Sunday, February 03, 2008

"Free-Thinking Web Sites"
I was sorry to read the recent comments by the Web Ring webhost about Badfinger "blogs." In his statements he said: "...web pages and/or blogs began to appear that had very strong opinions that fell out of the main stream - some assaulted the senses when reading and fans who voiced their opinion about what was being said were/are attacked." I believe there are only two Badfinger-oriented blogs out there right now, and the other hasn't been in operation for some two years. So I take this as criticism of my site. In another statement, he said: "There are only a few free-thinking Badfinger web sites left..." which I assume excludes mine (based on his blog statement).

The Web Ring and Neil's site had/has no public forum, and Brando's site no longer has a public forum. Both the Yahoo board and Brennan's board have banned people. I, however, not only provide a public forum but have never banned anyone from my site. Anyone can post, by either using the anonymous function, using a pseudonym, or using their actual name. Only Morten Vindberg supplies a similar format. There have been a couple - NOTE: only a couple of comments - that I refused to publish due to their content, but the posters are always welcome to return and phrase themselves more presentably. And even my links section has always been fair. When people have asked me how to get to the Yahoo site, I pointed them to the Web Ring links section. I refused to link directly to Yahoo initially because of some earlier bad exchanges between its host and myself. I was considering adding the link late last year, but because of recent legal issues it's best that I don't right now.

When I first launched my blog, the comments were completely open. I had to delete a few spams, but otherwise anyone could instantly post here. Unfortunately, times have changed since Brando and Randy operated completely unmoderated boards so I am having to review posts before they go up. I've noticed this is how most boards operate these days, and it is what I must do also.

Coincidentally, of the recently demised Neil site, I was saddened to see Cheryl's book "corrections" disappear. I would very much have liked to comment on these so I am inviting her here now. Cheryl, if you'd like, I will put your entire section up on my blog. It intrigued me so much that I saved it all, and I had some questions for you on parts of it. Of course, your section will be prone to discussion and comment from me, and you may respond to those responses as well. It's up to you.

But getting back to criticism of my blog, what can I say? I speak my mind and that may offend some people. I try not to be rude, but when people are rude with me I respond in kind. If I am taking a position contrary to what Joey's fans hold, it is dismissive (not to mention hypocritical) to say there is no free thought here. My format allows more free thought than the critics themselves provide.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Some bad news for you here... (SNIP)

Not bad news for me. Tell it to Matovina. The bad news for you is I am not putting that link up. Sorry.

Anonymous said...

I'm hearing crickets

ßill said...

I prefer silence to bedlam.

Anonymous said...

It is not true that Neils site is deceased at all, I have just been onto the site, why do you miss inform everybody?
You also stated on a page that you deleted that you would not discuss anything from that site, why do you decide to now, is it because you are now finding out that the truth really is out there??
You also state that the two boards, Bennons and the Yahoo board has banned people, but you don't mention how the board you control at Badfinger-iveys.com ban people.
That just proves who you actually are.

ßill said...

1) I believe at the time this article was written the Neil site was down.
2) I deleted that page because it got WAY off topic. I never said I wouldn't discuss anything from that site. What I said was that I might address some of it. The site describes Cheryl's commentary about the book as "corrections," when in fact most of her commentary is actually speculation. This is what I am attempting to point out.
3) The only discussion board linked from "Badfinger-Iveys" is Tom Brennan's board, so you are confused if you think there is a third board.

Daisy said...

I have just been on to Neil's website and I'm confused. Can you tell me where it says that Cheryl is correcting anything? I can't see it. I actually rather enjoyed reading her 'comments' and as she had personal knowledge of the band I'd rather read what she has to say than what you have to say. You should stick to 'commenting' on other sites about Badfinger music.....I enjoy your posts when you do that.

Anonymous said...

"Thanks" for admitting Brennan's board bans people. On numerous occasions I respectfully asked questions or countered what was said on that board specifically responding to a Josephsnows that I understand is a seudonym for someone trying to take a jab at Jose Nieves since that is from what I understand the English translation of that name as well as reponding to others that were making all sorts of incredible accusations and statements. Yet, in spite of my courtesy, the dicussions got difficult for them and they banned me. So much for being able to defend themselves that they have to ban you because they can't.

ßill said...

To "Daisy," under the section that says "Book pages and mistakes" it reads: "She has read and re-read the book to find what she KNOWS to be mistakes and incorrect opinion..."

I don't know who wrote that header, but it misleads a person into thinking she is correcting "mistakes" on all the book pages - when that quite simply is not the case.

ßill said...

Tom Brennan does as he wishes. The people at the Yahoo board do as they wish also. I imagine they do not care for arguments and conflicts on their boards. That's their prerogative.

Anonymous said...

It actually says on that page that she is making comments on mistakes and incorrect opinion, where is that misleading, why are you reading something into it that isn't there? You are misleading people into believing that the book contains no mistakes, even when you are faced with somebody who was actually there. You have had choice opinion for the people who make comments who were not there and when somebody who is valid comes along with a different view to what Dan wrote you do the same to her.
So does this mean you where there to be able to prove her wrong, or are you just using a book that has now been proven to be factually wrong to disprove what she is saying?
You have no evidence that the people interviewed for the book were either quoted correctly or even said some of what is in the book because there is so much Dans opinion in there, I've just read most of the book again and I can see why so many people are questioning it's content. Why isn't Dan answering these comments or as so many are now thinking, is this Dan answering them. He seems to have used so many others from what I've read what makes you any different.

ßill said...

"It actually says on that page that she is making comments on mistakes and incorrect opinion, where is that misleading, why are you reading something into it that isn't there?"

Unless the webmaster has changed it recently, I quoted exactly what it said. You are paraphrasing.

"You are misleading people into believing that the book contains no mistakes, even when you are faced with somebody who was actually there."

Oh, I'm postive the book has errors and omissions. For the most part, Cheryl isn't doing a very convincing job of pointing out what they are.

"You have had choice opinion for the people who make comments who were not there and when somebody who is valid comes along with a different view to what Dan wrote you do the same to her."

I am analyzing what she has to say, how much of it is supported by others who were there and quoted (and stand by their comments with their last names, unlike Cheryl), and what her motivations appear to be. So far, most of her observations are speculation. Anyone can offer that. I'm waiting for her to say "I was at that event, at that person is wrong!" That will make me sit up and take notice.

"So does this mean you where there to be able to prove her wrong, or are you just using a book that has now been proven to be factually wrong to disprove what she is saying?"

Get real. We already agree this book - like any book ever written - has errors. But the people quoted in the book have not said their quotes are in error. That's the key.

"You have no evidence that the people interviewed for the book were either quoted correctly or even said some of what is in the book because there is so much Dans opinion in there..."

Excuse me? I base everything on the fact that the people quoted in the book support it in such vast numbers. Where have you been?

"I've just read most of the book again and I can see why so many people are questioning it's content."

"So many people"? I only see a handful of Joey's fans who refuse to see reality.

"Why isn't Dan answering these comments or as so many are now thinking, is this Dan answering them."

There's that "so-many" again. You should do a poll and find out just how "many" you are talking about. At any rate, I've been through all this already. Believe what you will.

"He seems to have used so many others from what I've read what makes you any different.

To my knowledge, Neil is the only person to have made such a claim.