Censorship (1 Viewer)

What kind of meathead, sets up a Bukowski site and then takes it on his own back to censor posts which boil down to direct quotes Bukowski made himself? This type of arrogant and aggressive meatheadedness was everything Bukowski was against not to mention how an artist feels about censorship in the first place.
 

mjp

Founding member
What kind of meathead, sets up a Bukowski site and then takes it on his own back to censor posts which boil down to direct quotes Bukowski made himself? This type of arrogant and aggressive meatheadedness was everything Bukowski was against not to mention how an artist feels about censorship in the first place.
I'm sure you're talking about something very important, I'm also sure I have no idea what it is.
 
"Censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide actualities from themselves and others. Their fear is only their inability to face what is real. Somewhere in their upbringing they were shielded against the total facts of our experience. They were only taught to look one way when many ways exist."
This is my beef man.
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Moderator
Founding member
yeah, I understand, censorship is bad....
but what happened to fuel this crusade? are you still carrying a chip on you shoulder from the san pedro/buk and linda's house thing? because that's what it sounds like, and the song is getting old.
so, explain or shut it.
 
Oh? Number 1, I don't have a chip on my shoulder, even though I do not like being told where I can and cannot go in a free country by someone who acts like he owns the place. My beef is with some meathead who deletd my post which quoted Bukowski during the scene where he kicks Linda on the seat.
It was a humourous quote. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would have recognised it. But as Vonnegut says, the author always takes a gamble on the reader being inteeligent enough to understand irony, wit and sarcasm etc. Probably askin too much these days.
 

bospress.net

www.bospress.net
Oh? Number 1, I don't have a chip on my shoulder, even though I do not like being told where I can and cannot go in a free country by someone who acts like he owns the place.

No one said that you cannot go anywhere that is public in this FREE country. I believe that you were referring to wanting to go hang out in front of Linda Bukowski's private residence.

Also, I don't remember anyone on this forum telling people that they were not allowed to go there. I do know that many of us just refuse to tell people what the address is. We cannot stop anyone from stalking her, but no one says that we have to give you directions to her house.

I'm not sure why you are picking a fight with the owner of this forum, but from your posts it is clear that 1) you have no idea what he is about and 2) you are now out to cause problems and seem to have no plan to add anything to the discussion and only to try to subvert it.

Is this a fair assesment?

Bill
 

mjp

Founding member
I don't have a chip on my shoulder...
Could have fooled me.
My beef is with some meathead who deletd my post which quoted Bukowski during the scene where he kicks Linda on the seat.
It was a humourous quote. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would have recognised it.
Finally, a shred of a detail! Man, it's like pulling teeth getting you to say what your problem is.

Here's a little secret for you: I don't delete any posts. I move them to a forum that isn't visible to users, so I know exactly which post you're talking about. Here it is in it's entirety:


she shouldnt have kept calling him an idiot and she shouldnt have been out 5 times all night for the previous week. Who does she think she is?


That's not a quote from Bukowski. It's just an asshole statement typed and posted by an asshole. Or someone deliberately trying to stir up shit, which falls under the general asshole umbrella.
 

jordan

lothario speedwagon
getting bent out of shape about being persecuted on a message board is like being scared a bee will sting you... it's all in your head.

bob dylan, i noticed you're not a supporting member. given that you don't pay for this site to exist, you really have no right to question anything anyone does regarding your posts.

okay, i'm ready... shore up your sense of entitlement and flame away.
 
I wasn't trying to stir up shit at all, if you post what I said in relation to the post I was replying to then people can see it in context. I in no way meant this in an offensive way or to try and stir up shit. Ok it's not a quote verbatim but it's what Bukowski was goin on about when he lost his temper and in relation to the post which I was replyin to it was meant as a humorous reflection on that scene. You can call me an asshole as much as you want it makes no difference. And with refernce to the other guys who are saying I wanted to stalk Linda and hang out in front of her house, that's not what I'm about either. I'm not like that. I travelled 5,000 miles from Ireland to visit Buk's grave, I drove around San Pedro and Hollywood, it would have been nice to see where he ended his days, I'm not an intruder of people's privacy, I know what is acceptable and what's not. But there you go.

