| lifetimefanofqueen 08.02.2011 12:12 |
link this just caused my head to bang a hole in the wall! how is we will rock you to sexy for children???? THEY WATCH LADY FUCKING GAGA! SHE DRESSES IN RAW MEAT! AND HER VIDEOS ARE FULL OF HER RUBBIN HER ASS UP SOME GUYS CROTCH! AND MILEY CYRUS? LOOK AT THIS!!! link |
| GratefulFan 08.02.2011 12:52 |
Yes, Brian was on about it on his site, being his all-too-usual illogical, thin skinned and rather mean Soapbox self: [Referring to article in The Sun 3 February 2011, "We Will Block You"]It's a little far-fetched of this lady to imagine that all that money can be refunded on just one person's (rather misguided) opinion !People's jobs and careers depend on productions like these. I imagine she would have to go about proving that our show was able to damage children. It's nonsense, really, of course. The average South Park episode contains a hundred times more 'unsuitable' material than a family musical ever could. Perhaps this lady needs to ask herself if she wants her TV license refunded ! I think she's embarrassing herself. It's a pity she can't find something worth-while protesting against ... like animal cruelty. Or cruelty to children. Bri My thoughts are that the kids would have been fine, of course, seeing WWRY, except for any potential damage done by being exposed to an arguably bad musical. But Brian May honest to goodness seems to have a near complete inability to put himself in almost anybody else's shoes. Teachers have a tremendous amount of responsibility, and have to satisfy their administrators, school boards, and stickiest of all, parents who are often hyperinvolved and obnoxious. She clearly wanted to do something fun and educational for the kids, or she wouldn't have arranged the field trip. Although I might not agree with her judgement, I can have full empathy for the environment in which her decision was made. And I certainly wouldn't be slagging the poor woman off on my website. For god sake. |
| Holly2003 08.02.2011 13:01 |
Indeed. Brian really comes across as an obnoxious prick sometimes. There was no need for him to mention this at all and certainly no need for him make a personal attack on the woman. Maybe being as rich as he is he might've considered refunding the school (or the production) himself. I'm sure he could just hire out 'One Vision' to yet another ad company if he feels he really needs the cash ... |
| pittrek 08.02.2011 13:06 |
|
| Sebastian 08.02.2011 13:25 |
Miley's certainly lost some weight. |
| NOTWMEDDLE 08.02.2011 14:22 |
Sebastian wrote: Miley's certainly lost some weight. ---------------------- Thank the drugs the girl is on. |
| lifetimefanofqueen 08.02.2011 14:35 |
Holly2003 wrote: Indeed. Brian really comes across as an obnoxious prick sometimes. There was no need for him to mention this at all and certainly no need for him make a personal attack on the woman. Maybe being as rich as he is he might've considered refunding the school (or the production) himself. I'm sure he could just hire out 'One Vision' to yet another ad company if he feels he really needs the cash ... =================================== i wouldnt say he's a prick, he's spent loads of time working at it, and then someone comes along and says "its not suitable for children" i'd have flipped out to, only id have probably been alot worse, when im annoyed it builds up and goes mad! and i agree with you greatful fan, there is alot of pressure on what is suitable for children, and schools tend to always be attacked so i can understand her fear of it. only how the hell did the news papers get in on this? out of all the things to write about telling the world an AMAZING musical isnt suitable for children makes me want to punch them SO SO SO hard in the face! im not a violent person but seeing what its done to Brian and everyone else throught the years pisses me off so much! freddie was so trapped by them near the end of his life, if i were going to die i woudlnt want to be scared as hell of every morning of fucking news papers, their bullies! nothing more nothing less! and its just sick! but i get revenge by using my moms old newspapers for my hamsert and so she pisses and shits on their "work" its like saying: "you give me some of your shit i give you some of fucking mine" (from lee evans of course) but what really bugs me is how they say its rude when children watch these music videos thats basically sex but with a bit of clothes on. |
| Soundfreak 08.02.2011 14:41 |
Is there a rule that once you own a certain amount of money you are no longer allowed to have an opinion? In this case I can sympathize with Brian May a lot. You find people like this school teacher everywhere...once they see a chance of having some power they use it. Currently in Canada people like that banned the Dire Straits song "Money for nothing" from airplay cause it contains a certain f-word... |
| Sebastian 08.02.2011 14:43 |
>>> Is there a rule that once you own a certain amount of money you are no longer allowed to have an opinion? Is there a rule that once you own a certain amount of money you're allowed to offend whoever you want to? |
| lifetimefanofqueen 08.02.2011 14:56 |
your alowed to have an opionion no matter how much money you own or what ever the colour of your skin may be, just what ever you do say theres some prick with a note book twisting it. we should have a "slap a member of the sun day" id use to spade instead of my hand! |
