'Tis the season for censorship on Yesfans.com

[Chris Hosford]

It looks as though criticism of the current band and Benoit David is
no longer tolerated there. There was a rather big thread with
thousands of views and hundreds of posts that has now been deleted. I
asked about it in the "ask the admins" section and my post was deleted
without response.

[rojon]

On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> It looks as though criticism of the current band and Benoit David is
> no longer tolerated there.  There was a rather big thread with
> thousands of views and hundreds of posts that has now been deleted.  I
> asked about it in the "ask the admins" section and my post was deleted
> without response.

Let me give a little background on how this censorship came about.

A thread called "Steve Howe...meastro contradicto" had morphed into a
discussion about Benoit. I think it began in response to the Chris
Squire rimjob called smatt when he made a comment that HSW should be
thought of as only one of the many incarnations of Yes. So I posted a
link to a HD vid in which Benoit was caterwauling and asked if they
actually would go on record as saying this was a good vocal
performance, and if not if they would provide a link to one that was.
This lit up the thread like a roman candle, but with no one offering a
link. What they did offer were personal attacks to Chis and myself.
However, the posting level went through the roof, but pretty quickly
the thread was locked, either by or at the request of the guy who
started the Steve Howe subject saying that the reason was because the
thread had drifted off subject. Which was true enough, but the true
reason was to shut up the anti-Benoit stance that was being openly
stated. So, to solve this, and to make sure it was obviously intended
to carry on the discussion, I name a new thread "maestro Benoit...is
he up to snuff?"

Amid the constant cries that the thread was a dead subject, the
posting continued at a fevered pace. It soon became clear that the
staff wanted to shut it down and shut us up. They pretty much said so.
But their problem was that Chris and I remained polite even though we
were constantly getting personal attacks. This politeness kept them
from having an easy out. However, new threads were started and allowed
making fun of us and we were pretty much labeled as trolls simply
because we stated that Benoits vocals were not up to the level Yes
deserved. The site owner Tim Lutterbie chimed in, saying it was an
annoyance but as long as it was civil, it was OK. Some members asked
to have us banned. Even though Henry was not sided with us, he made
the case that censorship was not a good idea.

Within little more than week, the topic was between 500 and 600 posts
and like 26 pages plus. If combined with the previously silenced Steve
Howe topic, it was 800-900 posts, dwarfing most other topics
combined.

Twas the night before Christmas and I decided to make what was
unknowingly my last statement, saying that I didn't hold ill will to
the people that were taunting me and I wished them a merry Christmas.
I awoke the next morning to find a Christmas miracle, in that a mod
lock my thread, saying only, "run its course."

In response, I posted a new topic "Yescensorship" in which I recapped
the above numbers and said that the pro-Benoit regime had employed a
"I'll just take my toys and go home," methodology to try to win. The
new thread was quickly deleted. I supposed they sat and thought about
it and then decided to also remove my "maestro Benoit...is he up to
snuff?" thread also. I thought about posting a comment in another
thread when I found out I was banned, unable to post.

So that's it. The warm fuzzy love that glows from Yesfans, as long as
you don't voice your own opinions.

[skhatru]

On Dec 26, 11:23 am, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It looks as though criticism of the current band and Benoit David is
> > no longer tolerated there.  There was a rather big thread with
> > thousands of views and hundreds of posts that has now been deleted.  I
> > asked about it in the "ask the admins" section and my post was deleted
> > without response.
>
> Let me give a little background on how this censorship came about.
>
> A thread called "Steve Howe...meastro contradicto" had morphed into a
> discussion about Benoit. I think it began in response to the Chris
> Squire rimjob called smatt when he made a comment that HSW should be
> thought of as only one of the many incarnations of Yes. So I posted a
> link to a HD vid in which Benoit was caterwauling and asked if they
> actually would go on record as saying this was a good vocal
> performance, and if not if they would provide a link to one that was.
> This lit up the thread like a roman candle, but with no one offering a
> link. What they did offer were personal attacks to Chis and myself.
> However, the posting level went through the roof, but pretty quickly
> the thread was locked, either by or at the request of the guy who
> started the Steve Howe subject saying that the reason was because the
> thread had drifted off subject. Which was true enough, but the true
> reason was to shut up the anti-Benoit stance that was being openly
> stated. So, to solve this, and to make sure it was obviously intended
> to carry on the discussion, I name a new thread "maestro Benoit...is
> he up to snuff?"
>
> Amid the constant cries that the thread was a dead subject, the
> posting continued at a fevered pace. It soon became clear that the
> staff wanted to shut it down and shut us up. They pretty much said so.
> But their problem was that Chris and I remained polite even though we
> were constantly getting personal attacks. This politeness kept them
> from having an easy out. However, new threads were started and allowed
> making fun of us and we were pretty much labeled as trolls simply
> because we stated that Benoits vocals were not up to the level Yes
> deserved. The site owner Tim Lutterbie chimed in, saying it was an
> annoyance but as long as it was civil, it was OK. Some members asked
> to have us banned. Even though Henry was not sided with us, he made
> the case that censorship was not a good idea.
>
> Within little more than week, the topic was between 500 and 600 posts
> and like 26 pages plus. If combined with the previously silenced Steve
> Howe topic, it was 800-900 posts, dwarfing most other topics
> combined.
>
> Twas the night before Christmas and I decided to make what was
> unknowingly my last statement, saying that I didn't hold ill will to
> the people that were taunting me and I wished them a merry Christmas.
> I awoke the next morning to find a Christmas miracle, in that a mod
> lock my thread, saying only, "run its course."
>
> In response, I posted a new topic "Yescensorship" in which I recapped
> the above numbers and said that the pro-Benoit regime had employed a
> "I'll just take my toys and go home," methodology to try to win. The
> new thread was quickly deleted. I supposed they sat and thought about
> it and then decided to also remove my "maestro Benoit...is he up to
> snuff?" thread also. I thought about posting a comment in another
> thread when I found out I was banned, unable to post.
>
> So that's it. The warm fuzzy love that glows from Yesfans, as long as
> you don't voice your own opinions.

