| Author |
Message |
    
admin
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 12:04 pm: | |
This topic contains messages moved from an earlier discussion in the "General Discussion" area and so may suffer from a little non-linearity...
Jonathan |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 11:32 am: | |
To Mark and Alfred. Don't you know that there is a separate "Lyrics Discussion" thread on the notice board. Your amusing musings deserve a place of their own thereon . . . |
Alfred
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 01:01 am: | |
To Anonymous: noted. |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 06:25 am: | |
Yeah, Alf; The last thing we would want to do is offend the sensitivities of anybody who posts under the name Anonymous.
Anon: I'm well aware of the "Lyrics Discussions" Topic thanks. It was created at my instigation.
Fuck off, now.  |
Cam
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 12:07 pm: | |
dear oh dear Mark
I think it is a fair enough point, maybe you might want to take your own advice... both about the Lyrical Discussions and about f-ing off |
hsf
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 01:33 pm: | |
Mark's back annoying board/bored contributors again: telling them to 'fuck off' and that he knows best. Great....yawn! |
pups
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 01:49 pm: | |
I can't understand why Mark thinks it is necessary to use that sort of language.
I think I might take a break from this message board for a while. |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 01:54 pm: | |
Cam: Please describe to me the meaning of the word general as in the topic General Chat. What you think that means?
An it has no sensitivities that I can identify, therefore why should I accept its censure? |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 02:51 pm: | |
Pups: When anybody seeks to prevent me from engaging a perfectly civil conversation with anybody else, you can expect me to react badly.
I would ask you to reconsider the relative merits of a censorship free messageboard versus the one you might propose.
Sorry to hear that you might decide to go. If you are sensitive to my use of launguage, perhaps it would be better if you just did not read my messages. (Including the next one, btw. Fair warning) |
cam
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 05:42 pm: | |
I have no problem with your discussion... it's boring, but apart from that, you're right, I don't have to read it and that's cool with me. Keep on keeping on for all I care.
But what the anonymous poster said seemed reasonable and you flew off the handle with all the prissiness you could muster.
Just to play your pomposity game, IT was suggesting you might enjoy the lyric discussion forum - I dedected very little censure - and YOU made an asshole of yourself.
(tw)IT |
cam
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 06:10 pm: | |
My previous post appears to have disappeared, so to sum it up Mark...
To continue your pompous methodology, IT didn't seem to be censoring, IT might have thought YOU didn't know about the lyric board. YOU do seem to be interested in that kind of thing.
So IT might well have been trying to be helpful and YOU acted like an asshole.
(tw) IT
As for continuing your posts, I don't care where you post them, just don't like seeing someone acting that prissy. |
cam
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 06:11 pm: | |
ah, now it has re-appeared. Sorry about this chums and Mark, you can take this double post as an honest mistake, not an attempt to bang you over the head twice. |
Minkey
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 01:14 am: | |
Sure we should have a censorship free message board, no arguments from me there. By the same token I would have thought we ought have an abuse intimidation and aggression free message board, unless we are arguing ‘on topic’ for example how much “Jug of Wine” sucked. But personal insults and petty childish taunts ("fsh: Nah, nah ..na na nah!" I mean really) or insults based on race for example I would have though beneath a discussion board on The Go-Betweens.
Do you not think it odd Mark at any off topic abuse and bad feeling has involved yourself. Perhaps you’re proud of this. Good on you, you’re a big man and we’re all impressed. |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 03:13 pm: | |
fsh: Nah, nah ..na na nah! |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 04:45 am: | |
Cam: You hardly even managed to bang on my head once.
You simply seek to avoid the issues I have raised with you and refuse to face them.
I was invited to put forward a theory on this very thread and I put forward a general theory on the topic that was invited: "the Ballad of the Go-Betweens".
The censure was proposed by an anonymous source. One who censures their own identity can not seriously expect me or anybody else to accept their censure.
If this where the case, it would give licence to any anonymous source to censure the debate and we would have to seriously consider the censure. It would effectively kill all debate.
You can pretend to ignore these issues and continue to perpetrate your attacks on my character just as you can continue to selectively read my posts and ignore what does not suit your purpose, but that is all they will ever amount too.
