poisoned rose wrote: > Incidentally, the mostly useful thing I drew from that Rock & Roll > Hall of Fame thread was your observation that King Crimson's > unsteady lineup is a barrier to getting in the HOF. I hadn't > consciously thought of that before, but it's true -- the committee > craves the drama of reuniting the "classic lineup" of a band at the > ceremony/dinner, and there's just no "classic lineup" to reunite in > King Crimson's case. There's only one essential member. That is a > problem. And we also can presume that Fripp would never agree to, > for instance, revisiting "In the Court of the Crimson King" with > Greg Lake coming back to sing.
Definitely. Fripp is an unusual person, although I am thoroughly entertained by his schtick. He feels that KC exists when the "beast arises" or whatever he calls it. In reality, you're right - he's the only member that appears in all of the lineups.
After years of saying it would never happen, the original lineup did reunite for a signing in Los Angeles. I really wanted to go, but I was very busy at the time.
What's ironic is that people who don't know them, might only know that lineup. Howard Stern made fun of them when they played Broadway in 1995. He even did a version of "Court of the Crimson King" to prove his point.
They did do "Free As A Bird" though. : )
> For that matter, this problem might handicap Yes too.
I'm not as familiar with them, although Jon and several other members had been there the whole time, I think.
TAR (not Rachel) wrote: > I once had a teacher in high school who put down a nerdy classmate. > This went on day after day. The students never said a word and just > kept silent as this continued. One day I just stood up and told the > teacher off for doing this, telling him that he should be setting an > example for the rest of us instead. I risked a good grade, but I didn't > care. I did what was right . From that day forward, he backed off and > there was peace.... and I still got my A. Right is right, and wrong is > wrong. Of course, this caused the classmate to develop a crush on me > and he wrote me love letters for the next year, but that's another story > altogether. :/
So that's where you got the beanie and suspenders fixation.
> > I once had a teacher in high school who put down a nerdy classmate. > > This went on day after day. The students never said a word and just > > kept silent as this continued. One day I just stood up and told the > > teacher off for doing this, telling him that he should be setting an > > example for the rest of us instead. I risked a good grade, but I didn't > > care. I did what was right . From that day forward, he backed off and > > there was peace.... and I still got my A. Right is right, and wrong is > > wrong. Of course, this caused the classmate to develop a crush on me > > and he wrote me love letters for the next year, but that's another story > > altogether. :/
> So that's where you got the beanie and suspenders fixation.
Yes, yes... the nerdy classmate was Poisoned Rose. Now, after all these years, it comes out.
> > > I once had a teacher in high school who put down a nerdy classmate. > > > This went on day after day. The students never said a word and just > > > kept silent as this continued. One day I just stood up and told the > > > teacher off for doing this, telling him that he should be setting an > > > example for the rest of us instead. I risked a good grade, but I didn't > > > care. I did what was right . From that day forward, he backed off and > > > there was peace.... and I still got my A. Right is right, and wrong is > > > wrong. Of course, this caused the classmate to develop a crush on me > > > and he wrote me love letters for the next year, but that's another story > > > altogether. :/
> > So that's where you got the beanie and suspenders fixation.
> Funny (if not surprising) to learn that TAR was a pushy, > self-appointed "moral voice" even way back then.
I happen not to care very much for bullies, bully boy.... although I'm not giving up on you quite yet, and still holding out for a positive change one of these days. No problem. As a teacher, I was used to working with some difficult children.
poisoned rose wrote: > Well, Yes has had two important guitarists (Steve Howe, Trevor > Rabin), two important drummers (Alan White, Bill Bruford), three > important keyboardists (Rick Wakeman, Patrick Moraz, Tony > Kaye)...etc. etc. And even Jon Anderson was absent for one album.
> And even Tony Levin played with Yes during the 90s, of course.
TAR wrote: > I happen not to care very much for bullies, bully boy.... although I'm > not giving up on you quite yet, and still holding out for a positive > change one of these days. No problem. As a teacher, I was used to > working with some difficult children.