One more point on your reply saying "I don't delete posts, I move them to where they are not visible by users". Which was my initial point. Censorship. Of course your answer is to call me an asshole repeatedly, which I guess in here makes you right. Congratulations
 

bospress.net

www.bospress.net
This brings a point up.

Censorship...


Is it censorship to remove a book from a library becuase of religious convictions? probably yes, unless the library is owned by a church. It would seem to be a bit unfair to chastise them and refer to this as censorship if they did not carry "American Psycho" in a Christian Bookstore. Now, if it is Borders and they do not stock it, but can order it, is it censorship? Maybe they don't have the demand for it to stock it on thier shelves.

Is it censorship for the owner of a forum to remove posts that he finds offensive and inflamatory? Not really. He owns the forum. This is not a publicly owned site. It is owned by one person who spends countless hours to make sure that this does not turn into a nightmare of flame wars and snake oil salesmen. He removes the spam postings for Viagra and no one calls that censorship, yet, by calling this "censorship", you would think that the moderator (owner) should let all of the spam stand so that this becomes a site of 2% Bukowski content and 98% viagra and rolex ads. If the owner's desire to moderate the forum and keep us free from troublemakers and spammers are censorship, then I'm all for it.

Is it censorship for HarperCollins to refuse to publish OJ Simpson's confession book? (I'll leave that one open for the individual to decide.)

I just find it funny how censorship is thrown around. It is thrown about a bit like Bush throws around 9-11.

Mr Reporter: Mr. President, you cut taxes on the rich, yet cut funding for free breakfast for the poor. How do you respond?

Mr President: This is a different world than it was. Don't you remember 9-11? The terrorists.....

I have people accuse me of censorship because I will not publish them. This seems silly, but it is similar to those that send me a 100 page manuscript on how Jesus is Lord and then accuse me of censorship because I will not publish it.

Censorship is much bigger than removing a post. Censorship is not being able to buy Playboy in Utah. Censorship is bookstores refusing to stock a best seller and refusing to order it for customers that want it.

Throwing words around too often softens them up for when they are really meant to be used.

Thanks for listening and I apologize for the long post.

Bill
 
Bill, I totally agree with you that a publisher's refusal to publish a certain text is not censorship, for many different reasons. However, if what I have said is considered as spam or another Viagra email in the inbox then it looks like I'm fighting a losing battle. I've obviously stumbled in on a clique where sycophancy seems to rule beyond reason. I'll say no more.
 

Ponder

"So fuck Doubleday Doran"
RIP
I think my reply "excuse me" was clear enough. Your reply was: you're excused.
Some of us are unfortunately smart enough to recognise your bad attitude.

Yes, say no more.
 

mjp

Founding member
One more point on your reply saying "I don't delete posts, I move them to where they are not visible by users". Which was my initial point. Censorship. Of course your answer is to call me an asshole repeatedly, which I guess in here makes you right. Congratulations
The post doesn't need to be seen in context. Everyone knows what that thread is about, and everyone can see that the post was pointless and inflammatory.

You thought you could get away with lying about its contents by saying it was a "Bukowski quote," now that you can't get away with that, you switch to a claim that you had no intention of being offensive. What conclusion can I make from that? You're either stupid, or you're an asshole. I choose to believe the latter. Which is good news for you, because stupidity is usually terminal, but you can choose to stop being an asshole.

So choose to stop.
 
So what I said is no reflection on what Bukowski said in that scene?
He did'nt question Linda about staying out on different nights and he didn't say "who do you think you are"? Ok man, forget it. Why don't you show the post and my reply and let people judge for themselves if it was inflammatory.If you did find it offensive then from my part I didn't mean it to be. However, if you do find it offensive it's still not my reaction it's Bukowskis. Watch the DVD . As for you callin me an asshole again, fair enough.
 