At least my rebuke was done in good humour. |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 05:38 am: | |
Minkey: I liked the spirit of your post but it contains some erroneous assertions.
My theory was invited onto this thread and therefore is not off topic. Contributors at this messageboard have always enjoyed a good deal of latitude about which direction the debate may take them. My stance does not seek to change this. Indeed, it was in support of the practice.
Your second assertion is that any abuse and bad feeling has involved me. It has not. How many examples would you like?
Your third assertion is that my motivations for for my behaviour are wrapped up with my masculinity. It is not, but it is wrapped up with my courage. This is not a quality peculiar to men, as you may be able to demonstate.
As for my "childish taunt", I reserve the right to revert back to my childhood experiences whenever and however it pleases me. That's why it's called my childhood. |
cam
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 11:05 pm: | |
listen
your assumption that I have not read or am choosing to ignore your posts because they don't suit my purpose is way wrong
I HAVE read them and I find them pompous pseudo-intellectual trash
I am ignoring them because they are worthless in a discussion about you telling a guy to fuck off because he suggested the lyric board might be the place.
You haven't dealt with my assertion that, quite possibly, the post wasn't meant as an attack at all. Or does that not suit your argument either?
Either way, you're a bad wind up or a pain in the ass |
James
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 11:54 am: | |
Please stop arguing, its boring. |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:30 pm: | |
A guy? I do not know.
An attack? I never voiced that conclusion.
An anonymous (and so far successful) attempt to censure our debate from this topic? Yes it was.
I value my right to debate and will fight for it, even if others don't feel so inclined.
An anonymous attempt to censure my debate does not deserve or get my consideration or solicitude. So I gave it none. I did not conclude that it was necessarily an attack and my position does not rest on that presumption.
An anonymous source has no sensitivities that I can identify and therefore can not reasonably expect my solicitude. No anonymous source can ever expect that from anyone.
Cam; you have not succesfuly excused yourself from my call to consult the issues I have put to you.
Specificly:
Quote:I was invited to put forward a theory on this very thread and I put forward a general theory on the topic that was invited: "the Ballad of the Go-Betweens".
The censure was proposed by an anonymous source. One who censures their own identity can not seriously expect me or anybody else to accept their censure.
If this where the case, it would give licence to any anonymous source to censure the debate and we would have to seriously consider the censure. It would effectively kill all debate.
and most importantly:
Quote:Please describe to me the meaning of the word general as in the topic General Chat. What you think that means?
I doubt that you have the courage or capacity to face them. Please prove me wrong. |
Pete
| | Posted on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 12:02 am: | |
Increasingly on this notice board, there seems to be long, scolding harangues on what it means to be Mark Ilsley! (Forget the Go-Betweens, people!)
Mark: I can't make up my mind whether you are genuinely being harrassed by other members of this community (as your combative tone would suggest) or whether you are simply using every perceived slight as a chance to pick a fight.
One way or the other, I'm not terribly interested. I'm just irritated at having to read this cat-fighting in the middle of a thread I'm interested in.
Why not invite "anonymous", Cam and all those other members who may or may not be ganging up on you to discuss your differences off-line? |
cam
| | Posted on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 12:04 am: | |
Ok
1. I don't think there was a censure, or a censor for that matter. Clearly you do, I have asked you to consider the possibility you may have misjudged that.
2. I agree that your discussion falls into the catagory of general chat. Show me where I said you didn't have the right.
As for the anonymous poster saying that...see above for a possible alternative interpretation which (like your own) didn't require getting all nasty with the f-word (much as I would love to use it now)
By the way, all the people who think this argument is dumb... I agree.
Why continue it? I have time on my hands, my apoogies |
cam
| | Posted on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 12:10 am: | |
Pete
I'm not ganging up. I just saw Mark's original f-off post and thought it a little raw to say the least.
Cat-fighting... no, two people who don't know how to quit... yes!
As for the board and threads and disturbing you... it's a very slow moving message board, I'm sure you could have read this thread three times between posts at least.
I'm not having a pop at you, but honestly the one thing that annoys me more on message boards than a passive aggressive pseud like Mark is someone who pulls their online hands to their online ears and starts screaming because its all getting too nasty.
