Quote
LongBeachArena72
Now THIS is some entertaining bullshit right here--bravo to all concerned!

One thing I realized about iorr a long time ago ... and having realized it, I found some peace and now cruise in and out every few months as time permits:

This is not really a Stones community. It's a heavily moderated message board which mostly discusses The Rolling Stones, but which mainly reflects the sense of decorum of its proprietor. The electronic denizens herein (myself included, when I participate) accede to this condition and when we partake of iorr's fruits we know we are doing so under a watchful eye whose predilections are sometimes odd but whose interventions we suffer for the greater good of chatting about The Rolling Stones with somewhat like-minded souls.

Two recent events illustrate the factors in play here:

1) Today, a poster who hates what The Rolling Stones have become was called a child molester by another poster. Apparently, the Stones-hater is no longer part of our 'community' while the pedophile-label-flinger is tolerated ... perhaps since his primary impulse was to stand up for the reputation of the band this website purports to discuss.

2) Even the most fervent of the band's admirers must admit that by and large the Stones no longer really matter in today's world. (This is no particular knock on the band; very few musicians actually do matter anymore.) But there was one occasion a few weeks back when the band was very much a topic of conversation out in the wider world: the use of Rolling Stones songs at campaign rallies by Donald Trump. Now Trump is a lot of things to a lot of people; one thing many people do agree on is that he is the most polarizing figure in American politics since George Wallace. In other words, like him or not, he is of historical importance. And he plays TONS OF STONES SONGS at his rallies ... why? What does this mean? People outside of fandom actually discussed this. It was an example of an issue in which The Stones had some level of notoriety/publicity outside their bubble of fandom. This was huge news. The Stones were at the center of yet another controversy ... after decades of (relative) irrelevance. Surely there would be a wide-ranging discussion on the most important (?) Stones board on the planet about what this all meant ... and yet there of course wasn't, since the topic was deemed too 'political' for users here to be able to discuss as adults.

iorr is what it is. Once you understand the rules you can usually manage to go along to get along. And if anything upsets you, you can always use the 'Report This Message' feature to bring to our moderator's attention anything which offends your sensibility or which threatens your perception of and enjoyment of your favorite band. And if our proprietor agrees with you, well, then, bingo-bango-bongo, problem-solved, content deleted!

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
Yes...
But i would argue being called a paedophile is a bit worse that a person making critical comments about The Stones.
Sure, he went a bit far but i find it strange that the poster who called him a paedophile is still allowed to post on this board. I find the term he used repulsive in every way.

Ok..back to complaints thread. Having listened to the entire Hamburg show i can safely say Keith, in particular, was virtually incapable of stringing 2 decent notes together. Its actually sad to listen to.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt as it is the first show, but he would need to improve a bit to make these shows a pleasant listening experience.

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
Yes...
But i would argue being called a paedophile is a bit worse that a person making critical comments about The Stones.
Sure, he went a bit far but i find it strange that the poster who called him a paedophile is still allowed to post on this board. I find the term he used repulsive in every way.

Ok..back to complaints thread. Having listened to the entire Hamburg show i can safely say Keith, in particular, was virtually incapable of stringing 2 decent notes together. Its actually sad to listen to.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt as it is the first show, but he would need to improve a bit to make these shows a pleasant listening experience.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

This is not really a Stones community. It's a heavily moderated message board which mostly discusses The Rolling Stones, but which mainly reflects the sense of decorum of its proprietor.

Quote
wonderboy
Other people have made basically the same points but in a more diplomatic manner and not knocking those who loved the show.
The person who fired back with that insulting comment -- well, that was out of line, and it annoys me when people claim to speak for Stones fans. Speak for yourself only. I don't get offended when people have different opinions.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<1) Today, a poster who hates what The Rolling Stones have become was called a child molester by another poster. Apparently, the Stones-hater is no longer part of our 'community' while the pedophile-label-flinger is tolerated ... perhaps since his primary impulse was to stand up for the reputation of the band this website purports to discuss>

This is dishonest, imo.

You know well that it was another poster who referred to research, saying that trolls get some of the same kind of satisfaction as molesters by causing a riot and the «feedback» that follows.

And this:

«...since his primary impulse was to stand up for the reputation of the band this website purports to discuss»

Starting multiple threads AND ridiculing other posters is NOT «to stand up for» anything – it's trolling.

You're a smart and funny guy, LongBeach. I also admire your ability to (albeit to a lesser degree) making fun of yourself, while you're being funny on other people's behalf.

The former is charming. The latter not so much.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<1) Today, a poster who hates what The Rolling Stones have become was called a child molester by another poster. Apparently, the Stones-hater is no longer part of our 'community' while the pedophile-label-flinger is tolerated ... perhaps since his primary impulse was to stand up for the reputation of the band this website purports to discuss>

This is dishonest, imo.

