Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room A Decision

I understand what you are saying, Dwain, but can you guess which topic will be their next target? Or which words? Or which thoughts? Is it really worth it to take our time to think something through, read other's comments that they spent time on and try to give a thoughtful reply only to find that some parent somewhere has decided he/she does not want their kids learning about maybe Jews, or Moslems, or other religious viewpoints. Or perhaps it is liberal ideas or conservative ideas they don;t want their kids reading. Or perhaps it is the word "gay" when applied to sexuality they don't want their kids to read (unless it includes the thought that gays are all damned to heck). Or perhaps it is....well, who the heck knows?

You are right, Dwain. It is not worth making a federal case out of this. But neither is it worth a lot of time to "test" their limits again, when their limits are so low anyway.

No, and frankly, I don't care. As I said, this website is not a part of the much-vaunted Fourth Estate. It is not Public Access television. It is not the guarantor of our right to free speech. It's a freakin' private website - about pianos - and if the webmaster doesn't want a topic, or topics, on his forum, he has the right to delete - or, to use the dreaded word, censor them. It doesn't matter to me whether it's a pet topic or position of mine, or someone else's. If I want to talk about something, I'll talk about it - here, or on Usenet, or at any one of the sites Brendan mentioned, or God forbid, face to face with a person rather than typing it and posting it to cybereverybodynobody. In short, I'm not afraid of "them" taking away my right to free speech by their alleged complaints and Frank's actions while overseeing this forum. It doesn't even matter if I agree with Frank's decision, or any of the decisions voiced in the dreaded thread (of which I have not read a single line). It's HIS CALL. If my comments aren't appropriate, or wanted, here, I can still speak just as freely, in numerous other venues. And if I don't like it, I can set up my own website and talk about any blather that pops into my head.

BTW Brendan, did you get my email? The dogeared mockingbird sings respectfully at night while the frustrated swordfish obtains unheeded hard drives. 121.5. squawk 7700.

Roger that. I'll send some of my SC to take care of it.

Dwain: AMEN!

Amen to what? That this is Frank's site? I think that this point is undebatable.

I think that what is debatable, is what subjects are proper for this room. Either tell us, in advance, or do away with this feature of the site.

There is too much BST involved in some of these point/counterpoint dialogs, not to mention pathos, insight and revelation to have them relegated to the cyber netherworld.

The Coffee Room makes me think, and I like that. So jump in Barb and give us your views. Whether we agree or not, it might be fun. Or educational. Or a respite from an otherwise boring day.

Barbara,

In case you didn't notice, the subheading under The Coffee Room is "General, non-music, discussions."

The webmaster certainly does have the right to pull any and all topics for whatever reason. However, that does not mean that posters don't have the right to complain. Yes, I did say "right".

While I don't agree with one word George has written, his posts are intelligent and well thought out and have obviously taken him a lot of time to write. I, for one, miss reading posts from the 'other side'. George does have a right to complain as do many others. You, ten days after the last post in this thread, with a whopping 11 posts, have re-opened the wound by tossing in your $.02.

I'm guessing your a uniter, not a divider?

Derick

AMEN

Derick:

And to think I really got upset with all the people who jumped all over you when you first started posting.

I agree with Dwain's opinion that it's Frank site and he can do whatever he wants with it. I also agree that anyone can have an opinion and can voice (write) it.

Yes, I try to be a uniter, not a divider. I do not consider that a character flaw.

I realize I have not posted much. I can't believe I posted only 10 days ago. I have been getting my house ready for marketing, have been travelling 80 miles as often as possible to redecorate our new house, and have spent a great deal of time with my 80+ year-old parents at doctors' and hospital appointments. I'm 57 years old, and I'm tired. So what leisure time I've had has been spent practicing the piano.

I recognized a long time ago that I am not loaded with self-confidence, and my opinions would probably not interest anyone. I am a pretty boring person, and I have enjoyed reading posts on the Piano World because I envy those of you who are very good at verbalizing opinions and provoking thought.

I'm guessing this is my 13th and last post.