Honestly man, it's just opinions and discussion. With human beings it can get fractious.
anyway, al the best |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 07:47 am: | |
quoting Minkey
"Do you not think it odd Mark at any off topic abuse and bad feeling has involved yourself. Perhaps you’re proud of this. Good on you, you’re a big man and we’re all impressed.
"
As a matter of fact, Mark Ilsley has also been known to send some pretty pathetic emails to peeps on here that get up his nose for whatever reason.
His posts above just speak for themselves.
Reading this thread reminds me what it is about the Go-Betweens that drags them down for me, as a band - speaking of RF in particular...to sum up in one word :PRECIOUS
I guess Mark is trying very hard to emulate his hero and way over-exceeding his efforts...
still, good for a laugh.
...and dont attack me for being ANON, i just dont have time to really get involved. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 07:50 am: | |
...BTW not the same ANON as further up...goodbye! |
Pete
| | Posted on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 09:02 am: | |
Cam,
no worries, point taken. I usually read the board once a week, the 'omnibus' edition - if you like.
So the complete shift from a discussion of the Barbican show to something negative and pointless seemed more apparent.
Anyway, until next week. |
cam
| | Posted on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 08:19 pm: | |
mark
every once and a while one meets people like yourself who love this kind of thing and, as much as I want to continue arguing the toss over the outrageous liberties you are taking as you make it all up as you go along, its better to turn the other cheek.
I think you;ll find I am guilty of censure in one regard, when you told someone to fuck off I defended them.
The points when you did ask for my reasons, I gave them.
As for all the people and what they think is dumb... I'm not sure I understand your grammar.
If I have annoyed other people here, sorry about that. If that's what you meant?
That's about all I can say here Mark. Like a fairground ride, circular arguments are fun until the fifth or sixth time round, when you really just want to get off and settle your stomach.
All the best |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 10:15 am: | |
Hey Cam, every once and a while I meet someone who's opinions are compleatly counterfeit.
I trust this one causes you some jest:
Why would you ask "why would I put my email address on a forum like this?" just shortly after declaring to everyone exactely why you did do just that! You said "I would be very interested in a bootleg of the Barbican show" and then
Quote:Hi Pherron
If possible?
cam.docherty@blueyonder.co.uk
My conclusion is that you would put your email address on a forum like this in order to facilitate the theft of a recording of the Go-Betweens.
I suggest that your concept of the legitimate use of this messageboard is compleatly bogus. You accuse me of taking "outrageous liberties" on this messageboard, whilst you use this very same messageboard to facilitate the theft of their recordings.
Your position is counterfeit. |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 03:03 pm: | |
Pete: I'm irritated by having to write this cat-fight in the middle of a thread that I was interested in just so I can return to a particular topic of discourse that I wanted to discuss.
Nevertheless, I will do it because I believe my right to debate is worth fighting for. Nobody who seeks to censure a debate on this messageboard whilst remaining unidentifiable can expect my solicitude, or from anybody else.
Indeed, you can expect me to react in exactely the same way. If somebody reasonably expects me to censor my debate, the very least I require them to do is to identify themselves.
It is very difficult to distinguish an "Anonymous" poster from another and they make a conscious choice for that option. Naturally, the level of consideration I am able to give their request is largely based on how much I know about them. That's all perfectly normal and correct.
Why don't I offer to take this discussion off-line!!? Because they ("anonymous" and Cam) give me no reason to trust them. They censor their name, their Email address and everything else about themselves. That is why.
If you're sick of reading through this shit, then ask yourself what you think would happen if 'they' ceased to make me the focus of the debate? I'll tell ya', just in case you could not guess. I'd simply go back to the TMOOT debate. Simple! |
cam
| | Posted on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 03:50 pm: | |
simple just about sums you up
you made yourself the focus of the debate and continue to
and why would I put my email address on a forum like this? I'm not a politician.
anway, if you don't want to engage with any of my points, the ones you asked for, then I'll assume you agree with them
cool, enjoy your discussion |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 04:16 pm: | |
Cam: What took you so long to start to apply reason to the debate?
1) Yes there was a censure of a debate. The censor ("Anonymous") sort to remove discussion (initially introduced to this thread by Cassiel) on the meaning of the alternative title to the song Too Much of One Thing (The Ballad of the Go-Betweens) from the forum of the General Discussions topic on the basis of a point-of-order; that the appropriate forum for that discussion was in the Lyrics Discussions topic.