> This is one of those nakedly hypocritical TAR posts which can't > produce anything but laughs. She's sworn to combat bullies, yet > staunchly defends Marcus, Blackpooljimmy and Mister Charlie. Riiight.
Wrrrong. I don't defend Marcus for being a bully because he's not a bully. I don't defend Jim, and I only stood behind Charlie when he went after the instigators... like you. There's a huge difference between people who stand up for others and for themselves, and those who initiate the problem.
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:57:17 -0400, TAR <tom.r...@ix.netcom.com> > wrote:
> >Well, he does claim to have killfiled me. I don't believe that he did > >because he's replied directly to a few of my posts, and I do hope that > >he's reading this. I want him to understand that he gets people wrong > >and then criticizes them for it.
> Don't you think PR knows that?
> >> Lizz 'nobody wants peace--everybody just wants to win' Holmans
> >And just how do you propose this be accomplished? By turning one's back > >when one poster continuously jumps on another and gets dirty and nasty > >for no reason? Maybe if more people explained to PR that he is > >misinterpreting others' intentions, and requested that he respect others > >instead, then this wouldn't be happening and there would be peace. > >Instead, too many people look away and turn a deaf ear. I personally > >find that very selfish. It's the same baloney everyday. The bullies > >get away with murder around here and the innocent get reprimanded.
> Reprimanded? I'm not your mother.
> You know what would stop a lot of this nonsense? Quit talking about > it. Quit giving PR and others the audience they crave. Quit giving hir > the opportunity to insult you by not responding. No performer likes an > empty house.
> Try talking more about the Beatles and less about each other. It's not > that hard. Or, if you must continue this pointless battle, which you > won't win cos you can't change people, change yourself. Remember, war > is only over if you want it.
> And I doubt if PR thinks I let hir get away with anything, either. > Check out my posts to hir and see how many rounds of applause sie gets > from me.
> Lizz ' Remember the verse about the cheesemakers' Holmans > -- > Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
On Oct 17, 5:48 pm, TAR <tom.r...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> poisoned rose wrote:
> > This is one of those nakedly hypocritical TAR posts which can't > > produce anything but laughs. She's sworn to combat bullies, yet > > staunchly defends Marcus, Blackpooljimmy and Mister Charlie. Riiight.
> Wrrrong. I don't defend Marcus for being a bully because he's not a > bully. I don't defend Jim, and I only stood behind Charlie when he went > after the instigators... like you. There's a huge difference between > people who stand up for others and for themselves, and those who > initiate the problem.
Well, something is going on with Google, as it is 6:00 EDST, and I posted something to this thread about 6 hours ago that hasn't shown up.
I don't remember exactly what I said...
Anyway, what I want to say now is this:
I'm far from perfect, but one thing I am is honest, and when I believe in something, I'm not bashful about expressing it. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me as long as they don't misinterpret what I said as I basis for their disagreement.
Re: Eric. I have on several occasions, sometimes lasting a month or so...one time lasting almost a year...totally refused to respond to him. I also tried to avoid reading what he had to say, unless it was unavoidalby included as text in another poster's post. However, when I saw him do something blatantly dishonest towards me, I responded. As I did with the shenanigan he pulled last night, quoting quotes attributed to me that I never said. (later, he desperately made a sarcastic attempt to equate what he did to me with super-imposed statements made on daytime TV...yeah, right).
The sad fact is that PR is incapable of admitting an error when it comes to a conclusion he has drawn about anyone who posts here, and he never will be capable.
So, Donna, although I agree with you 100% that such bullying needs to be addressed (btw, kudos to you for sticking up for your nerdy classmate back in HS), I'm not sure what else I can do now, except to follow my past practices, echoed by Lizz, to just totally ignore him. He is really nothing more that a glorified troll...oh yeah, he does have some musically worthwhile things to say from time to time, but most of his game is to pounce on others. That's a troll.
So, I am going to resume ignoring his attacks on me and will not respond to him, but unlike other times, I will try my best to refrain from commenting indirectly about something he has said.
And, I do this knowing that Eric lacks the self-discipline to refrain from continuing his assaults on me.