Ponder

"So fuck Doubleday Doran"
RIP
Listen kid: Please take a rest.

It took me almost a day to decide to take part of this thread or not. You reacted within 3 minutes. Don't shoot on everything what's moving. Take a deep breath, rest some, read Buk in bed or so. And hopefully you see things with different eyes the next time and join us on this great forum.

Good luck.

p.s. for me this case is closed.
 

mjp

Founding member
No, actually I already checked, and Mr. Dylan does not share an IP address with any other user. He's one of a kind.
 
This brings a point up.

Censorship...

Is it censorship to remove a book from a library becuase of religious convictions? probably yes, unless the library is owned by a church. It would seem to be a bit unfair to chastise them and refer to this as censorship if they did not carry "American Psycho" in a Christian Bookstore. Now, if it is Borders and they do not stock it, but can order it, is it censorship? Maybe they don't have the demand for it to stock it on thier shelves.

Is it censorship for the owner of a forum to remove posts that he finds offensive and inflamatory? Not really. He owns the forum. This is not a publicly owned site. It is owned by one person who spends countless hours to make sure that this does not turn into a nightmare of flame wars and snake oil salesmen. He removes the spam postings for Viagra and no one calls that censorship, yet, by calling this "censorship", you would think that the moderator (owner) should let all of the spam stand so that this becomes a site of 2% Bukowski content and 98% viagra and rolex ads. If the owner's desire to moderate the forum and keep us free from troublemakers and spammers are censorship, then I'm all for it.

Is it censorship for HarperCollins to refuse to publish OJ Simpson's confession book? (I'll leave that one open for the individual to decide.)

I just find it funny how censorship is thrown around. It is thrown about a bit like Bush throws around 9-11.

Mr Reporter: Mr. President, you cut taxes on the rich, yet cut funding for free breakfast for the poor. How do you respond?

Mr President: This is a different world than it was. Don't you remember 9-11? The terrorists.....

I have people accuse me of censorship because I will not publish them. This seems silly, but it is similar to those that send me a 100 page manuscript on how Jesus is Lord and then accuse me of censorship because I will not publish it.

Censorship is much bigger than removing a post. Censorship is not being able to buy Playboy in Utah. Censorship is bookstores refusing to stock a best seller and refusing to order it for customers that want it.

Throwing words around too often softens them up for when they are really meant to be used.

Thanks for listening and I apologize for the long post.

Bill

I tend to disagree here...

Censorship is not necessarily a "bigger" issue. It is an eminently individual action. It involves the suppression of that which is considered undesirable.

It is an intimate power relationship between censor and material. This is a clear example of censorship. Material was removed as it was considered undesirable.

Now, is censorship inherently unjustified? Perhaps, perhaps not.

I am opposed to censorship in general. Let the material be seen and evaluated on its own merits. If it is crap, it will be clearly percieved as such.

I also recognize this is a privately owned venue. As such, the material presented is at the discretion of the owner. We that post and participate must recognize this. Our participation is our implicit agreement to censorship.

So...Bob, get over it. Don't want to expose yourself to censorship here, then get the hell out.

But Bill, call a spade a spade...this IS censorship. One with which you agree, but one nevertheless.
 

bospress.net

www.bospress.net
But Bill, call a spade a spade...this IS censorship. One with which you agree, but one nevertheless.

Hi Cheap Gin,
Agreed. You are right. That being said, I am not opposed to some censorship. Certainly if I owned a forum and there was a person that made a point of insulting me in posts, I would remove the posts.

What I am opposed to, I guess, is government (or institutionalized)censorship, if that makes sense.

All best,
BIll
 

mjp

Founding member
Most people relate censorship with freedom of speech, which is a political or societal issue, not a discussion forum issue. If you do not censor, control, guide or otherwise maintain a public forum like this, it degrades quickly and becomes virtually worthless.

I don't remove insults aimed at me because they don't bother me, but I do remove mean-spirited insults aimed at other users, and that's one area where Mr. Dylan crossed the line.

