# Pavane for Toucan, Saul, Mirror Image, Myaskovsky



## gurthbruins

How I mourn your loss, poor banned outcasts!

If only you could have been slinging your mud on my http://literature-g.yolasite.com , what a ball you would have had! Free expression is definitely encouraged there.

Unfortunately, there's not much action there... but you could always start a war there if only you can get together with purpose, as music-lovers you would be given endless rope to flout literary conventions... I love conflict -

"Conflict has greater value than victory or defeat" - F Scott Fitzgerald


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

gurthbruins said:


> How I mourn your loss, poor banned outcasts!
> 
> If only you could have been slinging your mud on my http://literature-g.yolasite.com , what a ball you would have had! Free expression is definitely encouraged there.
> 
> Unfortunately, there's not much action there... but you could always start a war there if only you can get together with purpose, as music-lovers you would be given endless rope to flout literary conventions... I love conflict -
> 
> "Conflict has greater value than victory or defeat" - F Scott Fitzgerald


I'm afraid if a discussion board gets infested with likes of the banned aforementioned, there will indeed be "not much action" as the more sensible amongst us leave.


----------



## gurthbruins

- It should be a case of "birds of a feather".


----------



## Almaviva

In my humble opinion, people who like the strong emotions that trolls provoke should join the troll-infested sites and quit boring places like Talk Classical where mature and civil users experience pleasure in exchanging interesting ideas with likeminded folks in a friendly and respectful environment, instead of getting sick hijinks out of aggravating and putting down others. It must be *so* much more exciting to enjoy the company of nasty trolls!!!

As for free speech, it applies to public spaces, public affairs, etc. This is a *privately* owned site, and its owner has all the right in the world to set the rules and uninvite people who don't follow them. If you are in someone's house and say stuff that the owner had previously asked you not to say (and you had previously agreed to abide by the owner's rule in order to earn your invitation), you may be asked to leave.


----------



## gurthbruins

*Almaviva*, I am quite happy with the polite dynamics which you preserve on this forum, I think you will find me as polite and sympathetic to all viewpoints as any, don't get me wrong.

But I am many-sided and I also enjoy more passion - rest assured I'll seek that elsewhere - and I also like to cater for all sorts myself. Everybody is my friend, I understand everybody and there are no standards of behaviour that I demand from anyone. I accept them as they are.


----------



## Ukko

"gurthbruins", if you enjoy antagonism, the newsgroups are there for you. rec.music.classical.recordings offers plenty of diatribes and conflict on a multitude of subjects, occasionally including music.


----------



## Polednice

gurthbruins said:


> But I am many-sided and I also enjoy more passion


You needn't be a pain-in-the-**** to display passion. There are plenty of passionate threads and users on this forum who remain level-headed and affable.


----------



## peeyaj

Is this some kind of a site advertisement which is a big ''N0 NO'' in forums?


----------



## gurthbruins

Hilltroll72 said:


> "gurthbruins", if you enjoy antagonism, the newsgroups are there for you. rec.music.classical.recordings offers plenty of diatribes and conflict on a multitude of subjects, occasionally including music.


*Hilltroll72,* :
Any old conflict won't do. Any great soapie, such as The Bold, or any great novel, such as any of the works of any of the Brontes, is based on *interesting* conflict, usually the conflict created by the dilemma of having to choose one of two antagonistic options. (Do I marry A or do I marry B?). Or do I forgive my husband or don't I.

Tolstoy's Kitty is a classic case when she has to decide between Vronsky and Levin.
Can you see that you can't have a novel without conflict? It is *absolutely* of the essence.

And of course a novel is only a record of real life and experiences, or else it is not convincing. Naturally in the course of these conflicts, emotions can run high, but that is neither a bad thing nor a good thing, nor even the interesting thing.

Hopefully on a forum such as this, with its high level of intelligence and politeness, it should be possible to discuss conflicting ideas in an interesting way. I am not saying I advocate mud-slinging and rudeness, I just say that I am willing to understand it and to put up with it.

Allow me to repeat here, that I feel nothing but sympathy for every sentient being on the planet, which I think does include you all.