I can say without reservation or qualification that I think there has
been enough of the whole Benoit debate over there. Most of us are sick
and tired of seeing the threads that always degenerate into name
calling and insults. In my humble opinion, if you recently - during
the past several months, say - started yet another Beniot discussion
thread over there, it was with the singular purpose of stirring up
more trouble. Seriously, the whole issue has caused so much
dissension since Jon posted his rant in October 2008 that it's
undermined the nature of the site. [and by that, I don't mean
'syncophantic,' but rather that we are group of people who, in
general, like each other and get along with each other]

I am compelled to ask you the musical question:

what the fuck are you doing on Yesfans if you hate the band and other
Yesfans.

just don't see them or buy the new album. That'll show 'em.

I've been a member there for 5 years and I KNOW for certain that you
weren't banned for posting some innocent posts stating your opinions.
Unfortunately, there are rule of conduct over there because there are
people like you who don't understand the concept of community and
can't help yourselves from posting every nasty thought that comes into
your mind? Certainly you wouldn't do that in your workplace in favor
of easing social intercourse . . . so why do it on YF? Just because
the posts on that thread went "through the roof" as you put it, it
doesn't make it a good idea to let them go on forever, any more than
you and your coworkers lining up to slap an unpopular supervisor would
be a good idea.

As for the mods. I know all of them personally and it sux for them
that they have to spend their time babysitting so-called adults like
you who don't know the simple rules of getting along with other
people. It's because of the posting behavior of people like you that
such threads often wind up being closed or deleted.

[btw, don't suppose you've ever met Beniot. He's a really nice guy who
doesn't deserve to be slammed all over the internet, and certainly not
by people like you are nothing but nasty]

I suggest that you man up and accept the reality that Jon is not with
them.

[rojon]

On Dec 26, 1:44 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> I can say without reservation or qualification that I think there has
> been enough of the whole Benoit debate over there. Most of us...

us? whoever you are. What is your user name there?

> are sick
> ...Seriously, the whole issue has caused so much
> dissension since Jon posted his rant in October 2008 that it's
> undermined the nature of the site.


that you call a co-founder's post about being shocked that HSW left
him on his sick bed, "a rant" says all we need to know about your pro-
Benoit stance.



> [and by that, I don't mean
> 'syncophantic,' but rather that we are group of people who, in
> general, like each other and get along with each other]
>

what the site is, is a collection of sycophants that fret the loss of
their concert going. That an original band member suffers is of no
matter. That the band's image suffers is of no matter, as long as it
doesn't affect your night of partying. You guys are one serious
collection of tone deaf idiots.

> I am compelled to ask you the musical question:
>
> what the fuck are you doing on Yesfans if you hate the band and other
> Yesfans.
>

um, that isn't a MUSICAL QUESTION. (LOL, *tone deaf idiots*)


> I've been a member there for 5 years and I KNOW for certain that you
> weren't banned for posting some innocent posts stating your opinions.
> Unfortunately, there are rule of conduct over there because there are
> people like you who don't understand the concept of community and
> can't help yourselves from posting every nasty thought that comes into
> your mind?

well, if I posted something nasty there, copy it here you tone deaf
idiot liar. I was constantly called names there, yet I abided with the
rules. I was about the only one too. (Hosford did too)

> Certainly you wouldn't do that in your workplace in favor
> of easing social intercourse . . . so why do it on YF?

speaking of the workplace, you realize that Yes WAS Anderson's
workplace, yet you think it was fine that HSW stabbed him in the back.
But, since you asked, the reason I discuss it on Yesfans is that it IS
Yesnews. Especially compared to such rah rah thread such as about
Squire's new pair of socks vid. Yawn, and even there in your own love
nest, such as that doesn't generate any interest, lol.

> Just because
> the posts on that thread went "through the roof" as you put it, it
> doesn't make it a good idea to let them go on forever, any more than
> you and your coworkers lining up to slap an unpopular supervisor would
> be a good idea.

It went through the roof because it is a pertinent subject about the
very foundations of yes, you idiot. You would know you ass from
pertinent subject, you cant even tell the difference between a
discussion and assault? Sheesh, no fuckin wonder


>
> As for the mods. I know all of them personally and it sux for them
> that they have to spend their time babysitting so-called adults like
> you who don't know the simple rules of getting along with other
> people.

well, Mr. comprehension...it wasn't me that broke the rules there.
Again if you think you have evidence, post it here. But you wont,
because it doesnt exist, which shows the kind of lies and attacks I
had to deal with daily there.


> It's because of the posting behavior of people like you that
> such threads often wind up being closed or deleted.
>

LOL, no, it was because the pro-Benoit regime cant stand that someone
stood in their face and politely called Benoit on being the no talent
farce that HE IS.

> [btw, don't suppose you've ever met Beniot. He's a really nice guy who
> doesn't deserve to be slammed all over the internet, and certainly not
> by people like you are nothing but nasty]
>

If "nice" sounded good, I wouldn't even be in the discussion. If he
learns to sing, preferably on key, then I could accept him. Even the
pro-Benoit kiss up there admit he is often off key. This has nothing
to do with what a sweet person he might or might not be, it isn't like
you even know just because he nodded at you or whatever, sheesh.