> > > It's not about disliking someone. It's about standing up for the > > > innocent... for what's right. Sadly, rmb is often a topsy-turvy place > > > where good is bad, and bad is good.
> > I may have missed the part where someone was hurt. I don't see all the > > posts, though.
> You are the last person to understand this since you're one of the > trolls here, but you play your games mostly under your other handles.
> No one needs to get "hurt" for there to be an injustice. There are > people here who jump on others for no freakin' reason, except perhaps > thinking that it somehow makes them look better by comparison, or for > some feeling of power and control. Some will join in for the gang > thrill, and others just turn away and pretend it isn't happening. And > then there are those who complain about the noise of those who protest, > but their complaints contribute to the noise and don't stop the > offender. Maybe the offenders wouldn't get away with it so often if > they weren't tolerated by so many.
There is a lot of "looking the other way" by many when it comes to Eric's bullying and abuse. Who can blame them. Open their mouths, and it's Open Season on them.
I have found that ignoring him is the best thing. I've done it several times for months...even a year...at a time. However, I had to respond yesterday to his overt ruse of quoting sentences I never wrote. And yet, he still won't admit he's wrong. Eh, so be it.
> > On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:57:17 -0400, TAR <tom.r...@ix.netcom.com> > > wrote:
> > >Well, he does claim to have killfiled me. I don't believe that he did > > >because he's replied directly to a few of my posts, and I do hope that > > >he's reading this. I want him to understand that he gets people wrong > > >and then criticizes them for it.
> > Don't you think PR knows that?
> > >> Lizz 'nobody wants peace--everybody just wants to win' Holmans
> > >And just how do you propose this be accomplished? By turning one's back > > >when one poster continuously jumps on another and gets dirty and nasty > > >for no reason? Maybe if more people explained to PR that he is > > >misinterpreting others' intentions, and requested that he respect others > > >instead, then this wouldn't be happening and there would be peace. > > >Instead, too many people look away and turn a deaf ear. I personally > > >find that very selfish. It's the same baloney everyday. The bullies > > >get away with murder around here and the innocent get reprimanded.
> > Reprimanded? I'm not your mother.
> > You know what would stop a lot of this nonsense? Quit talking about > > it. Quit giving PR and others the audience they crave. Quit giving hir > > the opportunity to insult you by not responding. No performer likes an > > empty house.
> > Try talking more about the Beatles and less about each other. It's not > > that hard. Or, if you must continue this pointless battle, which you > > won't win cos you can't change people, change yourself. Remember, war > > is only over if you want it.
> > And I doubt if PR thinks I let hir get away with anything, either. > > Check out my posts to hir and see how many rounds of applause sie gets > > from me.
> I guess we don't see eye to eye on this. Where you think it's better to > ignore him when he harshly criticizes people for no reason, I think it's > better to speak up. By not saying anything, it seems almost like a > silent agreement. And I feel that these are people who are thinking, > "Hey, better him than me. I'm not getting involved in this and becoming > a victim, myself."
> I once had a teacher in high school who put down a nerdy classmate. > This went on day after day. The students never said a word and just > kept silent as this continued. One day I just stood up and told the > teacher off for doing this, telling him that he should be setting an > example for the rest of us instead. I risked a good grade, but I didn't > care. I did what was right . From that day forward, he backed off and > there was peace.... and I still got my A. Right is right, and wrong is > wrong. Of course, this caused the classmate to develop a crush on me > and he wrote me love letters for the next year, but that's another story > altogether. :/
If I may presume to butt in....
Since I've only been posting here since March or so, I can tell you how it comes across to me.
I think you're a very nice person Donna, and quite level-headed. EXCEPT...
a) When you get into your thing with O'Leary b) When you and Marcus get into your thing with poisoned rose
Why? It's not that I blame you, or the others for that matter. These things obviously started long before I started reading the group, and I have no idea (nor do I have any desire to know) how it all started. So, as opposed to your example of your school episode, I have no idea who's "right" and who's "wrong".