That is why I cannot agree with the constant vilification of Hitler. I feel sympathy for him, and I am being more "Christian" in loving my "enemy" here than any Christian I have ever met. And I do not even claim or pretend or want to be regarded as a Christian.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

peeyaj said:


> Is this some kind of a site advertisement which is a big ''N0 NO'' in forums?


By our policy, not a competing site, so not a violation.

Besides, the OP also said "not much action" so it reads almost like a _dis_recommendation.


----------



## Chris

gurthbruins said:


> "Conflict has greater value than victory or defeat" - F Scott Fitzgerald


etc. etc.

I'm wondering if this idea of generating light from heat might be used to seek solutions to some of today's problems, e.g. the various troubling issues within English professional football. We could hire a large hall and invite equal numbers of football hooligans drawn from the ranks of Everton and Manchester United supporters. Those with at least 3 or 4 convictions, evidence of their commitment to the game, would be sought. The two groups would be seated separately in rows facing each other. Items for discussion might include 'Was Wayne Rooney's move to Manchester United a good one', or 'Are Alex Fergusson's criticisms of referees justified'. Crates of lager would be provided to stimulate the participants to lively debate. A row of stenographers would sit at the side to record the insights which arose. These would wear green hats to indicate they were neutral and not to be disturbed.


----------



## Almaviva

gurthbruins said:


> Hopefully on a forum such as this, with its high level of intelligence and politeness, it should be possible to discuss conflicting ideas in an interesting way.


This *is* happening. There have been some very interesting discussions of late of very controversial topics, and after some struggle to make civility prevail, it's been going quite well.


> I am not saying I advocate mud-slinging and rudeness, I just say that I am willing to understand it and to put up with it.


Well, I'm not. The problem with mud-slinging and rudeness is that certainly it can happen occasionally when good members lose their cool and get angry (this includes me), and sometimes all that is needed as far as moderation goes, is to say - "oh come on, children, can we all please behave a little better and focus on the issues, not on the persons debating the issue?" But the problem with mud-slinging and rudeness is that, left totally unchecked, they tend to snow ball and to generate resentment. Threads are dynamic entities and sometimes they spin out of control. Besides, there is *no* reason why the intelligent and polite classical music lovers who have joined this site can't hold a civil discussion even on the most controversial and conflict-laden topics. There is no *need* to put up with rudeness. We can perfectly expect a higher standard from our highly educated, highly sophisticated members.



> That is why I cannot agree with the constant vilification of Hitler. I feel sympathy for him, and I am being more "Christian" in loving my "enemy" here than any Christian I have ever met. And I do not even claim or pretend or want to be regarded as a Christian.


There you go, you have just issued a highly controversial statement. Are you looking for strong emotions? I'm curious to know how this will play out.


----------



## Polednice

Almaviva said:


> There you go, you have just issued a highly controversial statement. Are you looking for strong emotions? I'm curious to know how this will play out.


Are you daring us to comment on his perception of Hitler?! I'd certainly like to see how that one goes...


----------



## Almaviva

Polednice said:


> Are you daring us to comment on his perception of Hitler?! I'd certainly like to see how that one goes...


I was more like noticing that his/her statement came out of the blue and looked to me a lot like an attempt to stir things up. I think it's best that we *don't* comment on his perception of Hitler - which is the best way to extinguish the behavior. I was commenting more on the form (the strategy employed) than on the content (Hitler).


----------



## Almaviva

Chris said:


> etc. etc.
> 
> I'm wondering if this idea of generating light from heat might be used to seek solutions to some of today's problems, e.g. the various troubling issues within English professional football. We could hire a large hall and invite equal numbers of football hooligans drawn from the ranks of Everton and Manchester United supporters. Those with at least 3 or 4 convictions, evidence of their commitment to the game, would be sought. The two groups would be seated separately in rows facing each other. Items for discussion might include 'Was Wayne Rooney's move to Manchester United a good one', or 'Are Alex Fergusson's criticisms of referees justified'. Crates of lager would be provided to stimulate the participants to lively debate. A row of stenographers would sit at the side to record the insights which arose. These would wear green hats to indicate they were neutral and not to be disturbed.


