Entertainment For Lively Minds
Did Rob Fitzpatrick read the FAQ?
Or is the magazine exempt from the politeness and general good manners the website seems to maintain? I was pretty confused with that article about Lily Allen. Some of it was good, some of it wasn't, but why does he single out that guy from Reverend And The Makers for such vitriol? I'm not a fan of his band particularly but I've read a couple of interviews and he comes across as more one of the good guys if anything. I can't for the life of me imagine David Hepworth or Mark Ellen writing an article that ended with paragraphs shouting 'Fuck off' to a c-list indie star, but they obviously must be pleased with the feature or they wouldn't have ran it.
I actually thought I was day-dreaming when I first read it and had to go back again before I posted this. Is this McClure bloke so evil then? Is he the person sending anonymous sexist hatred in the direction of Lily Allen? Should we be informing the government or the Daily Mail? Is Rob auditioning for a spare seat on Mock The Week now Frankie Boyle is close to the edge?
I don't really want to be all that bothered about it - in a way the fact that Word could publish such an article is quite quirky and interesting. But let's face it, if that is the future of the magazine, it's not one I'd particularly like to be a part of.
..cue abuse, 'fuck off you wimp!' etc etc
- More from Mr Fade.
- Login or register to post comments
-
I thought
it was a pretty weak overlong opinion piece - but that's just my opinion
Seconded.
And there's additional discussion over yonder: http://www.wordmagazine.co.uk/content/the-new-issue
2 wrongs etc
I'm with you. Needlessly over the top. Posted on here I think it would have been shouted down. Generally if I read piece I don't like, its no big deal, but this left a sour taste to be honest. No, the attacks on Lily Allen weren't right, but neither was this.
And suggesting however vaguely that people who contribute to message boards should get a bit more of a life isnt that wise from a journal which creates such a lot of its user loyalty from this place.
My objection
Was that it was based on a frankly dubious, if not deliberately disingenuous, analysis of what happened to Lily Allen. There were something in the region of 10,000 comments posted regarding the viewpoint she expressed, about 2 or 3% of these were the feature piece of the article - idiots slagging her off. The aim seemed to be to direct the fury of the readership at some people who are a bit rude, whilst encouraging the impression that because some people are a bit rude, lots of other people must be wrong.
Rob inaccurately portrayed the blog being removed because she couldn't take the abuse. I'm not sure whether he heard that direct from the artist, or the PR company got together a quick cover story to cover her and their embarrassment. The blog was removed because it very quickly demonstrated she didn't understand the arguments, that she was physically acting directly against her own expressed viewpoints, and that a very large number of musicians and artists didn't agree with her. Rob's article comes across that she made some well researched points from a deep and personal introspective examination of the issues. She didn't. She stole some text from one website, nicked a viewpoint or two from some others, left some bootlegged tracks on another website and failed to acknowledge the role of sharing in her own success.... and all this whilst calling for people who do far less copyright "piracy" to have their internet dis-connected.
The internet (not freetards to a man, no matter what Rob thinks) called her on it, some of them in unpleasant ways but most of them making good points. Those good points should have been covered in any article, which could have IN PASSING mentioned the unfortunate behaviour of some idiots on the internet who use social networking or messageboards to spout personal abuse. Although this probably would have required him to acknowledge Ms Allen's own record for doing precisely that.
Reading this article you wouldn't know any of that, so the person below saying it wasn't poor writing.... well, depends what you mean by poor. It was certainly poorly researched.
Not discussed:
Copyright exploitation and what that means in 2010
Failure to exploit copyright on behalf of deleted records/artists and what that means for those artists
Failure to reinvest by record companies (the apparent argument for high charges for copyright exploitation)
Support of third party agencies (PRS, MCPS etc) through copyright exploitation to the detriment of the artist, particularly the smaller artist
.... and about a thousand other things that are actually points that were made on the blog that Lily Allen and apparently Rob would prefer you all to forget about because somebody called her talentless.
On the other hand, those things are all rather boring, whereas Rob telling the Reverend to fuck off was at least amusing.
Well put
You summed up my feelings exactly, but far more concisely than I could have done. I don't mind rants, don't care about swearing, but "Intelligent Life on Planet Rock" this wasn't.
Whereas the Chris Evans piece was great.
my new favourite bit:
"... On the other hand, those things are all rather boring, whereas Rob telling the Reverend to fuck off was at least amusing."
We aim to please
Very interesting reading here, which succinctly brings into focus a lot of the alternative arguments - whilst I'm still not necessarily pro-filesharing, this at least suggest it's not quite as simple as presented by Ms Allen, and explains why a lot of artists remain unconvinced of the need for a clampdown:
http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artists-do-better...
Completely disagree
Sorry to come to this mega party so late, I know you've all probably moved on but I only recently got the article in question. Having followed this thread at the time, it is important to me.
The point of the article was not just the individual Lily Allen situation, but the behaviour of on-line forums in many similar situations, and as such it was totally valid. The same thing would almost certainly happen to any famous person taking that position in a forum where anonymous feedback will be received. I'm also willing to bet there are a large number of forums having a very similar debate (and level of discourse), and the only reason this one became so well known was because of the involvement of a personality.
It then drilled in to the freetard space, and again it's a totally valid dissection of the mind set and erroneous thinking that goes on there, with the ill-informed self interest that usually goes with it. particularly the self appointed experts.
Then on Lily's own copyright transgression - this is very common tactic of trying to render someone's message invalid because of something completely irrelevant or disconnected. Stick to the issue - should artists be paid for their work or not ? And how are we supposed to deal with people who are breaking the (current) law ?
If you're one of the copyright holders affected by her posts, go ahead and sue her for damages. If you aren't it's nothing to do with you. You surely can't be taking the position that all music should be free because Lily Allen posted some. To pick a completely random example, that's exactly what the FBI were trying to do to Martin Luther King, invalidate his 'equality for black/all people' message by smearing his reputation. And no, I'm not comparing Lily Allen to Martin Luther King, just pointing out another high profile usage of the same tactic.By all means raise some of the other issues you mentioned, but you can't criticize this article for ignoring those tangents which look like they would require multi-page articles of their own.
As for the swearing, well I regularly reach very comparable levels of frustration at such willful stupidity and uninformed pontificating in public forums (e.g. try reading the forums on any article relating to Microsoft at www.zdnet.com for a while). Whether it's wise to vent it all in a public place such as Word is open to debate, but Rob's reactions are pretty much exactly what's going through my mind too. Since these on-line forums are bringing everyone into the debate, the debasement of the discourse is going to be inevitable. That's why I like the Word blogs - it doesn't happen here (much).
I thought it was spot on and covered the subject
well and as for the Reverend he's one hell of a chancer leading one of the weakest coat tail riding bands around so a little of his own medicine might be instructive for his eternal soul.
How is it a little of his own medicine exactly?
Is that what the Reverend does?
Completley agree
I’ve made extensive use of the article for a presentation on copyright in the music industry to a class of (adult) students. I can honestly say I’ve never had a better response to a taught session – the debate it provoked was as good as anything I’ve ever experienced and the post class-VLE discussion board is still buzzing. They loved the article.
Magazine?
I didn't know there was a magazine as well.
McClure is an irritating, talentless buffoon
I remember reading an NME interview in which he slated his contemporaries for having 'nothing to say' (a regular bugbear of his, apparently) whilst quite clearly having nothing much to say himself, beyond vague "yeah man, war is bad, the world is totally fucked man" gibberish. Plus, his records are absolutely abominable.
Still, the problem isn't that Fitzpatrick riticised McClure, it's the manner in which he did it.
Hi I'm Troy McClure
you may mistake me for that guy from that band you've heard of but never actually heard
You might remember me from such educational films as 'Lead Paint, Delicious but Deadly' and 'Here Comes the Metric System!
Frankie Boyle has gone over the edge
He has left Mock The Week, sadly.
I'm standing up for Rob and his righteous anger.
We keep a measured tone 99% of the time but I thought he was well within his rights to lose his rag on this one.
Nothing wrong with righteous anger
Not so keen on a poorly written, equally vindictive diatribe. Only my opinion but I thought it cheapened his argument and was beneath him and the magazine.
Poorly written?
How, exactly? Seriously. Specific examples, please. I'm genuinely puzzled by that, because few would argue that Rob Fitzpatrick is one of the clearest, most expressive and inventive writers in music, and I thought this piece was no exception.
You might not happen to care much for his style, but that's a world away from poor writing.
Those of you with anything
better to do, do it now...
It read like a paid by the word article, three and three quarters pages of saying absolutely nothing we didn’t know, followed by a better-shoehorn-something-controversial-in ending to justify the rest of it.
What did it tells us? That file sharing is denying musicians money.
That some people think everything should be like, free.
That there are crazy people out there on the internet who like to write the modern day equivalent of green ink poison pen letters and run away.
That some motormouth from a barely known band likes to shoot his mouth off in order to get himself a few column inches in the press. If only that had ever occurred to wannabe pop stars in the past.
That boring is something Lily Allen has never been.
Apart from taking issue with the latter point – I don’t like landfill cockernee nasal singing any more than I like landfill indie, but equally just as many will find fault with the fact that I love a bit of prog – what have you spent 15 minutes of my spare time telling me? Nothing.
What about debating some of the points that actually arise from the file sharing issue? Is 3 strikes a reasonable policy? Is it possible to tell the difference between somebody sharing the new Richard Hawley record, somebody sharing old episodes of Letter From America that are not commercially available, somebody sharing a bootleg of a band that doesn’t want to be bootlegged and somebody sharing a bootleg of a band like the Grateful Dead that is happy to see it go on? Is it legitimate that a government whose leader recently said that internet access is on a par with access to the other basic utilities should seek to cut it off from people who one industry sees as a threat? Would it be better if the government sought out the IP addresses of those who go online to call others sluts and worse and ban them instead? Can those of us who have downloaded or torrented material, or played fast and loose with copyright, including Lily Allen as was glossed quickly over, rise above that hypocrisy and have anything worth saying on the debate? Give me some perspective on that and for me – it’s only my opinion – that’s four interesting pages.
I’m genuinely puzzled by the point of the article other than to sate a Lily Allen fixation. Do you think those respondents to her blog that were quoted will have had the scales fall from their eyes and gone rushing off to the Confessional? Or do you think they might have nipped upstairs to a darkened room for a celebratory hand shandy now that their moronic views are now being published in a real magazine?
And while it’s an appalling state of affairs that a young woman can be subjected to those kinds of insults simply for putting something on the internet, sadly that’s the world we’re living in. And a media savvy person like Lily Allen knows full well that if you step out in front of a runaway lorry, you will get mown down. It should not be that way, but it is. We all know that, and we don’t need four pages to tell us. And I speak as someone who, because of a couple of decisions I have made at work, has had people organising an online voodoo doll of me – quite funny – and been the subject of forum posts hoping I get cancer, not so funny given that it killed my father. These people are arseholes. They are not worth telling to fuck off. They are certainly not worth glorifying over four pages.
If the point of the article was to attack internet bullying, then for all that I personally don’t think it made the point, more power to The Word and Rob Fitzpatrick. But if Lily Allen is the worst victim of it, frankly, things wouldn’t be that bad, sorry as I feel for her individually. Go tell the school kids who are viciously bullied online everyday or the victims of “happy slappers” who get shown on youtube that the usual looney tunes that every pop star attracts and generally ignores are doing far worse things to Lily than are happening to them. And I am not in any way trying to play down how distressing the kind of crap she was subjected to must have been for Lily Allen.
For me personally, there were a whole load of other issues that come out of this subject that would have made four interesting pages. I don’t object to it because of the fuckoffery, I object to it because it was initially drab and pointless and then, finally, over the top for no other reason than to justify itself. It wasn’t a yell of an article. It was a yawn of one.
