My Response to the "Editor"

[manager3]

Well, sorry to disappoint you two, but my mug/identity will be on the site soon enough. That will settle that. You can stop speculating. I am definately not Joe, he is definatley NOT me.

Love letter to Joe, huh PugUgly? Again an ad hominem attack. What does that have to do with anything? Really?

Incidentally, I can be equally critical of Joe and how he sometimes brings in ad hominem attacks on users. Like the one with LucyLu yesterday. I have had to edit Joe at great length before. And editting Joe is a tedious task...you all have read his posts. They get lenghty. But he tends to learn what is acceptable and what is not, unlike others who dish the same thing over and over dispite our attempts to show them what is acceptable and what is not.

Joe is definately not innocent when it comes to inflammatory posts, but he will at least offer something of value...his experience. All I am getting from INTERComm99 and PugUgly are attacks on Joe and now me. I don't see any posts of value from these two at the moment. Even LucyLu, as much as she will rib on Joe, she offers a point of view when she posts.

We'll see if the tides turn...My posts have been an attempt to turn on the light for those who feel they are in the dark when it comes to inflammatory posts versus what constitutes someone offering legit criticisms. It is apparent the two I am trying to reach are not on the same page.

If anyone has further questions about this issue, feel free to contact me via the Contact Us link...Your comments are welcome and appreciated.

Managing Board Editor

 

[manager3]

I dont think you can pretend that Varulven is not being cut a lot of breaks I said if his resume is believed then he's a public figure and criticizing him should be allowed like you allow him to do to others everytime he posts something.Im not comfortable with him keeping track of how many posts I make. You are letting him set the rules and if he is the public figure in Europe or wherever he is open to ridicule too not that I want to but you protect him and lecture the rest for the same things he keeps doing. So Ill ask again does he have a stake in the board some way?.

TowerBuzz, I have had to edit Joe at great length in the past. maybe you have not had the opportunity to see that. But if you go through his many posts you will find many edits. You must understand, Joe is a writer. He knows how to use the English language to his benefit. What you deem as being given "breaks" is actually just him using the English language to express himself without breaking our rules. He is open to criticism, but you can't just criticize him for being critical! Criticize him on his works as a public figure. You can't criticize him properly just by blasting him for comments he has made that you may disagree with. You can debate with him in such an instance, and he has every right to question your authenticity until he feels you have proven yourself to not be a troll. Your criticism must have substance...you can't just say "Joe your an idiot because you think Neanderpaul isn't talented". That is an attack. If you say, "Joe, your opinion of Neanderpaul is unwarranted because I have heard him personally and I appreciate his interview style with various artists. He has a way of making them comfortable and made me feel like they were my friend too." There you have constructively debated with Joe on Neanderpaul's experience as a jock. (sidenote: Paul, I am using you as an example because you have been at the forefront. I am not trying to stir up anything. It just seemed like a relevant example).

TowerBuzz, I hope this make more sense. Joe is not being cut any breaks, he just knows how to argue without being inflammatory (most of the time). It is a skill to learn. And no, Joe has no stake in Radio-Info. I suggest you read the Doug Fleming page for more information.


Managing Board Editor

 

[TowerBuzz]

Because you say you are not giving him any breaks does not mean it is true. While I dont want to attack you I went to college too and Im familliar with use of the english language to express yourself versus an attack. I dont care if he insults me since he's given his resume a bunch ive seen it and his opinion f me does not much matter to me. I only want fair enforcement and I feel you side with him a lot or if you dont side with him he is given a longer rope than others and that frustrates peole. In the little time I have been posting its been pretty unbalanced. Please dont be angry I dont think you are being honest with yourself.

 

[manager3]

Because you say you are not giving him any breaks does not mean it is true. While I dont want to attack you I went to college too and Im familliar with use of the english language to express yourself versus an attack. I dont care if he insults me since he's given his resume a bunch ive seen it and his opinion f me does not much matter to me. I only want fair enforcement and I feel you side with him a lot or if you dont side with him he is given a longer rope than others and that frustrates peole. In the little time I have been posting its been pretty unbalanced. Please dont be angry I dont think you are being honest with yourself.