This is hilarious!:lol:

Well done, Chris!:tiphat:


----------



## Polednice

Almaviva said:


> I was more like noticing that his/her statement came out of the blue and looked to me a lot like an attempt to stir things up. I think it's best that we *don't* comment on his perception of Hitler - which is the best way to extinguish the behavior. I was commenting more on the form (the strategy employed) than on the content (Hitler).


Ah right, I'll bear that in mind


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> I was more like noticing that his/her statement came out of the blue and looked to me a lot like an attempt to stir things up. I think it's best that we *don't* comment on his perception of Hitler - which is the best way to extinguish the behavior. I was commenting more on the form (the strategy employed) than on the content (Hitler).


+1
Actually, rather than feeling outrage over his comment, the main thing that came to mind was, "What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China?"


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

gurthbruins said:


> How I mourn your loss, poor banned outcasts!


Here's their pavane:








Yeah, I know many of you never heard of this TV show. I use to watch it, when it was funny like this.


----------



## Polednice

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Yeah, I know many of you never heard of this TV show. I use to watch it, when it was funny like this.


I've the great excuse of a little brother to watch this


----------



## mmsbls

There may be a few who would rather have very heated discussions where personal attacks run rampant, but I suspect that I speak for the vast majority here in saying that we are very happy that the moderators curtail such threads and limit or remove privileges for those who engage in that behavior.

Thank you all TC Moderators.


----------



## Almaviva

mmsbls said:


> There may be a few who would rather have very heated discussions where personal attacks run rampant, but I suspect that I speak for the vast majority here in saying that we are very happy that the moderators curtail such threads and limit or remove privileges for those who engage in that behavior.
> 
> Thank you all TC Moderators.


You're welcome.:tiphat:
And believe me all, it's not fun. Every time we need to curtail threads or limit privileges, we do it with a heavy heart. And we also regret when someone gets banned and miss some of the banned people. We'd much prefer that things got solved before having to resort to these measures. But unfortunately, sometimes there is no other way, when all attempts at redirection fail.


----------



## Sid James

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I'm afraid if a discussion board gets infested with likes of the banned aforementioned, there will indeed be "not much action" as the more sensible amongst us leave.


I strongly agree with my esteemed fellow Australian member on this point...


----------



## Juste Retour

I have been through posts by the aforementioned outcasts and found they did not attack or badmouth or insult people who are not able to defend themselves

Perhaps it is the people who partake in this thread who are not decent and does this site not have rules against personal attacks? Good sites do.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Im sorry but who are you?

Its a shame that those who warrant a ban are also some of the more memorable people you're likely to meet.


----------



## Juste Retour

I saw you were once severely scolded for a post deemed inappropriate. Something about liberal elites and hate groups. Perhaps you should not cast stones.

After you are banned and lynch mobs gang up on you, don't whine


----------



## jhar26

Juste Retour said:


> I have been through posts by the aforementioned outcasts and found they did not attack or badmouth or insult people who are not able to defend themselves


Interesting occupation for someone who's been a member here for exactly one day. But for your information, their most offending posts were deleted or edited. 


> Perhaps it is the people who partake in this thread who are not decent and does this site not have rules against personal attacks?


You mean like this one where you attack people who take part in this thread?


> Good sites do.


Keep this up and you'll learn about the rules pretty soon I think.


----------



## Krummhorn

Juste Retour said:


> I have been through posts by the aforementioned outcasts and found they did not attack or badmouth or insult people who are not able to defend themselves
> 
> Perhaps it is the people who partake in this thread who are not decent and does this site not have rules against personal attacks? Good sites do.


Those who continually violate the posted forum rules, after multiple warnings/infractions, bring this matter upon themselves. In many cases, direct "ad homs" and slanderous statements have been removed.


----------



## Juste Retour

I do not believe you. Mirror Image is only immature, Saul is a pest but no more, Toucan only protested what he obviously believes is intolerance around here. Quality sites do not allow lynch mob behavior against anyone and quality people do not quick others when they are down.


----------



## Almaviva

Juste Retour said:


> I do not believe you. Mirror Image is only immature, Saul is a pest but no more, Toucan only protested what he obviously believes is intolerance around here. Quality sites do not allow lynch mob behavior against anyone and quality people do not quick others when they are down.


How do you know all these people if you've been a member here for one day? Have you posted here using another screen name before? If yes, would you mind enlightening us by kindly telling us what that name (those names) was (were)? Thank you in advance.

