| Don't you ever get bored with your long, dull, repetitive and oh so frequent posts?? | |
|
Posted by: |
Jacqueline 06:09 pm UTC 07/08/09 |
| In reply to: | re: Has an Entire thread gone missing about a thread that has gone missing? - steven_stuart 05:57 pm UTC 07/08/09 |
| I do. > > 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 brain that has gone missing? - daveake 06:12 pm UTC 07/08/09 |
| Next: | re: Don't you ever get bored with your long, dull, repetitive and oh so frequent posts?? - steven_stuart 07:55 pm UTC 07/08/09 |
| Thread: |
|