If you mean because he has more history here than you do, then yes, I would agree he gets more consideration. I know more about him. His identity is real, not just a screen name. He is open to more scrutiny because of it, and as such maybe gets more slack because he has credibility. (which I mean is a verifiable person...) Otherwise, with screennames, we are dealing with virtual personalities. I have no idea who PugUgly is or INTERComm99 and all I really know about them is the don't like Joe. I know nothing about ANY experience they have in radio, or if they are just John Doe on the street who's favorite jock got dissed, so they want to "defend" him.

I understand the reason for anonymity, but if you truely are legit, then this really is a non-issue to you because you will bring your own stories/opinions to the board with a professional demeanor. And Joe's posts won't even be a factor. To be overly concerned about Joe sends a signal to me that there is more to this than meets the eye. The regular user/poster isn't concerned with Joe's posts. You will see that there are many topics with many other users on this Boston Board that breeze right by and don't care (or if they do, they don't vent here) People who have a motive for being here other than discussing Radio always bring up Joe's posts and make a point to single him out.

There are about three people that gang up on Joe. I have given THEM alot of slack by not banning them. When Joe posts, he has history in it. He tells a story. These guys only flame. I have warned Joe, and he does a decent job of following the rules. Does he always, no. But neither do the flamers like INTERComm99 and PugUgly. If you can find me posts by INTERComm99 in the last 30 days that had nothing to do with flaming Joe, I'd be surprized. I'll even check myself and report my findings. I thought PugUgly had posted substance too, and I will check on that as well.

The point being....why are you so worried about him? You should be worried about yourself. If you can say you haven't broken any rules, then you are good to go. No problem. We don't edit opinions we edit beligerance, inflammatory posts etc. Your opinion of Boston Radio is welcome here, and feel free to use the other boards too! If you are going to argue with Joe, make sure you use that education you spoke of. I can give you a real life example of someone who can debate with Joe and not lose his cool: RacoonRadio.

If you think Joe, or anyone for that matter, has violated a rule, use the Report to Moderator link. We will review it. As I said, I have editted Joe plenty of times, he is not without fault. This discussion is about adding content to a post, and not just post an attack because there is an axe to grind, or there is disagreement.

I hope to see you contribute alot and hope you are enjoying Radio-Info. We do appreciate your participation.


Managing Board Editor

 

[TowerBuzz]

Posting your real name doesnt mean credibility. If it is important to you then you should make it mandatory instead of this being an annonymous forum. Since it is an annonymous forum you cant say that someone has more credibility because they choose to post their real identity in an anonymous forum. It should not be a detrimental thing because we choose anonimity in a form that is based on it. I'll answer your question Im not overly concerned with Joe, he began this telling me I have no credibility becasue I had only posted ten times and then keeping a running tally on how many times I have posted. That is a form of intimidation it didnt scare me away but I didnt like it. But you're right I said before I want to talk about radio not swift Boats and cable access.

 

[manager3]

Posting your real name doesnt mean credibility. If it is important to you then you should make it mandatory instead of this being an annonymous forum. Since it is an annonymous forum you cant say that someone has more credibility because they choose to post their real identity in an anonymous forum. It should not be a detrimental thing because we choose anonimity in a form that is based on it. I'll answer your question Im not overly concerned with Joe, he began this telling me I have no credibility becasue I had only posted ten times and then keeping a running tally on how many times I have posted. That is a form of intimidation it didnt scare me away but I didnt like it. But you're right I said before I want to talk about radio not swift Boats and cable access.

I think you are misunderstanding or taking this to an extreme. There are a several anonymous posters, who through their posts have demonstrated their credibilty. And I think that is what Joe meant too. He didn't mean that just because you have 10 posts your opinion is worthless. He just meant that he's taking a "wait and see" attitude to see if you are legit. I know it's a bit confusing to understand...let me se if I can explain it better. Because there are/were only a handful of posts from you, other users cannot go back and read what else you have had to say on anything. So, like any new person to a community, you are welcome, but most people haven't made up their mind about you. Are you pro this or anti that, etc. They want to see where you stand on certain issues. Once people get a feel for you, and see that you don't just come to troll and start arguements (as a few others do), then you start to gain "credibility" amongst the community. You have to translate your real world credibilty to the message board community. There are others who choose to announce their identity...and as such we know who they really are, and most of the time are viewed as a credible poster. I hope this is making sense.

There have been several people who's sole purpose was to attack Joe. That is why he questioned your credibilty vs number of posts.


