TO: Those who are attacking Jarmo about the RS thing

[Danny]

The problem isn't that they don't want us to talk about it, the problem is that they are trying to deny people the human right to free speech. If Merck doesn't want people to talk about his statements, then don't fucking make them. If he has a problem with an article being false or misleading, then approach the source instead of trying to stifle the public (the fans). I'll fucking challenge anyone who'd like to take a swing at my rights. I am an adult who can discuss whatever I very well feel like as long as it's not in a derogatory and/or threatening manner. I don't care if there's a "good reason" why the article shouldn't be discussed, it still does not give anyone the right to say I am not allowed to talk about something I read in a published article. And if HTGTH decides to comply with these ludicrous demands and impose such an insult onto its community, then count me out.

No. ?You are 100% wrong on this. ?Jarmo is NOT denying you your right to free speech. ?Don't fall for that old trick. ?This is like a few years ago when the little tubby bitch from The Dixie Chicks started babbling on about how she hates Bush (or something) and country stations stopped playing their music. ?They started bitching that those stations were denying their free speech. ?Well, in that case (and in this case) that could'nt be further from the truth. ?The term "freedom of speech" refers to a government denying anyone the RIGHT to say what they want. ?Nowhere does it refer to a government giving a forum for that particular right to be practiced. ?This is Jarmo's board and he is exercising his right to free speech by posting whatever the hell he wants on here, and denying whoever the hell or whatever the hell he wants to be posted...for whatever reason he wants. ?If you were to force Jarmo to let you say whatever you wanted about this RS article or whatever, then in reality YOU would be denying HIM his right to free speech. ?You, me, or anyone can say whatever you want about this article. ?You just need to find a place to say it. ?It isn't up to anyone else to provide that to you just because you have something to say.

[Ak1nney]

Maybe there is a code in the internet article that we could bust, some1 get on it.

[polluxlm]

I'm not defendig Jarmo, nor do I wish to critisise him. But I would like the opportunity to question his and managements actions. The issue isn't really that we can't discuss the news, because we can, we just have to be more creative about it or go to any given GN'R site and do it there. I believe the real issue is the fact that most of us don't see any reason for the actions that are being taken. At first sight I doesn't make any sense at all, 'cause obviously when RS post it on their website the ball is pretty much out in the open. But you don't have action without reason, so what is really happening here? I figure we got three probable options:

- The article came out too soon and they're trying to limit the exposure. This one seems irrational to me considering it's available on every other site and the biggest music magazine in the world. But then again, GN'R have proven in the past to be irrational, borderlining on the ridiculos.

- The information in the article is false, or partially false. The album isn't ready yet or the suggested timeline has changed. Limiting the exposure also limits the backlash. This could very well be the case. It's not like this sort of thing hasn't happened before, if you know what I mean.....

- They are acting in an irrational behaviour to keep people guessing and create additional buzz. Being that this is the biggest board out there that is a very effective strategy. Like someone said earlier, by not allowing us to discuss it makes us discuss it exponetionally more. This is the explanation I like to believe, but the question is: Are GN'R and management savy enough to consciously take this route? Well, that is up to each and everyone to decide.

On an end note. Getting to know GN'R through the years, and how they act, my logic actually find it hard to believe that any of the above is the actual case. Either GN'R are too dumb or too smart to go for any of them. So perhaps there is a fourth case scenario. Feel free to speculate.

[Midnight Gunner]

I also wonder if it all wasn't deleted just to rile us up...but either way, what does either party have to gain?

He deletes it, we just go to the other forum.

He deletes it to rile us up, and he has to put up with 65 threads about the same thing and we, like usual, get nothing.

Oh, the games people play. ?

[Danny]

My speculation leads me to think that this is bad news for the album AND the tour.  This sucks, because this will be my 5th GNR show and the 1st time I'll be on the floor (with general admission, no less).

[novemberparadise23]

i have a question was what we saw on rolling stone web page the entire article or just a portion of it ? anyone know?