You don't believe him? It's not a matter of belief, it's a factual matter. Dozens of people here saw the ex-member you're saying "is a pest *but no more*" engage in pretty explicit hate speech, before the thread was removed. Whether you believe it or not, it doesn't change the fact that it happened.



Chris said:


> Have we met you before? My French is some way below backward schoolboy level but I thought Retour (return) might be a hint.


Yep, his name is French for Just (fair) Return.

Oh, and Juste Retour, please, satisfy my curiosity. If you praise so much those that you call "good sites" why have you registered here? Wouldn't it be more productive to leave us bad boys alone and go post in those good sites instead?

Well, he went off line. Hit and run strategy. Sounds familiar.



Juste Retour said:


> Perhaps it is the people who partake in this thread who are not decent and does this site not have rules against personal attacks?


How ironic... The above is a personal attack... This "new" member commits one (actually addressed to all the good folks who have posted on this thread, so, multiple personal attacks) while invoking the need for rules against personal attacks.:lol:



emiellucifuge said:


> Im sorry but who are you?
> 
> Its a shame that those who warrant a ban are also some of the more memorable people you're likely to meet.


I agree, and like I said, I miss some (not all) of them, but they brought it on themselves.


----------



## Chris

Juste Retour said:


> I do not believe you. Mirror Image is only immature, Saul is a pest but no more, Toucan only protested what he obviously believes is intolerance around here. Quality sites do not allow lynch mob behavior against anyone and quality people do not quick others when they are down.


Have we met you before? My French is some way below backward schoolboy level but I thought Retour (return) might be a hint.


----------



## sospiro

Juste Retour said:


> I have been through posts by the aforementioned outcasts and found they did not attack or badmouth or insult people who are not able to defend themselves


I understand the admin staff were subjected to private abuse, which surely cannot be tolerated



Juste Retour said:


> Perhaps it is the people who partake in this thread who are not decent and does this site not have rules against personal attacks? Good sites do.


Yes this site has rules. Are you inferring this isn't a good site?


----------



## Ukko

Almaviva said:


> I agree, and like I said, I miss some (not all) of them, but they brought it on themselves.


Posts from the young Pole - whose moniker I don't recall - were often entertaining, even when the language was contrived.

The mods' application of policy seems designed to 'protect' the most thin-skinned of us. The archaic term 'molly-coddled' is probably applicable. Not a problem for me, but perhaps an irritant for those who enjoy confrontations-at-a-remove.

:devil:


----------



## jhar26

Hilltroll72 said:


> Posts from the young Pole - whose moniker I don't recall - were often entertaining, even when the language was contrived.


If it's Aramis you're referring to - he was banned at his own request.


----------



## gurthbruins

Aramis? Did I leave somebody out? Sorry, Aramis, I didn't notice, but I do remember you as a notable contributor and I mourn your absence... now that may not be accurate, but that doesn't mean it is hypocrisy, which I've been accused of. Diplomacy and tact are not always synonymous with hypocrisy.

I pass over the bizarre "banned at his own request" without comment.


----------



## jhar26

gurthbruins said:


> I pass over the bizarre "banned at his own request" without comment.


Good. It's wise not to comment on things you obviously have no knowledge about. Aramis asked to be removed and to make sure that we wouldn't take his request for a joke and ignore it he posted a link to a porn side to make sure that we would do what he asked for.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

jhar26 said:


> If it's Aramis you're referring to - he was banned at his own request.


Why should anyone ask to be banned? Surely, they just cease posting if they simply want to pack up. I was under the impression that Aramis did it as an act of defiance against what he saw as repeated unnecessary disciplinary action agianst him for his unconventional style in tackling people whose opinions he thought silly.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Hilltroll72 said:


> The mods' application of policy seems designed to 'protect' the most thin-skinned of us. The archaic term 'molly-coddled' is probably applicable. Not a problem for me, but perhaps an irritant for those who enjoy confrontations-at-a-remove.
> 
> :devil:


I prefer the more feisty type of discussion, rather than all this prissy good behaviour that's being foisted upon us of late. I know where I can take myself if I don't like, but I'm just standing up to be counted amongst those who reckon that there have been too many bans of late.


