choose to express disbelief towards the victims' claims because they didn't dial 911 the moment anything happened.
That is not how it works.
Please people, use your imaginations or do some research into patterns of abuse and how victims come to deal with them.

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: catspaw49
Date: 12 May 13 - 03:42 PM

I have this friend I know well. His name is Jack Shit. He says most of the fuckwits on this thread don't know him at all. So why would I believe some dudious Helen or Duck or Gene? If they don't know Jack...........................


Spaw

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST,Helen Roche
Date: 12 May 13 - 03:56 PM

Eh?

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST,Guest KC
Date: 12 May 13 - 04:17 PM

Nice post Helen. Many of the attitudes exhibited here are exactly the reasons some people don't come forward. If it gets this bad on an internet forum, imagine going through this in the public eye. Like many, I hope this is not true. Not because of Bob Brozman's "legacy". But because I hope there are no victims. Thanks to all the level-headed folks that tried to keep this civil.

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST,Adelphi
Date: 12 May 13 - 05:06 PM

Catspaw:

Humor:

This is just a quickie & a final quickie regading you, cause I really dont have the time or inclination to take you down fully in a debate......

However,

As a knowlegeable regular, certainly you are FULLY aware of the "Sea Chanty/shanty whose chorus includes the following: "......get up JACK...John sit down. Right?

Actually, probably not, in fact, you're at this very moment madly scrambling to look up the lyrics..... to find out why yourpost is so humourous to me. Unfortunately you'll have to figure it outyourself or perhaps with some help from your more learned friends! LOL

hint- check all derivations...... :-)

I'm never ever responding to you again on this site, so just try to learn...

GR

PS- Much more important, One time posts follow!

GR

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST
Date: 12 May 13 - 05:07 PM

If you are paying attention, you will notice that defenders of the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" are getting trashed JUST as bad as those who claim to know something about Bob's alleged guilt.


Here's the thing: if Bob had lived, all of the supposed evidence against would have been put to the test.   Witnesses to the alleged act would have had to get up on the stand and tell their story.   I am quite sure that this would have been very difficult for them, but presumably they were ready to go through that in the interest of seeing justice done.

But now Brozman is gone, and it looks to me like the venue has been moved to the court of public opinion.      However, the accusers want the best of both worlds: they want the world to believe them without ever going through the difficulty of telling their story.    Sorry, it doesn't work that way.   If you want to make the charge stick, you gotta tell your story and undergo the cross-examination.   Do you think Bob's lawyer would have pulled any punches if this had gone to a court of law?


oh, now I see that due to supposed "dissension among the families" I guess the story is never going to come out.    All I can say is..."how convenient."

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST,parent
Date: 12 May 13 - 05:12 PM

Helen's post was excellent.

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST,Helen Roche
Date: 12 May 13 - 05:14 PM

Catspaw49, you may call Duck and me 'dubious' (if that's what you meant) but at least we posted under our own names. Duck even gave a means of verifying his identity, and you can do the same with me if you care to. (Although I warn you that my own website is coming down when it expires in 3 or 4 days, as I'm replacing it - before someone comes up with a conspiracy theory...)

And to the last poster - 'how convenient' ?!!! You're implying with that sardonic remark that you don't believe the victims. I hope you're happy with that. They read this thread, by the way.

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST
Date: 12 May 13 - 06:22 PM

I feel bad for Zoe. I wonder if she is reading this.

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST,Helen Roche
Date: 12 May 13 - 06:23 PM

To Guest KC:
' If it gets this bad on an internet forum, imagine going through this in the public eye.' - absolutely!
And that's another reason why a parent might not want to subject a child to police interviews and a court case, even if they know they were abused. The child might be petrified of going public. And I can't blame a parent from wanting to protect them, when it's a case of one person's word against another and the lawyers are going to tear the thing to shreds.

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 May 13 - 07:09 PM

Regular Mudcatters know who each other are - there is no mystery behind Spaw, and we don't need a scorecard to sort ourselves out. It's all of these drive-by opportunists who found a scab they just love to pick at. You show yourselves for outsiders by your lack of knowledge of the site, yet you are welcome to post here because no restrictions are placed on guests at Mudcat as exist on so many other sites.