[Danny]

It looked to me like the whole article.  It's been a while since I read that piece of crap rag, but they have a section called "Rock & Roll" where they sum up current events in the world of music.  It's usually the only thing worth reading in the whole magazine, meaning every issue could easily be only 3 pages long and still have the same value.

[Count Fluffy]

The Internet cannot be censored, but certain websites can be.  That being said, it is easy to find the forbidden information elsewhere.  We let a simple issue of not allowing a particular link and scan on the forums to blow up into a free speech argument or an us vs. the man fight.

If Jarmo has a reason for deleting all the threads that we'd agree with, that's cool.  If he doesn't, it's his forum and I don't know why we're making such a big fuss of it.  I understand that in part it is our forum also because a forum is made up of its members.  Nevertheless, as Jarmo respects the wishes of management even perhaps against his personal choices, so we also should respect Jarmo's actions even if they are not in line with our own beliefs, and not attack him or belittle the forum itself.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but every now and then everyone in the world needs to exercise some restraint.

[novemberparadise23]

o ok thanks danny

[Hatts]

So is this new reading material coming out tomorrow everywhere?  Where should i find i live in Iowa.  Borders of something?




Thanks,
Hatts

[FunkyMonkey]

i have a question was what we saw on rolling stone web page the entire article or just a portion of it ? anyone know?

Not the whole article.  It hits news stands tomorrow.

[oneway23]

I'm not defendig Jarmo, nor do I wish to critisise him. But I would like the opportunity to question his and managements actions. The issue isn't really that we can't discuss the news, because we can, we just have to be more creative about it or go to any given GN'R site and do it there. I believe the real issue is the fact that most of us don't see any reason for the actions that are being taken. At first sight I doesn't make any sense at all, 'cause obviously when RS post it on their website the ball is pretty much out in the open. But you don't have action without reason, so what is really happening here? I figure we got three probable options:

- The article came out too soon and they're trying to limit the exposure. This one seems irrational to me considering it's available on every other site and the biggest music magazine in the world. But then again, GN'R have proven in the past to be irrational, borderlining on the ridiculos.

- The information in the article is false, or partially false. The album isn't ready yet or the suggested timeline has changed. Limiting the exposure also limits the backlash. This could very well be the case. It's not like this sort of thing hasn't happened before, if you know what I mean.....

- They are acting in an irrational behaviour to keep people guessing and create additional buzz. Being that this is the biggest board out there that is a very effective strategy. Like someone said earlier, by not allowing us to discuss it makes us discuss it exponetionally more. This is the explanation I like to believe, but the question is: Are GN'R and management savy enough to consciously take this route? Well, that is up to each and everyone to decide.

On an end note. Getting to know GN'R through the years, and how they act, my logic actually find it hard to believe that any of the above is the actual case. Either GN'R are too dumb or too smart to go for any of them. So perhaps there is a fourth case scenario. Feel free to speculate.

The lack of any authentic response to this nonsense leaves me with the unfortnate impression that I'm staring right into the face of option #2.  If the record isn't released this year, Merck can always contend that he was misquoted, that he attempted to have the article pulled, or that the integrity of the journalist is questionable...Once again, GNR and their obsessive need to control information without revealing a thing on their end creates built-in excuses. 

I do wish we knew more....

[Danny]

The Internet cannot be censored, but certain websites can be. ?That being said, it is easy to find the forbidden information elsewhere. ?We let a simple issue of not allowing a particular link and scan on the forums to blow up into a free speech argument or an us vs. the man fight.

If Jarmo has a reason for deleting all the threads that we'd agree with, that's cool. ?If he doesn't, it's his forum and I don't know why we're making such a big fuss of it. ?I understand that in part it is our forum also because a forum is made up of its members. ?Nevertheless, as Jarmo respects the wishes of management even perhaps against his personal choices, so we also should respect Jarmo's actions even if they are not in line with our own beliefs, and not attack him or belittle the forum itself.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but every now and then everyone in the world needs to exercise some restraint.

Well said. ?And to reiterate my earlier comment, this is NOT a free speech issue. ?It just isn't.

That said, I again think that this whole thing is bad news and the fact that Jarmo didn't let us know that management wanted this pulled for a reason we would be happy with later means that has indeed been done for a reason that's going to upset us in the long run (aka...at the end of the year).