Fine, but...
all those things would fall under "ill-conceived" or "misjudged" - or perhaps simply "unadvisably commissioned". What they're not is evidence of the piece having been "poorly written", which is surely an objective appraisal that can equally objectively be confirmed or rebutted, not unlike claiming that a singer is "flat".
Rob Fitzpatrick can be, and often is, accused of many things, and recently he does seem to be jostling with Andrew Collins to occupy Word's prime Marmite niche, but a poor writer he is definitely, objectively not.
Then I withdraw
the accusation.
That's the spirit!
Er, the spirit of withdrawal.
Sorry to get on your back about that, Molesworth, but it's something that's much easier to say than it is to back up. There is poor writing about pop and rock out there - one of the broadsheets, for example, revels in it on an almost daily basis - but I think Mark Ellen can pride himself on having put together a roster of writers who, while not all perhaps all readers' cup of tea, are all very good indeed at their craft: writing.
Ok, fair comment
It was, in my subjective opinion, a poor piece. Objectively, I'll agree that he can write.
You got me, it's a fair cop guv, but society is to blame.
Isn't it The Daily Mail's
fault? It usually is. Round here. Except when it's a Windows problem
me I'm blaiming
X-factor.......
Aren't we supposed to blame Bono?
I'll continue
to blame it on the boogie
whereas I'll blame it on the rain
I'd agree with that wholeheartedly.
And looking back perhaps my original post is a little ott, pompous even. But that's the nature of these threads isn't it? The main thing is the writing in Word is pretty much top notch. Getting the copy for free was a highly commendable bonus too. I hope most of the 'cancelling my subscription' type comments are in the spirit of Private Eye - tongues firmly in cheeks.
Doh!
"...a poor writer he is definitely, objectively not."
That's ridiculous. Writing is an art, which you can surely only guage in subjective terms.
Unless you're writing about technical ability, which I think you probably are, in terms of grammar, punctuation and sentence structure. In which case I wouldn't be inclined to accept your perspective anyway, on the grounds that you say words like, "unadvisably".
I don't mind some of his writing, but I thought this one was a bit weak for a commercially available magazine - my favourite one, as it happens. Full of piss and vinegar - with a highly detectable side order of 'my band never got anywhere and I'm still pissed off about it'.
You like him and that's great. However, let's not start pretending yours is an objective viewpoint, because it's not.
Skitt's Law
Before calling someone on their vocabulary, it's a really, really good idea to take a minute to check the ground you're on, just in case.
If "unadvisably" is good enough for (one-minute Google) Milton, Trollope, Hardy, Ruskin, The Lancet and (checking... yep) Fowler, then, by God, it's good enough for me.
("Guage" was a typo, right?)
unadvisably
aside
was surely unadvisable. Since we are all subjective and its very hard to make claims that we aren't. Especially when a fan of a writer is defending their writing.
That said I didn't call you up on it till now because I generally agreed with your sentiment.
Plus surely its a fair enough point that there is more to being a good writer than just technical skill. And most of us would call people poor writers who are as technically skilled as people we'd call good writers.
I agree though that having pops at each other about vocab is a bit silly. And typo bashing is against the ol FAQ's innit!
Incidentally my spell check doesn't believe unadvisable is current vocab. But then who gives a cockahoople? Not me. Old words. New words. Blue words. Red ones. Words are made to be used and abused. That's what makes them so lush.
But yeah all opinion is subjective. Particularly quality and artistic merit etc... that's what makes sites like this so fun.
Poor writing: what it is and what it's not
Would you tell a chef their moussaka was "badly cooked" just because you can't stand lamb? I presume not. That's why it's a bit off to call journalists' work "poorly written" if you actually mean you think it tackled the subject inadequately (which may be the editor's fault, not the writer's), was overlong (again, an editing issue) or was toned inappropriately (that'd be the commissioning editor's fault).
Saying a piece is "poorly written" is calling into question the journalist's basic skills as a writer, which is all I was trying to point out (successfully, it seems, inasmuch as the person who said it then retracted it). And I do believe that quality of writing is more an objective than a subjective appreciation. Poor writing may be poor because it's confused, too flat or too flowery, too vague or too precise, riddled with half-baked or mixed metaphors and clichéd imagery.... in other words, all things that you can circle with a blue pencil. It's not telling an indie singer to fuck off.
That piece in the Mail by Jan Moir, for example, was considered quite rightly by most people to be an appalling, insulting, mean-spirited and callous piece of jeernalism of the very worst kind. But it wasn't by any means "poorly written". In fact, she's actually a better writer than, say, Polly Toynbee, much as it pains me to acknowledge it.
As the one who retracted
"poorly written", I would like to go back to my original point about what was, in my opinion, a poor article.
I'm not speaking for anyone else who didn't like it, but it was not, as I've detailed above, the use of the fuck offs that I'm objecting to. I think it's too easy to write off those who objected to it as prudes and I don't want to be caricatured in that way. I don't fucking give a flying fuck how many fucking fucks he uses (see what I did there?)
For all the reasons outlined in my much longer post above, and noted in the first para of Archie's post above, I thought it was a really poor article for such a good magazine. The Word is one of the very few magazines where I will read about people I have no real interest in because I feel confident I will learn something or enjoy it. For me, Fitzpatrick's piece fell down on both counts and it wasted 15 minutes of my time, and coming from The Word, that was where the shock came, not from the industrial language. Had it been printed in the Guardian or something, I probably wouldn't have even bothered with it beyond the first page but I trust The Word to give me better. That's why there's been the uproar I think, because the magazine has a committed readership.
As pointed out by countless others in another thread here, spare time is something that's increasingly precious with more and more ways to fill it. I object to having it wasted so badly. That was my problem with it.
Well..
That's funny, because when I type "unadvisably" into Google, it comes up with "Did you mean: inadvisably?".
It's not in the dictionary. If you're Milton and you're writing Paradise Lost, maybe you can write what you like and get away with claiming that your tastes are objective- no offence, but I don't call the post in question quite up to the standard of Milton, Hardy, et al.
And yes, 'gauge' was a typo. Which I do count as reasonable. I'm not a grammar/spelling nazi, but in the context of this discussion - discussing a writer's technical merits in apparently objective terms - I think it's perfectly reasonable to point out.
My apologies
I didn't realise it's not in the dictionary. I'll throw all mine out then (including both the 1950 and 1995 editions of the Concise Oxford); they're obviously not to be trusted.
Having been a professional writer and copy-editor for 30-odd years, I'm confident that I can recognise "poorly written" prose when I see it, simply because I've spent so much of my working life knocking it into shape. That's how I know - yes, objectively - that Rob Fitzpatrick's piece was about as far removed from poorly written as it's possible to be.
The plot thickens...
My dictionary is the (2 volume)1993 Shorter Oxford English. It's not in there...and mine's bigger than yours. ;)
You can think whatever you like about whatever you like, but your opinion remains objective, Archie.
That's all I'm saying to you.
Just because you think it, it doesn't necessarily make it so.
Big dics
It's certainly in both COD4 (1950), under the main "-un" entry, and COD9 (1995), as a headword in its own right.
It's not even archaic, stuffy or particularly rare - look at this headline from The Independent only a year ago. I've also found a clutch of examples of its recent use in The Times, The Observer and Daily Mirror.
Can we talk about pop music again now?
Talk about pop music?
Here? That would be ill advised.
"Leading article: An unadvisable choice"
I'm talking about use of the word "unadvisably", specifically in the context of the phrase "unadvisably commisioned".
Not the word "unadvisable". Which I would say is valid in certain contexts, such as the one that you cite.
Unadvisable appears in the Shorter Oxford, but unadvisably does not. In the same way that 'mouses' doesn't, I would imagine. Or perhaps in the way that "Tabled" appears, but "Tably" does not.
Either way, my objections are regarding your claims of infallibility and objectivity.
You find me some good use of the word "unadvisably" and I might think again. What I won't do, is start thinking that your opinion is objective.
Using the specific phrase "unadvisably commisioned"
would be inadvisable for more than one reason. :-)
This is turning out to be my
favourite part of this thread
You
fucking started it :)
yeah
- unadfuckingvisably
dont you mean
inadfuckingvisably?
If you type "unadvisably" into Google
as I just did out of interest. This thread is now the 9th offering that Google gives. If it wasn't a word then I suggest it soon will be. I wonder if any other threads can beat that?
Crikey.
At the risk of harping on.....Zzzzz
What?! Oh.
1. It shows that it's not a sodding word, doesn't it?
And consequently,
2. It's not English.
And finally, (I bloody hope)
3. Our somewhat sanctimonious copy-writer friend of 30 years, who does this 'shit' for a living and who delightedly crows about Skitt's Law, turns out to be, shall we say, not quite as capable as he appears to think he is.
That's fair enough, isn't it? Who doesn't get things wrong, ever?
You, apparently
Happy, now, dear?
As I said
To that McCormick feller (on behalf of young Archie) kiss and make-up, but no tongues.
P.S.I only got an O-level in English. Am I allowed on here?
Look flower, I never claimed my opinion was objective
So you can put your handbag away.
If you hadn't been so smarmy (It's a really, really good idea....) about the whole thing, I very much doubt I would have bothered. We've all learned something - you in particular - so let us never speak of this again, if you like.
xx
Two points
a) see Muphry's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law)
b) I don't care what dictionary 'unadvisably' may or may not be in, it still sounds clunkingly, arse-clenchingly awful to me. Milton should have had more sense. But then, at the time, saying 'you was' was perfectly acceptable English. Is it now?
"If you're
calling teh author of 'A La Recherche De Temp, I mean 'Paradise Lost' a liar, I shall have to ask you to step outside....."
You don't happen
to have a pet bee, do you?
Arrrgghhhhh...
I'm falling off the internet thingy into oblivion.
Commissioner Gordon shine the Archie lamp into the sky quick!
you say in
I say un
To-may-to Tom-art-oh Po-tay-to Pot-art-oh
Let's call the whole thing off
Quitter
we're on to something here. Sod esperanto, we could create wordistora. Or Word disorder. Or something. Anyway, who's for defining psychedelight?
Hmm.
So can we expect some of this kind of righteous anger on the podcast next? It'll be like listening to Talksport with James Whale.
I agree with Andrew,
it was a good old fashioned Gonzo YELL of an article, and I enjoyed it immensely.
It's the way you tell 'em
I could see the flak about this piece coming as soon as I read the first "fuck off, McClure". Not because of the content but because of how it was presented.
You know how when you get a bollocking from your boss five minutes after passing him in the corridor and he says "Pop in to my office when you've got a sec, will you, Arch, mate," the bollocking comes as much more of a shock than when you get a mail from his secretary that says "The MD wants to see you -immediately"? Well, I think that's what's happened here. It looks for all the world like a feature about Lily Allen, where fuckoffery might have been out of place, but then you realise it's actually an op-ed piece in the ForeWord section, where it's not.
For what it's worth (again), I thought it was a great piece, one that needed writing not on the Internet, and that - given the thorough nastiness of many of those who attacked and insulted Lily Allen - was admirably contained.
Yeah but McClure
didn't attack or insult Allen did he? He just disagreed with her and Rob. So now, just cos his ropey band's not much cop he has to take all the flak with the same nasty tone the anonymous idiots use? That's just ludicrous.
Not comparing like with like
A point made in the piece is that if McClure had what he said about Allen to Rob in person, Rob might well - and quite reasonably - have said "Oh, fuck off."
That's not quite the same "nasty tone" as calling someone a "no-talent slut" to their face, is it?
In Defence of Rob F...
I've not bought this month's copy yet, so don't know the full details. However, that won't stop me wading in fists flailing like a pissed up schoolgirl:
Reverand and The Makers are shite. And yes, the only time I hear from that daft singer is when he's slagging others off for "avin' nowt to say". What a fucking SNOOZE. I was almost aploplectic with grief that Lee Mavers was going to link up with him over the summer, until the scouse legend's own sense of not wanting to destroy his own legend kicked in (both his Achilles' Heel and Saving Grace) and he pulled the handbrake. So unless Rob Fitzpatrick has "literally" ordered a mafia hit on McLure, then as far as I'm concerned he can "literally" say what he likes about him.