----------



## mamascarlatti

Andy Loochazee said:


> Why should anyone ask to be banned? Surely, they just cease posting if they simply want to pack up. I was under the impression that Aramis did it as an act of defiance against what he saw as repeated unnecessary disciplinary action agianst him for his unconventional style in tackling people whose opinions he thought silly.


Aramis started getting more and more bizarre and incoherent in some of his posts towards the end. I'd say some kind of mental crisis or too many hallucinogenic drugs, but anyway not behaving rationally. He certainly banned himself. I still miss his unique style.

I don't miss the others at all. I prefer posters who adhere to the same rules of politeness and respect for others is customary in face-to-face interactions.



> I prefer the more feisty type of discussion, rather than all this prissy good behaviour that's being foisted upon us of late. *I know where I can take myself if I don't like,* but I'm just standing up to be counted amongst those who reckon that there have been too many bans of late.


You said it. It's like in the real world, some people prefer clubs with loud music, other quiet country pubs. But there is no point in going to one and complaining because it isn't the other. This is a moderated forum with clear rules, and you chose to sign up here.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Andy Loochazee said:


> Why should anyone ask to be banned? Surely, they just cease posting if they simply want to pack up. I was under the impression that Aramis did it as an act of defiance against what he saw as repeated unnecessary disciplinary action agianst him for his unconventional style in tackling people whose opinions he thought silly.


He left for some other reason he didnt want to discuss, and posted ban-worthy content in order to get banned and not be tempted back.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

mamascarlatti said:


> Aramis started getting more and more bizarre and incoherent in some of his posts towards the end. I'd say some kind of mental crisis or too many hallucinogenic drugs, but anyway not behaving rationally. He certainly banned himself. I still miss his unique style.
> 
> I don't miss the others at all. I prefer posters who adhere to the same rules of politeness and respect for others is customary in face-to-face interactions.
> 
> You said it. It's like in the real world, some people prefer clubs with loud music, other quiet country pubs. But there is no point in going to one and complaining because it isn't the other. This is a moderated forum with clear rules, and you chose to sign up here.


I would agree that Aramis posts became more incoherent towards the end of his time, but he was amusing when he was on form, as well as having the ability to hit right on target if someone made a stupid comment. I wish him well, whatever he is doing now.

I would say that there has recently been a much tougher interpretation of the rules than used to exist. I'm saying no more, as I don't wish to incur anyone's wrath.


----------



## mamascarlatti

Andy Loochazee said:


> I would say that there has recently been a much tougher interpretation of the rules than used to exist. I'm saying no more, as I don't wish to incur anyone's wrath.


Well, I don't recall anything like the sort of behaviour that has been occurring more recently when I first joined (about a year and a half ago). There seemed to be less need for moderation because interchanges were largely civil, except for one rather extreme example.

You might not have been on the receiving end of some of the abuse (I'm thinking Myaskovsky here) but I was involved and I hated it. I was considering leaving myself if something wasn't done about it.


----------



## nickgray

Kinda ironic that Myaskovsky got banned. Again.


----------



## Krummhorn

Andy Loochazee said:


> . . . but I'm just standing up to be counted amongst those who reckon that there have been too many bans of late.


When the town gets larger in population, there is the chance that more people than before will begin speeding and running stop lights, so there are likely to be more tickets issued.

We've had a plethora of steady growth in membership here over the past couple years ... well over 2,500 new registrations since January 1st. With that level of increased activity there are bound to be more violations of the rules ... it's all in proportion to the active membership. Less members, less violations and vice versa.

The rules have been in existence here for many years - they have not changed. During the registration process there is a check box ... checking that box, the new user signifies that they have read, understand, and have agreed to abide by the forum rules and terms of service. If they don't check off that box, the registration process is terminated, and they don't become members by their choice. Membership here, like most all other forums, is a _privilege__. 
_ 
As for bans, it's the people that are doing that to themselves. We are all guests of the site owner (Frederik) and this is his forum and he has the right to run it the way he sees fit.


----------



## Almaviva

I think we all regret Aramis' departure, all mods included.
It's hard to understand why he did what he did, we can only speculate.
I'd love to see him back. I really liked that member.
And no, he wasn't suffering repeated disciplinary actions. He was in good standing for a long time when he then suddenly did that.