There is no misjudgement. The second most liberal meaning of the word censure is to to find fault with, the most liberal is to form or express a judgement in regard to. Clearly he did both in relation to the appropriateness of that discussion in the General Discussions forum.
That judgement was wrong and Anonymous.
So I told him to fuck off. Simple.
2) If you "agree that your discussion falls into the catagory of general chat" then you also agree that the attempt to censure it was inapporpriate.
But you previously supported the censure when you said
Quote:I think it is a fair enough point, maybe you might want to take your own advice... both about the Lyrical Discussions and about f-ing off
You want it both ways and you can't have it. (By the way, what all the people think is dumb, is your position right now). |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 04:30 pm: | |
Addendum.
Cam: None of the previous replies where adressed to you, but you would like to make believe that they where. |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 04:51 pm: | |
Anonymous (quoting Minkey).
All of my friendships are still solidly in place. I don't send unsolicted Email "to peeps on here" for whatever reason whatsoever. I don't know who you're trying to pretend to be, but you ain't it.
(P.S. If you're the sad wanker who keeps contacting me and claiming to have the special inside information on the death of David McComb, your Emails now go automatically into the bin and you are sadly deluded.) |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 10:56 am: | |
keep it coming Ilsley.... and I know you will.
Moderator: how about killing this thread too?
It wouldn't be the first time Ilsley boy has ruined it for everyone else.
(I looked back thru the archives...is he going for the record.?)
Ilsley...why don't you re-invent yourself and come back under another username.? and we can forget you ever existed in your current incarnation?
Personally, I dunno how you can continue to show your face here.
I feel sorry for the Go-Bs...fans like you would give them a bad name.
cheers |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 11:13 am: | |
Unlike you, I never invented myself to start with. Most people here even know where I live, because I told them.
Why don't you come and see me some time. My address can be found in the archive as well. |
cam
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 12:12 pm: | |
sigh
"outrageous liberties" with the terms of the argument Mark... and there you go again
you can do what you like on the messageboard, tell people to fuck off too, go for it.... enjoy it, it seems like its a big thing in your life and I wouldn't want to side with anyone who wanted to take this wellspring for your persecution complex away from you
by the way, the bootleg thing is a fair point to make... although I think its fair to assume that If i dont put my email address on all posts, that was a message to pherron alone. You may think you have cought me in a big inconsistency, but that would only be true if ANY of this were consistant or important Mark.
for the record, I see no problem with sharing music among fans but I can understand why the management put a stop to it... a line in the sand.
But if a record was released of the show, I'd be the first in line and Im sure so would everyone else who asked for the link.
In this limited arena, I cannot see how this will damage the band but its their call and if I had seen the admin post earlier, I would have stopped.
Incidentally, many artists have thriving music sharing among fans... Bob Dylan is a prime example. The people that do that are very careful to weed out anything that could currently or in the future damage official releases.
I wonder Mark, do you have a copy of the Botany Tapes? or anything that might not be totally legit?
best
cam |
cam
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 12:41 pm: | |
apologies for the bad spelling by the way |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 01:17 pm: | |
I stand my ground when and where I think I am entitled too. When I do, only reason can move me. Intimidation, insults and lies do not weaken my resolve. I know that deception will always eventually cross a line of reason and when it does, it exposes the a thin veil of hypocrisy.
You are completely bankrupt of any legitimate claim to ethical sovency. Your concept of the legitimate use of this messageboard is compleatly bogus. You defend those who seek to censure legitimate and appropriate debate and without the call for them to identify themselves, whilst you attempt to use this board to facilitate your own theft of intellectual property.
Your character is weak and built on false virtue. |
cam
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 02:11 pm: | |
yes you really are some guy.
as morally bankrupt, intellectually moribund and hypocritical as I undoubtedly am... oh and a thief... at least I answer your questions and engage on the same terms throughout.
all these terms, "legitimate and appropriate debate"... on who's terms?
Character weak and built on false virtue vs character weak and built on false virtue, superiority and persecution complexes, an inability to argue consistently despite vapid constructions, passive aggression, aggression.
I know who my money is on |
hsf
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 03:49 pm: | |
on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 01:30 pm:
Mark Isley wrote: "I value my right to debate and will fight for it, even if others don't feel so inclined."