But I'm biased.
What I will say, though - and again, no I haven't read the piece - is this: I don't need the magazine to be polite or indeed good mannered. I just want it to be well written and presented.
NOT in defence of Rob
I (think) it was him what wrote some months back about a rock camp he went on (so beautifully lampooned on The Simpsons about ten years ago) and spent most of the article taking the p*** out of the participants because (and only because) they were Americans. Almost wrote then, didn't, wish I had.
That's not my memory of that piece.
I recall that Rob had a whale of a time and took the piss out of himself as gently as he did his fellow partipants. Not that this really means anything but the people involved in the feature loved it as far as we can tell.
God, what am I, Rob's mum?
Are you really suggesting that
Rob, Gary Barlow, JonMcClure, some angry internet trolls and Lily all had bangers and mash/trebles all round after while slapping each other on the back after?! Priceless.
Mind you, i feel a tad churlish complaining seeing as you emailed me the magazine for free!
no
Andrew is referring to the Rock Camp article not the Lily Allen "piece".
Oops!
My excuse is when you click on the thread it just brings up the newest post. Ahem...as you were.
Let he who hath never illegally or freely downloaded
any music ever at all cast the first stone...
You rang?
Oh, hang on - when my friend James got his first iPod he gave me all the CDs he'd burned of his album collection to play in the car. Does that count?
You didn't pay for the albums so I guess so...
you will be first up against the wall skirky.
I'd just really be interested to know if Rob has never downloaded anything or shared compilation tapes over the years.
And as for those music journalists getting all those bundles of free records every week...well no wonder the music industry doesn't make any money!
Errr, I'd put a smiley there if I liked them...
I haven't got to it yet
...and obviously I can't wait to, but what's all this about expecting the magazine to be polite and well-mannered like some kind of 1950s boy scout?
What are we, some bunch of Mary Whitehouses? Aren't we all grown up enough to be able to take the rough with the smooth?
The point according to M. Python
WHAT DO YOU WANT?
Well, I was told outside that...
Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
What?
Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, toffee-nosed, malodorous, pervert!!!
Look, I came here for an argument, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Oh, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Not at all.
Thank You.
Stupid git!!
You want to complain?
Look at these shoes. I've only had them three weeks and the heels are worn right through. If you complain nothing happens, you might as well not bother.
It's not Big or Clever to do
It's not Big or Clever to do crude. It takes rather more ability to do something with finesse. He should have a look at how Jude Rogers handles Ben Goldacre.
Hang on
So if he'd said "buzz off, McClure", all would have been well? What is this, 1953?
Fagorf!
Surely?
Class is timeless, m'dear.
Class is timeless, m'dear.
I like the swearing
you frakking pempsliding nerk
I haven't liked much that RF has written lately for the magazine - his 'rock camp', Whiley n this article all smacked of a nasty smug post modern ironic poor man's Charlie Brooker. If it was supposed to be witty then all I got was spite.
When CB rants I laugh or it makes me think but this did nothing other than annoy. Others are probably vice versa.
So what have we learnt? I'll get back to you on that.....
Well, when you read it you
can decide how grown up the article is. I'm just hoping Rob doesn't set his sights on Middle Of The Road, the lack of coherent narrative in some of their tracks could be ripe for attack.
They weren't chirpy and it certainly wasn't cheap
is it just me
or do many of Mr Fitzpatrick's articles seem to have a rather vitriolic and unpleasant edge to them .
And?
You wouldn't want Word to turn into an overly-worthy tome like Mojo would you?
Rob is Right!
I enjoyed the piece immensely, and the comments about John McClure were the absolute highlight. John McClure notes:
"Take That and Lily Allen take the money from kids when they're playing stadiums, it's just an insult really".
Mr McClure would cut off his right hand to be playing those stadiums. This is a man whose moment in the sun is coming to an end without much to show for it. As a consumer of the music press for 20 years I’ve grown to dread the point in the endless cycle of underperforming indie bands who are about to get dropped and start wailing on about the terrible, shocking nature of the music business. It’s a free market, and the consumer knows a turd when they smell one.
John McClure’s band didn’t fail because Lily Allen and Take That are harvesting the cash for themselves. They failed because his band and its music were no good.
The fact that he talks about 'the kids' really gets up my nose. This kind of condescending guff that he's learnt from other more successful tools like Richard Ashcroft (surely the world’s most tiresome individual) speaks volumes for the fellas unrealistic and unwarranted levels of self regard.
So pop stars aren't allowed
to say stupid things anymore!? And how is slagging off Lily Allen and Take That sexist? I think his band have played stadiums. For the record i don't like his, hers, or their music but I don't think in this context its relevent.
Sexist?
Not sure where you’re coming from regarding the sexist thing, but...
I’m very happy for pop stars to talk as much rubbish as they like, it’s why I buy and enjoy music magazines. I don’t own any Lily Allen music but can understand why people do, and I think she is just about the only decent pop star left in Britain. When she does talk nonsense she has the decency to make it entertaining nonsense.
However they generally should be able to back it up with some decent records, or else what’s the point?
McClure sits in a rut of being neither stupid nor clever enough to be interesting. He fancies himself as a bit of a "spokesman" for his generation (the sure sign of a hopeless imbecile), but can’t seem to articulate any interesting points of views, and has now reached the inevitable point of spouting the same load of clichés that Neds Atomic Dustbin, Menswear and all of his other unlovable indie-plod forefathers came out with when their careers start to circle the drain: "The music industries changed for the worse!"/"The A&R didn’t have the vision to understand our new direction!"/"They only want to promote kiddie pop acts"/"wont somebody think of the children!".
I get annoyed by this of as a reader, I dont blame Rob if gets grouchy about this stuff, he gets to experience it first hand. It was in my opinion a very funny article.
A quick google search confirms 'the Revs' stadium activity has been restricted to supporting the likes of Oasis and Arctic Monkeys. Not the same thing.
"McClure sits in a rut of being neither stupid nor clever"
its a fine line apparently
and anyway, what's wrong with being sexy?
Quote:
'You know what, literally fuck off McClure and take Dan Ball and all the rest of your death of glamour death of spectacle death of anything and everything wonderful about music, you have more fun than I do oh noe guess wot lifes not fair grey faced woundingly sexist free for all bollocks with you.'
A fantastic sentence
...which sits perfectly in the magazine that invented the term "landfill indie". Rock music needs more writing like that, not less.
Oh
fuck off!
regarding "literally"
Eamonn Forde and Rob Fitzpatrick: who's the Stevie Wonder and who's the Jay Kay?
Ironically enough
The first time I came across Reverend & The Makers was at a stadium gig. They were a support for the Red Hot Chili Peppers at Hampden.
a perfect storm
of cack there then .Must be up for an award for the poorest gig ever held. dear god that's a rubbish line up.
And Biffy Clyro
Not my cup of Earl Grey either but I was taking my son, who I have to say was entranced by the whole thing.
Don't mind anger
I have said in the other topic this was discussed I have actively disliked a couple of Rob Fitzpatrick's articles, which means I like a lot of his work.
Half the problem for me was the verbatim listing of the various childish and offensive postings aimed at Lily Allen. 12 paragraphs of it I believe. It felt like he had taken it personally rather than looking-on.
Too Gonzo for me.
I liked the article
Thought it hit a nail squarely on the head. I may have loved it if it hadn't been quite so potty mouthed at the end.
Why was Rob so cross anyway?
If it was that people had been unforgivably rude to Lily Allen then he must spend a lot of time angry because people are vile on the Internet and they usually pick on much softer targets than Lily Allen.
If it was because he hates piracy, then I would have preferred some further discussion. It strikes me that downloading's not the black-and-white issue it was painted in the article. Perhaps there's an analogy with drugs? As in, overall, probably a bad thing and there are those who suffer, but that lots of people dabble? Maybe. I haven't thought the comparison through. But I do know it just not as simple as just saying fuck off McLure.
I think that was my main objection with the piece really: that after three pages I hadn't learned anything or had any of my preconceptions challenged.
Good post
.
Look
Just stop dissing Doug McClure will you. He was a fine actor in the Virginian...
Just who are the Reverent and the Pokers? I have never knowingly heard a tune by this outfit. Who do they sound like and would I like them? I could go looking on t'internet to see if I can find any of their melodies but am VERY afraid after the article.
They're a very ropey indie band.
Not really landfill indie, more a late 80s early 90s dance shufflebeat with cod philosophising over the top. The track I just heard has an awful lot of autotune on the vocals as well. You're not missing much but they're nothing to be scared of. Not a worthy target of attack in my book though.
here
weirdly enough sounds like Lily at the start!
Oh!
Quite like that. How do they do the dancing legs thingy?
I thought article was OK...
and he builds to a crescendo with the f-offs, I think. The piece has got rhythm if its own. Neatly done.
No problem here
I used to love a bit of vitriol in the 70's NME. I love The Word and the blog and this is not meant to denigrate Dannyboy or anyone else but just occasionally it gets a wee bit too Arran Jumper/Americana (god I hate that term)/Richard Thompson is God. It wouldn't do for us all to stick to the orthodox party line and it's great to have a healthy debate and controversy. Have a great weekend all!
I think the Jo Wiley...
...hatchet job of a couple of months ago probably put moral authority out with the Tia Maria bottles, so it more or less gives everyone carte blanche to be as obnoxious and ad hominem as they please should they wish to pursue that particular cul-de-sac.
Just read
Rob's interview with Chris Evans. Almost makes me like the lucky sod and tune into his Radio 2 show. Almost but not quite. Felt like I was there in the garage with them, albeit letting the tyres down on his 1961 250 GTO Ferrari.
class war
class war
I think Rob F
is a fine writer - and via Twitter has introduced me to Epic 45 and Hunter Muskett and Jerry Moore - which have been the backbone of my listening in last week or two. Also a lovely little pub in Dorset. So he's alright in my book.
Anyway - must be fucking off now. Laters yeah?
Yeah
Fagorf!
I love
Rob Fitzpatrick, think he's one of the better music writers around, and absolutely my favorite reviewer.
I haven't read this piece yet, but on past form I'm more than willing to trust him. Having said that, is it signifigant that he once said on paper how attractive Lily Allen was........
Interesting issues raised...
I'm with Dannyboy when he says "the fact that Word could publish such an article is quite quirky and interesting. But let's face it, if that is the future of the magazine, it's not one I'd particularly like to be a part of."
I don't think I would either. It's not that I don't think there's a place for 'righteous anger' and limited-use f-ing to make a point in print unequivocally and blisteringly, but more that this particular piece of Rob's felt more like a blog rant about venting his spleen on nonentities that clearly at least half of the Word readership have never heard of/heard about/care about (Doug McClure & His Reverends) than a piece of writing that 'fitted in' with the rest of The Word.
That said, I do definitely take the point that too much 'Aran jumper wearing Richard Thompson lauding '70s spacehopper post-modern musing' nostalgia (which seems to be a lightly-worn core value/shared reference point at the magazine's heart) is a dangerous thing and a bit of up to the minute grit is needed to form the monthly pearl. But shouldn't that grit come in the form - as usual - of direct quotation from people rather than Rob or whoever slinging cheap insults at them?People hoisting themselves by their own petards is much more damning than the 'f**k off McClure' approach [I don't even care about this man enough to want to care about him being insulted so cheaply, if that makes sense!].