Don't come in here protesting child abuse on one hand and then protest no one wants to take it to court on the other. People do take it to court all of the time. People are imprisoned for child abuse all of the time. A court of law should decide this, proper charges filed or reports drawn up, not all of your conjecture and innuendo.

This court of public opinion is tediously repetitive, and to quote Benjamin Franklin's Poor Richard, "Fish and visitors smell in three days." Many of you frankly reek.

SRS

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: catspaw49
Date: 12 May 13 - 07:22 PM

LOL@SRS.....good one. But you ARE right. Reminds me of the fish emulsion I use on the Tuberous Begonias. ..........


Spaw

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST,Rick Turner
Date: 12 May 13 - 08:03 PM

I'm one of the Santa Cruz music crowd...one who knew Bob a bit, took one of his workshops, and yet is not terribly surprised at his death by his own hands. What does surprise and dismay me...other than the allegations which have been backed up in private on our local scene (truly horrifying)...what also causes me much pause it the level of vitriol here as well as the insufferably irrelevant rants from people who seem to have multiple axes to grind. I can understand initial disbelief; none of us wants to have to believe this stuff; but folks who are really close to the center have posted here and at Santa Cruz.com, and they have used their real names, thereby putting their lifes' reputation on the line. Meanwhile, a major majority of those posting here do so behind bullshit handles or as "guests", and a very vocal few waste hours of keyboard time on wholly irrelevant and obscure and incomprehensible rants that say a lot more about the posters than about the central issue here.

To quote my old friends Robert Hunter and Jerry Garcia, "Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you've got nothing new to say."

I, as much as anyone here, would like to know more in the way of real information. The allegations are shocking and are a sobering reminder that we all should be watchful and mindful. Sexual abuse of minors is all too rampant, and it does often take years...decades...to come to the fore.   All you have to do is look at all the abuse cases...hundreds if not thousands...involving priests over the past thirty or more years. Those cases alone should help anyone understand the points of view of victims which start in deep shame and then go to denial...an arc that leads to great psychological pain for a lifetime.

And in the meanwhile, blather about other allegedly abusive musicians (drugs, whatever...) doesn't have much to do with what started this thread.

And yes, the word on the folkie street in Santa Cruz is that there is more to know and there is fire where there has been smoke.

Rick Turner

yeah, real name...

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST
Date: 12 May 13 - 08:06 PM

As I understand it, Gene, the reason the moderators names are not known is simply because they don't want to waste their time arguing with malcontents. It is certainly not because they are cowards.

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST,Mudflaps
Date: 12 May 13 - 08:27 PM

Thank you Rick!

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST,Mike Anderson
Date: 12 May 13 - 08:45 PM

Lucky for me I don't give a rat's fart for Bob Brozman's music - in fact I loathe "world music" as the cheesy marketing effort it is and always has been, and never mind the often great chops that get wasted on it - but this THREAD is a great piece of entertainment! I have learned some amazing things I never knew, such as that BB was a millionaire, which I now see as the explanation for the stupid head-up-ass guilty-rich-boy kneejerk politically correct Chomskyesque America-bashing hippie crap one sees him say in some of his videos and which put me off paying much attention to him.

All that aside, there are only a few useful points we can glean from all this back-and-forth; in no particular order:

1) Child molesters are shit and need to die. People who deny that, or who make jokes about it, or who work to defend them need to be publicly flogged with a horsewhip until their skin falls off.

2) NONE of us, with the very probable exceptions of the OP and family members, actually *know* BB was a molester (I would hope, anyway - that's a hint to those of you who *seem* to imply you do, may you rot in Hell for not doing anything about it if so) and we should all exercise some patience regarding any possible justice, such as a successful civil suit against his estate based on legitimate testimony.

3) IF he was guilty, his very existence is one of nature's mistakes and utterly reprehensible, and he should be forgotten by those of us who have the luxury of being able to do so - something his victims are unlikely to have, maybe for the rest of their lives.