> I suggest that you man up and accept the reality that Jon is not with
> them.
>

I suggest you clean you clean your ears out.

[skhatru]

On Dec 26, 2:17 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 1:44 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I can say without reservation or qualification that I think there has
> > been enough of the whole Benoit debate over there. Most of us...
>
> us? whoever you are. What is your user name there?
>
> > are sick
> > ...Seriously, the whole issue has caused so much
> > dissension since Jon posted his rant in October 2008 that it's
> > undermined the nature of the site.
>
> that you call a co-founder's post about being shocked that HSW left
> him on his sick bed, "a rant" says all we need to know about your pro-
> Benoit stance.
>
> > [and by that, I don't mean
> > 'syncophantic,' but rather that we are group of people who, in
> > general, like each other and get along with each other]
>
> what the site is, is a collection of sycophants that fret the loss of
> their concert going. That an original band member suffers is of no
> matter. That the band's image suffers is of no matter, as long as it
> doesn't affect your night of partying. You guys are one serious
> collection of tone deaf idiots.
>
> > I am compelled to ask you the musical question:
>
> > what the fuck are you doing on Yesfans if you hate the band and other
> > Yesfans.
>
> um, that isn't a MUSICAL QUESTION. (LOL, *tone deaf idiots*)
>
> > I've been a member there for 5 years and I KNOW for certain that you
> > weren't banned for posting some innocent posts stating your opinions.
> > Unfortunately, there are rule of conduct over there because there are
> > people like you who don't understand the concept of community and
> > can't help yourselves from posting every nasty thought that comes into
> > your mind?
>
> well, if I posted something nasty there, copy it here you tone deaf
> idiot liar. I was constantly called names there, yet I abided with the
> rules. I was about the only one too. (Hosford did too)
>
> > Certainly you wouldn't do that in your workplace in favor
> > of easing social intercourse . . . so why do it on YF?
>
> speaking of the workplace, you realize that Yes WAS Anderson's
> workplace, yet you think it was fine that HSW stabbed him in the back.
> But, since you asked, the reason I discuss it on Yesfans is that it IS
> Yesnews. Especially compared to such rah rah thread such as about
> Squire's new pair of socks vid. Yawn, and even there in your own love
> nest, such as that doesn't generate any interest, lol.
>
> > Just because
> > the posts on that thread went "through the roof" as you put it, it
> > doesn't make it a good idea to let them go on forever, any more than
> > you and your coworkers lining up to slap an unpopular supervisor would
> > be a good idea.
>
> It went through the roof because it is a pertinent subject about the
> very foundations of yes, you idiot. You would know you ass from
> pertinent subject, you cant even tell the difference between a
> discussion and assault? Sheesh, no fuckin wonder
>
>
>
> > As for the mods.  I know all of them personally and it sux for them
> > that they have to spend their time babysitting so-called adults like
> > you who don't know the simple rules of getting along with other
> > people.
>
> well, Mr. comprehension...it wasn't me that broke the rules there.
> Again if you think you have evidence, post it here. But you wont,
> because it doesnt exist, which shows the kind of lies and attacks I
> had to deal with daily there.
>
> > It's because of the posting behavior of people like you that
> > such threads often wind up being closed or deleted.
>
> LOL, no, it was because the pro-Benoit regime cant stand that someone
> stood in their face and politely called Benoit on being the no talent
> farce that HE IS.
>
> > [btw, don't suppose you've ever met Beniot. He's a really nice guy who
> > doesn't deserve to be slammed all over the internet, and certainly not
> > by people like you are nothing but nasty]
>
> If "nice" sounded good, I wouldn't even be in the discussion. If he
> learns to sing, preferably on key, then I could accept him. Even the
> pro-Benoit kiss up there admit he is often off key. This has nothing
> to do with what a sweet person he might or might not be, it isn't like
> you even know just because he nodded at you or whatever, sheesh.
>
> > I suggest that you man up and accept the reality that Jon is not with
> > them.
>
> I suggest you clean you clean your ears out.

If you think, rojon, that I'm going to waste my time searching for
posts by you over at YF, then you are mistaken.

As for your rant about concert going and partying, I am sober and do
not 'party' but I like to hang with a lot of the people over there,
and not just at shows.

I suspect that your circle of friends is quite limited. You seem like
an anti-social progboy.

My name over there is irrelevant, but I've gone round with you over
attacking a friend of mine. I don't remember who, and I don't
remember when, but I DO remember that it was you and I thought you a
total asshole at the time.

As for Jon - I love him and my favorite internet avatar is a pic of
us taken in 2006. I got to spend about 10 minutes talking to him - no
other fans around. He is a wonderful person and an historic talent.

However.

You don't know all the story of the relationships in the band.
Neither do I, but I know more than you do. I can say, again
without reservation or qualification, that it is neither the entire
truth nor the whole story that no one except Alan bothered to contact
him when he was ill. These are complicated people with egos as big as
their talents. There are complexities involved with creativity and ego
and money that feed into problems between the band members
personally. I'm not at all surprised that it would be beyond your
capacity to guess this for yourself, even without 'knowing' it.

I'll venture to guess that you have not bothered to see the band. As
such, your opinion of Benoit's abilities has absolutely no merit
whatsoever.