Less is always more: look at Heppo's obituary of Jade Goody a while back - it said volumes about her and the world we tolerate, and none of it laudatory, WITHOUT a single line that could be held up in court as being an insult. Hepworth is unquestionably the master of this assasination by lightly-crafted prose with Thor's hammer, the Sword of Truth and various other mythical implements under its veneer of observation. If his piece had simply said 'F**k off Jade Goody and f**k off reality TV and f**k off Hello! etc etc' we might well have agreed with its sentiments but thought, 'Hmmm, do I really want to spend £4 an issue on this kind of stuff?'
There was a huge issue at the heart of Rob's piece, about copyright and file sharing, but all it seemed to be about on one reading was one writer sticking up for his mate (who's clearly not whiter than white herself on the issue) - who was lambasted on internet forums - in an equally boorish way.
Frankly, at the end of it I thought 'F**k off the lot of you' and turned the page. (I did think his piece on Chris Evans was much more like it - crucially, it displayed plenty of lightly-drawn bits of evidence both for and against Evans and left it up to the reader to decide if he was someone they might wish to give the time of their day to in the morning on the radio. No vitriol necessary.)
It's instructive to compare & contrast
the Fitzpatrick/Lily Allen piece with Jude Rogers' Ben Goldacre piece.
The latter was so much more effective for it's gentle insertion of a sharp stiletto into it's 'victim' when she would have been justified in ranting against Goldacre's arrogance and discourtesy.
very very very
well said, sir.
For me
not more effective, but effective in a different way.
Though part of me wishes she'd called him out on his behaviour.
A bit embarrassing
The Rob Fitzpatrick piece was a bit embarrassing, not up
to the usual Word standard.
I would really like to hear how rob thinks the three strikes rule is a good idea,
and how its going to lead to musicians making more money.
Does rob really think that if piracy disappeared tomorrow then Future Of The Left would
suddenly start selling loads of records?
By the way, "freetard" has been used by some wanker at theregister.co.uk
for ages and still isn't clever/funny.
Comment bored
I thought Rob's article was long overdue. It's about time someone skewered the nasty, humourless, pompous and, in this case, sexist commenters out there.
The Word site is a joy compared with some of the bile-filled stuff on newspaper websites - reading them is like being trapped in a room with whingeing pub bores.
As for the effing and jeffing in the article, I thought it fitted it perfectly as a reply to the Self Righteous Simons quoted and, as Adman said above, provided a suitable crescendo to his piece.
Good
that the Word has this kind of material in it rather than further trainspotterly analysis of ancient classic albums ad nauseum as we find with it's competitors. I'm all for it.
For what it was worth, I
For what it was worth, I thought that is was an epic real-time depiction of how an internet storm in a teacup builds up. And I enjoyed the sweary bit, as I thought its departure from Word's usually measured tone added impact; you could tell that it was coming from the heart.
Disgust at R. Fitzpatrick
Now I'm not too sure what file sharing is and this is not my point. Reading the article in Decembers edition 'Live At the Witch Trials' it would appear to me the R. Fitpatrick is merely an apology for his friends or is he required to side with them in this debate in case they fall out with the magazine. Heaven forbid we don't here any more from Billy Bragg. He makes many assumptions, those who spend time on various sites come in for abuse, I note that R. Fitzpatrick knows much about these sites so I guess he is in the same category or is that 'the job'. Also they are of a certain age, well R. Fitzpatrick I'm 61 and often browse these sites, maybe I'm young fior my age. While never only using the language of a vicar I was taught that bad language was the language of a loser, R. Fitpatrick your final paragraphs are weak and pathetic. Not much constructive argument only words meant to shock when other more descriptive words are not within your vocabulary perhaps. You say Rock and Roll is about rebellion? Are you sure, are the words the key to Great Balls Of Fire, does everyone know all the words or is the whole, an experience in excitement and away from the norm that made it so appealling to the young.
Having been a subscriber for a couple of years now, a regular listener to the podcast this article did not provoke only left a sour taste.
I will not be renewing my subscription.
a plea for you to renew it after all
I am someone who doesn't subscribe to or even read the magazine (I'm afraid I have a low income and can't budget for it, also I find it unlikely I'd have the time for it along with all the podcasts, books, streamed TV, DVD's, spotify etc... to read it).
So I haven't read the article in question.
I am however interested in the issue of illegal downloading and so have been reading the threads on it. I like Lily Allen's music (though I expect her attitude to illegal downloads to be as confused as her attitude to religion - for clarification see http://open.spotify.com/track/7KaFH8FewMXRYGgI6fS8ge). Although I'd hope it would be as realistic as her views on drugs (http://open.spotify.com/track/2hytmM8reqtLSF7RyhMgDR).
Rob Fitzpatrick however I have listened to many times on the podcast. As you say you have Mr B. Webster. I have also encountered him on this website.
He has always seemed interesting and interested and whilst I haven't always agreed with him that is hardly the point of reading or listening to journalists! I don't recall one journalist or commentator that I have always agreed with, even the ones closest to my views.
B. Webster, you have also it seems listened to and read the word for a long time and have it seems liked what you were exposed to. To cancel a subscription based on one commentator writing one article seems a strange response.
The article has clearly provoked you, despite you saying that it hasn't, just as it has provoked many other word readers. Isn't that something that magazines have a responsibility to do from time to time. Especially ones that seek to be intelligent and interesting and The Word does.
Also I take issue to any words being taken off the table as means of expression. A well chosen swear word is extremely expressive and powerful. Badly chosen ones really don't work. Like any other words. Now I haven't read the article so I can't fully comment on whether the swearing was successful or not, but since it isn't symptomatic of the magazine or podcasts as a whole, and since it is clearly a considered response to a similar use of language by internet commentators etc... then I would advise... and feel free to tell me to fuck off here, you to allow your rage to settle down and then put this one article behind you.
Then over the next few months see if The Word has actually changed or if this was just a one off experiment or even just a rare bum note in it chiming with your taste. Because if you liked it till now I suspect you will in the future.
It doesn't seem worth disgust. It is after all only words. Only one mans opinion. Only one time. Surely we are all allowed to mess up once.
But then what do I know. To me the article sounds like a lot of fun. I guess I just hope that is I can persuade someone not to cancel their subscription that will make up for all the wonderful and thought-provoking free content that I enjoy from the excellent (and surprisingly controversial) Word editorial team!
Some people enjoy to read a rant once in a while, and others don't. The Word may have a discerning set of readers but it still has to cater for a broad church of discerning readers. And at least its team engage with response directly on its website. It has a better relationship and attitude towards its readership than any out there. If you turn your back on it you might as well turn your back on all media cos its pretty much the best their is.
Bob, why not take a more philosophical route?
Don't cancel the subscription, just see the occasional article whose tone you dislike, as the necessary counterpoint to the vast majority of well-written material you enjoy. A room with a single chair looks emptier than a completely empty room, etc etc.
Excellent parody
sir.
Pros & Cons
I thought the article was very good - I absolutely agree with Rob Fitzpatrick's point of view on the issue, and think he was broadly justified in taking the tone that he did.
However, the downside to this approach is obvious - by getting into 'angry' territory, there's the risk that he undermines his own argument by appearing as obnoxious as some of the hateful individuals whom he's criticising because they thought it would be a good laugh to post rude remarks on Lily Allen's blog.
My feeling exactly
Agreed with RF's main point but in battling with monsters he became a bit too much of what he was attacking.
(Aside: One suspects Nietzsche had a hellish prophetic vision of internet forums when he made that quote. No wonder he went mad.)
I still can't help thinking
that if the offending words had been "Fuck off, Bono" this thread would never have happened. Which sort of further underlines Rob's point, really.
I'm not so sure that's true this time
I suspect that it's the outburst of 'fuck-offery' that people feel was unneccessary, and possibly a little gratuitous; irrespective of the target.
My thoughtful response
is that it was the repetitive nature of the fuckoffery, not the target, that didn't work for me.
But next months issue may have to include a teacup sufficient for us to host a storm in if this response is to be believed to an article about file sharing and internet abuse that contained less f words than a mainstream cookery programme.
The cynic in me
feels it could be no more than verbal Jedward. An obviously out of context outrage used specifically to provoke a response.
Kurt Vonnegut
One of the late KVjnr´s characters had the great line " I never cuss or swear as cussing and swearing will give people a reason not to listen to me "
Would that be the Kurt Vonnegut
whose novel Breakfast of Champions featured this in chapter one?
Ah, OK.
I've read it!
And I rather enjoyed it. The internet's full of nutjobs being foul - some of them round this way on occasion.
The language didn't offend me. I'm a grown up.
What's the problem?
"I thought Rob's article was
"I thought Rob's article was long overdue. It's about time someone skewered the nasty, humourless, pompous and, in this case, sexist commenters out there."
Granted - but I'm not sure McClure was worthy of such opprobrium. Some people here seem to think he's due a kicking because they hate his music. I think his point about the whining of some millionaire pop stars is not entirely without merit.
Yes, but what's the point?
When you think your opinion is objective and consequently more valid than others'?
I just find it a little odd that your internet has lots of examples for "unadvisably", when mine doesn't and that your concise Oxford(containing fewer words than my shorter) has its own entry, when mine doesn't.
Rob might write some good articles, but the likelihood is that some are better than others. You might have been a copy writer for 30 years, but it doesn't necessarily follow that you're infallible.
I would say that "unadvisably commisioned" was poor English, coming from one who claims to recognise it. "Commisioned inadvisedly" I would suggest, is better English,
So, yes, let's talk about pop music, but why bother when you appear to think that your opinion is objective . Why not just tell us the facts about what's good and what's not and we can all come and worship the leader - who must not be questioned. ;)
Check this link
It seems to suggest both are fine but inadvisedly is more common than unadvisedly.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unadvisable
You mean
"unadvisably", not "unadvisedly".
I think it's probably time to post the now-traditional image.
My peacekeeping mission
failed. Due to hurried research and poor typing. I'm going to do work now.
Your efforts
Are appreciated.
This cartoon
strikes a chord.
Not with me of course, but behaviour I have observed in acquaintances.
Excellent
there is truly no subject which is not amenable to being referenced by an xkcd (http://www.xkcd.com/) cartoon. And it's a good one too. Hurrah!
Perhaps unadvisably, I'll respond
What it boils down to is this. Someone said the piece was "poorly written". I asked for examples to back that claim up. None were forthcoming, and Molesworth - to his great credit - withdrew it. You picked me up on the objective/subjective thing, citing my use of a certain common-enough adverb as sufficient grounds to question whether I'm to be trusted to know good writing from bad. I took - understandably, I think - umbrage at that. You still haven't withdrawn that remark, I see, perhaps because you're too busy figuring out how to use a dictionary. (There. Now we're even after your equally cheap line about "the leader".)
I explained to goosefat101 why I think "poor writing" can indeed be objectively determined - editors, subs and people marking essays or reading CV cover letters do it every day - just as "bad cooking" and "flat singing" can. But if you don't get it, you don't get it.
By the way, "unadvisably/inadvisably" and "unadvisedly" are not exact synonyms. The latter carries certain baggage that the "-able" form doesn't, implying a degree of rashness or even recklessness. Since that's not what I meant, I used "unadvisably" (handily, it's also a bit shorter than "in a way that was not a good idea"). As for the "un-/in-" thing, it's a simple judgment/judgement call.
I do this shit for a living, bro.
Now then... it took me a while, but I've finally discovered the mighty Lips. Fun, aren't they?
did you notice
that in your post below you said Archie was objective, and all the other times you said he wasn't: I'm confused did you change your mind or was it just a typo?
As to thinking not making something necesaarily so, well it's just thatthat the Bard himself sprung to mind when I read that says "there is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so" Hamlet Act Scene 2
Of course we can sling Old Will out the window along with Milton et al.
"The plot thickens...
My dictionary is the (2 volume)1993 Shorter Oxford English. It's not in there...and mine's bigger than yours. ;)
You can think whatever you like about whatever you like, but your opinion remains objective, Archie."
That's all I'm saying to you.