Helen Roche, you're awesome. Catspaw - you're a total dickhead, and your posts today at 1:59 and 3:42 prove it. Dick...HEAD.

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST,Adelphi
Date: 12 May 13 - 08:49 PM

5/12/2013

To: (Guest) Fang's Cousin....
(TO ALL READING THIS, HE IS NOT FANGS COUSIN!)

Dear Cuz, why am I NOT surprised that you chose to crawl back into your bogus, lying, slimy hole rather then be busted for the overt lier and reputation libeler that you are? WHAT A FUCKING SURPRISE!

I called Leland Talbot, which you knew I would......Fangs closest friend for almost 40 years, and asked him if he knew anything about a Fang cousin Glen, to which he replied.....no never! I then asked him if he thought it to be EVEN possible to which he suggested, highly improbable, and then made the following comment: ...if Glen was a cousin, then why wasn't he present at the Memorial, of which people came to from round the country, BUT NOT ANYONE known as Fang's cousin Glen!

Now for those of you that still believe or have the need to believe "Fang's Cuz Glen", I draw your attention to what ANYONE should (have) checked out "factually" before buying into such BS, as much as you may have wanted to believe it:

When anyone posts a seriously questionable/Libelous post, which includes something that alleges "factuality". the very first thing that you MUST do is to check the veracity of the "alleged" fact(s) befor making a fool of yourselves by "posting" on the assumption that the previous poster's facts are correct & legititmate....easiest way---try wikipedia, amongst others.....a quick search of Takoma Records on "Wikipedia" tells the REAL story of the Takoma Records, ownership changes, etc. and MOST IMPORTANTLY makes absolutely no comment whatsoever of the "Alleged", (obviously "Manufactured" by Fang/cuz)------ "Bankruptcy" of Takoma REcords...... BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED, EVER, EVER, GET IT? Absent the alleged" bankruptcy, which never happened, all of you should have descended on the "Bogus Fang Cousin" as opossed to upon me! I CAN TAKE IT, because the truth is immutable, and I don't lie, EVER! But you folks should be ashamed of yourselves, and learn something here, an apology also wouldn't be out of the question, but I seriously dought that any of you are up to it. :-)

By the way the truth is ALWAYS the best policy for a couple of reasons which I discovered relativey early in life......first, its difficult enough to remember the truth, I've been "Mensa Tested at IQ over 185 (not a member), nevertheless Ive discovered that it's (for all intents and purposes) even with a high IQ, impossible to remember your lies! (Sooner or later you get caught in them, sometimes immediateltly, sometimes years later, but you will be caught)

RE: "Pissing match Glen?", you just backed out in the first half round, that's how easy it is to bust serious sociopaths like you..... but you have done one thing, you've allowed me, by example, to show to all of the regulars here, and the "Guest insaniacs", just how easy it is to "bust" Lying GUEST POSTS HERE, when you have the truth on your side!

So, although it's no longer necessary, let me point out the following:

When "Bogus" Fang's cousin posted those horendous allegations against me, apparently there were many amongts you who really wanted to believe them.....

I posted in response "LOL", etc. figuring that ALL or ALMOST all of you would similarly laugh because you too saw the unbelievable outrageousness of his post. MEA CULPA, I seriously overestimated the average IQ here, and/or College level of the members & posters here, Again, Mea Culpa....

So let me give you some inside information that ALL of you should have immediately noted about Bogus Fang's Cousin's post:

Quickly: My Dads script pads were printed from & only useable from his Main, Wash, DC offices, further they contain ONLY that address name & phone number and Dad's Federal DRug ID #.

Any prescription issued by my Dad, to ANY patient for a "controlled substance", in MD or DC would immediately require a call from the pharmacy to the issuing physicians official phone number, BY FEDERAL LAW. With only a few exceptions: prescriptions issued by hospital's "non-renewable" or "prescriptions issued by dentists for only a few tablets", or long term renewable medications, for example, for "terminal Cancer patients, whose illness nature was LONG established!