Managing Board Editor

 

[Eli Polonsky]

I'll answer your question Im not overly concerned with Joe, he began this telling me I have no credibility becasue I had only posted ten times and then keeping a running tally on how many times I have posted. That is a form of intimidation it didnt scare me away but I didnt like it. But you're right I said before I want to talk about radio not swift Boats and cable access.

Anyone can see the number of times users have posted right under their "handles" on the left side. I personally don't feel that the number of posts someone has is really an issue. If the amount of posts someone has (or you have) doesn't matter to you, then why do you care if it matters to someone else? It's the content of what they have posted, regardless of the number of posts. And, if someone brings up content or topics that you feel are irrelevent, why even respond? If the subjects are not of concern to you, just scroll by and go to a different thread, or start a different one about a radio subject you want to discuss. It is true that a number of people here tend to bring up the same subjects or grind the same axes in almost any thread, but that doesn't mean that you have to be drawn into it, thereby perpetuating it. If it doesn't pertain to what you want to talk about, scroll by, and keep the conversation on the track you want with your next post.

 

[Erie_Lackawanna]

seems to me that this "managing editor" is spending far too much time in defense of he who must not be named.

and the length of the responses most "definately" add creedence to the suggested one-same thought.

creedence, by the way - great band with a much deeper catalogue than classic or oldies radio gives them credit for... did they ever play the Paradise? (or Fogarty by himself?)

 

[weee]

OK ENOUGH! JEEZUS!

INtercom....Shut up and knock it off.

Managing Board Editor...stop going back and forth wtih them, if they dont believe you are not Joe, no matter how many times you post and what you say they will still believe it, so please just ban them.

 

[INTERcom99]

Pound sand Weee. Like Paul Marshall and others, I actually work in the business. This will also be my last post because this board is run by Joe V. and Paul Y. who have access to our IP information. Which is like giving building schematics to Al Qaeda. Anyone who works in the business would be foolish to post on this board every again. Enjoy your echo chamber.

OK ENOUGH! JEEZUS!

INtercom....Shut up and knock it off.

Managing Board Editor...stop going back and forth wtih them, if they dont believe you are not Joe, no matter how many times you post and what you say they will still believe it, so please just ban them.

 

[weee]

I guess yer the one pounding sand, eh?

 

[Varulven]

Eli, the amount of posts do matter - for one simple reason. This board was threatened by the one who was banned, someone who (in my opinion) has obsessive compulsive disorder. God knows he has mailed me offlist so many times when I told him not to (and then in this forum he writes that it is the other way around).

When the person was banned he said he had 5 more handles, thus when we see "6" posts, and the person offers nothing of substance, just a slam at Paul or myself (all critics of WRKO, myself being a critic of WBCN as well), or slamming the moderator - it's easy for Perry Mason to deduce that the odds are the banned one is back:

Erie_Lackawanna Posts: 6

"Erie"'s content and his/her few posts reveal that. Notice how anyone who people who agree with me are accused of being me. Look at the writing style of the mod and look at my writing style...guess I'm asking a bit much from the ones with "few" posts since they can't write, let alone be honest or courageous. Then again,
if they've been banned how can they ever possibly "reveal" themselves? So if they have few posts, no content other than to harass us, chances are they are one of the "5" handles this room was threatened with.

As for Intercomm99, that's a no brainer, we know what Entercom pays (next to nothing) and we understand they don't want to add anything to the conversation here. The job was to stop Casablance's interesting posts and then stop mine. Also keep in mind "Intercomm99" has "threatened" not to post anymore before, as if that would be punishment. As I've stated before, he/she is free to go to the competition's board where there are 5 people posting - Joe Gallant, Steve West and a couple of people from here. They WON'T go to Brand X because their only reason is to follow me around to cause trouble.

Pug Ugly, with information and writing style much like Johnny Angel, who has written me offlist that he reads this board, is in the business as well. Indeed, my Billboard Commentary in 1983 came back in The Boston Phoenix under Johnny Angel's byline, hilariously plagiarizing my lengthy essay...the sincerist form of flattery.
All due respect to The Boston Phoenix, which has paid me in the past, having the original essay in Billboard Magazine is a bit more prestigious than a watered down version by someone who was furious my band got to open for Lords Of The New Church in Paradise instead of his Blackjacks. Still carrying a grudge, Pug? New name: Pug Grudgely! Anyway, I did book The Blackjacks into Faces Nightclub in Cambridge in 1986. The "F" words coming from the stage had a co-owner of the club say to me "I ought to punch you out! for putting such filth into my club." I walked by him and said "Punch me; I'll own this club."

