For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
RokyfanQuote
DandelionPowderman
So for you it's perfectly ok to post that Mick was responsible for her death, hours after her passing?
I don't know who posted that, I haven't read that. To say Mick was responsible would be idiotic and facile. I believe what I have read about her being distraught over Mick breaking up with her. If that was a motivating factor, that is not blaming Mick. Nobody can know what anybody else will do, he is not responsible for her actions. He may think so, who knows, that's between Mick and his conscience.
Quote
Rokyfan
I'm not here 24/7, missed the Cindy thing and ignored all the posts that came after. To equate others who want to discuss the thing honestly with a conclusion that Mick is "at fault" is not fair.
I see your point. Most of the discussion is about what is or is not proper to discuss.Quote
StoneburstQuote
Rokyfan
I'm not here 24/7, missed the Cindy thing and ignored all the posts that came after. To equate others who want to discuss the thing honestly with a conclusion that Mick is "at fault" is not fair.
I completely agree, but honestly, I still don't see what there is to discuss.
Quote
StoneburstQuote
RokyfanQuote
DandelionPowderman
So for you it's perfectly ok to post that Mick was responsible for her death, hours after her passing?
I don't know who posted that, I haven't read that. To say Mick was responsible would be idiotic and facile. I believe what I have read about her being distraught over Mick breaking up with her. If that was a motivating factor, that is not blaming Mick. Nobody can know what anybody else will do, he is not responsible for her actions. He may think so, who knows, that's between Mick and his conscience.
So far as I know, the only person who has actually done this so far was CindyC (correct me if I'm wrong). For all the pious waffling about free speech, it was perfectly clear - both from her initial reaction when the news first broke here and from her swiftly-deleted goodbye message, posted from a duplicate account after BV banned her - that this was precisely the idea behind her setting up the 'non-condolence discussion thread'.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
lettingitbleed
to expect that no one on a Stones message board would not speculate and discuss the biggest Stones related event in...since...who know when.. is a bit silly and just not realistic. How can we be expected to ignore this massive news bombshell? I suppose there should be zero news coverage about it and no one should ever discuss it amongst eachother too??
We can ONLY discuss the music itself now? This holier-than-thou BS has really gotten out of hand. If some of you are really SO appaled by the posts here post elsewhere and just dont read it!! You hate to discuss this but keep coming back for more.....?
Nice rant and wonderful hyberbole
Quote
StoneburstQuote
drbryant
For the life of me, I can't understand the need to draw attention to oneself in a condolence thread. I guess that's why I'm not a psychologist.
I resent this comment. What I posted was not about highlighting my own views: it was a reminder that fandom conflates the public and the private, and that this is something we should all be wary of in the aftermath of such tragedies as this. Did you actually read what I wrote?
Frankly, if you're looking to condemn narcissistic reactions to L'Wren Scott's death, there are many, many more obvious targets on this board than me.
Quote
angee
Stoneburst, first, I object to you carrying on whatever vendetta or critique you have against someone who is banned and cannot defend herself. To me, that is unethical, unfair in the extreme.
Second, no, CindyC never said this, as I recall. She set up the thread, btw, to *avoid* the issue of blame. What she did say is Mick may have given L'Wren cause to be desperate, as may have been the case with one other g/f (--turns out to be two others--), which seems more than coincidence. She also clearly noted that the only one responsible for a suicide is the person who commits it.
bv, if you choose to delete this, perhaps you can delete all posts in this argumentative, vilifying vein.
Quote
paulm
After a substantial grieving/processing period, if MJ carries on the tour dates with predictable prancing, preening, and showboating, I might get sick.
Quote
RokyfanQuote
treaclefingersQuote
RokyfanQuote
treaclefingers
And as far as 'free speech' is concerned...this is BVs website, his not-for-profit passion.
We post here as his clients. He certainly is in it at least partially to keep his clients (and in many cases I'm sure his friends) happy.
Hard to find the right balance, and I'm sure he makes his share of mistakes, however NO WHERE is it stated that on his website we have a right to free speech, to say whatever we want, without moderation.