Just because you think it, it doesn't necessarily make it so.
Well
"But if you don't get it, you don't get it."
If you can't quantify it, it's not objective then, is it?
As a result, you might think Rob's work is great, which is fine.
You might think it's crap, which is also fine.
What you can't do, is claim that your opinion of what you claim is unquantifiable, is objective. On the grounds that it's not.
I am genuinely sorry to harp on about this, but I'm just not prepared to accept that your opinion is any more valid than anyone else's - purely on the grounds that you think it is.
Valid opinions may vary and be equally valid...
if, and it's a big if, you can back them up. (Again, see my reply to goosefat101, where I do "quantify" what sorts of things constitute "poor writing".)
And I don't know where you see me claiming my opinion is any more valid than anyone else's. Of course it's not, and, yes, you could get a second opinion that may differ from mine, but that doesn't mean that either is necessarily subjective. When a doctor listens to your chest, is his opinion that you've got bronchitis a merely subjective one? No. It's an evidence-based diagnosis, which is why I called my refusal to accept the "poorly written" accusation objective: there was no evidence to cause me to reconsider.
I'm still waiting for evidence of poor writing in the piece at issue, by the way. I suspect I'll be waiting for some time, so it's back to the Lips for me.
So
Anyone fancy a pint?
you can't change my mind about subjectivity
I'm afraid Archie. Though your subjective opinions on the subject do have some subjective merit.
Look the two terms people object to:
"poorly written" - problematic obviously (and withdrawn) as its a subjective opinion.
"objective" assessment of writing - problematic because its a subjective opinion. Though I am respectful of your time spent in the trade, and your outdated dictionaries (but still arguably as valid as any new ones) Archie your opinion and the opinions, decisions, attitudes etc... of all editors, copy editors, writers etc... are subjective.
Whilst all of them are informed by a knowledge of various rules of language (which shift about all the time, hence the inadvisable unadvisible nonsense) they still apply these rules subjectively. They make choices and judgements about the quality as well as the style. As they should.
I felt obliged to say this as my username kept being quoted as if I agreed with you. I don't I'm afraid. Whilst I respect where you're coming from and also think that differing opinions can be equally valid.
Also I think you are the more accurate on the Rob Fitzpatrick story, from my subjective viewpoint. And I say that as one who hasn't read the article of course... so... there we go. I've still enjoyed arguing about it. And about the tangents it has inspired.
Love & Death
"Boris. Let me show you how absurd your position is. Let's say there is no God, and each man is free to do exactly as he chooses. What prevents you from murdering somebody?
"Murder's immoral"
"Immorality is subjective"
"Yes, but subjectivity is objective."
"Not in a rational scheme of perception."
"Perception is irrational. It implies imminence."
"But judgment of any system of phenomena exists in any rational, metaphysical or epistemological contradiction to an abstracted empirical concept such as being, or to be, or to occur in the thing itself, or of the thing itself."
"Yeah, I've said that many times."
Fraser's cartoon up there seems oh so apposite here :-)
It's 'on the money' isn't it?
As I am currently demonstrating by posting comments at post-Shipping Forecast time on a school day!
hello
i also work with text, witness utterly dreadful writing on a day to day basis, and can tell when something is well written or not
cooking, writing, driving, sex - all can be done well or badly (and everyone seems to think they're good at the lot) ... but there are objective standards ... if someone can take a car from A to B, obey the rules of the road, use the vehicle in a way that doesn't wreck the gearbox, or use insane amounts of fuel, or kill anyone, then they're doing better than another driver who rear-ends a cyclist, mows down a bus queue, drives at 60mph in second gear, and spends all her/his spare time revving the engine for no reason whatsoever ...
the same applies to writing where creating something according to the brief, to length, with a beginning/middle/end, on time, that is in some way engaging *and effectively communicates some ideas or info* is better than some of the cack i have to read in any given week, scrawled by amateurs who couldn't tell shite from sugar if it was baked in a cake ... (people who can't hold down a narrative, can't create sentences, miss out key facts, fail to think of the reader and commit myriad crimes against sense) ...
Valparaiso is right: some writing is objectively better than other writing - it's not "just his opinion" ... it's true
whose rules?
Rules change, evolve and are often set with agendas.
I agree that there are ways of writing which makes it generally communicate it's message better... but those ways change. And people can enjoy writing and decide it is good using a number of different rule systems, each one having internal logic, but contradicting the other ones.
There are a lot of ways to skin a cat.
As I've said, Achie's point of view is generally valid. Editors need rules and to be aware of rules, writers generally do as well, although some untaught writers create wonderful work, despite the you can't break the rules unless you understand them truism.
And word choice is as much about what you wish to express as how you are supposed to correctly phrase it.
I can see some moments when I might choose unadvisably as a word, despite my dictionary and spell check telling me it isn't right. Just as I may choose to use the word fuck in an article or song regardless of the generally accepted rules of publication or radio play.
People shouldn't assume that saying "there is no such thing as objectivity" means suggesting we should get rid of rules and standards. We just should always understand that rules and standards are our own, come from our own cultural and personal standpoint, and are liable to change anyway.
Understanding this generally allows more possibility and diversity in the world.
but yeah lets all fight our subjective corners. That both important and more importantly... fun!
Medicine
A Doctor's opinion is subjective. Of course it is. It may be based on gathering evidence, but that's not what 'objectivity' means, is it?
Which is why, if you think your doctor's a quack, you ask for a second OPINION.
Therefore, what all doctors do, is give an opinion - which is open to debate and question.
I'm sorry you take umbrage at the 'do not question the leader' comment, but I don't see your problem.
You're saying "I do this 'shit' for a living". Have you ever met an incompetent worker? I have. Many of them remaining in work for years and years.
I'm not saying you are incompetent, but I am saying that the manner in which you make your money doesn't necessarily mean that you have any idea of what you are talking about.
You seem keen on other people's apologies and submission, but rather less so on doing the same thing yourself.
The rules that apply to cult members don't apply to "The Leader", either.
Have you ever considered forming a cult? It does appear that you have the basic concepts in place....
;)
Oh for pity's sake
give it a rest!
Is anyone still reading this thread?
Not me
Oh.
I am
keep going
Oi you,
fack off :-)
Oh my parcel has turned finally up - i'm off to do some work despite the workmen drilling to China outside my gaff
Its all go here.....
Don't be shy Rob
You *MUST* have wanted to comment by now. Your self-restraint is admirable.
kudos
to you Rob for keeping out of this (apart from your recent humorous interjections about unrelated issues.)
A mistake I think Andrew Collins makes, and I say this as a fan of his, is to engage so completely with Internet commentary. That way madness lies. Although its an honourable position as well. But going mad fir honourable reasons is still a bit silly.
(ps sorry for calling people by their christian names in this thread, I never know how to address people who don't have usernames online. I am tempted to keep formal, but then that seems stand offish. I've been on this sit long enough now, I've given up. It's first names now... sorry if that offends anyone.)
I think Andrew Collins
sometimes joins in threads when it is inadvisable to do so.
Definitely
that's what I meant to say.
But he does it because ideas and communicating them matter to him. And just as for some people on this thread that leads to a feeling that these discussions are REALLY important.
His responses on threads lead to a greater volume of attacks etc... sometimes. When he'd definitely be better of ignoring people.
If I was him tho... I dunno if I could resist not trying to convert/explain/clarify/justify... Because replying to strangers is so easy. It only takes a click.
He said on the Collings
and Herrin podcast this week that he got in touch directly with the person who wrote the letter slagging him in this months Word mag and found him to be a nice bloke.
Do you mean...
...that he does so unadvisably, Lee?
I'm tempted to disagree
but I have just made a steak and mushroom pie and it will be done in 10 minutes. So, yes I do.
How's the football going this season?
Fray
Bentos?
Night of shame?
Nearly
Leftover casserole with added mushrooms and ready rolled puff pastry. And a sharp little Riesling from down under.
Not bad!
The boys were "promoted" this season and so are playing better opposition, but they're holding their own in mid-table (W2, D2, L1).
How are your lot getting on?
Unlucky
would be my summary. Taken to 11 a side well but have been unlucky to lose 2 of our 4 league games and won another well. The 8 - 1 loss to the top of the league team (after bossing the first 10 minutes and leading 1 nil) is currently in the process of being forgotten (W1 L3)
9-a-side
Our lads only had to move up to 9-a-side, on 3/4 size pitches, but with everything else as per 11-a-side. They've adapted to offside far more quickly than most of the referees would appear to have (ahem).
My current bete noir (which I try very, very hard not to vocalise) is the referees' utter inconsistency when it comes to foul throws. Some just ignore them. Others give the boys a couple of chances and then reverse them (this being my favoured approach). While yet others seize on them gleefully, reversing throw-ins with gay abandon.
Someone told me that we lost in the cup last week but I appear to have forgotten that already!
Cup this weekend
Playing a team in the league above but with a win less season so far. On for an upset. 11 a side is ok - we have a 3/4 pitch with smaller goals but all the teams we play seem to have full size pitches. We won at home and lost a very close one at home. I feel for our keeper in the full size goal.
I didn't mention the Hampshire cup either. Played Aldershot Towns first team at U11. They run trials and everything. We played really, really well but lost 14 nil. We did manage a shot at goal though.
but
if medical professionals are also "only offering an opinion" rather than a diagnosis based on the best scientific knowledge that our culture possesses at any given time, then you would appear to be implying a definition of "objective" here that stands outside any framework of human discourse ...
[ooh, like, say god is objective because of her/his/its omnipotence and godlike qualities but everything else is simply a best guess] ...
so the car driver who can't keep to a straight line on the road, wrecks cars and kills people isn't any "better" or "worse" than the driver who doesn't screw up, and anyone claiming to be able to make an distinction between the two is assuming deity-like powers which you find objectionable? am i understanding this properly?
yeah
I'm waiting for a delivery so its helping pass the time. and as I was waiting in yesterday as well when they 'had an incomplete address' this could take a while so carry on
McClure's band
supported Kasabian at Wembley on Sunday and were rubbish. He accused someone at the front of the audience of looking like Jonathan Creek in mourning, shouted "Fucking come on Wembley" between every song and prompted my usually polite wife to say "what a wanker HE is, he should remember he's the support act no-one came here to see HIM". So can I add my own "fuck of McClure" from me and a "fuck off McClure" from my wife oh and the kids didn't like him either so a "dickhead" each from them.
Can I Just Say
I've only just read the piece and I loved it. It made me laugh. He's right, McClure should just fuck off.
I'm late for the party...
...but as a subscriber I thought I would add my thoughts as this article also stuck out for me. There is a fair bit of McLure bashing on this thread, but I think that whether or not anyone rates his music is irrelevant, same as if they like/dislike Lily Allen's. The quotes attributes to him don't seem particularly unreasonable, particularly his statement that there are "more important things", where as the angry response to this felt highly unreasonable and lost sight of the inital debate. The whole tone seemed like an overlong rant and I felt that it was not up to the usual high quality of the magazine or of the writer.
There is plenty more in the issue I have enjoyed though.
so
you're saying the writing was less than high quality?
Essentially yes
It could have been better constructed, as others have mentioned it's not the fact that it was a bit sweary but that it fell into the tone which it was initially attacking (that of the unpleasant Lily-bashing).
Two bald men arguing over a comb.
That's my belated thought on the matter.
I mean, come on, Lily Allen vs. Reverend and the Makers? In The Word?
Still, some very interesting points raised above as a result of this bonfire of the vanities.
I have tried to resist, I really have,
and I hate myself a little for contributing to this thread. (Like the monster in a horror film, just when you think it has died, it roars back into life again.) However, while as with most threads here it started as one thing, and took many tangents and diversions along the way, what seems to have been lacking overall was a some basic humanity and consideration for other people.