But what each of you absolutely overlooked in Glen's Bogus Post" was the following:

Although we ALL now know that there was no bankruptcy, etc. consider this: The allegation was "bankruptcy" by selling blank prescriptions & being paid in records, therefore causing a bankruptcy: well lets do some obvious math, lets say I was selling each blank to takoma for $10 apiece, so it would take the sale of 10,000 of such blanks to equal $100,000......now seriously folks, Arguendo how does $100,000 thousand dollars "bankrupt" a "multi million dollar Takoma REcords Operation? Answer of course, NEVER, but it never happened of course......but the simple mathematics of the "blanketing of Los Angeles with 10,000 bogus prescriptions by Charlie Mitchell, is why I was Laughing Out LOuD!!!

Believe me kids, after two or three days of bogus scripts showing up in LA, from one MD physician, the FED net would have sprung immediately on those that tried to cash those scripts in LA!!! LOL
Picture, if you will 10,000 prescriptions from one MD doctor, blanketing LA for controlled substances!!!!LOL, come-on picture it in your mind and start laughing!!!

Please kids, get a grip, don't jump on bandwagons" just because you want them to be true!!! There are consequenses! :-)

For any who need the additional proof, you may feel to contact Leland Talbot, who lives in Rehobeth, DE, reachable at phone # [phone]

This is the last time that Im wasteing my time addressing these slime bags, more will come up with even more outrageous postings, probably even Fang's cuz duchbag under another ID.....use your own brains to figure out he real ones from the bogus ones.....Anyone posting here under a "non identifiable guest post should be highly suspect.. you guys here set it upthis way and you have no-one to blame but yourselves by promulgating what Silly River Sage recently referred to as a "cluster fuck", well I think that's what was said, but if so, and I agree, it's only of YOUR making...Max, Joe, SRS, etc.

Sincerely

GR

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST
Date: 12 May 13 - 08:57 PM

Thanks for posting, Rick.

Gene, get a clue. You're making an ass of yourself.

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 May 13 - 08:59 PM

'Spaw takes pride in being a dickhead, and we all love him for it.

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST,Rick Turner
Date: 12 May 13 - 09:34 PM

One other thing...

I initially accepted the "official" report that Bob had killed himself because of guitar playing prowess-threatening physical issues. Bob had told me in January at the NAMM show that he was having problems and he was pretty upset about it all. In retrospect, I have had to wonder if he was setting up a plausible scenario to be played out at a later date.

None of us are going to know much else until a victim comes forward or BA or MC chooses to relate more here or over at Santa Cruz dot com, and I don't think any of us should hold our breath on that. This whole thing will either slowly open up or hit a dead end.

I hope/wish the allegations are/were not true, but Bob clearly had a hellhound on his trail. The hellhound won, but some innocents clearly lost as well as Bob himself. Our sympathies must be with the survivors who have all this emotion...the last upteen posts here, for instance...to deal with in addition to any damage that may have been inflicted upon them in the past. As I see it, the damage is continuing even after Bob's death, and that just isn't right.

Bob, by the way, was doing fine financially. He had two houses in the Santa Cruz Mountains, one hell of an instrument collection, some very nice vintage automobiles, and he kept a lot of funds abroad where he earned them. What was made in France stayed in France, etc., to a certain degree...that direct from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST
Date: 12 May 13 - 09:36 PM

Oops, should have been "GA"...typo...

Rick

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST
Date: 12 May 13 - 09:43 PM

i only know gene adelphi rosenthal from this site but i am going to venture that he is biggest dumbass ever with an iq of 185.

i'd keep that info to yourself in the future
john j.

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST
Date: 12 May 13 - 10:36 PM

I'm still wondering what the "Santa Cruz musician community" knows that it is not saying.

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 May 13 - 11:08 PM

Why don't you all go the fuck back to SantaCruz.com and find out? And leave Mudcat out of it!

Thank you!

