"Next Album" rumor / speculation thread *UPDATE AUG 22/2023*

[mortismurphy]

Seeing as you listen to other artists Jarmo, I am curious if you apply the same rules on other artists you like as you do upon Guns N' Roses, i.e. ''must like everything that artist does or says and defend accordingly''. Legit question.

It's pretty simple, not unless he's running their fan sites. 

This, the answer was pretty much a no-brainer 

Another attempted slam at Jarmo, if certain people don't like the rules here there is an option for them.

In actual fact it was a genuine question. It is clear that Jarmo has a different conception of what entails, fandom, than me and certain other members here; I was merely curious if that applied to the other bands and artists in his life.

[Princess Leia]

Yeah, how old was that bike pic?  It was from a while back, right?

The pic all by itself might mean nothing. But if we put it together with the information Richard gave in Australia then there is light at the end of the tunnel.

[jarmo]

Seeing as you listen to other artists Jarmo, I am curious if you apply the same rules on other artists you like as you do upon Guns N' Roses, i.e. ''must like everything that artist does or says and defend accordingly''. Legit question.

It's pretty simple, not unless he's running their fan sites. 

This, the answer was pretty much a no-brainer 

Another attempted slam at Jarmo, if certain people don't like the rules here there is an option for them.

In actual fact it was a genuine question. It is clear that Jarmo has a different conception of what entails, fandom, than me and certain other members here; I was merely curious if that applied to the other bands and artists in his life.

Yeah, I don't let the bands I enjoy listening to frustrate me to the point where I feel like I have to go to their fan sites to whine day in and day out.
Other than that, your question was already answered.



/jarmo

[mortismurphy]

Seeing as you listen to other artists Jarmo, I am curious if you apply the same rules on other artists you like as you do upon Guns N' Roses, i.e. ''must like everything that artist does or says and defend accordingly''. Legit question.

It's pretty simple, not unless he's running their fan sites. 

This, the answer was pretty much a no-brainer 

Another attempted slam at Jarmo, if certain people don't like the rules here there is an option for them.

In actual fact it was a genuine question. It is clear that Jarmo has a different conception of what entails, fandom, than me and certain other members here; I was merely curious if that applied to the other bands and artists in his life.

Yeah, I don't let the bands I enjoy listening to frustrate me to the point where I feel like I have to go to their fan sites to whine day in and day out.
Other than that, your question was already answered.



/jarmo

But there is not a website on the internet, dedicated to a musician, who runs their ship like you do; most fans do not support bands the way you do. I can show you examples if you want as I like a lot of bands and occasionally post on a few other boards. Most fans have no problems whatsoever criticising their band when they mess up. As I said previously, even the most hardcore Stones fan will find it difficult defending some of their 80s releases, or, their recent ticket prices. Normally people can have a civilised discussion without being polarised into, negative camp, positive camp. Normally they do so with a great sense of humour also.

[pilferk]

Seeing as you listen to other artists Jarmo, I am curious if you apply the same rules on other artists you like as you do upon Guns N' Roses, i.e. ''must like everything that artist does or says and defend accordingly''. Legit question.

It's pretty simple, not unless he's running their fan sites. 

This, the answer was pretty much a no-brainer 

Another attempted slam at Jarmo, if certain people don't like the rules here there is an option for them.

In actual fact it was a genuine question. It is clear that Jarmo has a different conception of what entails, fandom, than me and certain other members here; I was merely curious if that applied to the other bands and artists in his life.

Yeah, I don't let the bands I enjoy listening to frustrate me to the point where I feel like I have to go to their fan sites to whine day in and day out.
Other than that, your question was already answered.



/jarmo

But there is not a website on the internet, dedicated to a musician, who runs their ship like you do; most fans do not support bands the way you do. I can show you examples if you want as I like a lot of bands and occasionally post on a few other boards. Most fans have no problems whatsoever criticising their band when they mess up. As I said previously, even the most hardcore Stones fan will find it difficult defending some of their 80s releases, or, their recent ticket prices. Normally people can have a civilised discussion without being polarised into, negative camp, positive camp. Normally they do so with a great sense of humour also.