[rojon]

On Dec 26, 2:37 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2:17 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 1:44 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I can say without reservation or qualification that I think there has
> > > been enough of the whole Benoit debate over there. Most of us...
>
> > us? whoever you are. What is your user name there?
>
> > > are sick
> > > ...Seriously, the whole issue has caused so much
> > > dissension since Jon posted his rant in October 2008 that it's
> > > undermined the nature of the site.
>
> > that you call a co-founder's post about being shocked that HSW left
> > him on his sick bed, "a rant" says all we need to know about your pro-
> > Benoit stance.
>
> > > [and by that, I don't mean
> > > 'syncophantic,' but rather that we are group of people who, in
> > > general, like each other and get along with each other]
>
> > what the site is, is a collection of sycophants that fret the loss of
> > their concert going. That an original band member suffers is of no
> > matter. That the band's image suffers is of no matter, as long as it
> > doesn't affect your night of partying. You guys are one serious
> > collection of tone deaf idiots.
>
> > > I am compelled to ask you the musical question:
>
> > > what the fuck are you doing on Yesfans if you hate the band and other
> > > Yesfans.
>
> > um, that isn't a MUSICAL QUESTION. (LOL, *tone deaf idiots*)
>
> > > I've been a member there for 5 years and I KNOW for certain that you
> > > weren't banned for posting some innocent posts stating your opinions.
> > > Unfortunately, there are rule of conduct over there because there are
> > > people like you who don't understand the concept of community and
> > > can't help yourselves from posting every nasty thought that comes into
> > > your mind?
>
> > well, if I posted something nasty there, copy it here you tone deaf
> > idiot liar. I was constantly called names there, yet I abided with the
> > rules. I was about the only one too. (Hosford did too)
>
> > > Certainly you wouldn't do that in your workplace in favor
> > > of easing social intercourse . . . so why do it on YF?
>
> > speaking of the workplace, you realize that Yes WAS Anderson's
> > workplace, yet you think it was fine that HSW stabbed him in the back.
> > But, since you asked, the reason I discuss it on Yesfans is that it IS
> > Yesnews. Especially compared to such rah rah thread such as about
> > Squire's new pair of socks vid. Yawn, and even there in your own love
> > nest, such as that doesn't generate any interest, lol.
>
> > > Just because
> > > the posts on that thread went "through the roof" as you put it, it
> > > doesn't make it a good idea to let them go on forever, any more than
> > > you and your coworkers lining up to slap an unpopular supervisor would
> > > be a good idea.
>
> > It went through the roof because it is a pertinent subject about the
> > very foundations of yes, you idiot. You would know you ass from
> > pertinent subject, you cant even tell the difference between a
> > discussion and assault? Sheesh, no fuckin wonder
>
> > > As for the mods.  I know all of them personally and it sux for them
> > > that they have to spend their time babysitting so-called adults like
> > > you who don't know the simple rules of getting along with other
> > > people.
>
> > well, Mr. comprehension...it wasn't me that broke the rules there.
> > Again if you think you have evidence, post it here. But you wont,
> > because it doesnt exist, which shows the kind of lies and attacks I
> > had to deal with daily there.
>
> > > It's because of the posting behavior of people like you that
> > > such threads often wind up being closed or deleted.
>
> > LOL, no, it was because the pro-Benoit regime cant stand that someone
> > stood in their face and politely called Benoit on being the no talent
> > farce that HE IS.
>
> > > [btw, don't suppose you've ever met Beniot. He's a really nice guy who
> > > doesn't deserve to be slammed all over the internet, and certainly not
> > > by people like you are nothing but nasty]
>
> > If "nice" sounded good, I wouldn't even be in the discussion. If he
> > learns to sing, preferably on key, then I could accept him. Even the
> > pro-Benoit kiss up there admit he is often off key. This has nothing
> > to do with what a sweet person he might or might not be, it isn't like
> > you even know just because he nodded at you or whatever, sheesh.
>
> > > I suggest that you man up and accept the reality that Jon is not with
> > > them.
>
> > I suggest you clean you clean your ears out.
>
> If you think, rojon, that I'm going to waste my time searching for
> posts by you over at YF, then you are mistaken.


Well, I like I already said...I know youe wont because we BOTH know
that it is a lie. So why would you?


>
> As for your rant about concert going and partying, I am sober and do
> not 'party' but I like to hang with a lot of the people over there,
> and not just at shows.
>
> I suspect that your circle of friends is quite limited. You seem like
> an anti-social progboy.

typical of the way Yesfans defends Benoit. since there IS no defence,
they attcked us.


>
> My name over there is irrelevant

LOL. I KNEW IT! What was that about maning up? I was rojon there, I am
rojon here, becasue *I'm* not a coward and dont mind if you compare
what I say here with there and I dont care if you do search my posts
becasue I know that you are a liar AND now a coward.



> but I've gone round with you over
> attacking a friend of mine.  I don't remember who, and I don't
> remember when

You dont remember who? LOL, close friend huh? I bet you are that super
fat ass blonde bitch that was fooled by raja over there, what a
fucking moron. She though he was some deaf girl, lol. Priceless.


>, but I DO remember that it was you and I thought you a
> total asshole at the time.
>

Fine by me, and if there is ONE thing that you do know, its assholes.



> As for Jon - I love him and my favorite internet avatar is a pic of
> us taken in 2006.  I got to spend about 10 minutes talking to him - no
> other fans around.  He is a wonderful person and an historic talent.
>

Yeah, it must be her. Melissa, or something.

> However.
>
> You don't know all the story of the relationships in the band.
> Neither do I, but I know more than you do.

How can you possibly know that, you habe NO idea what I know. You dont
even remember your "friend" that I "attacked," lol.

> I can say, again
> without reservation or qualification, that it is neither the entire
> truth nor the whole story that no one except Alan bothered to contact
> him when he was ill. These are complicated people with egos as big as
> their talents. There are complexities involved with creativity and ego
> and money that feed into problems between the band members
> personally.  I'm not at all surprised that it would be beyond your
> capacity to guess this for yourself, even without 'knowing' it.
>
> I'll venture to guess that you have not bothered to see the band.  As
> such, your opinion of Benoit's abilities has absolutely no merit
> whatsoever.