I may be foolish, but I tend to form certain attachments to some of the regulars here (not like real life, but I think these are friendships of a sort). And it genuinely pains me when I see two "friends" coming into conflict with each other. This *can* be a very pleasant newsgroup, but this kind of stuff detracts from it. And to me, it doesn't matter if you think you're right or not. I suspect the others think they're right too. And again, without knowing how it all began, I personally have no way of assigning "blame (not that I'd want to).
Let me tell you a personal example. For years, my brother and one of my sisters never spoke to each other. And when I spoke with either of them about it, I would hear a nearly convincing story as to how and why that person was in the right but the other was wrong. So I would press them about just burying the whole thing and erasing the slate and starting all over again. It took years to get through (for a couple of years my brother never spoke to me either because he thought I was taking *her* side). But gradually, the ice is melting, though it's not back to normal yet. But he eventually attended her daughter's wedding last year, which was actually a major breakthrough.
What I am saying is that I think the only constructive thing that can be accomplished here is forgetting about the past and starting fresh. Each of you probably thinks that you can gain the sympathy of others and, in a sense, get them on your side. If that were actually possible, the only thing that would result in the end is all the posters being divided into two groups, and believe me, that would not be a productive outcome. So consider the consequences.
Donna, I'm sorry if this is sounding like a lecture; it's not meant to be. It's intended as friendly advice. And it's not intended to single you out for criticism. It could just as easily have been written as a response to any one of a number of people (who I hope will read it and take it to heart). So please (you *and* the others) take it in the spirit with which it is intended. Thanks!
> Since I've only been posting here since March or so, I can tell you how it > comes across to me.
> I think you're a very nice person Donna, and quite level-headed. EXCEPT...
> a) When you get into your thing with O'Leary
You think I'm not level headed when I call him out for what he has done? If someone was digging into your personal history, and your family's personal history, and posting about it under different handles, while trying to make it seem as if more than one person is doing this... how would you react? I kept silent for a very long time. And then he stepped it up and I couldn't be silent any longer.
> b) When you and Marcus get into your thing with poisoned rose
Why do you address me? Why don't you look to PR for his cruelty?
> Why? It's not that I blame you, or the others for that matter. These > things obviously started long before I started reading the group, and I have > no idea (nor do I have any desire to know) how it all started.
No, "O'Leary" started about a year ago, and you were here. Only I kept silent, so he got away with it for a long time.
> So, as > opposed to your example of your school episode, I have no idea who's "right" > and who's "wrong".
Look it up, and you'll see.
> I may be foolish, but I tend to form certain attachments to some of the > regulars here (not like real life, but I think these are friendships of a > sort). And it genuinely pains me when I see two "friends" coming into > conflict with each other.
If you want to be "friends" with someone who is deceiving you, that's your business.
> This *can* be a very pleasant newsgroup, but this > kind of stuff detracts from it. And to me, it doesn't matter if you think > you're right or not. I suspect the others think they're right too. And > again, without knowing how it all began, I personally have no way of > assigning "blame (not that I'd want to).
> Let me tell you a personal example. For years, my brother and one of my > sisters never spoke to each other. And when I spoke with either of them > about it, I would hear a nearly convincing story as to how and why that > person was in the right but the other was wrong. So I would press them > about just burying the whole thing and erasing the slate and starting all > over again. It took years to get through (for a couple of years my brother > never spoke to me either because he thought I was taking *her* side). But > gradually, the ice is melting, though it's not back to normal yet. But he > eventually attended her daughter's wedding last year, which was actually a > major breakthrough.
> What I am saying is that I think the only constructive thing that can be > accomplished here is forgetting about the past and starting fresh. Each of > you probably thinks that you can gain the sympathy of others and, in a > sense, get them on your side. If that were actually possible, the only > thing that would result in the end is all the posters being divided into two > groups, and believe me, that would not be a productive outcome. So consider > the consequences.
> Donna, I'm sorry if this is sounding like a lecture; it's not meant to be. > It's intended as friendly advice. And it's not intended to single you out > for criticism. It could just as easily have been written as a response to > any one of a number of people (who I hope will read it and take it to > heart). So please (you *and* the others) take it in the spirit with which > it is intended. Thanks!