Then you should absolutely go to hang at those sites.

I just dont get...never have, never will...why people take such issue, or feel the need to take shots at, the way jarmo runs his site. If you dont like it, move along to something you do. Nobody forces you here. And nobody asks you to chip in to keep the lights on either.

His yard, his rules. That simple.

So...can you explain why people feel they MUST come here and shit in his yard? Legit question?

I expect the same answer about public forums, with some sort of "freedom of speech" stuff thrown in, that always gets cited, chapter and verse. And then closing with "its only cause we care". Which, of course, is bs. You dont care. You just want your way, cause you are too lazy, or stubborn, to move on.

Its been ths way for a looooooong time. Jarmo is sticking to his guns. He doesnt agree with your pov. So, if you are unhappy with the way the site is run..don't visit. Simple.

Jeesh, talk about a dead horse topic...move the fuck on, already.

[mortismurphy]

Seeing as you listen to other artists Jarmo, I am curious if you apply the same rules on other artists you like as you do upon Guns N' Roses, i.e. ''must like everything that artist does or says and defend accordingly''. Legit question.

It's pretty simple, not unless he's running their fan sites. 

This, the answer was pretty much a no-brainer 

Another attempted slam at Jarmo, if certain people don't like the rules here there is an option for them.

In actual fact it was a genuine question. It is clear that Jarmo has a different conception of what entails, fandom, than me and certain other members here; I was merely curious if that applied to the other bands and artists in his life.

Yeah, I don't let the bands I enjoy listening to frustrate me to the point where I feel like I have to go to their fan sites to whine day in and day out.
Other than that, your question was already answered.



/jarmo

But there is not a website on the internet, dedicated to a musician, who runs their ship like you do; most fans do not support bands the way you do. I can show you examples if you want as I like a lot of bands and occasionally post on a few other boards. Most fans have no problems whatsoever criticising their band when they mess up. As I said previously, even the most hardcore Stones fan will find it difficult defending some of their 80s releases, or, their recent ticket prices. Normally people can have a civilised discussion without being polarised into, negative camp, positive camp. Normally they do so with a great sense of humour also.

Then you should absolutely go to hang at those sites.

I just dont get...never have, never will...why people take such issue, or feel the need to take shots at, the way jarmo runs his site. If you dont like it, move along to something you do. Nobody forces you here. And nobody asks you to chip in to keep the lights on either.

His yard, his rules. That simple.

So...can you explain why people feel they MUST come here and shit in his yard? Legit question?

I expect the same answer about public forums, with some sort of "freedom of speech" stuff thrown in, that always gets cited, chapter and verse. And then closing with "its only cause we care". Which, of course, is bs. You dont care. You just want your way, cause you are too lazy, or stubborn, to move on.

Its been ths way for a looooooong time. Jarmo is sticking to his guns. He doesnt agree with your pov. So, if you are unhappy with the way the site is run..don't visit. Simple.

Jeesh, talk about a dead horse topic...move the fuck on, already.

The clue is in the title and what gets pulled up on google and other such search engines: ''an unofficial Guns N' Roses forum''

forum [f?wrəm]
(plural forums or fora [f?wrə])
n
1.  place to express yourself: a medium in which the public may debate an issue or express opinions, e.g. a magazine or newspaper 
2.  meeting for discussion: a meeting to discuss matters of general interest 
3.  Internet discussion group: an Internet discussion group for participants with common interests 
4.  law court: a law court or tribunal 
5.  public square in Roman cities: in ancient Rome, a public square or marketplace in a city where business was conducted and the law courts were situated 

[pilferk]

The clue is in the title and what gets pulled up on google and other such search engines: ''an unofficial Guns N' Roses forum''

forum [f?wrəm]
(plural forums or fora [f?wrə])
n
1.  place to express yourself: a medium in which the public may debate an issue or express opinions, e.g. a magazine or newspaper 
2.  meeting for discussion: a meeting to discuss matters of general interest 
3.  Internet discussion group: an Internet discussion group for participants with common interests 
4.  law court: a law court or tribunal 
5.  public square in Roman cities: in ancient Rome, a public square or marketplace in a city where business was conducted and the law courts were situated 

Yup, the typical response.

