Goodbyee ....

[LMcD]

I also find that I can remember pop song words from my teens but find it incredibly difficult to remember words of choir and group songs that I need now! Maybe that’s one of the prices paid for becoming a diamond teenager!

The ‘Hissing’ was fine but I don’t think I want to remember Jayne’s other song ever!

What song was that? I can't remember - good, that means the pills are working!

[oddoneout]

I agree with much of what of you say - but who would have thought that what was intended to be a light-hearted thread intended to share fine examples of the songwriter's art would have been diverted/ perverted/hijacked/infected, or whatever you care to call it - in the way that it was? I think we're all in trouble if, as you say, threads 'that have little to do with Radio 3 or classical music' are often more likely to pose problems, whatever their original intention. That'll teach me to try to cheer people up via the Great American Song Book!

As has been noted on more than one occasion threads can sometimes take on an alternative unintended life. Such deviations aren't necessarily a bad thing, although they may be frustrating/irritating, but will often resolve themselves either by people losing interest or by returning to the original/intended topic. I didn't see any of the thread in question, so am on thin ground potentially here, but I'm assuming that the posts JLW made fulfilled for her this part of the definition of memorable "Worthy of remembrance or note". Given her passionately held and voiced views such contributions might have been expected to be contentious, but did they merit such an upheaval? To what extent do we 'own' and by extension control threads we start? If it proves impossible to steer back to the intention is it not possible to step away/ ignore it? What is posted on the forum is not in the same league as something broadcast, or put up on an advertising hoarding, where avoiding it is difficult or impossible.
As Petrushka notes these are tetchy times and what would at other times perhaps blow over instead gets blown up.

[Joseph K]

Nothing's that simple:

memorable:

1. Worthy of remembrance or note; worth remembering; not to be forgotten.

2. Easy to remember, able to be remembered; memorizable

I remember a lot of pop song words from my early adolescence - a long time ago. They are easy to remember, but they aren't, for that reason, worthy of being remembered. And there some things one would give anything just to be able to forget, but can't.

The lyrics Jayne posted were memorable. One featured arresting, candid images of a sexual nature, and the other featured ambiguous gender and feelings of passion. There was another fine lyric by Joni Mitchell.

[Count Boso]

The lyrics Jayne posted were memorable.

Anything is 'memorable', if it can be memorised without much difficulty. That was the point I was making with, obviously, an excess of subtlety. All together: "We're all going on a summer holiday, No more working for a week or two …"

[cloughie]

Anything is 'memorable', if it can be memorised without much difficulty. That was the point I was making with, obviously, an excess of subtlety. All together: "We're all going on a summer holiday, No more working for a week or two …"

Spreading Covid on your Summer holiday - no more going out for me and you - for a week or two!

[Ein Heldenleben]

A thankless task, I'm sure, and not one I would want to do myself. Nevertheless, there are a number of hosts on the Forum and while one can't expect them to have eyes in the back of their head or to spend every waking hour reading every post, I wouldn't necessarily thought it to be an impossibility that the skill might have been there to have nipped this one in the bud.

There are some threads where you have a sort of sixth sense that this one has the potential to be trouble. Most often, they're the ones that have little to do with Radio 3 or classical music, often, but not always, politically based, and can occasionally be ever so slightly provocative from the start before veering out of control. Before you know where you are, there's uproar and members are threatening to leave. The problem at the moment is compounded by the unusual times. Lockdown and the pandemic have made a lot of people feel frustrated and angry, with many, many lives tipped upside down. It's emerging on this Forum too. People are acting in ways they wouldn't do in more normal times and sensitivities are increasingly fragile. Perhaps we need to think a bit more carefully before we hit 'post quick reply'.

That is an incredibly perceptive comment and something I have noticed on other groups. It's also noticeable on twitter which is to this forum what nitro-glycerine is to fresh spring water.

[Joseph K]

Anything is 'memorable', if it can be memorised without much difficulty. That was the point I was making with, obviously, an excess of subtlety. All together: "We're all going on a summer holiday, No more working for a week or two …"

What point were you making, sorry?

The title of the thread featured the word 'memorable' - the point I was making was that Jayne's lyrics fit the description of the title of the thread.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Boundaries exist for the good of all. There will never be agreement of just what and where these boundaries should be, and even those that exist are open to interpretation. Call them censorship if you wish, but the won't go away. In the case of this forum, there are clear guidelines - House Rules. Some will consider them to be too strict - others, too lax. But they exist.

For some, these rules/guidelines are there to be challenged - a starting point for negotiation, or a game to play by trolls who think it's clever to cause trouble. The forum is here primarily to discuss Radio 3 and related issues, but there's scope for other positive discussion. Difficulties arise when posters think breaching the guidelines is clever and daring, or that the forum is a soapbox for unlimited hedonism.
Politics? We can discuss political issues in the appropriate sub-forum, but stop short at debating party politics. The hosts have been extremely flexible over this recently, and most (but not all) posters have shown respect. It's sometimes the few who disrupt things that spoil discussion for the many.

Petrushka rightly suggests that some new threads appear with a danger warning written all over them. Sometimes these are indeed nipped in the bud, but hosts may give the poster the benefit of the doubt in the first instance, trusting forumists to be responsible. Sometimes it works, but not always.

Keep within House Rules and err on the side of caution, and things will run smoothly.