My dear, Rich. PR bullies people here. He misunderstands and acts as if he knows their intentions. He's wrong. He's wrong when it comes to others, and he's wrong when it comes to me. It's unfair and unjust. I call him on it. Maybe if others did, too, he wouldn't get away with it so often. As far as "O'Leary", you're welcome to investigate his many handles to see what he's written.
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:23:41 -0000, marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In the end, it's really his problem, not mine.
You win! You'll be amazed how your stress level goes down when you quit trying to change people. You can't talk people into agreeing with you if they don't. It's that simple.
To borrow a phrase, shake the dust from your sandals and go on to the next thread.
poisoned rose wrote: > At the very least, you should add "c) Whenever Olivia Harrison comes > up." And I'd certainly add the patronizing attitude she puts on > toward those poor, unfortunate souls who fail to understand > spiritual issues like she does.
George's widow? Who would talk badly about a widow? I don't believe it. Now, you're going too far. No one would talk badly about a widow.
On Oct 17, 7:04 am, TAR <tom.r...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> O'Leary III wrote:
> > marcus wrote:
> > > I just posted directly to him for the first time in a long time...I > > > usually don't like to encourage PR or trolls in general.
> > I like you all, but if you're out of middle school, you're too old for > > this nonsense.
> Look who's talking, Mr./Ms... er... what handle you going by today?
You can just call him "Dan's bitch" for today because that's what he is....he'z getting all *kinds* of attention. He likes it to although I do smell a diaper change for him coming on ;-)
> > > Wrrrong. I don't defend Marcus for being a bully because he's not a > > > bully. I don't defend Jim, and I only stood behind Charlie when he went > > > after the instigators... like you. There's a huge difference between > > > people who stand up for others and for themselves, and those who > > > initiate the problem.
> What can you do reading dishonesty and hypocrisy as blatant as this, > except shake your head and chuckle?
Where are you, Lizz? PR is writing as if I can't read this.
PR, don't you ever get tired of repeating this "dishonesty" and "hypocrisy" stuff? I am an extremely honest person... probably the most honest and up-front person you've ever come across, and I'm certainly not a hypocrite. I can't even believe I have to go as far as writing this. You have a very bad habit of putting on your muddy glasses and drawing false conclusions about people and their motivations. Face it. You don't know how to read people. I know this for a fact. Now if you want to comment on what's real, then be my guest. But don't misrepresent me and then expect me to address your strawman arguments.
TAR wrote: >>> At the very least, you should add "c) Whenever Olivia Harrison comes >>> up." >> George's widow? Who would talk badly about a widow? I don't believe it. >> Now, you're going too far. No one would talk badly about a widow.
> Wanna bet? I'd show you all the people who talk badly about this widow, > but I don't think I can count that high.
> Butt away. > > Since I've only been posting here since March or so, I can tell you how it > > comes across to me.
> > I think you're a very nice person Donna, and quite level-headed. EXCEPT...
> > a) When you get into your thing with O'Leary
> You think I'm not level headed when I call him out for what he has > done? If someone was digging into your personal history, and your > family's personal history, and posting about it under different handles, > while trying to make it seem as if more than one person is doing this... > how would you react? I kept silent for a very long time. And then he > stepped it up and I couldn't be silent any longer.
I've read you talking about this, but I haven't witnessed it. Contrary to what you say below, I have only been posting since March. If at that time it was still going on, it went completely over my head.
> > b) When you and Marcus get into your thing with poisoned rose > Why do you address me? Why don't you look to PR for his cruelty?
As I said below, my post was intended for all to whom it pertains. I'm well aware of what PR does, and I've been his "victim" on occasion.
> > Why? It's not that I blame you, or the others for that matter. These > > things obviously started long before I started reading the group, and I have > > no idea (nor do I have any desire to know) how it all started.
> No, "O'Leary" started about a year ago, and you were here. Only I kept > silent, so he got away with it for a long time.
If it was a year ago, I wasn't posting here then. I only started posting in March. (Actually I just checked in Google Groups, and it shows no posts for me before April of this year. Verify it yourself!). Anyway, if the thing with O'Leary was still going on then, it didn't register with me. The only thing I've seen is the "Chapman Stick" thing, and from all I can gather about that, it was a misunderstanding.