| FriedChicken 09.02.2011 02:53 |
lifetimefanofqueen wrote: LOOK AT THIS!!! link *Likes* |
| FriedChicken 09.02.2011 02:54 |
Sebastian wrote: Miley's certainly lost some weight. Well that's what you get when you're tied up in my basement. |
| Soundfreak 09.02.2011 10:41 |
Sebastian wrote: Is there a rule that once you own a certain amount of money you're allowed to offend whoever you want to? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I don't think he offended that teacher - he simply r e a c t e d after "WWRY" was offended by her. |
| Thistle 09.02.2011 12:43 |
FriedChicken wrote: Sebastian wrote: Miley's certainly lost some weight. Well that's what you get when you're tied up in my basement. ============================================================================================= Well, if that's Miley you've got tied up in yours, who the fuck have I got tied up in mine? Oh, wait, it's Hannah Montana.... |
| lifetimefanofqueen 09.02.2011 14:34 |
ive got her in mine link my dog pisses on her every day |
| ANAGRAMER 09.02.2011 14:47 |
Lets be honest about it here WWRY is hardly educational - not only is it unsuitable for children, it's also not really that appropriate for the thinking adult! |
| Sebastian 09.02.2011 21:18 |
Standing ovation!!! |
| GratefulFan 10.02.2011 08:42 |
Soundfreak wrote: I don't think he offended that teacher - he simply r e a c t e d after "WWRY" was offended by her. ========================================= He does an awful lot of r e a c t i n g that involves insulting, belittling and diminishing others. Taken as a whole, I don't really think it's defensible, and I don't think it deserves respect. |
| john bodega 10.02.2011 09:29 |
Nothing new here. It's the same as his ridiculous reaction to the Q.I episode that apparently mocked Hiroshima/Nagasaki victims. I kept an open mind on that one, too. I figured 'maybe they went too far, maybe Brian got it right this time'. I watched the video, waiting for them to do impersonations of people frying in atomic horror, but it never happened. They were (as always) mostly articulate, slightly laddish, and informative in the sense that not everyone knows about that guy who got bombed in both cities. A huge fucking overreaction - not just on Brian's part, but pretty much anyone who complained about it. It's not like they did slanty-eyes and wailed "Oh no, me no rikey rikey big bomb brow up my fried rice!". |
| lifetimefanofqueen 10.02.2011 09:47 |
ANAGRAMER wrote: Lets be honest about it here WWRY is hardly educational - not only is it unsuitable for children, it's also not really that appropriate for the thinking adult! =========================== if it wasnt for WWRY i would never have become so obsessed with Queen and would be lost completly, and to be honest i think its awesome! and is kinda educational, its like real life, rockers VS stupid little pop pricks, it educates that the rocker side is the side to be on because a guitar is heavier than lipstick when it comes to battle. |
| Soundfreak 10.02.2011 13:33 |
Grateful Fan wrote: He does an awful lot of r e a c t i n g that involves insulting, belittling and diminishing others. Taken as a whole, I don't really think it's defensible, and I don't think it deserves respect. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I think that many people simply expect too much of a rock musician. In the end he is as "human" as we all are, he isn't better nor worse. But cause of his fame everything gets multiplied and especially fans are unhappy when the rockstar does not act exactly the way they want. That's why fans prefer dead rock stars.... BTW I never read Brian May's soapbox, it's too private and it's just a one way street. No interaction and so it's not very interesting for me. I have an own life. But I don't mind him doing that at all. He wants to express himself - that's why he became a musician. |
| lifetimefanofqueen 10.02.2011 13:49 |
Soundfreak wrote: Grateful Fan wrote: He does an awful lot of r e a c t i n g that involves insulting, belittling and diminishing others. Taken as a whole, I don't really think it's defensible, and I don't think it deserves respect. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I think that many people simply expect too much of a rock musician. In the end he is as "human" as we all are, he isn't better nor worse. But cause of his fame everything gets multiplied and especially fans are unhappy when the rockstar does not act exactly the way they want. That's why fans prefer dead rock stars.... BTW I never read Brian May's soapbox, it's too private and it's just a one way street. No interaction and so it's not very interesting for me. I have an own life. But I don't mind him doing that at all. He wants to express himself - that's why he became a musician. ======================= he's human? so he's not a mighty God? |
| GratefulFan 13.02.2011 00:42 |
