|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: That is what it appears other members did to him -- the abuse votes were not entered because he broke CP rules, they were entered because the "voters" disagreed with his politics.
Couldn't agree more! 
|
|
|
|
|
I belive my opinions should be well known by now, and I could probably just say that Bassam and Mark Wallace covers well what I feel and think.
But I would still like to ask if the rules are supposed to be strictly implemented or are they rather more intended to be a guideline.
As a followup question, are we really supposed to report every message that doesn't follow the rules as we interpret them, or would you prefer that we just tell people to bring it to the soapbox instead and bring out the heavy artillery for repeat offenders that simply don't care.
And should it really be enough to kill a post if just one person decides that they feel offended whether real or imagined.
On a personal note, opinions seldom offend me, but abusing the system does.
And removing someones post on just the basis that you disagree, is really offensive to me.
Asking someone drop it and move it somewhere else is not.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: I would still like to ask if the rules are supposed to be strictly implemented or are they rather more intended to be a guideline
The only rule I ask everyone to stick to diligently is the rule of common sense. It's usually obvious when someone is just mentioning something without intent to make a big deal about it and when someone is just looking for attention and stirring the pot just for the sake of it.
Jörgen Andersson wrote: As a followup question, are we really supposed to report every message that doesn't follow the rules as we interpret them, or would you prefer that we just tell people to bring it to the soapbox instead and bring out the heavy artillery for repeat offenders that simply don't care
That's pretty much how it works now, and it seems to work well.
Jörgen Andersson wrote: And should it really be enough to kill a post if just one person decides that they feel offended whether real or imagined
That's the tricky bit. Yes if it's a spammer. No if it's a person venting frustration. If only I could write code that could tell the two apart (though our spam blocker is getting better and better)
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with common sense is that it isn't that common.
It's mostly culturally determined.
|
|
|
|
|
I think his signature is like a bumper sticker - It's a way of sticking his point of view in someone's face that they can't do anything about it.
Bumper stickers are allowed on private vehicles, but if you don't own the vehicle, you probably shouldn't put your own stickers on it.
I say that he doesn't own this vehicle, and so should abide by the wishes of the owner - Code Project ownership and staff.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
I think your analogy shoots itself in the foot -- which is a shame, because I like it.
If a message were a car, it would be owned by the poster; CP would be the road network.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Just kick him man. Just just kick him. Such a attitude should be severely dealt with. Even he has removed his signature, the current one points to the image that is also objectionable.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: objectionable
 I actually found the new link offensive. Now where is that "shrug" emoticon 
|
|
|
|
|
Its supposed to be funny, seeing it is aimed at the univoters.
|
|
|
|
|
I did get that ... which is why I didn't report it and shrugged off the (only slightly) offensive nature of the image
It actually made me laugh out loud at the implied message to the univoters 
And at the end of the day ... it was my own choice to follow the link!
|
|
|
|
|
At least someone sees the humour!
|
|
|
|
|
Rohan Leuva wrote: Such a attitude should be severely dealt with.
Good job you weren't around to see CP in the old days then.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: you weren't around to see CP in the old days then.
So you still believe that something that was considered valid in past days should also be considered valid these days? Why? You or me not there to decide what is right and wrong. Its community. Community always runs on majority concensus.
Chris,even if he is Admin and owner of this place, respects the community and as a result,this thread has been started.Further, i don't know why you have problem having decent sign? Why not a single effort to win all's heart and ofcourse make Admins happy? Try it and there are still chance that you will be able to see the beauty of CP.
|
|
|
|
|
I was just saying that in the old days CP was much rowdier than it is today, and that if you found my sig so shocking then if yo9u were here in 2006/2007 you would have been mortified!
Rohan Leuva wrote: Community always runs on majority concensus
And the majority concenss is that my sig is perfectly valid thus you have to go along with that.
Rohan Leuva wrote: Chris,even if he is Admin and owner of this place
He is, but also has to follow the rules of the members, because without members, there is no CP.
Rohan Leuva wrote: Why not a single effort to win all's heart
Because some people, like me, aren't interested in 'winning hearts'. We are interested in challenging the system, pushing boundaries, upsetting apple carts. Its my generation, the generation that gave the world the sex pistols and punk rock. Its just the way we are, ok?
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: We are interested in challenging the system
Don't try this on Codeproject.
Munchies_Matt wrote: Its my generation, the generation that gave the world the sex pistols and punk rock. Its just the way we are
You should better be at home than a CP and keep your generation with you. Push boundaries at home.
|
|
|
|
|
We got rid of disco didn't we?
(and prog rock).