I can see why pro-Benoit tone deaf idiots would WANT that to be true,
but off key and weak vocals are off key and weak vocals. Why would I
spend money to see that shit?

[skhatru]

rojon wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2:37 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 26, 2:17 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 26, 1:44 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > I can say without reservation or qualification that I think there has
> > > > been enough of the whole Benoit debate over there. Most of us...
> >
> > > us? whoever you are. What is your user name there?
> >
> > > > are sick
> > > > ...Seriously, the whole issue has caused so much
> > > > dissension since Jon posted his rant in October 2008 that it's
> > > > undermined the nature of the site.
> >
> > > that you call a co-founder's post about being shocked that HSW left
> > > him on his sick bed, "a rant" says all we need to know about your pro-
> > > Benoit stance.
> >
> > > > [and by that, I don't mean
> > > > 'syncophantic,' but rather that we are group of people who, in
> > > > general, like each other and get along with each other]
> >
> > > what the site is, is a collection of sycophants that fret the loss of
> > > their concert going. That an original band member suffers is of no
> > > matter. That the band's image suffers is of no matter, as long as it
> > > doesn't affect your night of partying. You guys are one serious
> > > collection of tone deaf idiots.
> >
> > > > I am compelled to ask you the musical question:
> >
> > > > what the fuck are you doing on Yesfans if you hate the band and other
> > > > Yesfans.
> >
> > > um, that isn't a MUSICAL QUESTION. (LOL, *tone deaf idiots*)
> >
> > > > I've been a member there for 5 years and I KNOW for certain that you
> > > > weren't banned for posting some innocent posts stating your opinions.
> > > > Unfortunately, there are rule of conduct over there because there are
> > > > people like you who don't understand the concept of community and
> > > > can't help yourselves from posting every nasty thought that comes into
> > > > your mind?
> >
> > > well, if I posted something nasty there, copy it here you tone deaf
> > > idiot liar. I was constantly called names there, yet I abided with the
> > > rules. I was about the only one too. (Hosford did too)
> >
> > > > Certainly you wouldn't do that in your workplace in favor
> > > > of easing social intercourse . . . so why do it on YF?
> >
> > > speaking of the workplace, you realize that Yes WAS Anderson's
> > > workplace, yet you think it was fine that HSW stabbed him in the back.
> > > But, since you asked, the reason I discuss it on Yesfans is that it IS
> > > Yesnews. Especially compared to such rah rah thread such as about
> > > Squire's new pair of socks vid. Yawn, and even there in your own love
> > > nest, such as that doesn't generate any interest, lol.
> >
> > > > Just because
> > > > the posts on that thread went "through the roof" as you put it, it
> > > > doesn't make it a good idea to let them go on forever, any more than
> > > > you and your coworkers lining up to slap an unpopular supervisor would
> > > > be a good idea.
> >
> > > It went through the roof because it is a pertinent subject about the
> > > very foundations of yes, you idiot. You would know you ass from
> > > pertinent subject, you cant even tell the difference between a
> > > discussion and assault? Sheesh, no fuckin wonder
> >
> > > > As for the mods.  I know all of them personally and it sux for them
> > > > that they have to spend their time babysitting so-called adults like
> > > > you who don't know the simple rules of getting along with other
> > > > people.
> >
> > > well, Mr. comprehension...it wasn't me that broke the rules there.
> > > Again if you think you have evidence, post it here. But you wont,
> > > because it doesnt exist, which shows the kind of lies and attacks I
> > > had to deal with daily there.
> >
> > > > It's because of the posting behavior of people like you that
> > > > such threads often wind up being closed or deleted.
> >
> > > LOL, no, it was because the pro-Benoit regime cant stand that someone
> > > stood in their face and politely called Benoit on being the no talent
> > > farce that HE IS.
> >
> > > > [btw, don't suppose you've ever met Beniot. He's a really nice guy who
> > > > doesn't deserve to be slammed all over the internet, and certainly not
> > > > by people like you are nothing but nasty]
> >
> > > If "nice" sounded good, I wouldn't even be in the discussion. If he
> > > learns to sing, preferably on key, then I could accept him. Even the
> > > pro-Benoit kiss up there admit he is often off key. This has nothing
> > > to do with what a sweet person he might or might not be, it isn't like
> > > you even know just because he nodded at you or whatever, sheesh.
> >
> > > > I suggest that you man up and accept the reality that Jon is not with
> > > > them.
> >
> > > I suggest you clean you clean your ears out.
> >
> > If you think, rojon, that I'm going to waste my time searching for
> > posts by you over at YF, then you are mistaken.
>
>
> Well, I like I already said...I know youe wont because we BOTH know
> that it is a lie. So why would you?
>
>
> >
> > As for your rant about concert going and partying, I am sober and do
> > not 'party' but I like to hang with a lot of the people over there,
> > and not just at shows.
> >
> > I suspect that your circle of friends is quite limited. You seem like
> > an anti-social progboy.
>
> typical of the way Yesfans defends Benoit. since there IS no defence,
> they attcked us.
>
>
> >
> > My name over there is irrelevant
>
> LOL. I KNEW IT! What was that about maning up? I was rojon there, I am
> rojon here, becasue *I'm* not a coward and dont mind if you compare
> what I say here with there and I dont care if you do search my posts
> becasue I know that you are a liar AND now a coward.
>
>
>
> > but I've gone round with you over
> > attacking a friend of mine.  I don't remember who, and I don't
> > remember when
>
> You dont remember who? LOL, close friend huh? I bet you are that super
> fat ass blonde bitch that was fooled by raja over there, what a
> fucking moron. She though he was some deaf girl, lol. Priceless.
>
>
> >, but I DO remember that it was you and I thought you a
> > total asshole at the time.
> >
>
> Fine by me, and if there is ONE thing that you do know, its assholes.
>
>
>
> > As for Jon - I love him and my favorite internet avatar is a pic of
> > us taken in 2006.  I got to spend about 10 minutes talking to him - no
> > other fans around.  He is a wonderful person and an historic talent.
> >
>
> Yeah, it must be her. Melissa, or something.
>
> > However.
> >
> > You don't know all the story of the relationships in the band.
> > Neither do I, but I know more than you do.
>
> How can you possibly know that, you habe NO idea what I know. You dont
> even remember your "friend" that I "attacked," lol.
>
> > I can say, again
> > without reservation or qualification, that it is neither the entire
> > truth nor the whole story that no one except Alan bothered to contact
> > him when he was ill. These are complicated people with egos as big as
> > their talents. There are complexities involved with creativity and ego
> > and money that feed into problems between the band members
> > personally.  I'm not at all surprised that it would be beyond your
> > capacity to guess this for yourself, even without 'knowing' it.
> >
> > I'll venture to guess that you have not bothered to see the band.  As
> > such, your opinion of Benoit's abilities has absolutely no merit
> > whatsoever.
>
> I can see why pro-Benoit tone deaf idiots would WANT that to be true,
> but off key and weak vocals are off key and weak vocals. Why would I
> spend money to see that shit?

