| re: Has an Entire thread gone missing about a thread that has gone missing? | |
|
Posted by: |
steven_stuart 05:57 pm UTC 07/08/09 |
| In reply to: | re: Has an Entire thread gone missing about a thread that has gone missing? - Jacqueline 01:07 pm UTC 07/08/09 |
| > This board allows a ton of NJC and is very liberal. That > said, pornographic images, or "google cues" for them - > I'll pull. The stuff posted or posted about isn't nudity > or sex - it's way beyond that. For the sake of the > under-18 (and the vast majority of over-18 that don't want > to see or read that on a songwriter's message board) - I > pulled the threads. The original thread was started by Conas. He was talking in a positive way about Michael Jackson. I didn't have time to read the rest of the thread but when I came back it had all gone. Pudding told me that the thread had been removed because it was full of "filthy sexual" stuff. I assumed that the people making fun of Michael Jackson further down the board had replied to Conas in a horrible way. My post regarding this assumption (which may have been wrong) upset Pudding and he called me a "wanker". Was it that word that got the thread pulled? You say about the under-18's but there are many threads where Pudding and Jughead use words like "cocksucker" and "cunt" and they don't get pulled (if you are worried about under-18s). Smeg once wrote that: "I wish I was a cunt so that I could play with myself all day". Some might find that funny but again, if you are worried about the under-18s. I know that alot of middle aged Bat Out Of Hell fans in the UK wouldn't like that either. I don't know what it has to do with Smeghead being "moved by Jim's words and music". I admit that I have used some foul language when replying to Pudding and Smeghead because I get hit by a barrage of foul language from them. I wonder if the thread was pulled because I paid tribute to Michael Jackson on the day of his funeral and memorial. Pudding said that I was stirring up more "Michael Jackson shit". So I guess that this NJC might have been annoying to some board members who don't like Michael (I have also recieved support for my pro-Jackson views from some other posters - they are not all negative about it). I am glad that you said you tolerate NJC because it can be interesting. Especially at a time when Jim is not allowed to talk about his work to his fans. Although Michael Jackson is not exactly NJC. Both Jim and Michael shared (or share - Michael is still with us) an obsession with all things JM Barrie. As you know, Jim has fought tooth and nail for his Neverland script, in the past and currently in the present. Many people have tried to change his mind but he bravely sticks to his guns and I am proud of him for that. And Jim is a fan of Michael. Maybe because he was a Peter Pan figure but also probably because Michael was the best song and dance man of all time. He could have done wonderful versions of Life Is A Lemon or Angels Arise. In this thread, Smeghead talks about Mr. Egg spewing his yolk. I was not trying to spew yolk. I was just asking Pudding why he had a problem with Michael Jackson (who is innocent - as the congress lady so powerfully said) but not Roman Polanski (who actually pleads guilty). Is it simply that Roman directed Tanz, so he is not to be criticised? I have recieved negative posts from a number of posters but it is mostly the team of Pudding and Smeghead who let me have it. Probably I will end up being banned because of their provocation. Like someone else who I am not allowed to mention. Who should be allowed back on if you really do want "a raw and uncensored mirror into the lives of the people that have been so moved by his words and music". People who have been moved by Jim's music are all different. They won't all post things that fit in with what Pudding and Smeghead want. I have read posters declaring that they are sometimes scared to post things in case they get it from the dynamic duo. > > I don't know, last week I remember we were told that "this > > board is run the way Jim wants it - as a raw and > > uncensored mirror into the lives of the people that have > > been so moved by his words and music". I do not say this > > as a knock in any way on Jim or Jacqueline, but rather to > > try to understand why threads may have gone missing. > > Personally, in the past I've seen stuff allowed that I > > would have pulled - so I'm definitely not screaming about > > "censorship" either. Just trying to figure out what's > > going on. > > > > > Seriously... what is up? | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Has an Entire thread gone missing about a thread that has gone missing? - Jacqueline 01:07 pm UTC 07/08/09 |
| Next: | re: Has an Entire thread gone missing about a thread that has gone missing? - Pudding 08:20 pm UTC 07/08/09 |
| Thread: |
|