Page 2 of 2

PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:48 am
by Jonathan E.

Very bad werewolf — or was it an eagle?

(Stolen from, found by searching on "louche". A weird world, isn't it?)

PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:54 am
by Jonathan E.
Oooops! 3 posts in a row!! Consecutive!!! Now 4 !!!! Must be going psycho!!!!!

"They're coming to take me away, ha-ha! They're coming to take me away!"

I'll place a bet any day of the week that Nigel is not the only forum member who remembers that little ditty.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 9:43 am
by Nigel w
All very odd....

Neil found my entry on Wikipedia and posted it here.

I asked him to take it down as it seemed immodest to have it posted on this site. I also pointed out to him that if anybody really wanted to read my bio, the Who's Who entry is more accurate - and then jested that for the juicier bits not included in either, you needed some back issues of Private Eye.

Neil took it down. End of story. For everyone except one particular poster who has now entered NINE increasingly strange messages on the subject. I have now deleted all my contributions to this most peculiar thread.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:38 am
by Jonathan E.
Nigel w wrote:All very odd....

. . .. I have now deleted all my contributions to this most peculiar thread.

No bat, no balls, no stumps. All taken away. It's just not cricket!

And that's the story of Nigel W., boys and girls. Either you play the game his way or there is no game.

I'm glad I saved all the pages with Nigel's posts so I can savour them at my own leisure. All those bits about being louche. Very tasty. The game continues.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 4:13 am
by Jonathan E.
OK, OK, I don't want to be a meany especially today. 'Tis the season of good will 'n' all that.

To be absolutely clear, in general, I have no problem with Nigel's postings etc. Some of them I enjoy. Some of them I agree with. Some of them otherwise. The same as with just about every other member of this forum. He's been friendly to me on occasion. I respect what he does outside the forum. We've got a fair amount in common and I'm sure I'd enjoy sinking a couple of pints with him over an afternoon. That doesn't mean I'd buy every round. Or believe every story he'd tell.

And now we get to the point. As I've said multiple times before, it's a forum. We say something, put something out there, and others get to respond. Maybe they agree, maybe they don't. More importantly, we do not get to dictate to others how they should respond beyond basic manners. We just have to take our lumps and disagreements and that's the thrill of being in the forum. Well, maybe not the thrill, but part of what we have to put up with.

In this particular discussion of this mutated thread, Neil made what I took to be a joke about Nigel being the ultimate connected backroom boy when posting his bio from wikipedia. Now, it cannot possibly be "immodest" for Nigel because he didn't post it, but Nigel followed up with a few points about being mentioned in Private Eye, amusing enough certainly, and also claimed that wikipedia was inaccurate compared to Who's Who. I followed with a jest or two, nothing particularly serious, about Nigel's character as revealed on multiple occasions through his posts in the forum and how it was reflected in this particular thread. It was no more than ribbing. I'll leave it to you to decide for yourselves whether it was over vigorous or merely gentle — but I think it fell between the two.

Certainly, it was far from being extraordinarily out of line and I didn't use personally abusive language, although clearly after a couple of rounds I made a point or two about journalistic practices and accuracy that flatly contradicted what Nigel had said. I think we've seen far worse in the past, and while I don't suppose I'd necessarily love it if the positions were reversed, I hope I would only squirm a little and in a seemly manner. In my opinion, I did no more than play off a few remarks that Nigel himself had made about himself and his modesty or lack of.

That word, "play." Yes, I play. I clown around. I assume personae. It keeps things interesting in my opinion and I expect most forum members are sophisticated enough to see through it to the underlying points I am alluding to. Perhaps it is "bizarre" as Nigel called it in one of his now deleted posts. He has every right to call it so. I mean, shit, I don't really turn into a werewolf at night — it's a game, just one with different rules than cricket.

