I know he spent a lot of time promoting Mick Taylor, and yes he had an agenda, but how offensive was it? Did it make this board worse? I don't think so! Even though some of OpenG's posts could be a bit too much, his overall contributions was IMO more profound that a lot of posters on this site.

I respect the policy here, and I love this forum! But this reaction may have been a bit too tough IMO.

DP

A thread of his was deleted yesterday, but he is not banned is he?

I just got a mail from him telling he is thrown off the board.

isn't that a little too much?!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-01-26 11:54 by farawayeyes2.

BV has reminded us about the current rules of this board on an endless number of occasions and if you then don't comply with the regulations you simply don't deserve to have the right to be a member of this web site. I fully support BV's decision concerning this matter. OpenG can visit one of 'em Mick Taylor sites and discuss the vibrato and exteneded solos with his soul mates over there.

I got a mail from BV because of my thread about attendance and sure I provoked him (sorry BV) but hey, Open G?? BV, you have a great site but please dont ban Open G. Besides isnt it good to provoke sometimes, I love those disussions that may end with wome new info.

All I know is the guy for the most part kept posting the same topic over and over and over again, This is a Rolling Stones board and not a Mick Taylor board, I am not saying taylor should not be discussed but it really is getting to be ridiculas that a few people here keep posting the same thing , they don't seem to have any intrest in the band pre 69 or post 74, I think it got to a point that after 1850 threads on the same subject maybe BV had enough.

he seemed a harmless and inoffensive guy. Hardly comparable when it comes to an agenda to the obsessive and downright nasty personal abuse dished out in the direction of certain posters by some people.

Oh c'mon he likes Taylor so what. I don't wanna read two thousand posts about how great they are and how they are better than U2 and never fail, and how everybody still loves them etc.

LA FORUM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh c'mon he likes Taylor so what. I don't wanna
> read two thousand posts about how great they are
> and how they are better than U2 and never fail,
> and how everybody still loves them etc.
>
> and Ay ay baby it hurts


Agreed LA Forum.

LA FORUM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh c'mon he likes Taylor so what. I don't wanna
> read two thousand posts about how great they are
> and how they are better than U2 and never fail,
> and how everybody still loves them etc.
>
> and Ay ay baby it hurts


Let him do it on a Taylor board, why here????

I don't think he deserved being banned. He liked the Stones from the Mick Taylor era, so what? Other people seems to think the Stones are at their peak nowadays and are even more obsessive about their opinions (and offensive with those who don't share their opinions)...

I think he never started a thread getting personal or being offensive. He only started 1,567,956 threads praising Taylor's Vibrato and that's all.

[There'll be no wedding today...]

BRING OPEN G BACK!!

There is nothing wrong that a person has one topic agenda. I think his VIBRATO is a classic element in this board. I miss him already.

And there are lots of other one-track minded people also here:

JumpingKentFLash: being a too much fan of 90's stuff
Mathijs: being besserwisser with negativity
otenneau: being too clever
Doxa: being too boring (but having an excellent taste and always being right)
Gazza: being crazy (with too-much-detail-knowledge)
Milo Yammbag: being not enough anti-Beatles (and a New Yorker)
BaboonBro: being Swedish
Eddie The Eagle: being away
Brenda: being sensitive
Kyle M: being born in a wrong year.
Everyone: being a Rolling Stones fan

Do I go on...

- Doxa

His threads were a bit tiring (everyday the same message in a different thread), but OpenG never attacked individuals on the board or was really offensive against Woody. I never thought it would get him banned one day. Bring the man back. Just ask him not to start the same thread every day.

Who'll sing the Vibrato's praise from now on?

BTW: I assume Ferrante is also banned then?

Doxa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BRING OPEN G BACK!!
>
> There is nothing wrong that a person has one topic
> agenda. I think his VIBRATO is a classic element
> in this board. I miss him already.
>
> And there are lots of other one-track minded
> people also here:
>
> JumpingKentFLash: being a too much fan of 90's
> stuff


LOL!!!!! I love the guy!

BV, I think everyone would like to know the reason for you throwing Open G. off the board. Is there something we don't know about?