SRS

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST,Charles Freeborn
Date: 12 May 13 - 11:56 PM

Well said Rick. My real name here too, and I too have a professional reputation at stake.
I too knew BB well enough. I attended a couple of his IGS seminars, a workshop at his house and engaged in a couple of business transactions, which ultimately resulted in termination of our relationship, both personal and professional.
I had no knowledge of deeper problems, however my wife, who is very intuitive, never trusted him. I will leave that at that. I too will wait for more conclusive evidence before making any judgments.
Rick, I look forward to seeing you again at Healdsburg, as well as any of you who want to talk guitar, and only guitar.
-C

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST,Rick Turner
Date: 13 May 13 - 12:05 AM

SRS, why don't you refrain from swearing so inarticulately on a public folk music forum? Your language is offensive, your attitude all the more so. Rage seems to be simmering barely contained here, and words spoken with such mindless fury rarely communicate anything other than personal pain...yours, not that of the others who have been hurt.

I'm utterly amazed at the depth of ill will here. The lashing out will do nobody any good whatsoever.   

Time for a Kumbaya moment, folks.

I am personally sorry for whatever pain Bob was in and for whatever pain he may have inflicted. At this point all we can do is to hope for the best for those he may have injured...which happens to include his widow, Haley, whom he certainly injured. A bit of compassion tempered by a willingness to accept and hopefully understand that some folks never figure out how to deal with their demons in a healthy way would go a long way.   

And no, I do not condone child molestation one iota. I have four wonderful kids, and I'd have gone ballistic if I thought any of them had been betrayed by an adult. I've done a number of prison gigs...San Quentin, Soledad, Terminal Island, etc...doing PA and recording systems as well as helping Mimi Farina with some Bread and Roses gigs, and I recognize that some folks "in the system" are irretrievably damaged. I'm very glad they're behind bars; may they stay there 'til death.

I also know that there are a lot of folks who are walking among us who should be locked up and that it seems that child molesters manage to stay free for a very long time because of their psychological power over the victims. And sometimes those folks "cheat the hangman", so to speak, as seems to be the case here with Bob. He had a massive ego. I don't think that ego would drive him to suicide just because of a diminuation in his chops. At 70% he still would have had more chops than just about anyone. What he did with the chops is another matter.

As for what is being said here in the SC community; I'll just say that what I've heard is from folks very much in touch with those at the center of this whole thing. If they want to state what they've heard from the sources, fine, but right now seems to be a time to leave some folks in privacy.

Rick Turner

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 May 13 - 12:34 AM

This is the most absurd thread that I've ever seen evolve here at Mudcat; it's an out of control juggernaut with members and moderators held hostage by the odd rabble coming through from Santa Cruz to express their opinions and outrage about - what? Gossip. There are no facts, there are no charges filed, there is just speculation. This spinoff occurred based upon my observation that there were some real nutcases coming in here to express their moral indignation about something that was not supported by any legal actions and would mess up how our "above the line" threads are managed.

There is no intent here to dismiss, but there is also no desire to lynch. We don't know what Brozman did or didn't do. It has been a job keeping this mess confined to one thread on this site, hoping all of you will finally get tired of this nonsense and go back to your own home forums to discuss it there - and you're worried because someone swears at you? Really? This is The Man Who Came To Dinner, on steroids. Most of you are Guests who are behaving badly. Think about it.

SRS

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST,Rick Turner
Date: 13 May 13 - 01:22 AM

For better or worse, very little of what's been posted here has come from Santa Cruz...

The thing that ignited this firestorm originated in the UK. And we've heard from close to the source from Oregon, and a lot from Duck who attempted to bring some balance.   

We here in Santa Cruz are stunned, to say the least, and not pleasantly so, to put it mildly. One of our own neighbors is gone by his own hand, and we'd like to know why. Credible folks have come forth with a credible explanation, and like it or not, it is "news". Whether more details will come forth, I do not know. I understand that there were at least a couple of suicide notes. I don't know if the contents will ever be made public. I do know that Bob leaves a lot of pain and anguish in his wake. My heart goes out to his family, past and present.

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST
Date: 13 May 13 - 02:41 AM

SRS said:
"go back to your own home forums and discuss it there"

This begs the question: Where IS the Mudcat home forum?