The current construct clearly meets def #3.

And there are LOTS of MODERATED forums on the net. I can give you a number of examples, if you would like.

Of course, it ignores the actual question: why do people feel they MUST come and shit in his yard. The fact is...you just dont like the way its moderated...not that it is. You just want it done your way.but answering precisely that way makes you look like a selfish ass.

It doesnt take a lot of time here to see how this place is run. If you dont like it...move on. Simple and easy. If there are topics you wanna chat about that arent allowed here...there are other places thst allow them. Again, simple and easy.

The bitching accomplishes exactly nothing.

[mortismurphy]

The clue is in the title and what gets pulled up on google and other such search engines: ''an unofficial Guns N' Roses forum''

forum [f?wrəm]
(plural forums or fora [f?wrə])
n
1.  place to express yourself: a medium in which the public may debate an issue or express opinions, e.g. a magazine or newspaper 
2.  meeting for discussion: a meeting to discuss matters of general interest 
3.  Internet discussion group: an Internet discussion group for participants with common interests 
4.  law court: a law court or tribunal 
5.  public square in Roman cities: in ancient Rome, a public square or marketplace in a city where business was conducted and the law courts were situated 

Yup, the typical response.

The current construct clearly meets def #3.

And there are LOTS of MODERATED forums on the net. I can give you a number of examples, if you would like.

Of course, it ignores the actual question: why would people come and shit in his yard. The fact is...you just dont like the way its moderated...not that it is. You just want it done your way.but answering precisely that way makes you look like a selfish ass.

It doesnt take a lot of time here to see how this place is run. If you dont like it...move on. Simple and easy. If there are topics you wanna chat about that arent allowed here...there are other places thst allow them. Again, simple and easy.

The bitching accomplishes exactly nothing.

It is a free public forum, and, coming from a democratic background, I see no inherent contradiction between posting on a public forum and disagreeing with the forum's moderation/viewpoints. You argument unfortunately swiftly collapses when the fact is mentioned that some of the other fora I mentioned are actually official, i.e. ran by the actual bands being criticised: Queen's, Metallica's, etc. It seems that official fora, which presumably would advocate a less democratic spirit than unofficial being as they are appendages of the band's publicity machine, encourage a more open ended laissez-faire policy than an unofficial Guns N' Roses forum.

[pilferk]

It is a free public forum, and, coming from a democratic background, I see no inherent contradiction between posting on a public forum and disagreeing with the forum's moderation/viewpoints. You argument unfortunately swiftly collapses when the fact is mentioned that some of the other fora I mentioned are actually official, i.e. ran by the actual bands being criticised: Queen's, Metallica's, etc. It seems that official fora, which presumably would advocate a less democratic spirit than unofficial being as they are appendages of the band's publicity machine, encourage a more open ended laissez-faire policy than an unofficial Guns N' Roses forum.

Its is not public. It is privately owned and operated. It is open to the public. There is a big difference. Since its privately owned and operated, there is no spirit of democracy, nor freedom of speech. There is what the owner and operator chooses to allow. Thats not a debateable point...its just truth.

It doesnt matter how other owners or operators choose to run their constructs. In fact, different modeling is a good thing..it gives consumers choice. And if you dont like the way this operator chooses to run their construct, you move on to one you do like. Its really simple. In fact, your examples bolster exactly that kind of argument, and, in fact, i can provide you with official and unofficial product forums with moderation that are stricter, and less strict, than you examples, or htgth. If you find one of those more ideal than another, you should frequent that type of construct!

Unless you're just looking to troll,and shit in the yard for reaction. Or you are a selfish ass too lazy or stubborn to move on.