You know well that it was another poster who referred to research, saying that trolls get some of the same kind of satisfaction as molesters by causing a riot and the «feedback» that follows.

And this:

«...since his primary impulse was to stand up for the reputation of the band this website purports to discuss»

Starting multiple threads AND ridiculing other posters is NOT «to stand up for» anything – it's trolling.

You're a smart and funny guy, LongBeach. I also admire your ability to (albeit to a lesser degree) making fun of yourself, while you're being funny on other people's behalf.

The former is charming. The latter not so much.

I'm not sure I can unravel the clusterfuck of misunderstanding here. Clearly there was an original poster who made a passive aggressive comment about trolls and then headed for the safety of the sidelines. Then the 'pedophile' flinger emerged to actually pin the label the Stones-hater. I suppose you could say that at least the second poster had the courage of this convictions!

I was simply trying to point out that it seemed to me that calling someone a pedophile seemed to be more acceptable than hating The Stones.

And, in less important news, I am sorry you find me occasionally less than charming; while I do not agree with many of your musical opinions, I find you the very epitome of Scandinavian grace!

Quote
bv

Quote
LongBeachArena72

This is not really a Stones community. It's a heavily moderated message board which mostly discusses The Rolling Stones, but which mainly reflects the sense of decorum of its proprietor.

Out of all the tens of thousands of posts on IORR I may have deleted may be 20-30 the last week, and probably not deleted any posts for weeks and weeks before the tour start.

Sure IORR is moderated, but 99% or more of what people say here will stay here. Even 99% of the totally off topic posts stay here. So saying IORR is "Heavily moderated" makes no sense.

You have to remember the fact that IORR is a private web site paid for and moderated by me, one person, the editor. There is not a staff here. I spend my spare time cleaning up if somebody say something that is offending many others. Still 99% or more of the time people are free to speak.

If someone is willing to pay for several fulltime moderators then I could open for political talks here sure, but I can't see the reason why we should discuss the president of the USA here. Sorry.

Thanks to everyone who support my work running IORR. It is easy to make critical comments, but it would be a lot more helpful with support really.

Quote
bv

Quote
LongBeachArena72

This is not really a Stones community. It's a heavily moderated message board which mostly discusses The Rolling Stones, but which mainly reflects the sense of decorum of its proprietor.

Out of all the tens of thousands of posts on IORR I may have deleted may be 20-30 the last week, and probably not deleted any posts for weeks and weeks before the tour start.

Sure IORR is moderated, but 99% or more of what people say here will stay here. Even 99% of the totally off topic posts stay here. So saying IORR is "Heavily moderated" makes no sense.

You have to remember the fact that IORR is a private web site paid for and moderated by me, one person, the editor. There is not a staff here. I spend my spare time cleaning up if somebody say something that is offending many others. Still 99% or more of the time people are free to speak.

If someone is willing to pay for several fulltime moderators then I could open for political talks here sure, but I can't see the reason why we should discuss the president of the USA here. Sorry.

Thanks to everyone who support my work running IORR. It is easy to make critical comments, but it would be a lot more helpful with support really.

Quote
35love

Quote
bv

Quote
LongBeachArena72

This is not really a Stones community. It's a heavily moderated message board which mostly discusses The Rolling Stones, but which mainly reflects the sense of decorum of its proprietor.

Out of all the tens of thousands of posts on IORR I may have deleted may be 20-30 the last week, and probably not deleted any posts for weeks and weeks before the tour start.

Sure IORR is moderated, but 99% or more of what people say here will stay here. Even 99% of the totally off topic posts stay here. So saying IORR is "Heavily moderated" makes no sense.

You have to remember the fact that IORR is a private web site paid for and moderated by me, one person, the editor. There is not a staff here. I spend my spare time cleaning up if somebody say something that is offending many others. Still 99% or more of the time people are free to speak.

If someone is willing to pay for several fulltime moderators then I could open for political talks here sure, but I can't see the reason why we should discuss the president of the USA here. Sorry.

Thanks to everyone who support my work running IORR. It is easy to make critical comments, but it would be a lot more helpful with support really.

I support you, and appreciate you. Sincerely. Sarah

Quote
LongBeachArena72
It is what it is, and for many, many people that works just fine.

Quote
bv
Thanks to everyone who support my work running IORR.

Quote
Whale

Quote
35love

Quote
bv

Quote
LongBeachArena72

This is not really a Stones community. It's a heavily moderated message board which mostly discusses The Rolling Stones, but which mainly reflects the sense of decorum of its proprietor.

Out of all the tens of thousands of posts on IORR I may have deleted may be 20-30 the last week, and probably not deleted any posts for weeks and weeks before the tour start.