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST,Gene Adelphi
Date: 13 May 13 - 02:54 AM

5/13/2013

SRS:

Timing is often everything.... I was just wrapping up my next to the last post here, forever for the most part, with the exception of a short one to you about this very subject, when out of the blue came your post, much of which I agree with you, but only in kind sorta.....I, am, however, much happier responding to you directly, rather then a day later unilateral post into the blue...

Please show that you can, even under the most severe duress, still be even handed, by letting this post, post.....

From the heart as follows:

I believe, although I don't want to, that when you decided to split the threads that somewhere in you, you really thought that it was the right thing to do for the site and the members (although I also believe that you were swayed by some sort of serious moral imperative that you were doing God's will as well, nothing wrong with that!

However, after reading your post on the OBIT thread, posted by you on May 6, 2013, 11:58 AM, which hurt me severely REALLY, I began to have my doubts... because in no way shape or form did I deserve to be your "scapegoat", I merely posted an informational post to an Obit Thread on the mudcat site brozman thread, as an identifiable member, cookies or no, and I now quote from your stinging Obit thread post regarding me:

"Okay, I did it. Last night I read the Gene-Adelphi post and realized he and others were not going to let a music obit, stay a music obit, they are going to dig and post whatever they could find. So I split the remarks- now "HE" (emphasis added) and others can "speculate" and post in the other thread.

I have no understanding at all, why you chose me to flame, possibbly because of earlier posts which I had no knowlege of, didn't read, or maybe I was just "easy pickings", I don't know..... but I do know this from years of web protocol:

1. The person with the first seriously substantial post on a new thread, "is" in fact considered to be the initiator of the thread, and pursuant to that go some considerations, mainly the right to steer the thread along the lines of his initial post/ideaism thread

2. That no-one else can claim steering rights, topic rights without the originator's kinda/sorta permission, unless someone wanted to initiate a "flaming" war over it, which is exactly what happened, and I'm most embarrassed to say that you were the instigating" person.

3. You didn't like the direction that things were going in, so you began to arbitrarily delete ANY posts that you found not supportive of YOUR ideaism, you even went so far as to delete MY initiating post, obviously every time you did those things you not only pissed off me and other bonifide posters, but you egged on the insaniac guests to follow your lead...and thus the "clusterfuck" which you so aptly identified, except that you are/were the major supporter and instigator of same (perhaps unknowingly)......nothing pesonal here, merely an observation, from which we might figure a way out of, other then more radical moves such as bumping it all over to BS, Seriously SRS,DO NOT DO THAT!! PULEEZE!!

Is it possible that we can sorta codify it, remove the crap and put a wrap on it when it calms a bit? Seriously!?

Sincerely & respectfully submitted
Gene Rosenthal, Pres.
Adelphi/Sunsplash Records & Films, Inc.

PS- I sincerely hope that your comment wasnt referring to me as "..the man...", I've really had enough unnecessary scapegoatism, for a lifetime.

GR

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST,Interested 4th Party
Date: 13 May 13 - 06:07 AM

OK… seeing that there are several people here who think they are being "cool" by ranting obscenities or using a thread to promote themselves…
To the vulgar ones: your emotional immaturity and stunted spiritual evolution shows through your use of obscene language and lack of anything interesting to say. Intelligent, educated people simply feel nothing for you.
To the self-promoters, HEY, PEOPLE, do what I do. Read first the name of who posted and precede if and only if you know it's someone who has something valid to say. I skip certain posts completely the second I see who they are. I won't even name certain posters that I'm talking about, that's giving them the attention that they didn't get from their mothers as children, and I simply don't think this is the place to do that. AND PLUS, it makes them soooo angry to be (sniff sniff) simply ignored. But it's the way to get them the most. SIMPLY IGNORE THEM, you take every single bit of their energy away.
PLEASE, IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT PEDOPHILES, read this first:
http://www.abusewatch.net/pedophiles.pdf
Rather than just assuming you were born an expert, or after talking or reading about pedophilia a couple of times you formed your expert opinion on it in ten seconds, or even that you "get anything AT ALL" about what has happened here, take the time and read some statistics. That way, Duck Baker won't have to explain 100,000 times why MAYBE his victims didn't come forward before.
I don't get how people can enjoy watching any man fall, even if the man had an ego. I don't understand why people don't understand what a mental disorder is. Sick people need to be treated so they don't produce victims. The victims need to be healed and protected in the future. That is why this is important. The truth needs to come out. Everything else here is a waste.