I never said "you cant" question the moderation policies. Thats jarmos call..and there is actually a topic in the admin section for it. I said i dont understand why you would..especially in off topic threads...lots of the...derailing the actual on topic talk going on. Its pointless, unless you have ulterior motives. You are not a crusader fighting for the downtrodden...you are someone trying to tell soneone else how to run their "business". As a consumer...you really do not have that right ( and leave the "the consumer is always right" entitlement bs at home). You can frequent or not. Vote with your clcks, and ths place will survive or not on its merits. Seems to have been around awhile, so far...

[mortismurphy]

It is a free public forum, and, coming from a democratic background, I see no inherent contradiction between posting on a public forum and disagreeing with the forum's moderation/viewpoints. You argument unfortunately swiftly collapses when the fact is mentioned that some of the other fora I mentioned are actually official, i.e. ran by the actual bands being criticised: Queen's, Metallica's, etc. It seems that official fora, which presumably would advocate a less democratic spirit than unofficial being as they are appendages of the band's publicity machine, encourage a more open ended laissez-faire policy than an unofficial Guns N' Roses forum.

Its is not public. It is privately owned and operated. It is open to the public. There is a big difference. Since its privately owned and operated, there is no spirit of democracy, nor freedom of speech. There is what the owner and operator chooses to allow. Thats not a debateable point...its just truth.

It doesnt matter how other owners or operators choose to run their constructs. In fact, different modeling is a good thing..it gives consumers choice. And if you dont like the way this operator chooses to run their construct, you move on to one you do like. Its really simple. In fact, your examples bolster exactly that kind of argument, and, in fact, i can provide you with official and unofficial product forums with moderation that are stricter, and less strict, than you examples, or htgth. If you find one of those more ideal than another, you should frequent that type of construct!

Unless you're just looking to troll,and shit in the yard for reaction. Or you are a selfish ass too lazy or stubborn to move on.

I never said "you cant" question the moderation policies. Thats jarmos call..and there is actually a topic in the afmn section for it. I said i dont understand why you would. Its pointless, unless you have ulterior motives. You are not a crusader fighting for the diwntrodden...you are soneone tryingbto tell soneone else how to run their "business". As a consumer...you really do not have that right ( and leave the "the consumer is always right" entitlement bs at home). You can frequent or not. Vote with your clcks, and ths place will survive or not on its merits. Seems to have been around awhile, so far...

I obviously did not mean 'public' as in, some governmental owned sphere of property rights!

Regardless, at the end of the day, you've said it,

there is no spirit of democracy, nor freedom of speech. There is what the owner and operator chooses to allow.

I rest my case.

[pilferk]

It is a free public forum, and, coming from a democratic background, I see no inherent contradiction between posting on a public forum and disagreeing with the forum's moderation/viewpoints. You argument unfortunately swiftly collapses when the fact is mentioned that some of the other fora I mentioned are actually official, i.e. ran by the actual bands being criticised: Queen's, Metallica's, etc. It seems that official fora, which presumably would advocate a less democratic spirit than unofficial being as they are appendages of the band's publicity machine, encourage a more open ended laissez-faire policy than an unofficial Guns N' Roses forum.

Its is not public. It is privately owned and operated. It is open to the public. There is a big difference. Since its privately owned and operated, there is no spirit of democracy, nor freedom of speech. There is what the owner and operator chooses to allow. Thats not a debateable point...its just truth.

It doesnt matter how other owners or operators choose to run their constructs. In fact, different modeling is a good thing..it gives consumers choice. And if you dont like the way this operator chooses to run their construct, you move on to one you do like. Its really simple. In fact, your examples bolster exactly that kind of argument, and, in fact, i can provide you with official and unofficial product forums with moderation that are stricter, and less strict, than you examples, or htgth. If you find one of those more ideal than another, you should frequent that type of construct!

Unless you're just looking to troll,and shit in the yard for reaction. Or you are a selfish ass too lazy or stubborn to move on.