AHA, yes that was it.

There is a deaf woman on YF and she is actually deaf and her name is
not Melissa. Her name is Jacqueline and she now goes by Colors of Jade
because of Jade Anderson.

I am Melissa, okay, satisfied. Wooo fucking hooo.
I was keeping my name out of it because I said I know more of the
story. As a general rule, I don't post that I know things for reasons
of my own having nothing to do with this discussion.

As for my fat ass - you've never met me and my ass isn't even in the
pic with Jon. Nice try tho.
I don't need to see your head to know it's both fat and empty. Your
posts in this thread alone are enough to tell me that.

I notice that you 'conveniently' don't respond to much of what I said
- e.g. that there is more to the story. You are hell-bent on calling
YF administration Benoittians and ignoring other issues. That Jon is
physically incapable of doing a Yes tour seems to just go right over
your head, prog boy.

[Rob Allen]

On Dec 26, 11:37 am, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2:17 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 1:44 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I can say without reservation or qualification that I think there has
> > > been enough of the whole Benoit debate over there. Most of us...
>
> > us? whoever you are. What is your user name there?
>
> > > are sick
> > > ...Seriously, the whole issue has caused so much
> > > dissension since Jon posted his rant in October 2008 that it's
> > > undermined the nature of the site.
>
> > that you call a co-founder's post about being shocked that HSW left
> > him on his sick bed, "a rant" says all we need to know about your pro-
> > Benoit stance.
>
> > > [and by that, I don't mean
> > > 'syncophantic,' but rather that we are group of people who, in
> > > general, like each other and get along with each other]
>
> > what the site is, is a collection of sycophants that fret the loss of
> > their concert going. That an original band member suffers is of no
> > matter. That the band's image suffers is of no matter, as long as it
> > doesn't affect your night of partying. You guys are one serious
> > collection of tone deaf idiots.
>
> > > I am compelled to ask you the musical question:
>
> > > what the fuck are you doing on Yesfans if you hate the band and other
> > > Yesfans.
>
> > um, that isn't a MUSICAL QUESTION. (LOL, *tone deaf idiots*)
>
> > > I've been a member there for 5 years and I KNOW for certain that you
> > > weren't banned for posting some innocent posts stating your opinions.
> > > Unfortunately, there are rule of conduct over there because there are
> > > people like you who don't understand the concept of community and
> > > can't help yourselves from posting every nasty thought that comes into
> > > your mind?
>
> > well, if I posted something nasty there, copy it here you tone deaf
> > idiot liar. I was constantly called names there, yet I abided with the
> > rules. I was about the only one too. (Hosford did too)
>
> > > Certainly you wouldn't do that in your workplace in favor
> > > of easing social intercourse . . . so why do it on YF?
>
> > speaking of the workplace, you realize that Yes WAS Anderson's
> > workplace, yet you think it was fine that HSW stabbed him in the back.
> > But, since you asked, the reason I discuss it on Yesfans is that it IS
> > Yesnews. Especially compared to such rah rah thread such as about
> > Squire's new pair of socks vid. Yawn, and even there in your own love
> > nest, such as that doesn't generate any interest, lol.
>
> > > Just because
> > > the posts on that thread went "through the roof" as you put it, it
> > > doesn't make it a good idea to let them go on forever, any more than
> > > you and your coworkers lining up to slap an unpopular supervisor would
> > > be a good idea.
>
> > It went through the roof because it is a pertinent subject about the
> > very foundations of yes, you idiot. You would know you ass from
> > pertinent subject, you cant even tell the difference between a
> > discussion and assault? Sheesh, no fuckin wonder
>
> > > As for the mods.  I know all of them personally and it sux for them
> > > that they have to spend their time babysitting so-called adults like
> > > you who don't know the simple rules of getting along with other
> > > people.
>
> > well, Mr. comprehension...it wasn't me that broke the rules there.
> > Again if you think you have evidence, post it here. But you wont,
> > because it doesnt exist, which shows the kind of lies and attacks I
> > had to deal with daily there.
>
> > > It's because of the posting behavior of people like you that
> > > such threads often wind up being closed or deleted.
>
> > LOL, no, it was because the pro-Benoit regime cant stand that someone
> > stood in their face and politely called Benoit on being the no talent
> > farce that HE IS.
>
> > > [btw, don't suppose you've ever met Beniot. He's a really nice guy who
> > > doesn't deserve to be slammed all over the internet, and certainly not
> > > by people like you are nothing but nasty]
>
> > If "nice" sounded good, I wouldn't even be in the discussion. If he
> > learns to sing, preferably on key, then I could accept him. Even the
> > pro-Benoit kiss up there admit he is often off key. This has nothing
> > to do with what a sweet person he might or might not be, it isn't like
> > you even know just because he nodded at you or whatever, sheesh.
>
> > > I suggest that you man up and accept the reality that Jon is not with
> > > them.
>
> > I suggest you clean you clean your ears out.
>
> If you think, rojon, that I'm going to waste my time searching for
> posts by you over at YF, then you are mistaken.


