censorship

[2007what!]

but surely you realize that my question just as much had to do with axl firing merck, which was an essential part of his letter to us?

I just don't see how is it related, but whatever... I just wanted to say that this message board does value it members ?

i know it does, i may have put that a little too harshly across. regardless, i support jarmo when he says that when merck is no longer part of the GN'R organization, it is not to be taken for granted that his letter will appear on a guns n' roses site. that is jarmo's decision as an administrator.

[Howard2k]

If you want it to be "The Jarmo Show" then go ahead.? ?But if you want to try to enforce policy like you state, then the policy should surely at least be consistent??

It is very consistent as far as I know.

I explained myself, and you just refuse to get it. There's nothing I can do about it.

You have Axl's letter here. If somebody outside the band, or its organization, writes a letter, you'll have to look for it somewhere else.



/jarmo

Maybe it's a misunderstanding on my part.

We're not going to publicize comments from outside the band (Merck).   But we are going to publicize comments from outside the band (insert magazine other than RS here).   Then we're not going to publicize comments from outside the band (Rolling Stone). 

And then my posts in Axl's Letter thread about Axl's letter and how he said tentative get removed.  Yet other people post about tentative and it stays.  And there is even a thread now about how it's tentative.    The only consistency seems that it's inconsistent.



How exactly was the Rolling Stone article a "lie"?   Are you now suggesting that Merck was never interviewed by Rolling Stone at all?   Or that he never made those comments? 


Most of us here are adults.   Many of us are even educated.  Words like "tentative" and "rumoured" often get missed by fans and I DO understand why you'd want to not spread the rumours further.   But rather than clamping down on  those posts/threads and letting them just get repeatedly posted all over again by people who don't understand or see what's happening, just stick them to one thread, make an official announcement in thread if needed and be done with it.

For example - although you suggested that the Rolling Stone article was a "lie", I think what you're trying to say is that it was a rumour, perhaps even an unfounded rumour.   If someone posted the article, rather than delete posts and threads en-masse, why not just put a disclaimer in there (even in the first post) to suggest or confirm that it is nothing more than rumour "at this stage".   Simple.   The fans can still discuss it (since this IS a GNR discussion forum) and you've done your part to remove any credence from the article as best you can.

If it was a post saying "Fucking Axl Rose sucks!!"  Then sure - I can totally understand removing the post.  Fuck, I'd support that.   Removing posts requesting leaked tracks - that makes sense too. 

But it's NOT just the negative posts that get removed.  There are SO many posts that are not negative about the band, yet they get removed due to some hidden agenda.   

People are going to discuss this stuff anyway, so if people do it like adults then why don't you want discussion here?

So no, it's not consistent, it's not about "getting rid of the haters" it's about "You'll talk about the specific GNR topics that the HTGTH staff feel are fit for discussion.   And you'll be sure to praise Axl about it".

And you didn't answer my question about whether you were asked by the band to remove any hint about Merck's letter. 

[Howard2k]

None of you seem to get it.

I run the site as I see fit.

Occasionally I'm asked to remove something.

If I don't see why it should be removed, I can always ask. But usually I can see why.


I can give you an example: The Rolling Stone article. It contained lies and people got excited. The album wasn't released in November. Every time an article claims something about the band, and it doesn't happen, a certain person in the band gets the blame for it.




/jarmo

And what did removing the rolling stone article achieve?? Really?

Did it annoy people that their posts were getting erased without any feedback whatsoever?? ?For no apparent reason?? ?Yes it did.

Did it prevent people from finding out about the rolling stone article?? ?No it didn't.

Did it enhance the reputation of HTGTH??


If you want it to be "The Jarmo Show" then go ahead.? ?But if you want to try to enforce policy like you state, then the policy should surely at least be consistent??

Where you asked to remove the Merck article?? ?

Why do you keep coming back?

In theory - to talk about GNR.   This IS a GNR discussion forum after all.   

[wells]

None of you seem to get it.

I run the site as I see fit.

Occasionally I'm asked to remove something.

If I don't see why it should be removed, I can always ask. But usually I can see why.


I can give you an example: The Rolling Stone article. It contained lies and people got excited. The album wasn't released in November. Every time an article claims something about the band, and it doesn't happen, a certain person in the band gets the blame for it.




/jarmo

And what did removing the rolling stone article achieve?? Really?

Did it annoy people that their posts were getting erased without any feedback whatsoever?? ?For no apparent reason?? ?Yes it did.

Did it prevent people from finding out about the rolling stone article?? ?No it didn't.

Did it enhance the reputation of HTGTH??


If you want it to be "The Jarmo Show" then go ahead.? ?But if you want to try to enforce policy like you state, then the policy should surely at least be consistent??

Where you asked to remove the Merck article?? ?

Why do you keep coming back?

In theory - to talk about GNR.? ?This IS a GNR discussion forum after all.? ?

and I don't see you are trying to discuss anything, but trying to force your views and opinion as granted 

[Howard2k]

None of you seem to get it.

I run the site as I see fit.

Occasionally I'm asked to remove something.

If I don't see why it should be removed, I can always ask. But usually I can see why.


I can give you an example: The Rolling Stone article. It contained lies and people got excited. The album wasn't released in November. Every time an article claims something about the band, and it doesn't happen, a certain person in the band gets the blame for it.