There's no precise formula for making this work. If there was, we could write computer programs to moderate forums. ;) I'm sure I've made mistakes, and maybe pulled the trigger on some people (or called them assholes) when another moderator would have let them be. But all I can do is go with my gut feeling on this stuff.
 

justine

stop the penistry
When you're a guest in someone's home you don't insult them or their other guests, or spit on their floor - although you may engage in spirited debate.

I would assume the same ettiquette would apply to a forum such as this.

Sometimes the "pomo" world is sadly lacking in good old-fashioned manners;)

mjp, your gut feeling IS all you can go on, and i think you're doing a fine job. if old Bob Dylan has a problem, then surely he can go set up his own buk site/forum so he can say whatever he wants - and spend the probable hundreds (maybe even thousands) of hours that it takes to construct and maintain such a site.
 
First I'd like to make it clear I understand the purpose of and accept the censorship that occurs here. I would not post otherwise.

But I am always made uncomfortable by any censorship. Mine or others. Censoring or being censored.

It is a power relationship. The censoring agent is enforcing its determination, its interests, its perceptions on work of others. The censored has no recourse, no power, no say. It is a unidirectional relationship.

Third parties such as audience are even greater victims. Where the censored may know what was censored. Perhaps even why. Third parties may not even realize the act has occured. They are totally dependent on the will of the censor.

This thread is an excellent example. Bob Dylan posted some material. mjp determined the material reached his threshold for censorship, the act was executed. mjp as the censoring agent is the sole determiner of value of material to the discussion underway. Bobby Dylan was aware of the censorship, what was censored, and perhaps why. He undertook this thread to inform the third parties such action was taken and to vent his displeasure (he also misrepresented his case, but that is a separate issue). Had our Dylan not informed us, we third parties would be oblivious to not only the material that was censored, but the very act itself. We are powerless.

Now, this thread has exposed Bobby as a crank, liar (or minimally- misrepresenter), and bad writer that has a poor sense of his own abilities. We can all see this quite clearly from his behavior and writing, including the repost of his original censored material. But, without the censorship we all (or at least those privy to the original topic, which I was not due to laziness), would clearly have seen this of our Bobby and made our own interpretations of his material and abilities. Perhaps even some would have concurred with his positions.

But we never had a chance to make our own interpretations and decisions. Those choices were made by another. Censorship.

Once again, I fully understand your position mjp and fully support your decision to censor. It is your venue, I am just a guest here. If I don't like it, I can "get the hell out" as I told Bobby. Since I like your venue, I'll stick around until you kick me out.

But I still don't like censorship in any form. Especially when I have been forced to be the censor myself.

Sorry for the lengthy post.
 

zoom man

Founding member
Hi Cheap Gin,
Agreed. You are right. That being said, I am not opposed to some censorship. Certainly if I owned a forum and there was a person that made a point of insulting me in posts, I would remove the posts.

What I am opposed to, I guess, is government (or institutionalized)censorship, if that makes sense.

Me too....
Like the mandatory 'this is in your best interest', let-me-be-your-(all)seeing eye dog....
Seat-belt laws
Motorcycle helmet obligations
Trans-Fats ban (see NYC)
etc.
This pisses me off to no end.
And now has some state passed a smoking ban in cars (yes, your own car)?!! (because you might be exposing passengers to your second-hand smoke).
 

ROC

It is what it is
No shit zoom man?
Motorcycle helmet, anti-smoking, seat-belt laws?
You're probably right.
If someone is brain-dead enough to actually want to disobey these laws, the world is no doubt better off without them.

But, as someone who has seen first hand the results of such stupidity, I would suggest you place your ego and selfishness behind your concern for others.

Someone else always has to clean up the mess.

And trans-fats ban? Hey there are enough fat, unhealthy americans now without adding to the pile, surely.
 

the only good poet

One retreat after another without peace.
a smoking ban in public places is coming into effect in england in 3 months (scotland, the guinea pig, already has it). a beer without a smoke?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top