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 May 13 - 08:17 AM

Rational voices have spoken throughout this thread to tell you that there is nothing to see here. No truths are revealed about the life and death of Mr. Brozman.

Come back to Mudcat when you have something about your music to discuss. When you want to share your musical inspiration. That is where we have much in common. Not on the current contentious topic.

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST
Date: 13 May 13 - 09:55 AM

Where did the most recent posts go?

This forum seems to have a very dark and authoritarian feel to it. Some very disturbed people.

Thank you Rick and Duck and Helen and the rest of the people who care. Let's all focus on the victims and protecting our kids.

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST
Date: 13 May 13 - 09:59 AM

Strange that some level headed posts are now being deleted, while the rankings of lunatics, deniers and general a-holes are allowed to remain.

If this is a folk music forum it's apparently run by the same types of Stalinist reactionaries who tried to pull the plug on Dylan at Newport.

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST
Date: 13 May 13 - 10:25 AM

...rantings of lunatics...

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 13 May 13 - 10:36 AM

All you posters who want to stop this thread or remove posts to protect the legacy of Bob Brozman should remember one thing. Bob was a vehement proponent of free speech and used forums like this, quite regularly, as a soap box for whatever topic peeked his interest. Bob was not one to pull punches, in private or public. This much is very well documented. I have no opinion on whether Bob is guilty of the things he is accused. However, his accusers have identified themselves and gone public with their claims. I for one, am interested in how this story evolves because Bob was a giant in our very small community. If the heat is too hot, get out of the kitchen. Shutting down or editing the thread will only move the dialogue to another thread or another forum. Either there's meat on the bone, or this story will die down. All the complaining just ramps up the rhetoric.

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 May 13 - 11:02 AM

Personal attacks are never considered a suitable post here at mudcat.

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST,old folkie disgusted
Date: 13 May 13 - 11:17 AM

"Personal attacks are never considered a suitable post here at mudcat. "

uhhh...........okay sister......whatever you say.......

Thank goodness for the brave people identifying themselves and speaking out!

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 May 13 - 11:36 AM

Do you see the names that appear in the "From" line - that shows they are here as a logged on member. And though we have our share of malcontents, the rules are generally understood by most of our members.

We have a newcomer's guide with the general rules of the road. Here is an excerpt:

---

Editorial Policy

We occasionally get requests for information about what we delete and why we delete it. Most of the principles we follow are stated above, but let me try to state it more succinctly:

The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum. We will try our best to edit sparingly, but there are times when we may have to take some action to keep the peace, or to protect the interests of our community. Editorial decisions are made by Max, or under his direction. We follow principles and common sense, and see no need to have everything spelled out in some sort of pseudo-legal code. We don't allow hate, racism, stalking or other intimidation, or personal threats or attacks. We don't cater to chain letters or non-music advertising, and we expect people to use moderation when they advertise music-related things. We allow just about all sorts of discussion, but we draw the line when it's clear that an individual is flooding Mudcat with information - things like multiple "copycat" or interrelated threads, lengthy copy-paste messages of non-music articles from publications and Internet sources (one screen full of text is the limit - and remember that we encourage you to post the entire text of music-related information). If you regularly start more than one thread a day, you are quite probably starting too many. Please try to post to existing threads as much as possible, rather than splitting topics into a number of threads. I suppose there are a few other things we take action against, but I think this is a pretty good summary.
When we encounter individuals who cause us continual problems, we may take action to temporarily or permanently bar them from posting at all, but this rarely happens. Most of these are people who post just because they like to cause trouble. They may become very self-righteous in defending their right to "free speech," but it's usually quite clear what they're up to. On the Internet, they're called "trolls." We deal with them as we see fit.