/jarmo

And what did removing the rolling stone article achieve?? Really?

Did it annoy people that their posts were getting erased without any feedback whatsoever?? ?For no apparent reason?? ?Yes it did.

Did it prevent people from finding out about the rolling stone article?? ?No it didn't.

Did it enhance the reputation of HTGTH??


If you want it to be "The Jarmo Show" then go ahead.? ?But if you want to try to enforce policy like you state, then the policy should surely at least be consistent??

Where you asked to remove the Merck article?? ?

Why do you keep coming back?

In theory - to talk about GNR.? ?This IS a GNR discussion forum after all.? ?

and I don't see you are trying to discuss anything, but trying to force your views and opinion as granted?

Absolutely not.  You couldn't miss the point by any further.   I'm suggesting that we SHOULD be allowed to express our own opinion (within reason - admittedly that's a sticky point) and not that we should only be allowed to have one opinion or view.

I'm not discussing GNR in this thread, because this is not a GNR thread.   

[jarmo]

Hidden agenda?

We don't want speculation based on lies.




/jarmo

[Howard2k]

Not sure how I can make this any easier.


WHAT LIES?

Are you saying that the Rolling Stone interview never happened?  Is that why we're not allowed to discuss it?  Rolling Stone made the whole thing up?  Or are you saying that they just made up Merck's comments?   How come the band never made any public comment about this, since it's potentially pretty serious?

And even if we accept for a second that the Rolling Stone interview printed is all lies, like you keep suggesting, why are we being policed so heavily on other non-RS Stuff?   Why is it that some days we CAN use the word tentative (today looks like a good day) and some days we cannot?

Did Axl ask you to prevent the use of the word Tentative? 

And yes the agenda is hidden because it's so cloudy.   Posts are pulled one day but valid the next.   Some magazine articles are ok and some are not.  It's a bit of a lottery right now.

But hey - you want to run things in that random fashion and you'll do so.   No matter what the members say.   So be it.

But I would like to know why you're suggesting that the Rolling Stone article is all lies.   

[jarmo]

There were things in those articles that weren't true.




/jarmo

[Howard2k]

There were things in those articles that weren't true.




/jarmo

Ok, so the entire article wasn't a lie and the interview DID happen.

What wasn't true?   What was SO wrong that the HTGTH fan base had to be totally shielded from the article rather than allowed to discuss it? 

[jarmo]

Do you have the album in your hands?

Did that Tommy throw his bass at Axl like that former opening act claims?


Why do I have to keep repeating myself?



/jarmo

[EFISH]

Howard, why do you keep complaining? Jesus crist, this is an exciting time for GNR fans and all people can think about is the way Jarmo runs things around here. Give it a rest already.

[Howard2k]

Do you have the album in your hands?

Did that Tommy throw his bass at Axl like that former opening act claims?


Why do I have to keep repeating myself?



/jarmo

You're not repeating yourself.? Rather than make ONE post and clear it all up, you make 15 obscure posts and drag it all out.? ?

Obviously you didn't read the article.? ?You should have done that before deciding that it wasn't worthy of discussion.



EDIT: And just to be really clear.? The article never promised the Nov 21 release date.? ?Merck suggested 13 Tuesdays but I don't think you're psychic or you knew back then that Merck was not going to be able to pull it off and was going to get the axe.? ? So the fact that we don't have the CD in our hands does not prove that the article is a lie.

[dave-gnfnr2k]

Do you have the album in your hands?

Did that Tommy throw his bass at Axl like that former opening act claims?


Why do I have to keep repeating myself?



/jarmo

Axl said at the VMAs we would have CD by the end of the year, but we dont.
So I guess axl is a liar too right?

[Howard2k]

Howard, why do you keep complaining? Jesus crist, this is an exciting time for GNR fans and all people can think about is the way Jarmo runs things around here. Give it a rest already.

It's a great time to be a fan. ?I agree 100%.

I just want to know why we're so strictly policed on what we are and are not allowed to talk about. ?This isn't just a case of removing the "fuck Axl" threads. ?

There's going to be a LOT of cool stuff happening in the next few months and it'd be great to be able to talk about it all with other fans. ?

[wells]

Do you have the album in your hands?

Did that Tommy throw his bass at Axl like that former opening act claims?


Why do I have to keep repeating myself?



/jarmo

Axl said at the VMAs we would have CD by the end of the year, but we dont.
So I guess axl is a liar too right?

and he said something else in the letter (he didn't wrote, right? ?) which you fail to see/read...

[Hysteron]

Censorship blows.

[jarmo]

I don't expect you to understand because simply you're not me.

So instead of trying to explain, when it obviously makes no fucking difference what I say, I won't bother.


I'll just keep doing what I've been doing for all these years and if you don't like it, too bad for you.



/jarmo

[chineseblues]

Censorship blows.

Then you'll be deleting your account right? 

[Gaymo, the Hobbit]

I don't expect you to understand because simply you're not me.

So instead of trying to explain, when it obviously makes no fucking difference what I say, I won't bother.


I'll just keep doing what I've been doing for all these years and if you don't like it, too bad for you.



/jarmo

You know, your forum wouldn't be what it is, if it wasn't for the MEMBERS. So maybe you should think about treating your forum members with a little more respect.

Just an idea though

[Hysteron]

Censorship blows.

Then you'll be deleting your account right??

Why would I do that?