I am a little confused as to why this particular article is so controversial - in an opinion piece, a journalist expressed an opinion. So far, so good. Of course, we may or may not agree with his opinion, but that's the nature of the game I think. A professional journalist of many years experience will have developed their own personal style of writing, and will use variations of this as well as other appropriate rhetorical devices to convey their point in a piece of journalism. Again, so far, so good. And of course, we may or may not like a particular journalist’s personal style, or how they have written a particular article.
Personally, Rob, I like the article. I like the points you were making, I like the way you wrote it, I enjoyed reading it. In particular, I had no problem with the swearing or tone. I swear liberally and copiously myself when the occasion calls for it (and sometimes when it doesn’t), though I do understand this is not to everyone’s taste.
What I have found confusing, is people seem to feel they have the right to complain. So you didn’t like an article in a magazine, so what? Do people come round your place of work telling you you’re no good at your job? Would you have bothered to write in to the magazine to make these points? Would you phone up The Word and give them what for? Should you ever be in Islington, would you pop into the office and tell them what they are doing wrong? Perhaps a short Powerpoint presentation, including areas to be improved upon and suggestions for further development? My guess is you wouldn’t. Were you to be there in person giving your feedback, would you stick to an objective and professional tone, rather than comments of a more personal nature? My guess is you would. It’s easy to criticise online, it’s easy to post a blog or type in a comment box. And what’s more, it’s easy to forget that there are actual human beings involved, who can and will be hurt by your comments.
Sure, the whole point of professional journalism is that people read your work, and will then have an opinion about it. Sadly, the way of the world is there will be both positive and negative feedback – a fact I’m sure Rob came to terms with long ago. But somewhere along the way, this thread seemed to take on a frankly bullying tone. There have been comments not just towards Rob, but towards various commenters that have been personal, rude and vindicative. I’m not going to pick out particular posts as examples, because singling people out will become bullying in itself, but also because in some ways it is more about the baying mob that seemed to develop.
I’ve also frankly been astounded at the amount of time and energy which has been devoted to this thread, and have found myself wondering what could be achieved if we harnessed the righteous anger and indignation in the service of some of the great social injustices of our time.
We are lucky as readers of The Word to have this forum provided for us to discuss not just the magazine and popular culture, but whatever takes our fancy. As has been noted elsewhere, we are also lucky to have a fantastic level of interaction from those who make and contribute to the magazine and podcast. What I think is occasionally forgotten, here and elsewhere on the internet, is that behind the bylines and usernames are real people with real feelings.
My belated two pence worth
If one makes a living from one's opinions, one expects people to take issue with them.
It is an interesting issue that has been personalised excellently by Rob, and people are reacting to that. Long may the debate continue.
And yes, John McClure should fuck RIGHT off.
Absolutely
But on this site we ask that people remain polite and refrain from abuse, personal attacks, swearing, etc, when discussing the merits or otherwise of someone else's opinion, as it sets a standard for behaviour that we are absolutely not happy with. Just like any community website, we have house rules, and we'd really appreciate it if people respected them.
Personally
I only swear at Liberals. If I am ever in Islington I will call into the Word offices to use the subscriber's lounge and expect to be served tea and one of Fraser's famous cakes. There will be no cussing or complaining just fullsome praise and backslappery.
'Tis almost the season of goodwill to all good men and women and journalists.
I'm not disagreeing
it's your house, your rules, but isn't it the fact that the original article doesn't adhere to the house rules that started this off in the first place?
I enjoyed the article, liked RFs approach and have no problems with it at all, so this is from an "academic" interest I have with netiquette in general, but could you explain why it is OK to not "refrain from abuse, personal attacks, swearing, etc, when discussing the merits or otherwise of someone else's opinion" when writing a piece for the mag, but is frowned upon when done on the blogs?
Apologies if this has been answered already, but I really couldn't face reading all the comments, and it is what the original post asked.
What a lovely person you must be.
My feelings are fairly robust, tbh, and there's nothing anyone could post on a blog that would upset me in any way (like all hacks, I like the attention, whatever form it takes), but I do appreciate your good wishes, really I do.
Get your flippin head down mate
Don't you know it's press day today. I want a thousand words from you on the rise and fall of Supertramp by 10 o'clock sharp. Or else.
Interesting
Your post, Rob, highlights one of the biggest issues with the internet as a means of communication.
When I read the title line I *immediately* assumed that it was going to be a vituperative comment about what a bastard Gauntlet was. Not because you'd posted it and I expect sarcasm from you (I don't), but because sarcasm has become the default mode for so much that is written on the net.
The proof of that can be seen on this thread and in the "Education" one elsewhere on the site. Is it too late to ask that we all turn the sarcasm down a notch or two?
Yeah, cos
that would be a really clever thing to do wouldn't it?
:-)
As others have said before...
Where else could a writer get a good shoeing from his readers then happily contribute to the discussion?
I heart Word.
Would Rob tell Jon McLure to
Would Rob tell Jon McLure to fuck off to his face? Would he pop into Reverend & The Makers practice room and give them a powerpoint presentation...etc I doubt it, nor should he have to.
Well said...
I have also resisted getting involved. I agree completely with what you say Gauntlet. I see below that this has now got to the extent that Archie V is going to stop contributing. I must say that if this is the way this blog going then it is very sad indeed. Can this all be finished now before others start to think again about being apart of what has generally been (up to this tread) a good natured blog site.
Sorry I should have...
said 'thread' not 'tread'. Thought I'd highlight my error before anyone picks me up on it!
Nothing really madders. . . a doll
What does matter, and matters quite a lot, is that first Rob F's professional competence was called into question, and then my own, based not on any knowledge of my background or standing among my clients and colleagues but solely on my aberrant use of a certain adverb, plus the snippet of personal information that I – apparently sanctimoniously and probably also *nadvis**ly – mentioned, not out of hubris but from pure, eyes-fixed-skyward exasperation.
But I probably shouldn't be too surprised. After all, this thread stemmed from an article in the magazine about how easy and cowardly it is, from behind the parapet of an Internet pseudonym, to be cheap, disrespectful and offensive.
That's the only reason I didn't leave the thread about two and a half yards up there. When things go too far they should be taken back (again, good on Molesworth for having no qualms about doing that in Rob's case). And, call me old-fashioned, but suggesting that someone you don't know from Adam must be crap at doing their job is going too far.
I'm off. If this is how we are going to disagree, then I can do without it. Twitter is a lot more entertaining, to be honest.
Ta-ra all. We had joy, we had fun. But all good things....
Will you...
still contribute to the 'What Are You Listening to Right Now' thread, though?
Otherwise it'll just be me. And it could get boring.
Wot, no comments?
I'd have expected more reaction to this development, given that one of this blog's most respected elders has just announced he is riding into the sunset. Unless, of course, Mr. V is only referring to this particular thread.
If it is more serious than that, I think it's a sad day. I have to say, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the writing / grammar issues debated heatedly above, I can't help noticing that his adversary has brought something of a shouty, unwelcome tone into things with his involvement in this thread and the Education one. Wonder if it has anything to do with the nature of his profession?
The whole thing's been utterly ludicrous
...bad-tempered, petulant and petty, and now it's seen off long-standing board members. I've almost given up myself on occasion - when people get plain nasty it's a difficult place to be.
I'm all for healthy, lively debate, but when it gets mean and personal it leaves a sour taste.
I'm sure Archie will be back. It's like the Hotel California here...
Agreed
Totally.
Oi!
"Wonder if it has anything to do with the nature of his profession?"
I'm a teacher and I resemble that remark! Some of us are totally non-shouty, you know! (Sometimes.)
Although I was tiresomely pedantic with you about 9/11 a few threads back, DougieJ, for which I apologise. Life's too flopping short, eh?
Agreed.
I had no problem with you, markiechops and others disagreeing with me on that. I fully expected it. That was just normal debate, and didn't descend to personal insult as seems to have happened on a couple of other threads.
Cool.
I wanted to mention it. It seemed the right place to do so.
:-)
I think I need to say something here.
Firstly, I'm not trying to bring down anyone or anything like that.
Secondly, in terms of RF's article, I was fairly unmoved by it. It didn't bother me either way. I didn't think about whether or not it was 'poorly written' in the slightest.
What did concern me was that someone (Archie) was prepared to state that his opinion of what was and what wasn't poorly written is 'objective' and was only too happy to get someone to apologise for their own (lesser) opinion on that basis.
From my viewpoint, in stating that "I do this shit for a living, bro', you are staking your professional reputation on your ability to get things like this right.
If I was to stake my professional reputation on something, I'd first make sure that I was right. The second thing I would do, in terms of a cruel mistress such as the English language, I would make it clear that it's a subjective matter.
Archie did neither of these things and ended up getting it wrong. On a message board on the internet. A minor and surely forgiveable thing to do. God knows I've done it. Who hasn't?
But when Archie says his view of a piece of writing is 'objective' and he does 'this shit for a living', it's Archie who's escalating things to hissy fit level. Not me.
Archie - "What does matter, and matters quite a lot, is that first Rob F's professional competence was called into question, and then my own, based not on any knowledge of my background or standing among my clients and colleagues but solely on my aberrant use of a certain adverb"
Middlerabbit - "I'm not saying you are incompetent, but I am saying that the manner in which you make your money doesn't necessarily mean that you have any idea of what you are talking about."
Which I think is fair enough. I wouldn't take an MPs word on anything without looking it up first and I know plenty of incompetent teachers. A person's profession does not necessarily make them a leading authority on their trade, does it? Any arguments on that one?
It's not all over Google. I think it highly unlikely it's in your Concise Oxford (240,000 entries) when it's not in my Shorter Oxford (500,000 entries).
You stuck your neck out, when you really didn't need to - and you got it wrong, when all you needed to do was be a little less equivocal about the matter.
All the stuff about 'Do not question the leader', yes that may have been somewhat sarcastic and thus, neither big nor clever. But if you paint yourself as being 'the professional' and that your opinion shouldn't be questioned (on the grounds that it's objective), I think you leave yourself wide open to such allegations. And I've done a similar, possibly ill-considered thing in the 'Education' thread - only I've not claimed my viewpoint is objective.
In summary, I don't want to make anyone run away, I don't want to upset people - but neither do I feel that I should automatically kowtow to anyone who makes erroneous claims, for fear that if they get it wrong, they'll cry 'no fair' and take their ball home with them.
So, Archie - don't get upset. I mean you no unpleasantness. But maybe I need to think about how my remarks could be interpreted by others - especially if it's potentially upsetting and maybe you need to think about whether or not your opinion of anything can really be classed as 'objective'.
I think Archie got on his high horse and then he fell off it and now he's embarrassed and irritated. Which is a direct result of staking so much on it, when there was no need.
Still, my intention was to burst an overinflated, deluded and slightly pompous ego. Maybe it's not my place to do that, or maybe it is, but I handled it badly. either way, I have some thinking to do.
In the back of my mind, however wrong I may be about all of this, all I can think of in terms of Archie at the moment, is Viz's 'Spoilt Bastard'. And I would have avoided the swearing if I could have.
Like I said to you yesterday
We don't care who's fault it is, or - to use your own words - escalated things to hissy fit level. Our opinion on who might be right or wrong is irrelevant. What matters to us is that people here debate without resorting to personal attack, and that they feel able to rise above any perceived slight headed in their direction rather than simply replying in kind. Two wrongs don't make a right, etc, and we don't want to run a website where the kind of unpleasantness we've seen recently becomes the norm.
If anyone here feels that this isn't something they can do, then I'd respectfully suggest they they find another, more suitable forum. This goes for you, it goes for Archie, it goes for everyone here.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but we have posting guidelines precisely to avoid this kind of thing. I hope you don't mind me pointing them out again.
Fair do's
Apart from I don't think I have personally attacked Archie in this thread. I really don't. And I don't feel that I have contravened any of the posting rules, either. I appreciate that the grammar thing has definitely cropped up, but it was certainly within the context of the debate - which was "I know 'good English', yet I say 'unadvisably'.