I never said "you cant" question the moderation policies. Thats jarmos call..and there is actually a topic in the afmn section for it. I said i dont understand why you would. Its pointless, unless you have ulterior motives. You are not a crusader fighting for the diwntrodden...you are soneone tryingbto tell soneone else how to run their "business". As a consumer...you really do not have that right ( and leave the "the consumer is always right" entitlement bs at home). You can frequent or not. Vote with your clcks, and ths place will survive or not on its merits. Seems to have been around awhile, so far...

I obviously did not mean 'public' as in, some governmental owned sphere of property rights!

Regardless, at the end of the day, you've said it,

there is no spirit of democracy, nor freedom of speech. There is what the owner and operator chooses to allow.

I rest my case.

Then you didnt have one to begin with...because thats working as intended. There shouldnt be in a private construct. There doesnt need to be.

If you think there does, thats your misconception, and your issue...not the constructs. You want it to be something its not, and not supposed, to be.

Your "case" is, fundamentally, that someone who has a right to do something their way doesnt want to do it yours. Not much of a case, but at least we have clearly distilled it down. And you know what the options are....theyve been clearly laid out.

Of course, the initial question of why people feel they MUST come shit in jarmos yard still remains unanswered...as im sure it always will. Because no one will truthfully cop to their REAL reasons and motivations. And they arent altruistic "i think i can make things better/different"...

[jarmo]

But there is not a website on the internet, dedicated to a musician, who runs their ship like you do; most fans do not support bands the way you do.

Yeah, there's only one of me.

I'm curious to see you answer pilferk's questions. Properly. 




/jarmo

[14 Yrs Of Silence]

You know who likes to complain and rant a lot about things they don't like, get frustrated about, etc?  Mr. W. Axl Rose 

[pilferk]

You know who likes to complain and rant a lot about things they don't like, get frustrated about, etc?  Mr. W. Axl Rose 

Yup, he sure does. And I'd love to see a web site, on any topic (wouldnt even have to be gnr..could be art, lit, disneyland...whatever) diectly run and controlled by him. I dont think we will, and i'm not sure how it would really be relevant to how jarmo runs HIS site (and thats not meant as a dis to 14 years, just heading off one offshoot of the convo), but it would be cool!

And I'm sure we will now get some "jarmo is a shill, so we are seeing how axl would run a site" comments... 

[pilferk]

But there is not a website on the internet, dedicated to a musician, who runs their ship like you do; most fans do not support bands the way you do.

Yeah, there's only one of me.

I'm curious to see you answer pilferk's questions. Properly. 




/jarmo

I also find it interesiting that he "obviously" wasnt talking about public as some sort of government sphere of control/regulation...but then goes on to ascribe precisely those things to the "public" forum (which isn't, really)....with democratic method, background, and spirit mentions (aka freedom of speech). Its the same script, ad nauseum. And its the same obvious and factual refute. I wonder if anyone will ever actually flip the script, or be honest about their reasoning.

It happens too often, and too similarly, to just be misunderstanding or inaccuracy.

Anyway...might i suggest the whole of this gets moved over to admn, where it belongs? Its def not about the new album...and its just more chaff to sort through on the real topic. Just to tidy up?

Or leave it for the lulz.

[mortismurphy]

But there is not a website on the internet, dedicated to a musician, who runs their ship like you do; most fans do not support bands the way you do.

Yeah, there's only one of me.

I'm curious to see you answer pilferk's questions. Properly. 




/jarmo

Alright then (I had to go offline before so kept it brief).

It is a free public forum, and, coming from a democratic background, I see no inherent contradiction between posting on a public forum and disagreeing with the forum's moderation/viewpoints. You argument unfortunately swiftly collapses when the fact is mentioned that some of the other fora I mentioned are actually official, i.e. ran by the actual bands being criticised: Queen's, Metallica's, etc. It seems that official fora, which presumably would advocate a less democratic spirit than unofficial being as they are appendages of the band's publicity machine, encourage a more open ended laissez-faire policy than an unofficial Guns N' Roses forum.