Now I'm not saying things *didn't* happen previously, I just don't have first-hand knowledge. As I said, I'm not trying to assess blame! That's really the point, with respect to this particular issue. Whatever went on happened a while ago, and maybe it's just time to move past it.
> > So, as > > opposed to your example of your school episode, I have no idea who's "right" > > and who's "wrong".
> > I may be foolish, but I tend to form certain attachments to some of the > > regulars here (not like real life, but I think these are friendships of a > > sort). And it genuinely pains me when I see two "friends" coming into > > conflict with each other.
> If you want to be "friends" with someone who is deceiving you, that's > your business.
> > This *can* be a very pleasant newsgroup, but this > > kind of stuff detracts from it. And to me, it doesn't matter if you think > > you're right or not. I suspect the others think they're right too. And > > again, without knowing how it all began, I personally have no way of > > assigning "blame (not that I'd want to).
> > Let me tell you a personal example. For years, my brother and one of my > > sisters never spoke to each other. And when I spoke with either of them > > about it, I would hear a nearly convincing story as to how and why that > > person was in the right but the other was wrong. So I would press them > > about just burying the whole thing and erasing the slate and starting all > > over again. It took years to get through (for a couple of years my brother > > never spoke to me either because he thought I was taking *her* side). But > > gradually, the ice is melting, though it's not back to normal yet. But he > > eventually attended her daughter's wedding last year, which was actually a > > major breakthrough.
> > What I am saying is that I think the only constructive thing that can be > > accomplished here is forgetting about the past and starting fresh. Each of > > you probably thinks that you can gain the sympathy of others and, in a > > sense, get them on your side. If that were actually possible, the only > > thing that would result in the end is all the posters being divided into two > > groups, and believe me, that would not be a productive outcome. So consider > > the consequences.
> > Donna, I'm sorry if this is sounding like a lecture; it's not meant to be. > > It's intended as friendly advice. And it's not intended to single you out > > for criticism. It could just as easily have been written as a response to > > any one of a number of people (who I hope will read it and take it to > > heart). So please (you *and* the others) take it in the spirit with which > > it is intended. Thanks!
> My dear, Rich. PR bullies people here. He misunderstands and acts as > if he knows their intentions. He's wrong. He's wrong when it comes to > others, and he's wrong when it comes to me. It's unfair and unjust. I > call him on it. Maybe if others did, too, he wouldn't get away with it > so often. As far as "O'Leary", you're welcome to investigate his many > handles to see what he's written.
With respect to O'Leary, when I first started posting here (in April of this year, as it turns out), I may have seen a few of the Jose Perdoorman posts. But since then, I don't think he's used other names. If I were to do any judging, it would be on the basis of what I see.
I really wish you and the others involved (on *both* sides) could move past this.
> >>> At the very least, you should add "c) Whenever Olivia Harrison comes > >>> up." > >> George's widow? Who would talk badly about a widow? I don't believe it. > >> Now, you're going too far. No one would talk badly about a widow.
> > Wanna bet? I'd show you all the people who talk badly about this widow, > > but I don't think I can count that high.
> You have a long shit list. That's sad.
What are you talking about?
I've had some indirect dealings with this widow and they weren't good. (Okay, one was.. sort of.) I also know of about 20 people who personally know, or who have dealt with, this widow and they have not spoken well of her. Actually, that's putting it very mildly. Put it this way... I've never known anyone to have anything nice to say about the woman. Mean, mean, mean. Add strange, shocking, and cruel. But she does look lovely on TV, doesn't she?
> I've had some indirect dealings with this widow and they weren't good. > (Okay, one was.. sort of.) I also know of about 20 people who > personally know, or who have dealt with, this widow and they have not > spoken well of her. Actually, that's putting it very mildly. Put it > this way... I've never known anyone to have anything nice to say about > the woman. Mean, mean, mean. Add strange, shocking, and cruel. But > she does look lovely on TV, doesn't she?
|