A quick look at this thread:

Posters who apparently feel that moderation actions have been excessive of late:

The original poster, emiel (if I have interpreted correctly what he said), Andy, and some "Juste Retour" person who is obviously someone else and not a new member at all - who knows why he/she is hoping to stir things up?

A couple of other posts are ambiguous and we can't say whether their authors support the moderation actions or not.

Then, not counting the staffers who have posted here, we have 8 other posters who spoke in support of the moderation actions - one of them even said that he speaks for the "vast majority" of members.

Seems like the majority of people - at least in this sample - are OK with what has been happening.

Some people are in the habit of speaking against the moderation team no matter what. In any organized human activity, one can't please 100% of people, so, this sort of attitude comes with the territory. As long as the majority of members like what we do, I'm fine with it, since what we do is done *for* the members, not *against* the members.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Almaviva said:


> emiel (if I have interpreted correctly what he said),


 please dont think I meant to criticise the moderation. I have no complaints.


----------



## gurthbruins

*A Solution?*

With more experience, I think I have come to see better what a good job the mods here are doing. It's good to have more info re Aramis.

It's difficult to please everybody, and I think on balance the mods have got it right and deserve our full support.

The banned geniuses are missed by many, even by the mods, but maybe we can have our cake both ways. The banned ones can go on posting their comments just as they like, and we can all read them: *just not here.* If they will all post instead on my site, which is waiting to welcome them with open arms, then they will all be collected together for access in one place, and those who are interested to see their comments can simply go to my site, and continue discussions about their comments there. (See post #1 for my site address.)

*All banned rebels*, please start posting on my site immediately, on the page "Banned". (Give links to what you are commenting on, if anything). Everybody will know where to find you.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Maybe I shouldn't blow his cover--or maybe everybody already knows, but isn't saying--but it seems to me that Juste Retour is myaskovsky2002.


----------



## Art Rock

I thought that was pretty obvious as well.


----------



## Rangstrom

How brave. Image the courage it takes to formant dissent and rude behavior on this board. I'm sure they'll all go done in history as martyrs.

I, timid soul that I am, support on topic respectful and intelligent discourse. There are plenty on other places for the childish (oops, I meant heroic) garbage elsewhere. The moderators have a tough job and they are handling it well.

If Retour isn't the boorish ex-member, he certainly has the inane and content-void style down pat.


----------



## Juste Retour

I couldn't agree more. Freedom is garbage. The bill of Rights was written on used toilet paper. Such is why decent folk hold their noses when you say the word Freedom. You know what else happens when you say the word "Freedom"? Terrorists attack us. 9/11 would not have occured if America was a dictatorship like all sensible countries. If you don't want trafedy like that to happen again there is an easy solution: ban the internet. Iran and China do not allow free disccussion on the internet. Not even off the internet. Terrorists do not attack China and Iran. QED.

Attack on posting style is against the rules of this board though. Just sayin'



> "If Retour isn't the boorish ex-member, he certainly has the inane and content-void style down pat."


----------



## Serge

Oh common, please, America got attacked because it pushes its f-word agenda (which is, essentially, material gain) far beyond it’s f-word borders and then acts as if it’s a f-word St. Mary’s virgin daughter. What other countries do that nowadays for Christ sakes?

Besides, it has already been stated that freedom of speech is not a prerequisite on this board as it is private (as in belongs to someone).


----------



## Ukko

jhar26 said:


> If it's Aramis you're referring to - he was banned at his own request.


Yes he was. I used circumlocution in my post hoping to avoid arousing ire (from members as well as mods). Regarding Aramis, I thought I detected chaffing-at-the-bit, and choose to believe that was caused by what he felt to be stifling restrictions from the mods application of the rules. I further choose to believe that those rules are sufficiently open to interpretation to permit less molly-coddling of the thin-skinned among us.

I could, of course, be wrong; I am familiar with that phenomenon.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Hilltroll72 said:


> Yes he was. I used circumlocution in my post hoping to avoid arousing ire (from members as well as mods). Regarding Aramis, I thought I detected chaffing-at-the-bit, and choose to believe that was caused by what he felt to be stifling restrictions from the mods application of the rules. I further choose to believe that those rules are sufficiently open to interpretation to permit less molly-coddling of the thin-skinned among us.