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, what's wrong with prog rock. I'm not saying punk was bad, I have plenty of punk in my collection.
Prog rock is still going too. Yes has just released a new album and Rush (not as big in the UK, but icons in Canada) a couple of years back. The Moody Blues toured recently ....
Disco on the other hand. 
Ya young whippersnapper!
|
|
|
|
|
Oh come on, Genesis, all that other pretentious garbage? Punk was pure, fresh, honest! Thank god it came along when it did, it blew all the old crap away overnight!
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: pretentious garbage
Oh, you mean something with more than 3 simple triad chords? The kind of thing a 10 year old could play? Gotcha, I'm right with you man, like Beethoven was only in it for the money and Bach was just a religious nut .. and Mozart: "A Little Night Music", "A Musical Joke" - what's up with that? And jazz, jazz, just a load of drugged up ponces, right?
Hey who needs 3 chords, two power chords is enough for anyone?
< / SatiricalRant>
Now, as stated previously, I have some Punk in my collection, I also have quite a bit of Buddy Holly (also fresh and musically naïve). I was never a fan of Genesis, especially under Phil Collins' leadership.
To say that Punk killed Progressive Rock is so wide of the mark. Why?: 1) It's not dead, 2) It's actually very difficult to define: Is Pink Floyd Progressive Rock, how about Led Zeppelin? (answer: it depends on your definition and who you ask) 3) Progressive Rock was not a fashion and, for the most part, was not aimed at being popular. How many top ten hits could be labelled prog rock? How many groups could really be called Progressive Rocks bands? Punk was not only a fashion, although it was fashionable and enjoyed (suffered from) being trendy. There were lots of hits and lots of bands. Popularity has never been a good measure of quality and there were plenty of low quality (and pretentious) punks.
Matt, do you even know what a 2nd or a 4th chord is? How about a 9th (a lot of guitarists don't even really know and get it mixed up with a 2nd!). How about differences between a major key and it's relative minor? Can you answer "What is Dorian Mode" or "When is a good time to use an augmented chord?"
If you can, then you know more about music than most and your comment was just trolling!
|
|
|
|
|
Zeppelin were finished before punk came along. I am talking about all that late 70s prog rock crap like emerson lake and palmer. God it was pretentious drivel.
All I need to know about guitar is how to play Whole lot of Rosie b ACDC, or stairway to heaven.
(Yes, I could tell you about dorian, phrigian, mixalodian and all that crap. But I am sure its only used by pretentious prog rock artists! )
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly not by a punk band! 
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
Or even a good old British Rock band!
|
|
|
|
|
How about the Who? Townsend's work is full of 2nds and 4ths! Yes? Led Zeppelin? Queen - they were music students? Coldplay?
There's plenty of "popular" music that uses more than the 3 "standard" chords. It may be true that they don't write music by scoring a stave, but then I doubt Beethoven did. I'd also suggest that most established guitarists could transpose a work written in a major key to a minor key. Many modern songwriters use Dorian and Aeolian modes regularly. They may not even think in those terms, but they definitely make conscious choices about using, say, D & E major or minor when writing a song in Am.
Kids making a group might not know the theory of music and composition, but their ears lead them to make choices. They probably start of by moving existing chord shapes around to different positions or changing one note of a chord (either by accident or as an experiment), but I can virtually guarantee that they move on from your basic 3 chords pretty quickly.
I agree that pretentiousness can creep in. I call it "Emperor's New Clothes" art, whether it's a potato sack in the Tate or someone chucking an augmented 4th into a piece of music (unless maybe it's a music score for a movie, used to indicate a threat), I don't get it. Maybe I'm a Philistine (pun intended!). You mentioned Stairway, it starts with an AmM9th - now there's a weird chord! Musical sophistication doesn't have to be pretentious.
Finally, I don't believe that Punk started out trying to eradicate "pretentious prog rock" groups or Disco. The kids in the groups were doing what they wanted using what they knew how to do. The audiences for Progressive Rock and Punk probably had little overlap, except for music geeks like me. I think that the "intellectualisation" of Punk came later, largely from pretentious Punks like Malcolm McLaren.
Final point: Progressive Rock is still about. It isn't mass market, but then it never was. Disco is also still around in a sense (as observed by another poster in this thread), it's just changed it's name. So if the aim of Punk fans was to destroy both, they rather failed!
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, in fact the Who are one of the greatest rock bands, if not the founders of rock and are the group I learnt to cut my teeth on playing guitar, and uniquely, Townsend used a lot of chords, in fact a mind blowing number, played in quick sucession. I cant think of any other mainstream guitarist like him for that.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