In fact, he's gone to great lengths to explain his position on these matters.
So, if you want completely free speech, you can get it anywhere on the web. Go join a yahoo 'chat room' (am I dating myself?) and have 'at-er'.
But if BV wants a little civility exercised, especially in view of this tragedy, the last thing I want to hear is ranting of 'my freedom of speech!' on a condolences thread.
BV can delete what he wants and have whatever rules he wants, I certainly agree with that; it's his site. I would never respond to any decision that BV made with respect to this site with a reference to free speech.
What that has to do with one poster telling another what should or should not be posted is beyond me. Someone said what we can't do "here" and nobody has the right to say that except the owner of the site. BV can decide what is appropriate, tasteless, whatever. The opinion of others are irrelevant. If you think that is a rant, you have a problem.
You are certainly within your right to think I have a problem.
But with respect to your last post, your suggesting that anyone should be allowed to throw up whatever they want, and if BV doesn't like it, he can clean it up.
Why should he have to do that? That's time and effort that is completely unnecessary, if your using the forum as intended.
Remember, you have other resources to post your free speech. BVs clearly stated that's not what this forum is for. You need to get over yourself.
I'm not saying he should do that, I'm saying he makes the rules not you. Is someone posting something against applicable rules? He's not aware of the discussions here?
And "you need to get over yourself"?? You need some new cliches.
Quote
andrewtQuote
Redhotcarpet
And Cindy got banned. Interesting. So a fan starts a thread about L'wren and shares something personal, gets slammed by fans who say they are concerned about Jagger and Scott, report (?) Cindy and now she's banned, after beeing told by a concerned fan to "f--- o--"? And that iorrian is still here. Sorry if OT but it doesnt sound quite right. Edit: and please dont report me for saying this.
I'm with you all the way on this. The treatment she received from some of the folks here was despicable. Outright bullying and gleeful malevolence.
Quote
angee
I like the idea of three threads proposed above, althought the third may have been deemed
out of bounds already.
Quote
stonesrule
Thank you Dr. Bryant!
She made her sad decision and it is not OUR business to know every personal detail.
BV would not want HIS "family stuff" on IORR.
Quote
ryanpow
That was a nice article by her friend in the NY times. It does give us some insight and some closure.
Quote
silkcut1978_Quote
stonesrule
Thank you Dr. Bryant!
She made her sad decision and it is not OUR business to know every personal detail.
BV would not want HIS "family stuff" on IORR.
Finally something made me laugh - Mick Jagger is a superstar, he might dream of privacy but that's the price for his fame. BV is BV - who cares for his (or even mine) "family stuff"? What are you comparing?
Quote
silkcut1978_Quote
stonesrule
Thank you Dr. Bryant!
She made her sad decision and it is not OUR business to know every personal detail.
BV would not want HIS "family stuff" on IORR.
Finally something made me laugh - Mick Jagger is a superstar, he might dream of privacy but that's the price for his fame. BV is BV - who cares for his (or even mine) "family stuff"? What are you comparing?
Quote
big4
There should be three threads instead of this unwieldy monstrosity which started as soon as news of L'Wren broke. They should be:
A dedicated condolences to L'Wren thread
A post your condolences/thoughts/wishes/love to Mick, the Stones thread
A conjecture, news, rumors, theories thread where people can postulate and hypothesize what has happened, etc...
Make all them sticky's and this way people who want to console Mick can do so, those who wish to write codolences to L'Wren can do so and those who wish to share news, opinions, thoughts about the who, what, why, and how of this tragedy can do do. Otherwise you have nothing but a huge cluster....of bitching, arguing, condolences, well wishes, etc...
Quote
MunichhiltonQuote
silkcut1978_Quote
stonesrule
Thank you Dr. Bryant!
She made her sad decision and it is not OUR business to know every personal detail.
BV would not want HIS "family stuff" on IORR.
Finally something made me laugh - Mick Jagger is a superstar, he might dream of privacy but that's the price for his fame. BV is BV - who cares for his (or even mine) "family stuff"? What are you comparing?
silk! great to see you around, but why in this thread?? It's a mind field