Sure IORR is moderated, but 99% or more of what people say here will stay here. Even 99% of the totally off topic posts stay here. So saying IORR is "Heavily moderated" makes no sense.

You have to remember the fact that IORR is a private web site paid for and moderated by me, one person, the editor. There is not a staff here. I spend my spare time cleaning up if somebody say something that is offending many others. Still 99% or more of the time people are free to speak.

If someone is willing to pay for several fulltime moderators then I could open for political talks here sure, but I can't see the reason why we should discuss the president of the USA here. Sorry.

Thanks to everyone who support my work running IORR. It is easy to make critical comments, but it would be a lot more helpful with support really.

I support you, and appreciate you. Sincerely. Sarah

Same here. And have been doing so since 2005 or so.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

1) Today, a poster who hates what The Rolling Stones have become was called a child molester by another poster. Apparently, the Stones-hater is no longer part of our 'community' while the pedophile-label-flinger is tolerated ... perhaps since his primary impulse was to stand up for the reputation of the band this website purports to discuss.

Quote
drbryant
My post was tongue-in-cheek and just meant to give the troll a small dose of his own medicine.

I think everyone on the Forum got it.

Quote
drbryant

Quote
LongBeachArena72

1) Today, a poster who hates what The Rolling Stones have become was called a child molester by another poster. Apparently, the Stones-hater is no longer part of our 'community' while the pedophile-label-flinger is tolerated ... perhaps since his primary impulse was to stand up for the reputation of the band this website purports to discuss.

Come on. We're educated adults here, and no one would have read my post as calling stones-relic a child molester. Stones-relic went nuts; he's been on here a while, and no one knows why. He started a couple of threads, and went on multiple unrelated threads on a Stones forum posting how the Stones suck. He said that he got enjoyment out of making fans feel upset or hurt. Classic trolling behavior.

I merely mentioned, in a clearly mock-serious tone, that internet trolling has been associated with the "dark tetrad" of human personality - narcissism, machiavellianism, psychopathy and sadism. These traits, particularly sadism, are often seen in people who engage in more extreme forms of anti-social behavior. I just cited the theories in general, and never said stones-relic was a child molester. That's ridiculous. Not every child that enjoys pulling the wings off flies, or bullying the smaller kids in grade school ends up being a serial killer. My post was tongue-in-cheek and just meant to give the troll a small dose of his own medicine.

I think everyone on the Forum got it.

Quote
drbryant

Quote
LongBeachArena72

1) Today, a poster who hates what The Rolling Stones have become was called a child molester by another poster. Apparently, the Stones-hater is no longer part of our 'community' while the pedophile-label-flinger is tolerated ... perhaps since his primary impulse was to stand up for the reputation of the band this website purports to discuss.

Come on. We're educated adults here, and no one would have read my post as calling stones-relic a child molester. Stones-relic went nuts; he's been on here a while, and no one knows why. He started a couple of threads, and went on multiple unrelated threads on a Stones forum posting how the Stones suck. He said that he got enjoyment out of making fans feel upset or hurt. Classic trolling behavior.

I merely mentioned, in a clearly mock-serious tone, that internet trolling has been associated with the "dark tetrad" of human personality - narcissism, machiavellianism, psychopathy and sadism. These traits, particularly sadism, are often seen in people who engage in more extreme forms of anti-social behavior. I just cited the theories in general, and never said stones-relic was a child molester. That's ridiculous. Not every child that enjoys pulling the wings off flies, or bullying the smaller kids in grade school ends up being a serial killer. My post was tongue-in-cheek and just meant to give the troll a small dose of his own medicine.

I think everyone on the Forum got it.

Quote
MisterDDDD
stoned4ever-

Give it a rest man, unless you can produce a quote backing up your claim that he outright called him what you claim, you are way out of bounds. I would go so far as to say your repeated accusations qualify as disrespectful harassment outlined by bv. Also- your dime-store psychology borders on the absurd. Best to stick with what you know- Mick and Ronnie bashing.

Quote
wonderboy

Stones relic is a Stones fan who got a little emotional, not a troll. Geez, roll with it.
I support our moderator, but hope he comes back when he cools off.

Quote
Hairball
Not being a religious person ... Nobody's perfect and everyone make mistakes...

"I said yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah
You'll never make a saint of me..."

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
MisterDDDD
stoned4ever-

Give it a rest man, unless you can produce a quote backing up your claim that he outright called him what you claim, you are way out of bounds. I would go so far as to say your repeated accusations qualify as disrespectful harassment outlined by bv. Also- your dime-store psychology borders on the absurd. Best to stick with what you know- Mick and Ronnie bashing.

You have been trying to get me banned for ages, give it a break.