This forum kind of sucks these days

[Tarvark]

All info regarding Fake Edge can be found here:
http://forum.interference.com/t99316.html

And some of jick's threads are here:
http://forum.interference.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=106043
and here:
http://forum.interference.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=122681

It should give you a nice indication of his posting style and people's reactions to it.

I was just reading through those threads and unless there was something I am missing, arnt those the discussion based wonder threads alot of people seem to crave? And why are people who want them now not even replying seriously to his post but blowing it off and making fun of it?

 

[Cassis]

omg omg omg!


PEOPLE!

the abbreviatioanaiontoan game got EVEN MORE RETARD!

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

If you all want serious discussion, just go back and dig up 90% of my threads. Start with 'Radiohead's Biggest Weakness' That should satisfy your need for analysis and discussion.

I remember that thread. it attracted the radiohead apologists (well maybe 1 or 2 of them and some of their alters) like flies...


As to this forum, part of the problem is simply that its summer now, and a few other forums I visit are in the same lethargic state, with little new discussion and reduced traffic, so things will pick up again soon enough I expect.

Apart from this seasonal drought, however, we have the various "camps" who are never going to alter their viewpoints due to past arguments and mud-slinging, and like with most other forums this is not going to change...what will reduce the impact of this priblem is new U2 news, new album discussion to divert from old rivalries among the members here becoming the focus of "discussion."


Lastly, I agree with whoever said that some (not all) mods sympathise with certain poster's viewpoints on U2 and let things slide while penalising others..I don't agree that "Pop sucks" but that album'a keenest defenders do get a bit more leeway here I feel.

 

[corianderstem]

For pete's sake, can we lay off the game threads? We get it - you don't like them. Calling people who play them "dumbfucks" and calling the games "retard" (sic) is not helping your cause, or this thread.

It is, however, giving a shining insight into your character.

 

[starvinmarvin]

I am relatively new to this board, so Jick is only a legendary name from the past that I have only heard and not experienced (some people apparently think I'm Jick, which I find very amusing). I just finished reading a couple of his old threads, and I couldn't believe what I saw. There is no doubt that Jick was "stirring the pot," as it were, but the responses to his statements were far, far , FAR more outrageous and rude than ANYTHING he posted. I don't know about his other threads, but the 2 that I read showed that he was raising legitamite questions about U2. Instead of simply raising counter-arguments in favor of the band, many people responded nby making the deabte a personal one. There are countless examples of this, if you read the thread. If Jick got banned based on this, then many people here should be ashamed of themslelves. I mean, WTF?

 

[matt76]

I am relatively new to this board, so Jick is only a legendary name from the past that I have only heard and not experienced (some people apparently think I'm Jick, which I find very amusing). I just finished reading a couple of his old threads, and I couldn't believe what I saw. There is no doubt that Jick was "stirring the pot," as it were, but the responses to his statements were far, far , FAR more outrageous and rude than ANYTHING he posted. I don't know about his other threads, but the 2 that I read showed that he was raising legitamite questions about U2. Instead of simply raising counter-arguments in favor of the band, many people responded nby making the deabte a personal one. There are countless examples of this, if you read the thread. If Jick got banned based on this, then many people here should be ashamed of themslelves. I mean, WTF?

Hi Jick!

Jick got banned because a lot of people complained about him, seriously he wound up loads of people. He is an interesting fellow that Jick and was very very articulate, but he was just too strong for a lot of people. Sicy can give you a good explanation if you ask her nicely (as to why he was banned). For me he certainly made this forum very lively!!!

 

[JOFO]

look, I shouldn't even waste my time explaining this but, but ok:

I knew jick's posts for about 4 years. Every one of his threads I read were the same thing: a very long post that was well written out, but in the end the message was the same: POP sucked and U2 should pay for it by constantly knocking them down. This was done by constantly questioning their approach to :
records
album sales
videos
concerts
locations of concerts
etc. etc.
and on and on it went, and it wasn't even just questioning their approach, but knocking it. always. tearing them down. it was beyong annoying. you would think "this guy can't possibly even really like u2; he's on a mission to destroy them". couple that with the fact that his other favorite band was bon jovi and avril lagrene...well...
also, there was never, ever, a positive post from him, along the lines of "I really like miracle drug" or "what a cool bassline in mofo" or whatever. I challenge anyone to show me one.
also, jick would take obvious delight anytime u2 would falter, and even at one point said how much they were benefitting from 9/11.
he also got the number of victims wrong after I corrected him a number of times. to me, either he didn't read my corrections (which is ignorant) or ignored them and kept doing it to push my buttons.
and so on and so on.
if anyone here misses jick, go find him on another site; the moderators here have spoken and that's that. get over it.

 

[starvinmarvin]

I have no doubt that he wound people up, but the issue that I would like to raise is this: is Jick responsible for the reactions that he got out of people. I would argue no. Certain people could have chosen to ignore him, or simply responded to the issues he raised in a civil manner. But they did not. They chose to make the debate personal. From what I see, Jick refrained from any personal attacks of any kind (at least on the 2 threads that I read, that is).

So I guess what it boils down to is that there is a handful of Interference Nazis here who determine what should or sgould not be discussed. They are the "category 4" people I talked about earlier, the kind of people who interpret any criticism of the band as personal attacks on their persons. By all rights, these people should have been banned - and not Jick. They engaged in personal attacks on Jick, and evidently got away with it because they have "seniority" on this board, and because they basically dictate the nature of this board. Considering that fact that there exists a broad range of U2 fans I find it unfortunate that only a certain type of fan with certain tastes is able to post here without getting reprimanded by the thought police.

 

[Sicy]

Well since no one listens to any of the moderators, I'm closing this thread. I think everyone has had a chance to speak their mind on the subject of this thread.

The banning of members is not open to discussion on the public boards. starvinmarvin you think you know so much about jick, but you really dont. We dont take banning people lightly. People are given MANY chances and they are removed for a reason. It is ultimately up to the mods and admins who decide who should be banned.

Any questions send me an email.