There was another sincere form of flattery when Pug Ugly's girlfriend at the time attempted to "interview" me in New York while I was there on business and staying overnight at her apartment. Discretion being the better part of valor I won't go there except to say I politely said NO.

So for standing up for Pug Grudgely's right to sing the F word onstage, and for responding to his girlfriend's questions like "You're not really gay, are you?" He has thrown more than a few zingers at me on this board. Oh well...so much for honor and integrity.

Ya think Pug Ugly would cut me some slack for being such a gentleman...oh well. And this critic actually gave him the 2 bucks for his "Thrills" single way back when!

Now this is fun radio stuff about these anonymous posters that Stephanie Miller would Looooove to air!

 

[weee]

I love Momma!

 

[weee]

Joe, I need your help/advice, can you PM me?

 

[Varulven]

Weee, I won't "PM" in here. You can write to my name @yahoo.com or [email protected]

As for who the moderator is, I never knew Douglas Fleming other than a few e mails a few years ago.

FAQs

Q: Who are the Moderators?

A: The moderators are Doug's friends, radio industry professionals, radio listeners, hobbyists, and students of broadcasting. Their main goal is to ensure an unbiased and natural flow of ideas and dialogue, while making sure all participants are following the site rules.

--------------------
Also, I never use the word "ensure", because it sounds like a liquid vitamin supplement. You'll find me using
"insure", despite the insurance connotations:

DICTIONARY.COM:
What is the difference between insure and ensure, and also, assure?

Basically, insure, ensure, and assure mean to make a person or thing more sure. Insure should be restricted to providing or obtaining insurance to indemnify or guarantee someone or something against a loss. Ensure can be used in all other senses, especially 'to make certain'. Ensure can also imply a guarantee. Then there is a third word, assure, which means to make a promise or convince.

 

[weee]

ok

 

[Big_Bunny]

While I don't disagree with the moderator on all of their/his/her actions, it's clear that there seems to be a difference between how this board is being promoted and how the content of the topics is being handled.

Pointing out with one hand, "Let's all quit the personal attacks and have professional discussions about radio," then using the other hand to call attention to unsubstantiated scrolling banners proclaiming *rumors* about various personalities, shows, stations, and the like.  80% of the content of all of the boards on this site isn't much more than a gossip column; there are posts here and there that discuss technical and business aspects of radio, but they are clearly a minority.  If you folks would simply set a standard and live by it there maybe wouldn't be so much angst.  I am a member on several other forums and mailing lists pertaining to my professional career (no surprise that it's not radio), and threads that start or degenerate into opinion, rather than fact, and name calling, rather than discussion, are not tolerated in any form.

There is much talk about voicing opinions, which requires zero experience or expertise in the subject matter.  Then, just as quickly a poster's credibility is being reviewed and evaluated vice the number of posts they have made.  If voicing your opinion is A-OK, hell, even seemingly the *purpose* of these forums, then why is calling into question someone's motives and history OK on one hand, but not in other cases?

 

[Lucylu]

FAQs


Q: Do Moderators participate in message board discussions?

A: No. The moderators are not participants. This ensures an unbiased, natural flow of conversation.

 

[Runrigger]

FAQs


Q: Do Moderators participate in message board discussions?

A: No. The moderators are not participants. This ensures an unbiased, natural flow of conversation.

You got this one right & even though I don't usually get involved in controversy, it points to why Joe is not the moderator. Old wounds are what cause problems & everyone has them, but they need to be put to rest. That goes for anyone. Radio people don't need radio boards to talk radio or gossip about the business. If that were the case, the All Access boards would have been more widely used years ago. I'm not into posting criticism too much, but if those who do keep it professional & those who respond do the same, things will be as they should.

Oh & by the way, if there were a prize involved in the "guess the moderator" contest I'd say you're all half-correct. His name may be Joe. Since there's no prize involved, pretend I never guessed.

 

[odomski]

The moderators DO participate in discussions. This thread is a perfect example of that. They are breaking their own rules. But it's OK for them to do that...but god forbid if we go one step out of line.