Cosar, what happened to your thread? - Page 4

glitter_fades · #46 06-03-2003, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by flyfirefly
...

--no one is spending any time debating it's legitmacy.

That's the point.

Is anyone speaking out on behalf of the defamed UK fans?

flyfirefly · #47 06-03-2003, 02:56 PM

In case you missed the point, that's not what the thread's about

What are they supposed to do? Any comments they make you're going to sashay around until you find something that just isn't up to par. I've never had any problems with Pip--I don't know Louise--but that doesn't mean I don't believe their story. But the thread isn't about defense, it's about concerns inevitably to be addressed by the Knight.

Besides, like I said before, no one directly suggested that it wasn't true.

seeknpeace · #48 06-03-2003, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Besides, like I said before, no one directly suggested that it wasn't true

Did they have to? did you miss their point?

flyfirefly · #49 06-03-2003, 03:05 PM

It's a thread on Mick's Chat anyway, I don't see why you're so concerned about it if you're not going to give it time evolve and bash it whenever you can.

glitter_fades · #50 06-03-2003, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by flyfirefly
In case you missed the point, that's not what the thread's about

What are they supposed to do? Any comments they make you're going to sashay around until you find something that just isn't up to par. I've never had any problems with Pip--I don't know Louise--but that doesn't mean I don't believe their story. But the thread isn't about defense, it's about concerns inevitably to be addressed by the Knight.

Besides, like I said before, no one directly suggested that it wasn't true.

Therefore, the post asking about emails being forged or whatever was said about IPs...that's not what the thread was about either...right? That post was not relevant to the thread as well?

No problem...as long as your being consistent.

As for the remark about sashing around until you find something just isn't up to par...I take it the YOU is a collective YOU meaning the people who post there and not YOU referring to me. It's clear from my posts that I don't sashay around anything. I'm as blunt as the head of a hammer...certainly not a virtue...but it's the fans at Mick's who sashay around issues, not the people looking for answers here.

Hopefully I understood you correctly.

glitter_fades · #51 06-03-2003, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by flyfirefly
It's a thread on Mick's Chat anyway, I don't see why you're so concerned about it if you're not going to give it time evolve and bash it whenever you can.

Bashing it whenever you can...again I take it YOU is the collective you meaning the people at Mick's and not YOU meaning me or any specific person commenting in this thread?

We have given the thread at Mick's it's due recognition and congratulations, so I don't get what you mean if you're saying anyone here is "bashing" unless any criticism (the collective mindset at Mick's) is considered "bashing."

flyfirefly · #52 06-03-2003, 03:12 PM

Quote:

[...] but it's the fans at Mick's who sashay around issues, not the people looking for answers here.

Oh come on. Heavy bias you carry.

I love how everyone likes to jump on my consistency like it's something that's fading. I've been consistent. Some people forget that one perspective, isn't the only perspective.

glitter_fades · #53 06-03-2003, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by flyfirefly
Oh come on. Heavy bias you carry.

I love how everyone likes to jump on my consistency like it's something that's fading. I've been consistent. Some people forget that one perspective, isn't the only perspective.

Not a bias, just an observation. So, are you saying you did not mean to address me, personally? If so, no problem. If you decline to explain then I guess I can only rely on my observations.

You are right, one perspective is not the only perspective. Nobody here said it was.

flyfirefly · #54 06-03-2003, 03:24 PM

No, it is bias. You implied in what I quoted, that the people at Mick's Chat are starting controversy, while the people here at the Ledge are simply asking questions. Please. Conveniently enough, you post here, and not Mick's Chat.

In my last post, no...that was you specifically, as you made the quote.

Typically, when I respond to a post someone above me has just posted and I'm not three or four posts down--and when I obviously replying to a comment they've made, you is appropriate as the you in question is the you who made the post.

And we're concerned with wording?

glitter_fades · #55 06-03-2003, 03:37 PM

As I said, if YOU means me...I don't sashay around anything. Everyone knows what I'm doing and I've clearly explained everything I stand for and against. I don't deal in vague generalities and implications.