[oneway23]

The Internet cannot be censored, but certain websites can be.  That being said, it is easy to find the forbidden information elsewhere.  We let a simple issue of not allowing a particular link and scan on the forums to blow up into a free speech argument or an us vs. the man fight.

If Jarmo has a reason for deleting all the threads that we'd agree with, that's cool.  If he doesn't, it's his forum and I don't know why we're making such a big fuss of it.  I understand that in part it is our forum also because a forum is made up of its members.  Nevertheless, as Jarmo respects the wishes of management even perhaps against his personal choices, so we also should respect Jarmo's actions even if they are not in line with our own beliefs, and not attack him or belittle the forum itself.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but every now and then everyone in the world needs to exercise some restraint.

Very eloquent and classy post

[oneway23]

The Internet cannot be censored, but certain websites can be.  That being said, it is easy to find the forbidden information elsewhere.  We let a simple issue of not allowing a particular link and scan on the forums to blow up into a free speech argument or an us vs. the man fight.

If Jarmo has a reason for deleting all the threads that we'd agree with, that's cool.  If he doesn't, it's his forum and I don't know why we're making such a big fuss of it.  I understand that in part it is our forum also because a forum is made up of its members.  Nevertheless, as Jarmo respects the wishes of management even perhaps against his personal choices, so we also should respect Jarmo's actions even if they are not in line with our own beliefs, and not attack him or belittle the forum itself.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but every now and then everyone in the world needs to exercise some restraint.

Well said.  And to reiterate my earlier comment, this is NOT a free speech issue.  It just isn't.

That said, I again think that this whole thing is bad news and the fact that Jarmo didn't let us know that management wanted this pulled for a reason we would be happy with later means that has indeed been done for a reason that's going to upset us in the long run (aka...at the end of the year).

Precisely...I haven't seen one post that says "It'll be worth the wait, we assure you." Anything along those lines would go a long way in eliminating a great deal of our worst-case scenario fears here..The mere fact that I see nothing of the sort is a bit unnerving.

[Danny]

We really need to set up some shady off-shore betting pool for stuff like this.

[Bono]

The lack of any authentic response to this nonsense leaves me with the unfortnate impression that I'm staring right into the face of option #2.? If the record isn't released this year, Merck can always contend that he was misquoted, that he attempted to have the article pulled, or that the integrity of the journalist is questionable...Once again, GNR and their obsessive need to control information without revealing a thing on their end creates built-in excuses.?

I do wish we knew more....

I agree 100% oneway23. In my opinion there is no possible circumstance where pulling the article from the lead Gn'R forum can be a good thing. If the article is filled with true information it dimminishes the integrity of this forum even if it's only to a small extent when every other forum out there is  reporting it and if the information is false than we all know what that can mean. Pulling the article does no good whatsoever. Jarmo did what he did and maybe even he disagrees with it. We can't change what's been done. And yes oneway23 I agree with you that it does open up the posibility of having yet again these seemingly built in excuses.

[Booker Floyd]

Chinese Democracy indeed.

[TrixAreForKids]

The Internet cannot be censored, but certain websites can be.? That being said, it is easy to find the forbidden information elsewhere.? We let a simple issue of not allowing a particular link and scan on the forums to blow up into a free speech argument or an us vs. the man fight.

If Jarmo has a reason for deleting all the threads that we'd agree with, that's cool.? If he doesn't, it's his forum and I don't know why we're making such a big fuss of it.? I understand that in part it is our forum also because a forum is made up of its members.? Nevertheless, as Jarmo respects the wishes of management even perhaps against his personal choices, so we also should respect Jarmo's actions even if they are not in line with our own beliefs, and not attack him or belittle the forum itself.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but every now and then everyone in the world needs to exercise some restraint.

What are the reasons? Did I miss a thread where Jarmo explains the censors?

Shit, I thought GnR' were about the opposite.

[FunkyMonkey]

It could be as simple as they agreed not to discuss/advance the article until it drops to the general public.  Nothing more.