Its is not public. It is privately owned and operated. It is open to the public. There is a big difference. Since its privately owned and operated, there is no spirit of democracy, nor freedom of speech. There is what the owner and operator chooses to allow. Thats not a debateable point...its just truth.

It doesnt matter how other owners or operators choose to run their constructs. In fact, different modeling is a good thing..it gives consumers choice. And if you dont like the way this operator chooses to run their construct, you move on to one you do like. Its really simple. In fact, your examples bolster exactly that kind of argument, and, in fact, i can provide you with official and unofficial product forums with moderation that are stricter, and less strict, than you examples, or htgth. If you find one of those more ideal than another, you should frequent that type of construct!

Unless you're just looking to troll,and shit in the yard for reaction. Or you are a selfish ass too lazy or stubborn to move on.

I never said "you cant" question the moderation policies. Thats jarmos call..and there is actually a topic in the admin section for it. I said i dont understand why you would..especially in off topic threads...lots of the...derailing the actual on topic talk going on. Its pointless, unless you have ulterior motives. You are not a crusader fighting for the downtrodden...you are someone trying to tell soneone else how to run their "business". As a consumer...you really do not have that right ( and leave the "the consumer is always right" entitlement bs at home). You can frequent or not. Vote with your clcks, and ths place will survive or not on its merits. Seems to have been around awhile, so far...

The problem with all of this is you are dealing with the infinite and nebulous internet, a rather difficult to describe public sphere and not the finite consumer product that you simply choose/discard according to taste. There is even an argument made by certain legal experts that ''we each own a piece of the internet the minute we log on and begin posting'' . I do not want to get bogged down in topical legalistic minutiae but it suffices to say that, the internet is far more complex than merely a series of private commodities.

Your analogy consequentially breaks down in practice. In a sense, a forum is only as good as the people - the, yes, 'public' - who post on it. No public present? Then it will merely consist of one person, the creator, talking to himself. He will certainly be the creator, domain owner and authority there but we would not regard it as a forum in any functioning use of the word. We would regard it as a dead internet address in truth. For a forum to function as a bona fide 'forum' in any meaningful sense of the word, requires some degree of human discourse. From a democratic culture (I am assuming everyone here lives in a democracy?), this would entail a range of opinions (in actual fact democratic cultures embrace conflict since they reinforce the hand of, democracy). The connotation, 'forum', also inherently means a speaking platform with some degree of democratic discussion and argument. In effect, fora are a modern version of the letters columns which litter newspapers and magazines. Pick up a newspapers. You will see a range of opinions printed which often, are in opposition to the editorial brief, the owner, of the newspaper. Without this you have, Pravda, and it would be a terribly uninteresting paper!

Picking up from that point, pilferk (and Jarmo), about these - alleged - 'whiners', that they ''should leave''. Well, be careful what you wish for. This would leave a ghost forum, as described above. And I am not necessarily speaking of myself here but most of the interesting discussions here emanate from one-two persons who would probably be categorised as a 'whiner' by yourselves. You need them. You need the debates (what you would call, 'whining'). You can remove most of this very topic for a start!

What would you discuss in their place? What is truly Jarmo's ideal of a 'perfect GN'R forum'? Well there is eight Guns N' Roses members these days, so that is eight birthday threads you can post (none of which will be read by the respective band member I might add). Classic Rock will no doubt have another illuminating poll, pitting the mighty Ratt against Guns, so you can have a, cry to arms, there and get voting. You can also discuss the various formats of the new Vegas dvd. That is about the extent of the discussions you could potentially have here, unless you resort to 'old hat' poll style topics such as, ''top ten GN'R songs'', ''top five band members'' etc.

[jarmo]

So in essence you're trying hard to convince us of your own importance?

Using your analogy, if a bar has bouncers at the door, you're saying they don't want guests?
No, that's not the case. They just don't want a certain kind of people in there.
Same goes for any place that has any rules that are enforced. Dress code, age limit, you name it.

Also, how do you know who reads this board?

Once again, what happens is the people who get called out for being overly negative start complaining about the way I choose to run my site. Not the first time, not even the second time this particular thing happens. Won't be the last. Yet they always fail to realize that I have zero interest in pleasing that kind of people.