Soundfreak wrote: I think that many people simply expect too much of a rock musician. In the end he is as "human" as we all are, he isn't better nor worse. But cause of his fame everything gets multiplied and especially fans are unhappy when the rockstar does not act exactly the way they want. That's why fans prefer dead rock stars.... BTW I never read Brian May's soapbox, it's too private and it's just a one way street. No interaction and so it's not very interesting for me. I have an own life. But I don't mind him doing that at all. He wants to express himself - that's why he became a musician. ==================================== If you did read his blog you might have a greater appreciation for the fact that while he's posting as a rock star, he's also posting as a doctor and a scientist who seeks to leverage his rock star fame and his credentials to influence opinion and shape public policy. With a clear inter-relationship with his other public initiatives, the Soapbox is about as far from a 'private' endeavour as it can be. On this then he earns the same scrutiny as other talking heads and political pundits, not other blistering guitarists. I don't doubt for a second that it's all grounded in the sincere passion of a (narrowly) sensitive man who wants to use his fame to accomplish something meaningful, but the irony of defending him as 'human' when he repeatedly strips that very thing - humanity - from his many targets, is rich. A passionate war of ideas I could respect, but he's at war with the notion that anybody other than him and people that agree with him even have even the most basic intellectual, experiential or moral right to have a position at all. It's glaringly, shockingly bad. It really is. |
| Big Fat Fanny 13.02.2011 04:54 |
>>> Is there a rule that once you own a certain amount of money you are no longer allowed to have an opinion? >>>Is there a rule that once you own a certain amount of money you're allowed to offend whoever you want to? Whoever you are, whenever you express an opinion, you're going to offend somebody. Wouldn't worry about it. |
| thomasquinn 32989 13.02.2011 06:18 |
GratefulFan wrote: Yes, Brian was on about it on his site, being his all-too-usual illogical, thin skinned and rather mean Soapbox self: [Referring to article in The Sun 3 February 2011, "We Will Block You"]It's a little far-fetched of this lady to imagine that all that money can be refunded on just one person's (rather misguided) opinion !People's jobs and careers depend on productions like these. I imagine she would have to go about proving that our show was able to damage children. It's nonsense, really, of course. The average South Park episode contains a hundred times more 'unsuitable' material than a family musical ever could. Perhaps this lady needs to ask herself if she wants her TV license refunded ! I think she's embarrassing herself. It's a pity she can't find something worth-while protesting against ... like animal cruelty. Or cruelty to children. Bri My thoughts are that the kids would have been fine, of course, seeing WWRY, except for any potential damage done by being exposed to an arguably bad musical. But Brian May honest to goodness seems to have a near complete inability to put himself in almost anybody else's shoes. Teachers have a tremendous amount of responsibility, and have to satisfy their administrators, school boards, and stickiest of all, parents who are often hyperinvolved and obnoxious. She clearly wanted to do something fun and educational for the kids, or she wouldn't have arranged the field trip. Although I might not agree with her judgement, I can have full empathy for the environment in which her decision was made. And I certainly wouldn't be slagging the poor woman off on my website. For god sake. ===== Ironically, you *are* defending the tsunami of 1950s prudishness that's sweeping Europe and America lately. In case you haven't noticed, loud-mouthed raving lunatics supposedly defending children have been calling for a ban on recreational equipment in playgrounds because children might injure themselves. Goodbye, swings - kids might break their necks. Goodbye, slides, they might result in paraplegia. Ban smoking from films - kids might want to start smoking. Ban images of breast-feeding, children might get over-sexed (yes, this is actually being argued). It's bloody ridiculous, and by taking this woman seriously, you are promoting this kind of latter-day Victorianism. |
| Holly2003 13.02.2011 09:24 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: Ironically, you *are* defending the tsunami of 1950s prudishness that's sweeping Europe and America lately. In case you haven't noticed, loud-mouthed raving lunatics supposedly defending children have been calling for a ban on recreational equipment in playgrounds because children might injure themselves. Goodbye, swings - kids might break their necks. Goodbye, slides, they might result in paraplegia. Ban smoking from films - kids might want to start smoking. Ban images of breast-feeding, children might get over-sexed (yes, this is actually being argued). It's bloody ridiculous, and by taking this woman seriously, you are promoting this kind of latter-day Victorianism. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Err... no. Grateful Fan can speak for herself, more eloquently than I can too, but she clearly stated she doesn't agree with the teacher's p.o.v. and her remarks are directed more at Brian's soapbox comments, which reflect a total lack of empathy on Brian's part, and also his increasingly mean spirit. There are many websites one can visit to get an intelligent and holistic view of various political and social issues. The best ones inspire me to think again about some things I had taken for granted. They remind me that life is very complicated and there are few simple answers. Brian's website isn't one of those. He has no sense of proportion and he demonises and demeans those who disagree with him. He's also been exposed as a hypocrite on a number of occasions. Lastly, and unforgiveably, it's boring as fuck. |