there really is no point in you attempting to "man up" a little.


> As for your rant about concert going and partying, I am sober and do
> not 'party' but I like to hang with a lot of the people over there,
> and not just at shows.


er...it's not possible to be sober and still enjoy some "partying"?

Wow...I didn't know that.



> I suspect that your circle of friends is quite limited. You seem like
> an anti-social progboy.


happily, one can toss any sort of insult around here...but I do find
it odd when the obvious thin-skinned choose to insult others.

I'll guess it's ok for you to dish, but you really don't take very
well.



> My name over there is irrelevant, but I've gone round with you over
> attacking a friend of mine.


your name over there may be "irrelevant", but to me, _over here_, you
are moron...and a moron that hides behind various kinda *funny*
~handles~ to boot.

So I guess that actually makes you _coward moron_.

 

>I don't remember who, and I don't
> remember when, but I DO remember that it was you and I thought you a
> total asshole at the time.


but you could't say that there because of "the mods"...and
"community"...and...er..."the workplace".

You really are a cute little piece of work, aren't you.



> As for Jon - I love him and my favorite internet avatar is a pic of
> us taken in 2006.  


<shudder>

>I got to spend about 10 minutes talking to him - no
> other fans around.  He is a wonderful person and an historic talent.


he's a Yes level talent...sadly though, the same can't be said for
that nice guy Benoit David.



> However.
>
> You don't know all the story of the relationships in the band.
> Neither do I, but I know more than you do.  


I don't care about those stories...I only care about the quality of
the music...and I care that poor quality music is being performed live
under the Yes brand.


>I can say, again
> without reservation or qualification, that it is neither the entire
> truth nor the whole story that no one except Alan bothered to contact
> him when he was ill. These are complicated people with egos as big as
> their talents. There are complexities involved with creativity and ego
> and money that feed into problems between the band members
> personally.  I'm not at all surprised that it would be beyond your
> capacity to guess this for yourself, even without 'knowing' it.


so you're just gonna keep tossing insult so long as you post here?

Good enough...learn to take as you dish.



> I'll venture to guess that you have not bothered to see the band.  As
> such, your opinion of Benoit's abilities has absolutely no merit
> whatsoever.


lol...another one of these..._if you've not wasted your time and money
to go to see this band, your opinion is *dismissed*!

Let's keep this simple, moron...I'm going to *dismiss* your opinion
because you are painfully obvious in your moron.


Rob "I wonder if that was simple enough for _it_" Allen

[Peter]

On Dec 26, 2:37 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> You don't know all the story of the relationships in the band.
> Neither do I, but I know more than you do.  

You met Jon once for ten minutes. That ain't much

> These are complicated people with egos as big as
> their talents.


This part is true.

> There are complexities involved with creativity and ego
> and money that feed into problems between the band members
> personally.

This part is rationalizaion and BS. There are plenty of creative
people who aren't assholes to one another.

 > I'm not at all surprised that it would be beyond your
> capacity to guess this for yourself, even without 'knowing' it.

Careful about whay you claim you know. This isn't *Yesfans*

[Chris Jemmett]

On Dec 27, 10:50 am, Peter <***@rock.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2:37 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You don't know all the story of the relationships in the band.
> > Neither do I, but I know more than you do.  
>
> You met Jon once for ten minutes. That ain't much
>
> > These are complicated people with egos as big as
> > their talents.
>
> This part is true.
>
> > There are complexities involved with creativity and ego
> > and money that feed into problems between the band members
> > personally.
>
> This part is rationalizaion and BS. There are plenty of creative
> people who aren't assholes to one another.
>
>  > I'm not at all surprised that it would be beyond your
>
> > capacity to guess this for yourself, even without 'knowing' it.
>
> Careful about whay you claim you know. This isn't *Yesfans*

[Chris Jemmett]

On Dec 27, 10:50 am, Peter <***@rock.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2:37 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You don't know all the story of the relationships in the band.
> > Neither do I, but I know more than you do.  
>
> You met Jon once for ten minutes. That ain't much
>
> > These are complicated people with egos as big as
> > their talents.
>
> This part is true.
>
> > There are complexities involved with creativity and ego
> > and money that feed into problems between the band members
> > personally.
>
> This part is rationalizaion and BS. There are plenty of creative
> people who aren't assholes to one another.
>
>  > I'm not at all surprised that it would be beyond your
>
> > capacity to guess this for yourself, even without 'knowing' it.
>
> Careful about whay you claim you know. This isn't *Yesfans*

I think stepping out of the matrix put a bit of a zap on her brain.

"There ARE people who think that hiring a bad imposter is bullshit and
don't minds saying so... whoa, must get baaaaack to the heard... but
still, no moderators... none... free ...free... freedo...no, don't say
it! stop thinking! Yes is good, Yes is right , yes is good, yes is
right".