However, two of the rules I have in my life are not to let other people tell me how to express myself and not to let other people tell me what an "appropriate" point of view is. Being told to "desist" in a PM is just not going to work with me. Being told that Who's Who is more accurate than wikipedia on completely bogus grounds and to bloody well shut up about it isn't going to work either. Having some pointless tally of the number of my posts about something as though that number alone is evidence of anything beyond my joking with the subject at hand doesn't impress me as much of an argument, especially when it comes from a heavy poster.

What does impress me is intelligent discussion of whatever topic is on the table. That includes reading and comprehending the posts of others, not just ignoring the legitimate points you don't like, and not stomping up and down in a tantrum whenever anybody challenges you, makes a joke you don't like, or otherwise steps out of what you think is your party line.

I started by saying I don't want to be a meany — and I don't. But I didn't want to leave my last post up without elaboration because I think it is a little mean as it stands. I hope my elaboration has made my points about this thread and the forum in general at least a bit clearer. I know we're not exactly a democracy but everyone should have the right to say what they think without risk of the big bulls simply pulling weight and status to evade legitimate discussion, especially when they are public figures and thus especially subject to scrutiny.

It just doesn't work to tell people to shut up. The idea of control by dictation and clamp down and disappearance of posts in a forum is even more illusory than in most of life.

I hope you'll all remember that next time somebody tells you to shut up.

Best wishes of the season to all. Tidings of peace and joy. Hoping life treats you all well and that 2009 brings better news than we've mostly had recently.

Peace to Nigel in particular (even if he didn't read this post). I'll buy the first round if that fabled afternoon ever arrives.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:00 pm
by Neil Foxlee
Jonathan said
Neil made what I took to be a joke about Nigel being the ultimate connected backroom boy when posting his bio from wikipedia

Actually, what I was teasing Nigel about was his typos, which I found ironic in view of his impressive CV as a journalist (including a period as literary editor). As somebody who has worked as a sub-editor, copy-editor and proof reader, on the other hand, I was offering a gentle reminder that journalists' copy and authors' manuscripts go through a lot of work by backroom boys and girls before they appear in print.

I assumed that Nigel had posted his own Wikipedia entry, which is why I felt at liberty to post it on the site, but this turns out not to be the case. Anyway, I saw nothing in the entry for Nigel to be ashamed of - on the contrary - and thought that fellow forumistas might be interested to learn of Nigel's distinguished career (and I'm not being ironic).

PostPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:12 pm
by Des
There again, Neil, is it of any interest to know about Nigel's exaltaed status in the world of journalism? I mean, this is just a music forum - we're not interviewing Nigel for an editorial position at the New York Times!

I am in the embarrassing position of actually agreeing with Jonathan (sorry Jonathan - it won't happen again mate). It really is irrelevant to know about Nigel's literary talents, and all views expressed on this forum, whether by professionals or punters, are valid.

Happy Christmas to all forumistas! Onward and upward! Death to the running dogs of capitalism! (have I gone too far with that last one?) and have a fab music-filled New Year y'all!

PostPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 4:39 pm
by Dayna
I think knowing more about people's background is sort of inspiring.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 4:51 pm
by Nigel w
this is just a music forum - we're not interviewing ... for an editorial position at the New York Times!

I am in the embarrassing position of actually agreeing with Jonathan really is irrelevant

And I totally agree with you, Des - that's why I asked Neil to remove my Wikipedia biography from the thread in the first place. As you so rightly say, its catalogue of my past editorial posts and various publications is indeed irrelevant in a democratic forum in which everybody's opinion is of equal worth (even those of us who can't spell!). Jonathan did not appear to agree and posted no fewer than 11 comments on the subject - and in the process, as Alan complained, hijacked a fascinating thread which was talking about far more interesting careers such as those of John Hammond, Ike Turner etc.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:08 pm
by Jonathan E.
Ain't diversity wonderful! May a thousand opinions flourish! May 2009 see the hopes of 2008 fulfilled! May every cricket match Nigel goes to be great! May the beer always be fresh and the wine properly chilled! May the snow that surrounds me here melt within a few days! May typos magically disappear! May editors never screw with a writer's words! May May come as soon as possible!

May you all have a wonderful few days off and get exactly what you want for Christmas!