You can quote all kinds of sources and say you own a piece of the Internet. Great. Still, if nobody starts the sites or maintain them, will they exist? I don't know how you think fan sites start? They pop up like mushrooms after some rain?


In closing, I'd just like to add that it's difficult to take what you say seriously. I suspect you're just taking the piss once again.



/jarmo

[mortismurphy]

So in essence you're trying hard to convince us of your own importance?

Using your analogy, if a bar has bouncers at the door, you're saying they don't want guests?
No, that's not the case. They just don't want a certain kind of people in there.
Same goes for any place that has any rules that are enforced. Dress code, age limit, you name it.

Also, how do you know who reads this board?

Once again, what happens is the people who get called out for being overly negative start complaining about the way I choose to run my site. Not the first time, not even the second time this particular thing happens. Won't be the last. Yet they always fail to realize that I have zero interest in pleasing that kind of people.

You can quote all kinds of sources and say you own a piece of the Internet. Great. Still, if nobody starts the sites or maintain them, will they exist? I don't know how you think fan sites start? They pop up like mushrooms after some rain?



/jarmo

This has absolutely nothing in relation to what I wrote!! I did not even say I ''own a piece of the Internet''!! Something I have noticed about you in these arguments Jarmo. It is worse than Straw Man (who is a permanent guest at the banquet): you actually lie.

[jarmo]

This has absolutely nothing in relation to what I wrote!! I did not even say I ''own a piece of the Internet''!!

Why would you bring this up if you don't believe in any of it?

There is even an argument made by certain legal experts that ''we each own a piece of the internet the minute we log on and begin posting'' .

Something I have noticed about you in these arguments Jarmo. It is worse than Straw Man (who is a permanent guest at the banquet): you actually lie.

Something I have noticed about you is that you always fail to answer simple questions. Predictable!
Which also makes it very difficult to take anything you say seriously.

I don't lie. So wrong again.


If you want to continue the discussion about whether or not you own a piece of the Internet, please do so here: http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?board=10.0
Thanks.


/jarmo

[pilferk]

The problem with all of this is you are dealing with the infinite and nebulous internet, a rather difficult to describe public sphere and not the finite consumer product that you simply choose/discard according to taste. There is even an argument made by certain legal experts that ''we each own a piece of the internet the minute we log on and begin posting'' . I do not want to get bogged down in topical legalistic minutiae but it suffices to say that, the internet is far more complex than merely a series of private commodities.

Except....there is outrageous quackpot theory, and there is reality.

The reality is in fact,  the net in not nebulous, nor infinite. It is, in fact, a bunch of linked public and private constructs. Private can operate as they see fit, within the confines of civil law (no libel/slander, or actionable defemation, fir example). Moderating content as they see fit doesnt violate any of that. In fact, its pretty common practice across all sorts of sites, topics, etc.

Your "owning a piece of the internet" theory goes direct to content creation, and ownership of creative content. Fyi,so far the courts side with site owners, largely, on that front. If you post a creative work, without seeking alternate protection or copyrights (photos are different), the site owner has the right to modify, moderate, edit or remove it at their discretion. This is especially true of text content. They can reuse it too, with limited useage (promotion and profit of their construct/product, including puplication). In other words..lthe minute you hit "post" on a private site, youre giving up some rights to whats in that post.

That might not be the way you think thing should operate, but its the way the do, and the way they are supposed to. Which, of course, still doesn't actually address my question.

Your analogy consequentially breaks down in practice. In a sense, a forum is only as good as the people - the, yes, 'public' - who post on it. No public present? Then it will merely consist of one person, the creator, talking to himself. He will certainly be the creator, domain owner and authority there but we would not regard it as a forum in any functioning use of the word. We would regard it as a dead internet address in truth. For a forum to function as a bona fide 'forum' in any meaningful sense of the word, requires some degree of human discourse. From a democratic culture (I am assuming everyone here lives in a democracy?), this would entail a range of opinions (in actual fact democratic cultures embrace conflict since they reinforce the hand of, democracy). The connotation, 'forum', also inherently means a speaking platform with some degree of democratic discussion and argument. In effect, fora are a modern version of the letters columns which litter newspapers and magazines. Pick up a newspapers. You will see a range of opinions printed which often, are in opposition to the editorial brief, the owner, of the newspaper. Without this you have, Pravda, and it would be a terribly uninteresting paper!

