re: BV's post on the harrison thread...

jeezum crowe; u can't totally seperate the brit invasion bands...from this club can u? and still have it be open and relevant...?
BV... look how many people have read this thread for example...
i know some control is necessary and helpful...keep things on track and alla that...appreciate that...
but if we can't talk about Kinks, Who, Animals, etc..
and ALL the acts that THEY covered and were influenced by...
...and especially the stones/beats stuff... well, i dunno...

tho i don't want to hear endlessly about paulie and all that sheeit either, ya know?

i'm a newbie and don't want to break any rules or standards; and did not start this thread...but i'm glad it's here, ya know?

i mean the stones and beats hung together, were friends and contemporaries, knew each other well, encouraged and enjoyed each other professionally and personally...influenced each other, supported each other, etc... sure there was bitchiness too...internally in all groups, and spreading out in criticisms of the other bands too...

i mean we can't talk about The Who, unless we talk about their EP of stones covers in support of them when they were taking all those stupid pot and hash busts??? (way cool of The Who by the way...WAY COOL) the who doing 'under my thumb and others,,,,wow) how cool is that?

how cool would it be if the stones did a ball-busting version of "Revolution"?
i mean, people would be in tears of joy and surprise and gratitude.
Charlie would be thumping those toms, Keith would be doin' that guitar riff, (lol, that he does all the time anyway...straight from chuck)
i mean, don't it give u chills? ( i can hear the smart ass slams comin' my way already about that)

didn't someone once write a song "why can't we sing this song all together"
on Satanic Majesties Request?
i'm sure u understand BV, and other administrators, cause tho u commented, and i appreciate that...u also let the thread stand...

just sayin....it's all a continuem (or however the hell you spell that)
it's all part of our history and dna...and interwoven...
on the other hand...i do get that endless threads about others is not why i joined in here either...thanks for listening.

Short saying, I do understand your frustration. "it's all about Rock and Roll"

__________________________

There are hundreds of posts a day here that are not Stones related (like Shrimps obsession with me). Maybe BV should understand that people come here to talk to one another about the Stones and sometimes other topics (like Harrison). What's wrong with that? And just to please BV: Ron Wood plays briljant solo's this tour.

if it was Stones chat or any topic 24 x 7............it would be boooooring.....i like a little variety......keeps thing fresh



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-01 01:00 by Leonard Keringer.

Ditto ... it's better to have some off-topic stuff than the same Stones threads over and over again (Wood vs. Taylor, the setlist, etc.)

I guess that´s why my OT: World Cup 2006 topic was d e l e t e d.

It's certainly BV's board....but, having said that - I know of NO OTHER boards that have such rules.

TooTough Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess that´s why my OT: World Cup 2006 topic was
> d e l e t e d.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> --------
> Barcelona, Paris, München, Berlin, Köln!!
>

Gee, I wonder why the Winter Olympics thread wasn't deleted as well ... oh wait, never mind.

ohnonotyouagain Wrote:

>
> Gee, I wonder why the Winter Olympics thread
> wasn't deleted as well ... oh wait, never mind.

Wasn´t it started by bv?

If the number of irrelevant posts is increasing over a certain level then i simply close them or delete. This is a Stones board and not a general board. I don't want to have 9 out of 10 posts about being drunk, beatles, hair implants or other relatively meaningless and irrelevant subjects. And don't tell me other boards are not moderated. May be there are lots of non-moderated boards out there but I don't really care. They would be dominated by lunatics very soon. People wo have a big ego and who nwant everybody to listen to their weired opinions.

There are certain rules on IORR to make it possible to have a clean and efficient flow of information and talking, and if you don't like it, then I don't really worry about it. I am old enough to know what I am doing, and people who insult me by saying I am doing it the wrong way - here and not by e-mail to me - are not really welcome here. Like if you are invited home to a person, and every time you are there you tell the host his wife is ugly and his kids are ugly and all the books he is reading are bad and all his records stink, then you ask for food and drings and still want to be a guest? I don't think that is a sign of good manners.

Bjornulf

BV - you are a changed man !

Why have you changed ?
Is it the many concerts you've been going to during the ABB Tour ?
Is it the horrible sound of bum notes from Ronnies guitar ?
Is it the boring setlists ?

For some reason you have become a very grumpy moderator.....

Cheer up !

Concerned Esky

When I go to friend's houses I defer to them for the most part, but they don't mind if I offer them some mild criticism or ask why they cut off a certain topic of conversation. I wouldn't call their wife ugly, that would be going too far, but if they had some records I didn't like I might tell them their musical taste stinks, and the people I know would take this in stride and not be offended by it. They'd probably just tell me mine stinks back and we'd have a laugh about it.

I'm really not trying to offend, but apart from the very obvious (no more threads about people's personal lives, I got that one loud and clear; that was my mistake and it won't happen again) I'm not really sure what is or isn't going to offend anymore. It seems sort of arbitrary lately.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-01 06:22 by ohnonotyouagain.

I thought twice before posting that and then I figured, "nah, The Beatles were Stones' peers so this should be OK". It's not like I was bashing anyone and I certainly did not mean to upset BV. I thought since it dealt with a British musician it would be OK. At the top left of this screen it says "Talk about your favorite band". My favorite band DOES happen to be the Stones, but does that mean that anyone who posts here has to proclaim the Stones as their favorite band? Some could take that as meaning talk about your favorite band whatever band that may be. I have never been malicious or insulting in any of my posts during my short time as a poster here and I never will be. If all I can do is post about the Stones then so be it. It just seems that some variety is essential in keeping this forum interesting. I like this place. It's great to talk about the band I love with others who can relate but I have a very very very broad interest and love for music and would hope that I could talk about other musicians and other bands to a certain extent.

x



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-08 01:28 by Beelyboy.