| thomasquinn 32989 14.02.2011 06:33 |
So, essentially, what you're saying is that anyone who thinks that this teacher made a stupid decision (regardless of whether this was done under pressure from whomever - it wouldn't change the character of the act itself in the least), lacks empathy. That is rather lacking in nuance, which is rather ironic, seeing how you are accusing Brian of a lack in nuance. |
| Holly2003 14.02.2011 09:45 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: So, essentially, what you're saying is that anyone who thinks that this teacher made a stupid decision (regardless of whether this was done under pressure from whomever - it wouldn't change the character of the act itself in the least), lacks empathy. That is rather lacking in nuance, which is rather ironic, seeing how you are accusing Brian of a lack in nuance. No, I'm saying Brian often lacks a sense of balance and proportion. I'm not sure why you want to make this into some sort of wider issue. |
| Sebastian 14.02.2011 10:05 |
Believe it or not, I actually agree with Holly. That teacher made a judgement call, one with which many people may agree or disagree but, at the end of the day, those kids who want to see the musical can do it in their own time. The teacher, on the other hand, was openly offended and humiliated by a multi-millionaire world-famous rock star just for making a decision that's part of her job. Way out of proportion. |
| GratefulFan 14.02.2011 12:08 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: Ironically, you *are* defending the tsunami of 1950s prudishness that's sweeping Europe and America lately. In case you haven't noticed, loud-mouthed raving lunatics supposedly defending children have been calling for a ban on recreational equipment in playgrounds because children might injure themselves. Goodbye, swings - kids might break their necks. Goodbye, slides, they might result in paraplegia. Ban smoking from films - kids might want to start smoking. Ban images of breast-feeding, children might get over-sexed (yes, this is actually being argued). It's bloody ridiculous, and by taking this woman seriously, you are promoting this kind of latter-day Victorianism. ========================== 1) What Holly said. 2) If the finer points of the argument leave you unmoved, it could be because you're somewhat fond of engaging in a very similar brand of fervid poo flinging yourself. |
| thomasquinn 32989 15.02.2011 05:01 |
GratefulFan wrote: ThomasQuinn wrote: Ironically, you *are* defending the tsunami of 1950s prudishness that's sweeping Europe and America lately. In case you haven't noticed, loud-mouthed raving lunatics supposedly defending children have been calling for a ban on recreational equipment in playgrounds because children might injure themselves. Goodbye, swings - kids might break their necks. Goodbye, slides, they might result in paraplegia. Ban smoking from films - kids might want to start smoking. Ban images of breast-feeding, children might get over-sexed (yes, this is actually being argued). It's bloody ridiculous, and by taking this woman seriously, you are promoting this kind of latter-day Victorianism. ========================== 1) What Holly said. 2) If the finer points of the argument leave you unmoved, it could be because you're somewhat fond of engaging in a very similar brand of fervid poo flinging yourself. ==== The only 'finer point' there is, is the fact that teachers get bothered by innumerable meddling idiots. The main point is the fact that society has become completely schizophrenic, trying to keep children away from anything resembling the real world, while at the same time making that world ever more superficial and callous. Why do you think there are so many cases of alcohol abuse amongs under-18s? Why do you think there are so many cases sexual abuse amongst teenagers? Because they aren't given a chance to deal with things like alcohol and sexuality in a normal way - they get to see just two things, the prudish-Victorian taboo-approach, with a few embarassed words by dad and the clear message that the topic is never to be discussed again on the one hand, and the MTV-version with drunk half-naked women treated like slaves with "this is cool" stamped all over it in shiny red letters. |
| thomasquinn 32989 15.02.2011 05:19 |
Holly2003 wrote: ThomasQuinn wrote: So, essentially, what you're saying is that anyone who thinks that this teacher made a stupid decision (regardless of whether this was done under pressure from whomever - it wouldn't change the character of the act itself in the least), lacks empathy. That is rather lacking in nuance, which is rather ironic, seeing how you are accusing Brian of a lack in nuance. No, I'm saying Brian often lacks a sense of balance and proportion. I'm not sure why you want to make this into some sort of wider issue. ====== The teacher made it into a wider issue by going public with the statement that she considers the musical too sexy and "inappropriate" for children. That is not for her to decide. If she'd have just cancelled the trip and left it at that, it'd just be a nasty call. Now, she's made it into a matter of public morality, all by her own decision. |