1) your first point goes to quality...which isnt your concern, except in terms of your decision as a consumer whether to participate/consume. Its the owners. They are allowed to dictate THEIR idea of quality. Not you. Because its their privately owned construct they are allowing you to participate in. In fact, its your argument being broken down, here, by reality.

2)moderated human discourse is still discourse. Its just not the Discourse you want(which you then go on to describe, but also imply is the only sort that should be  "allowed"). So go find something more to your liking (or, hey...start up your own construct!). And, again, by def 3 of your list of definitions..all it has to be is a place on the internet discussing common interests. No democratic anything required...regardless of the fact that its not needed since its a private construct. And that still doesnt answer the original question.

3) you need to embrace that as a private construct, there is no realistic expectation of any democratic ideal, or "free speech". Sorry, the law and reality are very clear and consistent on this or you choose to live in a fantasy...but that disconnect from reality shatters any argument you try to present. And it still doesn't answer the original question.

4) news papers (and other news sources) have an editorial policy and code of ethics, in a free press (and as part of the legal boundaries of one) covering reporting. This is not that....not remotely. The analogy is so flawed in its construction, it doesnt deserve serious consideration. And it doesnt answer the original question.

Picking up from that point, pilferk (and Jarmo), about these - alleged - 'whiners', that they ''should leave''. Well, be careful what you wish for. This would leave a ghost forum, as described above. And I am not necessarily speaking of myself here but most of the interesting discussions here emanate from one-two persons who would probably be categorised as a 'whiner' by yourselves. You need them. You need the debates (what you would call, 'whining'). You can remove most of this very topic for a start!

So what? Thats jarmos concern, not yours. If the place empties out, it empties out. You go elsewhere.

So..what you seem to be saying is...youre doing this for the good of htgth? Bullshit. Sorry, it is. Its good for YOU, because thats the way you want things run.  But ill say it again: you are not the crusader fighting for the downtrodden. Youre the guy screaming entitlement and telling a business owner how to run his shop, because you think you know better.

Id say youre better off going to a shop thats run the way you like, and letting the original owner sink or swim on his idea. Because the owner isnt going to change because you think he should, especially if hes ecstatic about the way things are going/running. And, to be frank, you have no right to tell him different. He might let you, because hes feeling magnanimous....but youre just screaming into the storm.

I'll be just as magnanimous and not point out the entirety of the slippery slope you set up, above and below, too.

That slightly answers the original question..but the answer surely reflects poorly on your opinion and its basis.

What would you discuss in their place? What is truly Jarmo's ideal of a 'perfect GN'R forum'? Well there is eight Guns N' Roses members these days, so that is eight birthday threads you can post (none of which will be read by the respective band member I might add). Classic Rock will no doubt have another illuminating poll, pitting the mighty Ratt against Guns, so you can have a, cry to arms, there and get voting. You can also discuss the various formats of the new Vegas dvd. That is about the extent of the discussions you could potentially have here, unless you resort to 'old hat' poll style topics such as, ''top ten GN'R songs'', ''top five band members'' etc.

Yup...and if those topics, or the others that float to the surface, bore you...theres other places with other topics. Why stay here?

Again, not much, above, answering the original question.

And not much there reflecting reality, either.

Do you own your own business? Id like to come to yours, take a look, and tell you, in great detail, how you are doing it wrong..and backseat ceo for you.  Let me know when we can set that up....im sure youll appreciate the guidance and insight!!

Edit: sorry jarmo..didnt see your post before i posted. Ill drop it, now! Better to get us back on topic!