Dealing With Flamers and Trolls

Here are some definitions from Netlingo.com:

• flame
  To send nasty or insulting messages, usually in response to someone's having broken the rules of netiquette.
• flame bait
  An intentionally inflammatory posting in a newsgroup or discussion group designed to elicit a strong reaction thereby creating a flame war.
• flame war
  When an online discussion degenerates into a series of personal attacks against the debators, rather than discussion of their positions. A heated exchange.

"Troll" is a bit more subtle, and I had a harder time finding it. Here's what I found in the Jargon Dictionary:

troll    v.,n.      1. [From the Usenet group    alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and    experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." 3. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.

Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See    also Troll-O-Meter.

This thread is not a debate about how we moderate here at Mudcat. This is about Brozman.

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: RichM
Date: 13 May 13 - 01:09 PM

This topic should be below the line. It's not about music.

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: GUEST,former mudcatter
Date: 13 May 13 - 01:49 PM

It's so good that Rick and Duck took the time to share with us. Lets get some sunlight on this sickness and some healing vibes for those with darkness and control in their hearts. Peace to everyone here.

Subject: ADD: Folk Nazis (Dave Hitt)
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 13 May 13 - 02:34 PM

Folk Nazis by Dave Hitt

(Performed as a talking blues song.)


FOLK NAZIS
(Dave Hitt)

It was an unfamiliar city that I wandered through that night
The sleet was falling quickly they had canceled all the flights
So I turned up my sheepskin collar against the icy wind that blew
And went in search of entertainment down the neon avenue

The sign outside said "Coffee House Live entertainment, Folk"
It didn't look expensive and I was nearly broke
I had spent many evenings in spots like this before
And I never saw the weathered sign nailed above the door

It said "Folk Nazis"

I went inside. The place was packed with faded torn blue jeans
All worn by folks who'd overdosed on tofu and soybeans
Their eyes were dull, their hair was long, they sat there nonchalant
As if it were the sixties, or somewhere in Vermont.

It was open mike, the stage was free for anyone inspired
Talent was appreciated, but it was not required
I got myself a cup of coffee and found myself a seat
Then noticed that the place mats were labeled "The Rule Sheet

For Folk Nazis"

The rules said "Arlo Guthrie and Bob Dylan are OK
But no more Joni Mitchel, we've decided she's passé
Poets are allowed" it said, "If they're not too eclectic
And death to those musicians who dare to play electric

At Folk Nazis"

They called the first musician. A young man came up alone
And strapped around his neck he wore a golden saxophone
He played a long cool soulful note, but before his next breath
A band of folkies stormed the stage and stomped the boy to death

A man got up and sang some songs he said were his creation
When he noticed several people were engaged in conversation
He demanded their attention and when they did not comply
He pulled out a tiny pistol and shot each one between the eyes

The next few acts obeyed the rules, played acoustic and told stories
One guy did a sing along, which of course was mandatory
One man told some tales of his travels near and far
And forty seven other people all sang and played guitar

At Folk Nazis

They called the next musician and she started to perspire
The reason for her fear was clear - she had an amplifier
And I could tell from her flushed face her heart was beating faster
As with trepidation she picked up her Fender Stratocaster

I shared the sense of panic that I saw within her eyes
I quickly left, I did not wish to witness her demise
The rain was freezing on my neck, so I turned my collar higher
And behind me, in the distance, I heard submachine gun fire

At Folk Nazis

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 May 13 - 02:59 PM

Few of you have put anything politely here, but this thread isn't about me or moderation at Mudcat. You came here to wring your hands over the downfall of Bob Brozman. You know that attack posts will be deleted, though a large number of them have been left in place.

The thread has remained open in order for the conversation to wind itself down. Are you all finished discussing this topic?

Subject: RE: Bob Brozman legal issues (NOT obit)
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 May 13 - 03:05 PM

You're not talking about Brozman, you're trying to argue with me. You're trolling.