By Sunday 18 July, 2004 - 15.47pm
39% of the previous week's 64 postings had been by Mark Isley |
jerry
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 03:55 pm: | |
and unfortunately 60% has been replying to him.
Honestly I think I'll revert to my childhood and stay at the other end of the playground. |
cam
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 04:14 pm: | |
what you guys aren't enjoying this stuff??!!
OK, sorry and point taken.. that's the last from me on this. |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 09:34 pm: | |
fsh: The 'other' I was referring to was Alfred.
We had a common right to that debate and I fought for my interest in that right. The censure was effective in his case because, as far as I can tell, he does not feel inclined to continue the debate after it was censured.
Unlike you, I can see the interests of others.
cam: My point is this. You sought to divert attention from your own illegitimate use of this messageboard by attacking my defence of its legitimate use. I create no persecution complex in myself when defending legitimate rights. I think my arguments have been generally consistent from that moment to this. |
trogg
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 10:42 pm: | |
Mark Ilsley, please just stop. Go away. No one wants to read your dull rants anymore. You've had your say, now just shut up. |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 06:50 am: | |
a) No, but thanks for asking nicely.
b) Nope, I was here first.
c) AFAIK, no one can force you to read anything.
d) I haven't been in a ranting mood for months, but thanks for the reminder.
e) I had to fight for my right to speak so don't expect me to relinquish it without further fight.
f) No, words are the most part of every quality we possess on a messageboard. |
Cichli Suite
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 07:28 am: | |
Correct, no one can force you to read anything.
But for an attention seeker like yourself, it would be humiliating if NOBODY read or responded to your posts.
I, for one, will not be reading anything marked with your name in any thread from now on.
This seems to me to be the only reasonable, albeit imperfect, way to continue with this notice board which you are ruining with your obsessive, paranoid ranting.
Goodbye, Mark. I will not be reading anything you write again. |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 07:51 am: | |
Goodbye, Cichli; You can still find comfort in the knowledge that, when you put your status symbols on display for us to admire, I will be reading them. |
Catherine
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 05:01 pm: | |
Cichli: Hi. Agree with you wholeheartedly. I’ll be joining you in the not reading Mark brigade. This also will be the last time I respond to anything Mark has to say.
Mark: I rest my case. You proceeded to analyse my MESSAGE word by word… I resent your “too analytical for your liking” remark. You don’t know a ………… I almost resorted to swearing, but I’m above that……………… thing about me, other than what I’ve posted. Maybe I do analyse song lyrics. But if I do, I don’t analyse them to DEATH. And I certainly don’t inflict my pseudo-intellectual polysyllabic rantings on everyone else.
Yeah, fine, you’re entitled to analyse lyrics. Knock yourself out. But I’ve just glanced over your messages throughout this very discussion, and DEAR GOD you make the thoughts of listening to another Go-Betweens song one of torture, if it meant having to analyse the COMMAS!!!!!!!!!
While I’m at it – to quote you from another discussion:
“Cath: I'm not going to tell you what your sensitivities should be”
There may as well have been a “but” at the end of that sentence, as the rest of your posting proceeded to preach your sensitivities with a pronounced “I’m right – You’re wrong” tone.
I give up trying to reason with you.
By the way, there are three people in the world who are allowed to address me as “Cath”. You’re not one of them. |
cam
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 11:49 pm: | |
I know I am partly responsible for some of the nonsense on here recently,
but if the noticeboard is being"ruined" (really? ruined?) by Mark, why not start a new topic rather than continue to bait him
I think he's a pain in the ass but to be fair to him - again I know I am to blame here too - he only gets really dreadful when he is responding to posts like these latest ones |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 02:54 pm: | |
Cath: I don't actually need your permission to use it. It is sufficient to identify you as the person I am addressing. It was never disrespectful.
The quoted text was not a statement or a remark. It was part of a proposition welcoming you to put forward a more intrinsic understanding. Because I do things my way does not inhibit you from doing it yours.
This contorted misunderstanding does serve to make a valid point about analysis. That point being that if you deconstruct a sentance into a group of words for individual study, then meanings can be taken out of context. Your quote is an example of deconstructive analysis gone wrong.