Barbara,

I, for one, hope that you change your mind and stay.

nancyww (a pretty boring person who posts anyway)

Nooooo, don't leave us, Barbara. Derick must've been feeling particularly fiesty the day he wrote that post. I like reading what you write, even if it has only been 13 posts. I'm sure others appreciate your contributions too. Jodi (ever the peace maker)

Barbara,

It was not my intent to chip away at your self-confidence. I can see how my earlier response could do that. I am truly sorry.

The comment on the 10-day old post had to do with the date the last post was made in this thread, not the last time you posted. In any event, you are mistaken, your opinions would interest all of us. That was one reason I was annoyed when you expressed your approval for the pulling of that thread.

It bothered me greatly when that thread was pulled. I felt we were having an adult conversation about a very controversial topic without screaming and yelling at each other over ridiculous things. I felt that thread showed the promise of what I had hoped this room would become. Pulling it has, at least for the time being, put quite a damper on this room (IMO).

Larry has just about vanished, as has pique and Penny. Jolly continues with his pithy, very sharp comments, but there is no back and forth. And where is George who "started it all"? I miss those threads and I guess I just got annoyed when you seemed to support pulling the thread. But, I'm very sorry if I made you feel bad - VERY sorry.

Please post and don't worry how you express yourself. I'm no rocket scientist. At least not when it comes to the use of the English language.

Derick

De-lurking with my $.02. (I have a six month old, so I'm not about to explain why I've been MIA for awhile.) ;-)

Are you upset that it seems as if she was supporting pulling THAT particular thread or that she seems to support the webmaster's ability to censor in general? Her one word reply left a little room for interpreting her feelings. I got the sense that she supported the view that the owners of a site have the right to do with it as they wish. I find it really hard to believe Barbara would be squeamish about discussing abortion. I get the impression if she wasn't interested in discussing something or the topic bothered her, she'd just skip it, not complain about it.

I agree with you that just about everyone here has the ability to communicate rationally and maturely on any subject raised, however, I'm going to have to side with Dwain and Barbara on this one. Mainly because of what I've witnessed at other sites. I was a regular poster on a Current Debates board at a parenting site of all places. Any topic under the sun was permissable. The regulars rallied for free speech and told the owners of the site to butt out and let them censor themselves. The forum is unrecognizable now as the inmates are running the asylum. I have no idea where I'll go now to discuss current events and hot topics with educated adults. Perhaps here? I hope so.

I don't mind a little censorship. If I did, I'd just have to carve out a little time to create Lily's Piano World. Fat chance. :-)

Have we discussed the crisis in the Catholic Church yet? I do live in New England and that's about as controversial a topic as you can find around here these days.

Hi,

I was more upset that Barbara seemed to support pulling that particular thread. But censoring by the webmaster is also an issue for me.

I'm going to exaggerate a bit here when I say that the pulling of that thread was what I would consider extreme censorship. There were two posts that I felt crossed the line. If I was the webmaster, I would have deleted those posts and issued a warning.

That said, I don't know what the nature of the complaints were. Perhaps someone complained about the entire topic and not just the two posts. I don't know. All I can do is guess. I wish we knew exactly what was the objection so we could avoid it in the future.

Your point about the "inmates running the asylum" is well taken. I do not want this forum turning into something like that. Which is precisely why I was so glad when we got this room. People here are intelligent and have so much to offer - whether they think so or not.

I'm open to a discussion on the crisis in the Catholic church. You start another thread, I dare ya! Seriously, I think it's an interesting topic.

Derick

I'm here! I just don't have a lot to say about roses, game shows, etc. :rolleyes:

penny

Just as the abortion thread was veering into deeper territory it got pulled, and mine was the last post. I wonder if I was responsible? I hope not. I did think it worthwhile to ask what has happened to LOVE in our society or whether in fact a society without LOVE can really long hope to endure. When I was growing up, in Northern California by the way, fairly near San Francisco, where my mother was born, I can remember feeling proud enough of my country that I could honestly say, even with its faults, that I loved it. I still love my country, but that innocent kind of loving of anything seems either gone or mocked so much as to have been driven underground or away.