Ket Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LA FORUM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Oh c'mon he likes Taylor so what. I don't
> wanna
> > read two thousand posts about how great they
> are
> > and how they are better than U2 and never
> fail,
> > and how everybody still loves them etc.
> >
> > and Ay ay baby it hurts
>
>
> Let him do it on a Taylor board, why here????
>


Because Mick Taylor was in the Rolling Stones when they were at their best according to most fans.

I'm very happy if really he was thrown off this forum.

OK, why is that, did he offend you in some way?

Campaigning (spamming, flooding, or whatever you want to call it is not allowed).
That is probably why he was banned, not for his opinions.

To me, the Stones still mean one thing, and that is FREEDOM. It's sad, that on a Stones-board some mofuckers come up with this rules-thing. Very sad.

Me, you don't have to throw off. I go from my own decision. Bye.

gaigai

gaigai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To me, the Stones still mean one thing, and that
> is FREEDOM. It's sad, that on a Stones-board some
> mofuckers come up with this rules-thing. Very
> sad.
>
> Me, you don't have to throw off. I go from my own
> decision. Bye.
>
> gaigai

Very well said...FREEDOM...Freedom of speech...

Don't know what he did wrong, but I think someone should only get banned if he/she really offends other people.
If he/she post a thousand times about Taylor...you don't have to read it!
Live and let live.

Save OpenG!!!
Utterly harmless, mad as a fish and a Taylor fanatic.... even if he went over the top at times.
Far less as inoffensive as one particular MT fanatic I can mention so I say let him return.....

Go on BV.... ya know it makes sense!

I don't really care who you are when I manage IORR and moderate. My job is to keep the forum according to the rules. If I spend more than 2 hours per day on managing and telling people they have crossed the line then there is always a limit of how much time I want to spend. If I send a warning - that might be to Mick Jagger or anyone - I don't care who you are - and I get my e-mail in return because you are hiding behind a hotmail address or some other stupid security system, or if I don't get any reaction, or if you happen to post the "I hate Ronnie" for the 100't time in a row - mind you I have said at least 20 times this week I don't want to spend time on it anymore, and you must be blind and deaf if you don't understand my opinion - then you don't respect MY time at all if you continue to re-open posts or keep posting again and again the same topic. So it is self-defense. First of all. I need to protect my own time. Then secondly it is the IORR policy of course.

By the way if people tell me they understand and they will not consume my time every day by posting silly posts then it is no probelm for me to say ok so it took a while but you finally understand the IORR policy. So far I have heard nothing from the few - very few - may be 5-10 people I have banned from IORR over the past 12 month, saying sorry but they understand and they will not offend anymore. And that is probably a sign that my self-defense actions are highly needed. I am sure you rather want more reviews posted than having me spending 2 hours every day on IORR cleanup and policy. Right now I have half a dozen reviews from every show still no time to read through and post every one and also pictures etc but as long as I have to handle individuals who don't respect the simple rules then the backlog and the quality of the rest of IORR will suffer, and I can not tolerate that. If you offend me (i.e. ogffend IORR readers) when I am most busy then it takes a second for me to clean up. I am normally very patient and can take a lot but other times I act in a second so don't test me I do mean what I say. Thank you for the understanding.

PS. I would rather have 10,000 happy and not offended Tell Me visitors than 200 hard core fans offending each others with rough talks and opinions. That is another side of the same story. IORR is for everyone, not just for a few.

Bjornulf

Well said Bjornulf

I think BV's decision makes perfect sense and I fully support his actions.

Open G is dead, long live Open G.

I actually thought his MT threads were well timed and intelligent. This will always be a topic, this Ronnie vs MT, and judging by the response to those we all have a rooting interest. We don't know what went on behind the scenes so I'm sure BV has his reasons. Open G will now start posting in a tiny online club with Carla Olsen. Maybe a sympathetic John Mayall board will ask him to sit in or when the Stones play Kansas City next, BV will ask him back for a few hours.

How much I love the ...Period..Mick was in the Stones...I sometimes was angry when Ron was atacked,I have to say,it open g was not alone...still cant understand .....this ronnie..hate mail...this g rder to ron

ridiculous to ban OpenG.....Mick T. is part of the Stones legacy and there's nothing wrong with his interest in Mick Taylor

I say bring Open G back to the forum