Proper use of analysis in literature requires a determination of the nature and relationship of the parts. That is, you show how the meanings taken from the parts are expressions of an overall theme. You can start with the intrinsic understanding and see how the parts express that theme or you can start with the expressions of the parts and build them up into an understanding of a theme. I use both.
Top down usually works best with poetry and other symbolic language. Bottom up usually works best with ordinary prose, because most often the parts can be given literal meanings and will lead to an overall understanding.
I'm not sure I've ever analysed the punctuation of the written lyrics accompanying a recording, but assuming that they are written precisely as the artist intended them to be, it is not unreasonable to asume the punctuation conveys meaning. It does so in all other forms of literature, when it is present.
Lastly, I found the stereotypical portrayal of womanhood at that Actionettes site offensive because I know it is misrepresentative. You don't, then fine, "I'm not going to tell you what your sensitivities should be." |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 03:54 pm: | |
Alf: I was the first to acknowledge your rights in this debate.
The way I see it, we where having a perfectly amicable and agreeable conversation when some smart arse interupts and suggests we take it elsewhere. He was wrong. He also sort to censure the debate anonymously.
Elsewhere we could have gone, but why take it elsewhere when we were already perfectly legit.
I claimed on that same reply that the "Lyrics Discussions" Topic was created at my instigation. That's roughly how it happened, although I am guilty of failing to acknowledge Jonathan's role. I had been urging for more lyrics discussions at this site and (the very few) contibutors who were here back then responded favourably. There had not been much in depth discussion previously and it sparked off renewed interest in this site. Jonathan actually came up with the idea of creating the seperate topic, but it was as a result of my urging for more debate.
I get assistance and/or confirmations in my understandings from an x-band member who graciously continues in my patronage. Most of these attacks are motivated by jealousy. Some no doubt feel that I am genuinely underserving of her friendship. Some people dislike me because I've smacked their crack on occasions. Some people dislike me because I can be controversial. Some people dislike me because I can be crude. Some people will dislike me no matter what I do.
Welcome to life. |
andrew stafford
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 04:20 pm: | |
Gee ... I haven't been on the site for a while. Haven't missed much, have I?
What was that about the Barbican again?
I'm sure our literary heroes (forget about the music) would be embarrassed to read such drivel spouted in their name. |
Cam
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 08:36 pm: | |
Oh, God, he's too good at baiting us... another one from me
haha
jealous of you being friends with a member of X!!
not bloody likely, although John Doe's last solo record was OK
Mark, I have absolutely no idea who you are friends with, I just don't like arrogant pseuds who seek to kick over their behaviour to others with words plucked from some syllabus text book.
You might know your way round deconstructing a Go-Betweens lyric (although I can't imagine why you would want to... lyrics, in my opinion, can only be fully appreciated in the context of the music they accompany)... but you have no idea how to interact with other decent human beings on a message board. |
Mikey
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 11:51 pm: | |
I'm not sure what this site is for but...
Anyone heard of this really cool band called the Go-Betweens, I rekon we should also talk about them!? |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 06:53 am: | |
Cam: I would say that you don't like me because I have successfully shown that your opinions on the legitimate use of this messageboard are counterfeit.
I would say that you don't like me because I have successfully shown that your concept of the legitimate use of this messageboard was once to facilitate the theft of a recording of the Go-Betweens.
I have absolutely no problems interacting with "other decent human beings" on this message board but I do have a problem accepting criticism from one who's opinions and motivations have been exposed as counterfeit. |
cam
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 11:21 am: | |
Mark, I don't dislike you at all. You are words on a message board that need some red pen and correction, nothing to actually dislike.
As for illegitimate use of the message board... according to you there is no such thing as illegitimate use. Accept no censure.
ANyway, you would know what the solo sounded like if you got the bootleg
I just can't believe they persuaded Keef to do it |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 01:00 pm: | |
Cam: Bollocks, I did. I described your very use of this messageboard as illegitimate.
Never did I claim that "there is no such thing as illegitimate use". There are countless illegitimate uses for a messageboard.
You would like to infer from my refusal to accept the misguided censure from an anonymous source on the appropriate course of a legitimate debate in this very forum that my position on censorship must be "Accept no censure". Bollocks...