I feel the same about music and much else that passes for art. There’s no LOVE in it or any real shade of love; romance, elegance, BEAUTY, purity, sanctity, holiness. Please don’t laugh.

Look at their reverse; the opposite of romance is the hardest to get right. One possibility is that romance has something to do with French culture from the roots of the word itself; a story written in French. Connoisseurs have preferred things French for centuries. Though the French may have invented romance, even today they may have tired of it. As applied to an attachment between two people, a romance or romance itself is “the story of love.” But in our day and age, there is no story at all: it’s all over before it gets started.

Elegance? Some equate it with beauty itself, but it’s more usual to think of it as refined, distinguished, stylish, in good taste, or well made. That which is not elegant is slap-dash, crude, common or vulgar and that’s most of what passes for culture these days.

Ever since we threw out discrimination as the mark of discernment, we have lost the ability to even recognize the better from the average. I am fiercely against political correctness because it ruins everything it touches, destroys greatness and deprives those without it of ever gaining it. It is a lie to think that all and everything everywhere is just as good as everything else. There are real distinctions and they are worthwhile preserving.

The opposite of beauty is ugliness. But it’s not considered PC to call something ugly even when it is be it a painting a building a piece of music or dare we say it a person’s behavior. It’s in the eye of the beholder but some have got to be pretty blind not to recognize it. Ugliness is a physical misfortune for some. That’s why there are plastic surgeons.

Purity, that which is clean. Clean of habit, clean of heart and clean of mind. The opposite is impure, dirty or filthy and that’s what we have for the most part.

Sanctity and holiness? Why nothing is held sacred anymore. Some of us could hold music, certain kinds of it or certain pieces, as sacred. It’s what produces a QUIET and respectful awe. Where do we find any of that nowadays?

Our society is rotten. It is however not without hope of recovery. Perhaps 9/11 was a wake up call. One thing we are told that the Moslems cannot stand about us, not that I really want to curry favor with them because I don’t, but they do say that our culture and our MORALS are repugnant to them. We need to clean up our act as they say. We certainly are not going to do it by being PC when being honest about standards and discipline is what’s required.

Is that enough fat to chew on?

Hi, David:

Wow, you said a lot in that last post! I've read it a few times and agree with most of what you say.

It does appear to me that there's a general lack of substance in our daily lives as a society. I am already anticipating the million and one individual exceptions that people will undoubtedly launch my way, but in general terms I'm concerned about the way our general society seems to be aligning itself.

Extreme obsession with money and possessions have trumped business and personal ethics at even the highest levels. People like David (and me) feel defensive about using words like love, beauty, morals, ethics, character. We are paranoid about the PC police (David, I totally agree with you on that one!).

I worry that we are raising kids who spend more time talking and worrying about whether Brittney and Justin have broken up than about what kind of people they will be when they grow up. The sort of conversations I remember going on at our dinner table as a kid don't occur now, because few families even eat dinner together!

In a recent bout of insomnia, I was up pretty late at night channel-surfing. I was embarrassed by what passes as "entertainment" on late-night TV. Prime examples: "The Man Show," "Girls Gone Wild" advertisements.

I don't believe in much in the way of "big brother" censorship, but I absolutely do believe in self-censorship. It seems that we are losing our ability to self-censor, and yell about having the "right" to do something rather than question whether doing it would actually improve our lives, or unnecessarily hurt someone else. I am blessed to be living in a free society, but I think there's a responsibility inherent in that. Being legally able to do just about anything, or express just about any opinion doesn't mean you ought to do it without thought, and ignore any responsibility you may have for the consequences, whether intended or not.

It is a complicated issue for me, and I apologize for the rambling post; but as I say, David's post really got me to thinking.

Nina

I certainly can't disagree with anything you have said David, but it does raise some issues. I know I'm going to get blasted for this but I'm going to say it anyway. Maybe it will make this room interesting again...

Can it not be said that political correctness, Communism, freedom of speech/expression, etc... are all similar in that, philosophically, they sound good on the surface?