Like I said previously, it seemed clear to me that Aramis left because he felt frustrated at being hemmed in by what he saw as a surfeit of prissy rules about "good behaviour".

I can't say that I blame him. All the big classical music forums have similar rules about good behaviour even if the actual words to describe those rules may be different. It's the way the rules are actually interpreted that matters and which varies a lot from forum to forum.

It's my reckoning that the rules on T-C were once given a far more lenient interpretation than they are now. But over recent weeks it seems that a few thin-skinned characters have put pressure on the Mods to tighten up, and this request has been granted. The result is that a lot of members have either left or in some cases been banned.

We hear a lot about this being Frederik Magle's site, and that the Mods are only executing his wishes. That might be true, but it's a pity the Owner shows no apparent interest in the place judging from his extremely rare appearances.


----------



## Krummhorn

Andy Loochazee said:


> . . . It's my reckoning that the rules on T-C were once given a far more lenient interpretation than they are now. But over recent weeks it seems that a few thin-skinned characters have put pressure on the Mods to tighten up, and this request has been granted. The result is that a lot of members have either left or in some cases been banned.


Couldn't be farther from the truth ... in actuality, as stated before, the forum rules have always been in place and have not changed ... Each and every member is handled the same when and if warnings/infractions are issued FOR violation of the existing forum rules.

There is a certain protocol that the forum staff follows and no 'favorites' or 'personal vendettas' are ever involved. When the member accumulates enough infraction points, THEY ... repeat THEY, get THEMSELVES banned.

Nobody, but nobody is pressuring use to take punitive action on anyone here. So, no "request" as you say, was granted ... it never has been, isn't presently and never will be.


----------



## Krummhorn

Andy Loochazee said:


> . . . We hear a lot about this being Frederik Magle's site, and that the Mods are only executing his wishes. That might be true, but it's a pity the Owner shows no apparent interest in the place judging from his extremely rare appearances.


It's called making a living, and paying the bills ... including funding this forum, which costs a bundle from what I understand ...


----------



## mamascarlatti

Fsharpmajor said:


> Maybe I shouldn't blow his cover--or maybe everybody already knows, but isn't saying--but it seems to me that Juste Retour is myaskovsky2002.


OMG. myaskovsky2002 went to English school and learned English word order, a rich array of idiomatic vocabulary and the use of complex relative phrases, all in the space of about 6 weeks. I don't think so.


----------



## Aksel

mamascarlatti said:


> OMG. myaskovsky2002 went to English school and learned English word order, a rich array of idiomatic vocabulary and the use of complex relative phrases, all in the space of about 6 weeks. I don't think so.


That was what I though initially as well. But then I thought about the English thing and figured it might be Saul. But I don't think even he would stoop as low as calling himself a great composer. So at least I'm at a loss here.


----------



## Nix

Aksel said:


> That was what I though initially as well. But then I thought about the English thing and figured it might be Saul. But I don't think even he would stoop as low as calling himself a great composer. So at least I'm at a loss here.


I thought Saul was Gurthbrains...


----------



## Aksel

Nix said:


> I thought Saul was Gurthbrains...


I don't really see Saul playing 20 questions. Or being from South Africa.


----------



## Il Seraglio

Was Myaskovsky the one who posted those really bizarre and random threads ('music for sex', etc) in the main forum (or am I thinking of somebody else with an East European username)? Why was he banned? I liked him.


----------



## Aksel

Il Seraglio said:


> Was Myaskovsky the one who posted those really bizarre and random threads ('music for sex', etc) in the main forum (or am I thinking of somebody else with an East European username)? Why was he banned? I liked him.


Yes, he was. But I have also forgotten why he was banned.
I kinda miss him. He did have his moments.


----------



## Pieck

Il Seraglio said:


> Was Myaskovsky the one who posted those really bizarre and random threads ('music for sex', etc) in the main forum (or am I thinking of somebody else with an East European username)? Why was he banned? I liked him.


I think he cursed Almaviva (not sure) in spanish. Sometimes he was OK sometimes not


----------