[LMcD]

Boundaries exist for the good of all. There will never be agreement of just what and where these boundaries should be, and even those that exist are open to interpretation. Call them censorship if you wish, but the won't go away. In the case of this forum, there are clear guidelines - House Rules. Some will consider them to be too strict - others, too lax. But they exist.

For some, these rules/guidelines are there to be challenged - a starting point for negotiation, or a game to play by trolls who think it's clever to cause trouble. The forum is here primarily to discuss Radio 3 and related issues, but there's scope for other positive discussion. Difficulties arise when posters think breaching the guidelines is clever and daring, or that the forum is a soapbox for unlimited hedonism.
Politics? We can discuss political issues in the appropriate sub-forum, but stop short at debating party politics. The hosts have been extremely flexible over this recently, and most (but not all) posters have shown respect. It's sometimes the few who disrupt things that spoil discussion for the many.

Petrushka rightly suggests that some new threads appear with a danger warning written all over them. Sometimes these are indeed nipped in the bud, but hosts may give the poster the benefit of the doubt in the first instance, trusting forumists to be responsible. Sometimes it works, but not always.

Keep within House Rules and err on the side of caution, and things will run smoothly.

As somebody whose idea of reckless gambling is to buy a few more Premium Bonds, I hope I can be relied upon to follow your sound advice.

[Count Boso]

What point were you making, sorry?

The point I was making was that the word, memorable, has two slightly different meanings - either 'worthy to be remembered', or 'easy to remember/memorizable'.

The thread would seem, to me at least, to serve very little purpose if 'memorable' merely meant lyrics that people remembered, rather than lyrics that were actually rather good. Most people remember their nursery rhymes, though I assume they would have had little interest simply because they had been remembered by someone. I'd assumed that it was intended that the lyrics should have some literary/poetic value not simply because they were sexually explicit and were quoted at some length. If some people found them offensive here in the context of this particular forum, then they were offensive, regardless of the fact that others did not find them offensive on the grounds that we are all adults. 'Adult content' does not seem to me to be a justification for including it here. But I'm mainly interested in constructing an argument. Over to the defence.

On moderation - If a man goes to his local church and, during the service, climbs into the pulpit and inveighs against the evils of religion, I would say that he could not reasonably complain that his freedom of speech was being curtailed or that he was being censored if members of the congregation dragged him down and bundled him out of the door.

[LMcD]

The point I was making was that the word, memorable, has two slightly different meanings - either 'worthy to be remembered', or 'easy to remember/memorizable'.

The thread would seem, to me at least, to serve very little purpose if 'memorable' merely meant lyrics that people remembered, rather than lyrics that were actually rather good. Most people remember their nursery rhymes, though I assume they would have had little interest simply because they had been remembered by someone. I'd assumed that it was intended that the lyrics should have some literary/poetic value not simply because they were sexually explicit and were quoted at some length. If some people found them offensive here in the context of this particular forum, then they were offensive, regardless of the fact that others did not find them offensive on the grounds that we are all adults. 'Adult content' does not seem to me to be a justification for including it here. But I'm mainly interested in constructing an argument. Over to the defence.

On moderation - If a man goes to his local church and, during the service, climbs into the pulpit and inveighs against the evils of religion, I would say that he could not reasonably complain that his freedom of speech was being curtailed or that he was being censored if members of the congregation dragged him down and bundled him out of the door.

I think the congregation would do better to greet his speech, or whatever you want to call it, with a lengthy silence followed by prolonged bursts of laughter.
As the great German playwright Gottfried von Pickelhaube put it: 'Lachen ist besser als verlachen'

[vinteuil]

Boundaries exist for the good of all. There will never be agreement of just what and where these boundaries should be, and even those that exist are open to interpretation. Call them censorship if you wish, but the won't go away. In the case of this forum, there are clear guidelines - House Rules. Some will consider them to be too strict - others, too lax. But they exist.

For some, these rules/guidelines are there to be challenged - a starting point for negotiation, or a game to play by trolls who think it's clever to cause trouble. The forum is here primarily to discuss Radio 3 and related issues, but there's scope for other positive discussion. Difficulties arise when posters think breaching the guidelines is clever and daring, or that the forum is a soapbox for unlimited hedonism.
Politics? We can discuss political issues in the appropriate sub-forum, but stop short at debating party politics. The hosts have been extremely flexible over this recently, and most (but not all) posters have shown respect. It's sometimes the few who disrupt things that spoil discussion for the many.

Petrushka rightly suggests that some new threads appear with a danger warning written all over them. Sometimes these are indeed nipped in the bud, but hosts may give the poster the benefit of the doubt in the first instance, trusting forumists to be responsible. Sometimes it works, but not always.

Keep within House Rules and err on the side of caution, and things will run smoothly.

.

... probably time for me to say goodbye for a bit. I thought I was among grown-ups.


.

[eighthobstruction]

.

... probably time for me to say goodbye for a bit. I thought I was among grown-ups.


.

....but not about the "goodbye for a bit"....

[Richard Barrett]

It's sometimes the few who disrupt things that spoil discussion for the many.

"For the many, not the few" - an excellent maxim is it not.

[Joseph K]

The point I was making was that the word, memorable, has two slightly different meanings - either 'worthy to be remembered', or 'easy to remember/memorizable'.

The Prince lyrics and Joni Mitchell lyrics ticked both boxes, regarding the two meanings. If I think this is the case, then it is the case, regardless of the fact that others do not find this to be the case.