Call me Mr Thicky, but I do not follow BV's analogy.

If a man goes into a fish shop and asks for a piece of meat, the fishmonger does not throw him out of the shop for insulting him, nor does he assume that the custommer also thinks that the fishmongers wife is a dog, has breath like a cuttle fish and his two daughters are drug taking whores.

Some moderation is neccessary of course - but it's not a perfect world.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-01 10:05 by turd.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-01 10:53 by Big Al.

Rules are ok, but too many rules can spoil the fun here for lots of people. We can't talk about non-Stones items (but we can talk about non-Stones item BV likes, e.g. Olympics & Norwegan medals). And when we do talk about the Stones, god forbid it's negative. If every thread was about Woods horrible playing, I would understand. But that's not the case. If someone wants to make a statement and types in CAPITALS: that's not allowed. Last: If someone DOES like something about the Stones too much, he could be in trouble too (e.g. talking about Taylor's vibrato). That leaves us with........not much. The reaction stating BV might be wrong sometimes is: "If you don't like it, leave". Maybe there could be some room for discussion on this matter, even if it's in your cyber-house. When I visit my friends in the real world, I'm allways allowed to debat with them on ANY topic, that's why there my friends.

If You Want To Be Happy was covered by Bill Wyman.

I think this board, Shidoobee, Rocks Off, and others all have the same issue. They all have a purpose and definition and without being moderated things can degenerate into chaos. IORR in particular has gone down hill over the past year or so, and Bjorn is simply trying to pull things back in focus on the topic he runs this board to discuss. The more interest in the George Harrison post, for example, means the more out of control IORR is as a place to discuss the Stones. Arguing that there is lots of interest in the post, simply supports letting the board degenerate further away from a Stones site. There used to be some general courtesy among posters, but that has gone by the wayside. For example, a simple "NSC" code at the beginning of the topic ["no stones content"] would alert readers ahead of time and perhaps they would choose to skip over those posts.



"make up your mind, 'cause I gotta go"

I don't want to have 9 out of 10 posts
> about being drunk, beatles, hair implants or other
> relatively meaningless and irrelevant subjects.


Wait, wait, wait, hairimplants are very relevant to this band! Ronnie was good last week, hope he stays that way.

LA FORUM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Wait, wait, wait, hairimplants are very relevant
> to this band! Ronnie was good last week, hope he
> stays that way.


LOL! controversial stuff!!

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-08 01:36 by Beelyboy.

In European football there is a rule you should go for the ball not the player. I see some people go for me and not for the policy. Same for any other discussion, politics or whatever. But when a footballer is shortcoming, he is going bad and striking the other player. Or if a politicial is running out of arguments he is attacking the other person not the case.

There are very simple rules here on IORR, in order to avoid anarchy. And I happen to be the one to monitor and apply the simple rules. Imagine Manhattan NYC with one police guy only. Well I am the one. Some may break the rules in Central Park while I am in East Village cleaning up but that does not mean it is legal whatever they do in Central Park. And I might book in a guy who is talking strange but then when it later on turns out it is a drunken Swede celerating the ice hockey gold medals for a week in NYC then I say sorry I though he was a bad guy then time to move on in life.

Did you ever go to Manhattan NYC in the 80's? Few rules and very unpleasant.
Great example of how bad thigs can get when you leave the streets to the people and not apply simple rules. Now it is al very different, quite ok still not too many rules. And don't misunderstand me. I have been to Beverly Hills too. far to clean and "nice" to my taste. So it is a balance of how many or few rules you need.

There are a few people here on IORR who want to dominate and bend te rules, do what they like. Funny enough they are the first to contact me to clean up and censor every time they make aq big mess out of it and they get problems. Really funny. Theory an practice...

The rules on IORR are very simple, and if you don't like them then find some other place to break such rules:

1. Do not offend or post offensive or individual
2. Most posts should be Stones-related

About the Olympics: Great example of what might be a non-Stones post. As far as I remember there were only one thead about the Olympics, which means people use the thead system well and do not open many new theads. Except for when Sweden won the ice hockey gold medals theh I think there were a few more "celebration" theads but that is ok as they go away fast and they are done in the time of the day and with an excitement no worries.

Any major event might be ok to be non-topic, as long as it is not war and politics or religion, which always will start an offending thead as we all know. One example which surprised me was when the tsunami hit south east asia there were no comments on IORR which I thought was strange. Which proves we are mostly westernized people in the Stones world who care about the price on petrol/gaz, set lists, fotball, superbowl, ronnie's playing, girls, boys, all these raditional things. By the way if we were to talk about anything we like at any time then I am sure we woild have lots of talk about sports and girls and boys which is what 90% of the people talk aout at all times.

I might be grumpy when and if I had to spend a few hours of my spare time on cleaning up after liberal people bending the rules here rather than working on things that are more important for me and many others. And some times I am very trigger happy remember I am the only guy keeping law and order and you have to break and egg to make an omellette...

Bjornulf

Björnulf, where is my "World Cup 2006" thread then?

BV is the moderator...what is the issue????

tat2you Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BV is the moderator...what is the issue????


who are you, his press secretary?

No, just probably someone who appreciates that BV runs this site and basically he can do what he damn well pleases......If you don't like the rules start your own!

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-08 01:34 by Beelyboy.

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, just probably someone who appreciates that BV
> runs this site and basically he can do what he
> damn well pleases......If you don't like the rules
> start your own!


watch it now, or I'll have to start another ablett-only thread!

And what wrong with that young man! I quite enjoyed the last one?