After all, who am I to judge how you live your life? Wouldn't it be nice if those who had more money than they could spend in three lifetimes gave to those who don't know how they will pay for their next meal? Why shouldn't I be able to display my works of art that some call pornographic if someone else can march on Washington protesting abortion?

The problem, I believe, is where do we draw the line? When is too much PC, too much? How much redistribution of wealth can occur before the economy starts to suffer? What exactly is pornographic? Up until what point, if any, is abortion acceptable?

People, I think, are driven to be all or nothing, black or white, right or wrong. It is in our nature to fit everything into a neat little cubby-hole so we can grasp it. PC tries to eliminate this. But at what cost?

As has been said a thousand times, there is no free lunch. For everything gained, something is lost. I'd like to think we have evolved over the centuries, but I have my doubts.

Go back 100 years ago and compare and contrast. For the most part, people are much more tolerant of 'different' (race, religion, country of origin, sexual orientation) then they were back then. A huge step forward IMHO. But today we have pornographic and irreverant art displays (some on tax payer money), underage girls who can get abortions without there parent's consent, school shootings, drugs, the list is endless.

Back then, women didn't work. If they did, they would never work side by side with a man, nor would they be paid the same. Blacks were held back (as were MANY other immigrants). Abortions were done in back alleys and women often died.

Have we progressed, or regressed? I don't know. But I do know that I wouldn't go back in time even if it were possible. Perhaps I've answered my own question?

Derick

i'd go back to the American West of the 1820s. i'd be a mountain man and trapper and have fun at those springtime rendezvous (rendezvouses?) and tell lots of lies around the campfire at night. i think it would be grand. i wouldn't miss civilization one teeny tiny bit.

You wouldn't miss the Grotian? Mountain men DO NOT play grand pianos.

Derick

A totally politically incorrect regression I feel would make a tremendous difference in society today - ban women from the workplace.

That got your attention, didn't it!

Now to be a bit more serious. I DO believe that much of the coarsening of society can be blamed on the absence of the mother in the home. And I believe the absence of that lady within the home can be blamed on two major events of the 60s - The Pill and LBJ's Great Society.

First, the pill. The coming of a reliable, cheap method of birth control gave women complete control of the sexual process and the procreation of the species. For the first time, families could reliably control timing and spacing of children. This in turn led to more women in the workforce and the advent of the two-paycheck family. Americans, being the spoiled brats we are, wanted bigger homes with two car garages and nice cars to fill those spaces. We wanted every latest bauble.

The problem with ever wanting more is the accumulation of debt. But debt did not matter, we had two paychecks. But we must have those two paychecks to pay the debt, not just one. Therefore, instead of a mother leaving the workforce for a while to raise her children, she is forced to return as soon as possible in order to service debt obligations. Somebody else spends much of the time raising her children, daycare, etc.

At the other end of the spectrum we have the women of lower socio-economic means. But The Great Society creates a welfare state, and whether the consequences are intended or not, marginalizes the importance of the father in the home.

Folks, there was a reason for shotgun weddings. The bride's family could not afford to continue to support her and the coming offspring. Therefore, the gentleman responsible for the lady's "delicate condition", had to step up to the plate and assume responsibility for his actions. With the advent of LBJ's programs, the normal patriarchal role in the family was assumed by the government and assured the absence of the father, since his provider role had been usurped. But unless the family stayed on welfare forever, the mother had to return to the workforce, alone. And many single mothers do the best they can for their children, but there is no substitute for two parents.

Now, I do not really advocate banning women from trhe workplace. But there has to be some mechanism in this society that will allow the children the benefit of their mother's influence. Kids do not need "quality time", they need "quantity time", and they need the steadying, moral, influence of their mothers. They need somebody to continually show them right from wrong. Someone to guide them. Someone to explain to them that Southpark is not normal behavior, or that Howard Stern's show is not suitable for them to watch. Someone to teach them religion, manners,responsibility, kindness, common coutersy and all the other little things that oil the machinery of a successful society.

Flamesuit on, do your best! :p :p :p