I made no such claim. |
richardh
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 01:42 pm: | |
Oh jeez, here we go again, just when we were starting to get back to the GB's and not....all this.Move on, let it lie.
"Too Much of One Thing"?
Too true .
Apropos of nothing, anyone notice Adele had the same top on at the Barbican show as she did when they played "Later"? |
cam
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 05:52 pm: | |
Mark
define general chat, define illegitimate use, recognise i, nor anyone else here, accepts YOUR censure and then shut up
you are dull, dull lad |
trogg
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 06:28 pm: | |
Hey Mark Ilsley, just thought I'd hearl some pointless abuse at you and your pseudo-intellectual bullshit. Fuck off you total fucking arsehole.
Aah, that served no point (like most of this thread) but some how I feel better. |
Jerry
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 08:28 pm: | |
Cam, Don't lower yourself |
cam
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 07:27 pm: | |
...but I feel worse
i see your point
sorry mark |
trogg
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 08:51 pm: | |
OK, sorry. It wasn't big. It wasn't clever. I asked politely and just got more ranting from him, telling me that he was here first and can say what he likes. Sure he can post what he likes, so can anyone. But most people use restraint. It seems he just won't, or more likely can't, stop himself. I'll just have to go back to reading the rest of the board, and ignore this thread. That is a lot more civilised & intelligent way of behaviour than my previous outburst. My apologies. |
Nicky
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 10:00 pm: | |
Hey Trogg, Most feel the same way as you, it is frustrating, please don't apologise. But, he is like a child, the more attention he gets, the more he wants. Trust me. I have 3 children, my eldest is 9 and thinks he knows it all, but he is far less annoying than the one of who we should be ignoring.
A healthy rant here and there is nothing to worry about, go in peace my friend. |
Jerry
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 10:27 pm: | |
It wouldn't surprise me if Mark is a solo strummer in the can, as you say... |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 08:08 am: | |
Trogg: Yes, it was pointless abuse. I am not wounded by pointless abuse on a messageboard. Go for it. |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 08:30 am: | |
Hey Nicky, the only problem I have with all this attention is that it diverts my attention from developing my own understandings and from considering the understandings of others.
However, I know that it can not go on forever and that eventually my attentions will be allowed to return to developing my own understandings . |
Nicky
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:41 pm: | |
Mark: I believe the up-shot of this "conversation" is that you have throughly convinced me you are a boring, boring man.
But, if it makes you happy to seperate every letter, every comma, every fullstop. Then, fine, all power to you, if it makes you happy, then go for it.
I cannot understand your logic or your reasoning, nor do I want to! I think that listening and enjoying is quite enough for me.
If you'll just listen to my advice though, you'll never get a girlfriend, if you continue to be a know-it-all!
Nicky |
Nicky
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:36 pm: | |
Mark: I believe the up-shot of this "conversation" is that you have throughly convinced me you are a boring, boring man.
But, if it makes you happy to seperate every letter, every comma, every fullstop. Then, fine, all power to you, if it makes you happy, then go for it.
I cannot understand your logic or your reasoning, nor do I want to! I think that listening and enjoying is quite enough for me.
If you'll just listen to my advice though, you'll never get a girlfriend, if you continue to be a know-it-all!
Nicky |
Nicky
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:42 pm: | |
Apologies for the double post, but, hell it was so good I had to say it twice |
potato
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:53 pm: | |
Nicky can we go out on a date?
Succumb |
Nicky
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:32 pm: | |
Spud, I would love to but I'm not sure that the hubby would approve ; But then again, would he???
Nicky |
cam
| | Posted on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:23 am: | |
my my
this thread takes some twists and turns
my my |
cam
| | Posted on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:25 am: | |
Michael
You know it, I know it, most people know it
probably all of us know it, just some don't want to admit it |
potato
| | Posted on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 09:00 am: | |
i apologise Nicky, it was the lace teddy and the gin and tonics, can you blame a vegetable for trying |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 02:45 pm: | |
Nicky: I don't take advice on such matters over messageboards. If I bore you then I find comfort in that knowledge. Thought of the alternative would be enough to fill me with distaste. |
michael
| | Posted on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 10:30 pm: | |
cam - are you trying to talk to mr. potato through me? I do have some contact with him. He had a hang over today and when I saw him last his little pock marks and ears looked particularly bad. Said he was off to some polyvegetable club in Soho. He was taking his liberty belle vinyl tucked under one ear.
mark - yep, I think every song just comes out or just happens as I said. The best ones seem to, like your best jokes. |
andrew stafford
| | Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 11:32 am: | |
I really don't give a flying fruitbat about your appraisal of Go-Betweens lyrics, Mark (although for such an undoubted obsessive I find it hard to believe you've never read David's book). Nor do I care who your sources are. I'm just another person on this list exasperated by your boorish and boring monopolisation of this board.