But....
My opinion is subjective, isn't it? Although I didn't call anyone any names and I didn't use any coarse or vulgar language.
I know you're uninterested in who's right and who's wrong - and that's great. However, when someone claims something is fact and tells lies (?) about things (Google, for instance) in order for them to look better, I genuinely do not understand why it's not permitted to pick them up on this.
My previous post was -
1. An attempt to apologise to all and sundry who may have been offended by my 'tone'.
2. An attempt to justify why I kept responding to a trivial matter.
3. An attempt to point out that it didn't really matter (as I said first thing this morning) and let's forget about it and move on. With no need for anyone to feel they have to leave on my account.
If you want to ban me, that's entirely up to you - I'm not prepared to become sycophantic, in order to ingratiate myself to anyone - especially when they're absolutely, definitely and (wink wink) objectively wrong about something.
I think that the offense I've caused to Archie (and I appreciate that I have) is entirely down to Archie setting himself up as an authority on something that he's plainly not an authority on. In this instance.
How am I supposed to apologise for that? "Sorry you thought you were objective on the topic of 'poor English', but it turns out you're not."?
I have apologised for my sarcasm - neither big nor clever - I have apologised for the references to how cult leaders behave.
I am but a moron. If you could explain to me what I need to do, I'll give it my earnest consideration because I can't find where I've gone wrong in the FAQ.
I hope this post doesn't sound unpleasant - if it does, I apologise unreservedly.
Clarification
The first point of the posting guidelines asks that people remain polite and friendly. If you truly believe that the last two paragraphs of your previous post are in keeping with this, then I'll obviously need to work on the FAQ to clarify where we stand. And I have no interest in banning anyone - I'd just like people to play nice.
Finally, being an active contributor to this site will always involve some degree of self-moderation, and, once again, this applies to everyone: being right achieves little if the atmosphere has been poisoned in the process. Sometimes having the last word really doesn't matter.
Yes it does.
Doesn't it?
Sorry, just trying to inject a bit of "humour".
(Coat got, leaves room.....)
Yes.
.
Last words...
No, of course it doesn't matter. No argument from me.
If, by the last two paragraphs, you refer to the pricking of the ego and the Viz character I mention - either I'm not being clear, or my perspective is not consistent with everyone else's. Both of which are possibilities...
Second to last paragraph, I say things like - "Maybe it's not my place to do that, or maybe it is, but I handled it badly. either way, I have some thinking to do.", in response to the ego pricking. Sorry, Fraser, but I don't think that's impolite or unfriendly. Pride comes before a fall, doesn't it? I don't think I'm any hot poop in any area in particular and I don't think I've ever claimed to be. Unlike some.
Last paragraph - The Viz thing - is it polite? No, it's not polite to compare someone to Timmy - that's fair enough. Should I have thought it and not written it? Maybe I should. But Timmy messes things up and martyrs himself every issue, doesn't he? Still - I'll shut up for the sake of tranquility.
I would like it noted that it's me doing all the apologising around here, though. It's me doing all the thinking about my behaviour - at my own behest, I might add - I've not heard Archie say - look, I got it wrong and I was a bit pompous about it.
I know, I know - you're not interested in who's right and who's wrong - but I'm beginning to find this a little bit galling.
If, when it comes down to it, if someone makes claims that they can't back up and they later get found out - that's tough cheese, isn't it?
The way I handled it was not ideal and I accept that. What I don't accept is that Archie's not primarily responsible for bringing it on himself. Don't shoot the messenger. Or, if you'd prefer, do. It's your board.
Middlerabbit....
......the result of a one night stand between the duracell bunny and a thesaurus.
Whilst were on the subject of Viz...
...you're starting to resemble Mr Logic.
(joke).
Mr. Logic
There's an excellent reason for that, Torres.
The inspiration for Mr. Logic was Andy & Simon McDonald's older brother, who was later diagnosed with Asperger's, much to the embarrassment of Simon & Andy.
I too am on the autism spectrum.
Hence, you may appreciate that mocking the afflicted is frowned up, however jokingly you might like to tart it up.
Mocking the mentally ill, eh? Is that in the FAQ?
As it happens, I don't mind this in the slightest and I'm as unoffended as can be - but it goes to show, doesn't it?
Probably
Time to let it go...
And relax.
I see
I should heal my brain, and not be mentally ill, shouldn't I? What excellent advice.
I think he meant the thread
Yes
The thread
Okay
I'll shut up and let other people call me names based upon a caricature of a mental disorder that I suffer from - whilst the moderator comes and tells me off for pointing out facts, but other people can do what they like.
Excellent. Who could fault that?
It's like The Beatles for me. I love The Beatles, but I find many of the fans to be total idiots. It's only the music's utter magnificence which keeps me loving them. God knows it's mainly the fans of Queen who put me off them - their music's not quite that good...
And by that, I mean - The Word is an excellent magazine - my favourite. But I can't say I'm too taken by some of the double standards exhibited by some of its readers on the internet.
As I daresay, some of you are unimpressed by mine.
Oh no! I'm talking about subjectivity again, aren't I? An emotive and upsetting topic. ;)
Can't we all just get along? :)
The Beatles
'I find many of their fans to be total idiots'.
Given their continued globe-straddling appeal, isn't that merely saying 'I find many people to be total idiots'?
No.
On account of it's the people who claim NOT to like The Beatles that I consider to be the real idiots.
Who can argue with that?
Eh?
Well I for one could, but
Well I for one could, but the fact I can't be arsed to get dragged into an aggressive argument with Middlerabbit rather than enjoy a friendly exchange of views is perhaps proof that Fraser's firm intervention was timely.
Which is a great shame because a because today I was the recipient of a medium-sized, but greatly appreciated, act of kindness from Tippy Wooder following some comments I made on a post he started. A stranger who offered to do a nice thing for me - how great is that?
Which is why this always been such a nice place. I don't always have time to post as much as I like, but I try to read most of what's written here, and often it's amusing, intelligent, thought provoking, and just plain interesting. Which is why I check in most days.
But one of the big attractions is that disagreement and combat generally remains good natured and friendly. Just because the rest of the internet is rife with bad manners and aggression, I'd like to hope this place will continue to swim against the tide.
Please
You know what?
You nearly received a pm from me offering you a load of Smiths dvds for nada, following that thread. But having found some of the posters to have, frankly , bizarre views regarding what is and what isn't reasonable conduct - having typed it, I deleted it and thought better of it. And I'm reasonably pleased I did, bearing this in mind.
So, yes you might find me objectionable, but I think I've been treated rather unfairly on the grounds that someone came and told outright lies about issues on this thread. Either that, or the person in question was incompetent to a greater degree than I initially anticipated.
So, I hope you've got some good stuff coming your way - because I've got some absolutely cracking Smiths stuff. Some of what was written above and more besides. In pretty darn good quality, too.
Your loss.
Your use of the word "idiot"
...could be viewed as mocking the mentally ill :)
(I'm also rocking the Asperger's by the way)
Idiots, cretinism and morons
Defunct since at least the 1970s, in terms of medical terminology.
(I'll poke my finger against yours, if you like, but no cuddling)
;)
Who are Simon & Andy
Who are Simon & Andy McDonald?
My apologies
Simon and Chris Donald. The founders of Viz. Not Andy McDonald, the founder of Go! Discs. My humble apologies.
Now it's your turn. :)
I apologise if I have,
I apologise if I have, inadvertantly, mocked the mentally ill.
I'm with you Midllerabbit,
and Fraser, you're being less than unbiased.
I'm sorry you feel that
As I've tried desperately hard to appear unbiased in my responses.
This whole thing has got out of hand
This is generally a friendly place, and there are many examples on threads where I have had misunderstandings with other bloggers that have been quickly and positively cleared up.
It is inconsistent for you to compare another contributor to a Viz character and then take umbrage when someone else compares you to a different Viz character.
I am interested to know in light of Fraser's question if you believe that you are in keeping with the posting guidelines he refers to and which most of us here generally abide by.
It has, I agree.
However, regading my inconsistency viz Viz characters, I think when I write things like, "As it happens, I don't mind this in the slightest and I'm as unoffended as can be", it's fairly safe to say that I'm not really taking umbrage, am I?
What I do take umbrage at, is that I'm picked up on it by the moderator, yet others are not. Now that's what I call inconsistent. Unusually for me, I'd say that was a fairly objective viewpoint. Bearing in mind it's happened in this very thread.
Do I believe I am keeping to the posting guidelines to which most of you here generally abide by? I do think that, yes.
What I'm not doing is kowtowing to some perceived hierarchy of posters and their apparent right to be right, even when they're wrong.
I have to say, it's a bit like a middle aged man's fun pub version of The Slaughtered Lamb, from An American Werewolf In London here. Written by Alan Bennett.
It's not openly hostile, but there's people who've clearly not missed that dart board in 20 years who aren't used to being disagreed with by newcomers.
Fair do's. Or dos. Who knows?
There's a definite pecking order that's apparent though. And whilst it's polite from a distance, there's something I find a little bit strange about it. A bit like an Alan Bennett play, in fairness.
On the other hand.... I like Alan Bennett.
Do you? ;)
I hope
markiechops won't mind me mentioning this, but I remember when he first started posting he was 'taken to one side for a quiet word' in avuncular fashion by Stimpy, iirc. I believe he used the words 'you're new here'. For some reason, I pictured Stimpy in WWll RAF gear, smoking a pipe...
Anyway, questions were posed on such topics as his opinion on Fray Bentos pies* and Richard Thompson and everyone moved on.
I'm not stalking markiechops, honest, it just struck me as funny!
*a thread for the newbies to check out!
To stretch your pub analogy a little.
There is a wide clientele here but there are, of course, those who pop in for a regular pint and a few who have nothing better to do with their time so choose to hang around the bar all day whilst reading the paper and feeding the jukebox.
For better or worse, that does create a certain sense of community and just like in a real pub, a newcomer barging straight up the bar and shouting the odds over the gentle hubbub of conversation can ruffle people's backs.
It's not really any of my business but, in my experience, it's often more fruitful to slide into the conversation and chip in a few bons mots about, I don't know, Fray Bentos pies or Richard Thompson to raise a chortle from those already in the pub. Who knows, you might even get offered a pint whilst you relate that amusing Bickershaw festival anecdote. :-)
Of course, if you're only intending to stay for a swift half and to use the loo before moving on elsewhere then I suppose it doesn't really matter.
Just my two-penn'orth.
(Knocks out pipe... twiddles moustache)
This you?
No...
This is:
Well,
perhaps we do need a futile gesture at this stage :-)
Sort of.
You see, that sounds a bit Smashey & Nicey go for a foaming nut brown ale with Tommy Vance, whereas what I'm getting from the place is a bit more along the lines of The Habit Of Art. Or Kafka's Dick.
Thanks for the outlook, though.
Inconsistency
I'm very sorry you feel that. Obviously I'm not going to spend my time pulling up everyone for every perceived transgression - that would be counter-productive, no fun for anyone, and I have other work to do.
But yesterday I pulled you up what I considered to be inappropriate behaviour, and you appeared to accept this. So I reminded you again - very politely, I hope - when you insulted another poster less than 24 hours later. Now I know you don't agree you were insulting, and once again I'm sorry about that, but it doesn't change my view.
Am I being overly sensitive? Very likely - I'll always monitor people more closely once they've been abusive to other posters. That's part of my job. Am I picking on you? Absolutely not. I've made these kinds of points dozens of times before, and I know I'll have to make them dozens of times again. And a definite pecking order? Without doubt. Every community - online and off - has one. But it's pretty easy to fit in if you follow the house rules: they're not unreasonable, and they're there to make the site more accomodating.
I disagree.