I haven't posted only here for convenience. I've posted ONLY here because I was banned from there for posting a fan poll on who was satisfied with the first ticket sale. YOU yourself have the convenience of posting at both sites, unlike some of us who've been banned for no valid reason except asking question the board admins are uncomfortable with. You are the one trying to have it both ways, not me.

Clear wording is very important if you expect to be understood. If you only come here to fan the flames, don't claim you're really about peacemaking. I'm not the one claiming to be a peacemaker. I'm clearly on the side of controversy. I admit fanning the flames. I never said nor implied I am not about that.

seeknpeace · #56 06-03-2003, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by flyfirefly
No, it is bias. You implied in what I quoted, that the people at Mick's Chat are starting controversy, while the people here at the Ledge are simply asking questions. Please. Conveniently enough, you post here, and not Mick's Chat.

In my last post, no...that was you specifically, as you made the quote.

Typically, when I respond to a post someone above me has just posted and I'm not three or four posts down--and when I obviously replying to a comment they've made, you is appropriate as the you in question is the you who made the post.

And we're concerned with wording?

I think that it is all a bunch of horse ****, ok? and, hell yes, I am being controversial, and I am not sashaying around anything. I noted here that they insinuated that Louise may have doctored the posts from their guru. And, what is that to you? Why in the world are we even having this conversation? I don't care about wording, I care about intent. Call me out. I am totally over it all and have no problem saying what I think and I am gonna try to hold my line while being open to consider other views. ARe you taking this personally? What in the world is all this about? You go back and forth Fire...what do you want to accomplish? You know what I want to accomplish? I want JT to answer for what is questioned and to make amends and to be fired. THat is what I want. If, along the way, ppl want to defend him or his territory, then we may wrestle. You started a thread that was hijacked...happens all the time, but, hell, I didn't hijack it. I do not post there, and I could if I wanted to. I don't want to.

ANYWAY....Glitter,,,,How U Doin?

glitter_fades · #57 06-03-2003, 03:48 PM

Also, please don't characterize what I said to fit your agenda. I never said people at Mick's want controversy. Hell, no. They want conformity. If you want to repeat that...it's ok with me. Just don't mischaracterize what I said, Fly. That's one tactic the shill's at Mick's have tried over and over to put their spin on things and change what was actually said. I don't play that.

Hey, Peace! Doing fine here. How's that petition going? Let it toast a little longer before sending it. Can't hurt.

seeknpeace · #58 06-03-2003, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Hey, Peace! Doing fine here. How's that petition going? Let it toast a little longer before sending it. Can't hurt.

Well, girl, you know how it is. It speeds up a minute then slows down. We are averaging about 10-15 a day now...so, that isn't bad. The big bump came in the beginning, which I knew that it would.

Right about 320... You ready for my visit in July? Everyone is gonna be there in Scottsdale, I think...

glitter_fades · #59 06-03-2003, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BombaySapphire3
I have not commented on this much .But as soon as I saw Mick's FM site had a pay fan club I had to laugh.Now some of the newer fans who bought into it I can sympathize with, but anyone who has closely followed this band and it's core members activities for years or decades,and who paid more than a wooden nickel to this 'fan" club shame on you !

With this I have to agree 100%. I'm one who's followed them for years, and with Mick's track record...and some of what's gone down with a few others in the band...I should have known better.

I accept your tounge lashing with relish. Is there an "everybody spank me" avatar?

David · #60 06-03-2003, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tommer
you did not erase your own opinions there, you erased everyone who posted their opinions! once others replied, this thread is no longer YOURS, can't you see it???
i find it shameless and disgraceful!
i do not give a rat's ass if it made you "too sad", i don't care about how much of a coward you are! deleting MY valid opinions doesn't make ME sad- it makes me PISSED

As usual, I agree with Tommer.

You've got no business deleting entire threads on a silly whim. The Internet really makes one understand the impulse to censor.