Perhaps, as someone originally suggested, you might take your attempts at literary criticism to the lyrics part of the site? Some brave soul may talk turkey with you there. Gobble gobble gobble. |
David Fitzpatrick
| | Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 11:54 am: | |
I'm the anonymous who posted on 14/07 and I've been on holiday since then and this is my first visit back to the site. I certainly haven't read all the postings since 14th because, alas, they don't have anything to do with the Barbican show.
Mark: I was simply suggesting that any discussion on TMOOT is best done in the lyrics section. Sure the discussion was prompted by a posting re: the Barbican gig, but it's worth having the discussion about the lyrics of TMOOT in the lyrics section for the sake of, eh, posterity or something. As for posting anonymously, I have posted with my name, Dave, several times before at a time when there seemed to be a lot of Daves posting -- someone actually posted about this! And I posted at an earlier point in this particular thread as Fitzer. Sometimes it's easier to check the Anonymous box! |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 12:35 pm: | |
It doesn't matter, David. Mark Isley would still have found some excuse to manipulate the discussion around to his concerns.
He is an obsessive attention seeker, and is probably enjoying the fact that the majority of posts to this site are now about him.
I'm posting as 'anonymous' because I really couldn't bear to be addressed again by that ponderous oaf.
Anonymous |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 05:07 pm: | |
If I were a member of the band I`d seriously consider retiring from the biz, if I was attracting mentalist like Mark with my music. Then again I might still find him going through my bins! |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 10:20 am: | |
David Fitzpatrick: Your explanation seems level headed so I will keep my reply the same.
The facts are these:
i) I only have your word that you are the anonymous poster of 13/07 (not 14/07). If you are that person then you choose not to identify yourself when you did so. You deliberately made it impossible for me, or anyone else, to now know who you claim to be.
ii) If you are that person, then you wrongly sought to anonomously censure the debate on this messageboard. You can not resonably expect my or anyone else's solicitude when you deliberately remain anonymous.
iii) Contributors at this messageboard have long enjoyed a freedom which allows them to take the discussion in whatever direction it roamed.
iv) The topic of discussions within this very forum is "General Chat" and described as "Anything Go-Betweens" by the administrator. Specifically, it does not exclude lyrical discussions.
v) The discourse that I started to write on "the references [in TMOOT] other than 'potions and pills'" was a clear call for more lyrical discussion on this very thread. The call also asked us; "Anyone care to put a theory forward?"
vi) Yes, I was aware of the "Lyrics Discussions" forum at the time. It was created, at least in part, on my instigation.
vii) Whatever way you would like to cut it, your request sort to remove a legitimate debate from this very forum and you sort to do so anonomously. So far that censure has been effective.
viii) I do not appologise to anonomous sources. Anonomous sources seek to deliberately obscure their sensitivites when they make the choice for anonymity. Therefore, they choose to deliberately frustrate our consideration of them.
ix) You may have noticed my . No one else did. |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 10:29 am: | |
Anon 1: You are posting 'anonymous' because you made the choice to do so.
I am enjoying this thread enormously. Each morning as I arise, I look forward to my time here. May my years be filled with replies to this thread.
P.S. How are the "limited energies" holding out? |
Mark Ilsley
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 10:31 am: | |
Anon 2: Nope, I wouldn't bother. I have a much better way of learning about the lives of other people. It's called; developing an empathetic understanding through an open and honest discourse.
I have nothing to fear from anyone. I fear the very least messages typed onto a messageboard by anonymous sources. They don't hurt me. |
Mikey
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 01:54 am: | |
Should the band, and we know Lindy does, ever look at this board they must think that their fans quite insane.
Perhaps they'd be right. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page