If you weren't bothered about being compared to Mr Logic, why did you raise your place on the autism spectrum, and chastise the poster for mocking the afflicted ?
"I'll shut up and let other people call me names based upon a caricature of a mental disorder that I suffer from" doesn't read to me as if you are 100% OK with the comparison.
I also think that some of what you posted was not in keeping with the posting guidelines, although you don't. "Still, my intention was to burst an overinflated, deluded and slightly pompous ego" is not a friendly phrase.
What I said stands
Under no circumstances can I be described as taking umbrage.
Someone pointed out that I reminded them of Mr. Logic. Having read Chris Donald's book and having read the story of his older brother and his influence on the character and his Asperger's, I thought it pertinent to point out that I resembled him because I suffer the same mental illness as his inspiration.
I had been picked up by Fraser for saying Archie was behaving like Timmy and told that wasn't very nice - I said fair enough.
Timmy isn't a sufferer of a mental malady, he's just a spoilt bastard who doesn't appear to be a teribly pleasant chap on grounds that he always gets what he wants.
Ergo, knowing what I know about Mr. Logic (and to sound even more like him, in fairness), surely it's a little bit worse to call someone Mr. Logic, seeing as - A) It's already bad for me to call Archie, Timmy - and B) Mr. Logic is a portrayal of mental illness, and Timmy's not.
Consequently, I find it inconsistent that I am chastised for it and yet others are not chastised for doing the same - or, potentially, worse, on account of Mr. Logic's a caricature of a mental disorder, one that I suffer, but am not offended by. I would hardly be familiar with Viz to the extent that I am, if it offended me, would I?
That I am unoffended, personally should have no bearing upon what the moderator does, however. What Fraser's said in response to my claim merely seems to be his agreement that he has done exactly what I've said he's done, only he's attempted to justify it. I take what he said as an admission of inconsistency. Again, I'm unoffended and unsurprised.
In addition, regarding the pricking of the ego, I said - in the next sentence - maybe it's not my place to do that, or maybe it is but I did it badly. It's interesting that you choose not to copy and paste that particular sentence, isn't it? Why would that be?
I put it to you, elhombremalo, that you are behaving like a red top tabloid in clearly having an agenda and when the facts don't suit you (I am as unoffended as can be, maybe it's not my place to do that), it won't stop you making the claims.
You're sounding like Archie. The evidence regarding what you say is clearly not there. Yet you persist in ignoring the reality of the situation, in order to attempt to castigate me.
I think some people around here are seeing things that aren't there in my posts. For instance, do you consider this one to be breaching the code?
I think the analogy of The Jolly Slaughtered Lamb is looking more and more accurate with every response I read. Which, in terms of reading and loking at the words and the order in which they're written, is rather better than you are currently managing, El.
I find your selectivity of the facts to be scurrilous.
How does that square with your code of behaviour? Because I think it stinks, mate.
Fraser can do what he wants
This is his pub.
If you don't feel able to fit in with his 'house rules' then the Mojo Arms down the road might be more to your taste.
Another selective reader, eh?
This, from me, from yesterday afternoon.
"The way I handled it was not ideal and I accept that. What I don't accept is that Archie's not primarily responsible for bringing it on himself. Don't shoot the messenger. Or, if you'd prefer, do. It's your board."
You're adding nothing to the discussion with that comment, are you? You're not alerting me to anyting I don't know, because I've already pointed it out, myself. Earlier.
I think I do fit in with the FAQ that's posted.
I'm saying that if Fraser wants to be applied inconsistently, of course he can - just don't bother pointing me to the house rules if I'm going to be the only one perusing them, eh? Because then, they're not really 'House' rules, are they? If they only apply to some and not others, it's not the rules of the 'house, is it?
And I mean that in the most genial manner possible. Potentially whilst pausing, pruning the hedge perhaps.
With respect
youre going to get lonely round here at this rate.
It was posted elsewhere that having the last word isn't always the most important thing. I find some of your posts interesting, some provocative, some nonsense. Probably you feel the same about mine. Is it really worth causing all this aggro though?
I'm the one who said "poor writing" in the first place. Archie made a counterpoint which I about 80% agreed with. Sometimes, its worth letting that other 20% ago for the greater good of having a site where we enjoy plenty of debate, argument, heated at times, but where we all have a collective pint together in the finish. The fact that this is a place where people like to spend a lot of time is surely the most imoprtant thing and like it or not, people are taking umbrage at the way you're saying some of the things you say. Just for one day, count to ten before you hit the post comment button, please? Then if you still think it's worth it, ok, your choice.
Again, with total respect, I do take some issue with Gauntlet's point that we don't have the right to criticise Rob's article, firstly because, if you're writing an op-ed article that nobody mentions, you've failed. I think plenty of us have said things about the piece, positive and negative, that have been interesting and constructive. That's why we have a forum isn't it? I have to throw my opinions out there as part of my job and people take issue, as I noted above. I'm big enough and ugly enough - definitely ugly enough - to take it as part of the job. I don't doubt for a second that Rob Fitzpatrick does the same. And equally, while for the reasons outlined above, I thought it was a poor article on this occasion - and not, I repeat for the 100th time, because of the fuckoffery - I'm equally happy to say that I've enjoyed his appearances on podcasts, and 99% of his other articles. That's a bloody good average. I'm equally happy to buy him a drink should our paths ever cross. Whether he'd accept or prefer to pour it over my head is entirely up to him. But we're just having a discussion here, nobody died.
For what it's worth though, I do think that "the Word" has caused a little bit of confusion here. Andrew Harrison's defence of Rob's "righteous anger" does offer plenty of cover for the rest of us. We're just as entitled to it as contributors to the magazine and differentiating between that and something less pleasant would require the judgement of Solomon. (That's you, that is, Fraser).
I can't be bothered with this.
I selected the parts which I think demonstrate that you are not being friendly. I think that I have politely expressed my opinion, and asked you a question.
I am not interested in re-hashing all the many long arguments above.
You are also being selective in what you quote.
You call my selectivity scurrilous
then you tell me that what I have done stinks.
I can't be bothered with this.
That's a funny way of showing you can't be bothered
Isn't it? By bothering?
It's defamatory, because you are, as you claim, selecting the parts that you think demonstrate where I'm not being friendly.
In deselecting the parts where I am being friendly, you are presenting a one sided, biased and unrepresentative view. Which is defamatory.
Which is, "injurious to someone's name or reputation". Mine, primarily.
Which is what the red tops do - ignore that which does not suit their attempt to paint someone as a one dimensional character.
And I think I've put that over quite politely, too.
However, what you were talking about was the Mr. Logic thing. I've attempted to clear up why I mentioned Asperger's and how I mentioned I'm not offended by it - yet that doesn't suit your perspective, so you ignore it.
But, of course, you're not bothered, are you? So I don't suppose it really matters, does it?
Best wishes. Genuinely.
Middlerabbit
A good rule of thumb for a web community would be, what would happen if everyone here acted as I am acting?
Regardless of whether you have been picked on or singled out, imagine if everybody posted a couple of thousand words whenever they came in for a bit of stick.
The monkeys chatter in the trees, the lion walks on by.
Don't leave now, Archie
We need you.
Heartfelt.
Archie
He's a cowboy
On a steel horse he rides
He's wanted dead or alive
He rides these streets
A loaded six-string on his back
He plays for keeps
And he might not make it back...
Archie don't leave us
for a start anyone who posts a Kurt Vonnegut page,an actual scanned, actual page cannot be a cult leader.Vonnegut and cult simply cannot co-exist in the same space. Fact of physics mate.
Secondly, I just got here, first time I've been tempted to post ever. Dinnae leave us, (oouch that's a bit dangerous posting here in dialect, think I'll get away with it?)
It was the dic-swinging that got me in here, I took my mother's COD from 1947 (same one she took up to Oxford with her)in me hand and went t'page UN - well actually pages 912-920 cover un and it's uses(uncircumsised, uncivil, unhumanzise -now there's an interesting one: de- more usual says the COD. ) oh but sorry it's an old one, sigh, what do you expect from a dic that says Twitter 1. v.i (of birds) utter a succession of tremulous sounds So I suppose that the use of un as general "Words formed upon a simple verb & usu.denoting sense contrary to or annulling that of simple verb" for starters really is un-un as it's way too old a version of COD to be used in this debate.
Since the Word covers music can I just quote Duke Ellington here? Widely recognised as being pretty good at jazz Ellington said "there are only two types of music; good music and bad music" ... I wonder is that subjective or objective? But you know what, I think he's right. Oh someone might want to know what the point of that was, - well me hearties it's simply a question of what moves you, isn't it?
A good meal makes you remember it's tastes tingling on your tongue for ages, a good piece of music makes you feel good or dance or tap your foot, a bad piece makes you cringe. A good piece of writing, well doesn't it make you laugh, or sigh or cry even? Dan Brown vs Vonnegut? No contest. (Dan Brown vs anyone no contest but I digress).
If you read a lot you recognise good or bad writing, (v. good point about Jan Moir, that made her piece all the more insidious). Someone who writes for a living is justified in defending their opinion as valid. A musician who comments on a song may have an edge in their opinion too.
Objective/ subjective? That's dancing into philosophy, which gets into quantum physics which gets into.... (time's up and it's not that forum Ed.) Okay time's up, Archie don't leave us here in the darkness.
Gon yirsel son!
I lapse into Jockinese frequently, I'm of the Weegie race, it feels nach'ral... n'at
in certainly hope I never
called anyone's professional skills into question.
Sorry if I did.
Been offline for a few days. Everything's gone even more crazy on this thread.
Some of the comments have been a bit personal on this thread. I think often due to the insecurities and personal issues people have around issues such as correct use of english
(e.g. I was kept in ever break for a year by a teacher who thought improve my spelling to have no social activity and instead write out spelling lines. Result: I am an awful speller.)
And people have made assumptions about other posters and been a bit rude.
But still I really think this board is much better behaved than most. It would be a shame to lose someone as quality as Archie from it.
Anyway apologies if they are required. It's impossible to ever fully judge your comments and the reactions they'll provoke. That's what makes life interesting. But it can also make it very upsetting.
It's good everyone has a direct way to interact with the word and other readers. Let's keep up the good work. And do some a little more consideredly.*
And keep apologising. That's the most important part of online communication in my view. Saying sorry when you've caused offense.
*it's not in my dictionary or spell check but it seemed appropriate.
Archie
iii is my favorite poster here. I hope he doesn't go.
seconded
And thirded.
Bugger looks like I was
too late in my feeble attempt at intervention http://www.wordmagazine.co.uk/content/2-becomes-1. Come back Archie, who else am I going to share GaGa moments with?
Surely
There's an appropriate song from Glasgow's finest to coincide with this moment?
You know
he's only doing it to get the attention don't you ;-)
See that piece of toilet roll? That's your dictionary that is.
I've not seen such an erudite spat since Newman and Baddiel's two professors.
Oh come on Archie....
...ever since your Anatomy of a Murder post regarding Ireland's finest, The Bachelors' stunning take on Everybody Hurts, I have looked forward to your posts.
I didn't necessarily agree with you on Rob's piece (though I enjoyed it up until the sweary bits), and I also noted the "objective/ subjective" juxtaposition, BUT, what is more important here is that we have a forum, usually a respectful forum that allows us to debate these things without slipping into personal attacks.
Its one of the down sides of this media, that it is easy to shoot ones mouth off, without the fear of getting a punch in the face, which, whilst I in no way condone punching people in the face, sometimes makes one measure ones words in a "real life, face to face" situation.
I don't think middlerabbit actually intended to offend, but rather got caught up in the heat of the argument.
I may be wrong, and here is the forum to tell me so.
Anyhoo, you would be missed Archie, just as I like to think I would be, and Patrick Crowther, Steven C, LOUDspeaker, Pat Carty, Five Centres, Chimney Singing....etc etc.