| GratefulFan 15.02.2011 16:25 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: The teacher made it into a wider issue by going public with the statement that she considers the musical too sexy and "inappropriate" for children. That is not for her to decide. If she'd have just cancelled the trip and left it at that, it'd just be a nasty call. Now, she's made it into a matter of public morality, all by her own decision. =========================== There is nothing in the article that makes it clear that the teacher herself 'went public'. On the contrary, organizations like schools rarely seek attention for controversial decisions likely to annoy parents and the wider community. Any number of people would have been aware of the incident and able to describe the circumstances to the paper. You or I disagreeing with her decision doesn't make it a 'nasty call'. It's not unreasonable for a school to decline to take the responsibility of unilaterally exposing 9 to 12 year olds to the degree of sexual innuendo that is in fact in WWRY. There is a perfectly good argument to be made that a school could reasonably, if cautiously, view that as a parental decision. Regardless, the point all along is that she didn't deserve to be dealt with that way by Brian May. It's not about what anybody thinks of the quality of her call, it's about her right to have made a small local decision about 150 children under her care without being bullied and embarrassed by the major figurehead of the entire international production. |
| Sebastian 15.02.2011 17:05 |
This is what I'd tell the teacher in question: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' A famous quote NOT said by Voltaire. link |
| AlexRocks 15.02.2011 18:12 |
Just to clarify something that is VERY upsetting to me and that is when "What the fuck?!!!" is declared it is with a comma most importantly but to show hysterical passion only then does it ALSO include the exclamation marks. Ahem. |
| thomasquinn 32989 16.02.2011 05:11 |
GratefulFan wrote: ThomasQuinn wrote: The teacher made it into a wider issue by going public with the statement that she considers the musical too sexy and "inappropriate" for children. That is not for her to decide. If she'd have just cancelled the trip and left it at that, it'd just be a nasty call. Now, she's made it into a matter of public morality, all by her own decision. =========================== There is nothing in the article that makes it clear that the teacher herself 'went public'. On the contrary, organizations like schools rarely seek attention for controversial decisions likely to annoy parents and the wider community. Any number of people would have been aware of the incident and able to describe the circumstances to the paper. You or I disagreeing with her decision doesn't make it a 'nasty call'. It's not unreasonable for a school to decline to take the responsibility of unilaterally exposing 9 to 12 year olds to the degree of sexual innuendo that is in fact in WWRY. There is a perfectly good argument to be made that a school could reasonably, if cautiously, view that as a parental decision. Regardless, the point all along is that she didn't deserve to be dealt with that way by Brian May. It's not about what anybody thinks of the quality of her call, it's about her right to have made a small local decision about 150 children under her care without being bullied and embarrassed by the major figurehead of the entire international production. ==== A) I do find it a nasty call - it assumes that 9-12 year-olds need to be screened from sexuality. Except in seriously backward circles, it is now the accepted opinion that this kind of over-protective approach is counter-productive: you tell a 12-year-old boy that he can't go see a musical he has been promised because it's too "sexy", and he will, 99 times out of a 100, assume that it must be really, really cool if he isn't allowed to see it, and if "sexy" is the reason for that, then it is probably worthwhile for him to look into that topic, with obvious results. Bottom line: it's these kinds of things that give kids ideas they wouldn't otherwise have gotten, way more than any musical could have. B) Brian gets his (admittedly not very good) musical pushed into the quasi-pornographic corner (even if this wasn't the intent of the teacher in question, this is the effect), and he isn't allowed to respond? I beg to differ. C) Behind a thick wall of rhetoric, you are effectively arguing that prudishness is the right way of dealing with kids about to hit puberty. Sex offenders will want to thank you, I'm sure. |
| Holly2003 16.02.2011 06:33 |
And I'm sure village idiots will want to thank you for making them look smart in comparison ... |
| GratefulFan 16.02.2011 09:21 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: C) Behind a thick wall of rhetoric [.....] Sex offenders will want to thank you, I'm sure. ========================== Hilarity: 1 Self-awareness: 0 If Brian wants to respond to negative reception to WWYR he can choose to be professional or he can choose to be something more like an obnoxious, demeaning jerk. It then follows that people will think "well that was professional", or "what an obnoxious demeaning jerk". |