[rojon]

On Dec 27, 8:35 pm, Chris Jemmett <***@rogers.com> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 10:50 am, Peter <***@rock.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 2:37 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You don't know all the story of the relationships in the band.
> > > Neither do I, but I know more than you do.  
>
> > You met Jon once for ten minutes. That ain't much
>
> > > These are complicated people with egos as big as
> > > their talents.
>
> > This part is true.
>
> > > There are complexities involved with creativity and ego
> > > and money that feed into problems between the band members
> > > personally.
>
> > This part is rationalizaion and BS. There are plenty of creative
> > people who aren't assholes to one another.
>
> >  > I'm not at all surprised that it would be beyond your
>
> > > capacity to guess this for yourself, even without 'knowing' it.
>
> > Careful about whay you claim you know. This isn't *Yesfans*
>
> I think stepping out of the matrix put a bit of a zap on her brain.
>

I think this must be pretty much on target.

As I mentioned previously, she and I had this whole raja argument at
Yesfans, and I think she must have held such a grudge all this time
that she came to AMY expecting to find a post about the banning.
However, she must have quickly found out what is was like not being
under the protective umbrella of her friends the mods and waddled back
home.

[Chris Jemmett]

On Dec 27, 11:19 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 8:35 pm, Chris Jemmett <***@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 27, 10:50 am, Peter <***@rock.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 26, 2:37 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > You don't know all the story of the relationships in the band.
> > > > Neither do I, but I know more than you do.  
>
> > > You met Jon once for ten minutes. That ain't much
>
> > > > These are complicated people with egos as big as
> > > > their talents.
>
> > > This part is true.
>
> > > > There are complexities involved with creativity and ego
> > > > and money that feed into problems between the band members
> > > > personally.
>
> > > This part is rationalizaion and BS. There are plenty of creative
> > > people who aren't assholes to one another.
>
> > >  > I'm not at all surprised that it would be beyond your
>
> > > > capacity to guess this for yourself, even without 'knowing' it.
>
> > > Careful about whay you claim you know. This isn't *Yesfans*
>
> > I think stepping out of the matrix put a bit of a zap on her brain.
>
> I think this must be pretty much on target.
>
> As I mentioned previously, she and I had this whole raja argument at
> Yesfans, and I think she must have held such a grudge all this time
> that she came to AMY expecting to find a post about the banning.
> However, she must have quickly found out what is was like not being
> under the protective umbrella of her friends the mods and waddled back
> home.

You're mean.

[Rick]

On Dec 27, 9:50 am, Peter <***@rock.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2:37 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There are complexities involved with creativity and ego
> > and money that feed into problems between the band members
> > personally.
>
> This part is rationalizaion and BS. There are plenty of creative
> people who aren't assholes to one another.
>

Perhaps there are, but 40 years of membership changes suggest limited
peace and harmony in this particular collection of people.

[Chris Jemmett]

On Dec 29, 2:25 pm, Rick <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 9:50 am, Peter <***@rock.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 26, 2:37 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > There are complexities involved with creativity and ego
> > > and money that feed into problems between the band members
> > > personally.
>
> > This part is rationalizaion and BS. There are plenty of creative
> > people who aren't assholes to one another.
>
> Perhaps there are, but 40 years of membership changes suggest limited
> peace and harmony in this particular collection of people.

At least their fans are joined together in their/our psychotically
dysfunctional social intercourse of fun and frolic reflecting closely
the inspirations provided by the ongoing drama that used to be Yes.

[Michel Forest]

On 26 déc, 14:37, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> These are complicated people with egos as big as
> their talents.

That would explain why David is such a nice guy...

> There are complexities involved with creativity and ego
> and money

You mean: "There are complexities involved with money"...

> I'll venture to guess that you have not bothered to see the band.  As
> such, your opinion of Benoit's abilities has absolutely no merit
> whatsoever.

Ah, yes, that infamous bogus argument. Look buddy, I've never seen The
Beatles in person but I've heard the recordings and I'm pretty sure
they kicked butt as a band.

[artie shaw]

On Dec 26, 11:37 am, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2:17 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 1:44 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I can say without reservation or qualification that I think there has
> > > been enough of the whole Benoit debate over there. Most of us...
>
> > us? whoever you are. What is your user name there?
>
> > > are sick
> > > ...Seriously, the whole issue has caused so much
> > > dissension since Jon posted his rant in October 2008 that it's
> > > undermined the nature of the site.
>
> > that you call a co-founder's post about being shocked that HSW left
> > him on his sick bed, "a rant" says all we need to know about your pro-
> > Benoit stance.
>
> > > [and by that, I don't mean
> > > 'syncophantic,' but rather that we are group of people who, in
> > > general, like each other and get along with each other]
>
> > what the site is, is a collection of sycophants that fret the loss of
> > their concert going. That an original band member suffers is of no
> > matter. That the band's image suffers is of no matter, as long as it
> > doesn't affect your night of partying. You guys are one serious
> > collection of tone deaf idiots.
>
> > > I am compelled to ask you the musical question:
>
> > > what the fuck are you doing on Yesfans if you hate the band and other
> > > Yesfans.
>
> > um, that isn't a MUSICAL QUESTION. (LOL, *tone deaf idiots*)
>
> > > I've been a member there for 5 years and I KNOW for certain that you
> > > weren't banned for posting some innocent posts stating your opinions.
> > > Unfortunately, there are rule of conduct over there because there are
> > > people like you who don't understand the concept of community and
> > > can't help yourselves from posting every nasty thought that comes into
> > > your mind?
>
> > well, if I posted something nasty there, copy it here you tone deaf
> > idiot liar. I was constantly called names there, yet I abided with the
> > rules. I was about the only one too. (Hosford did too)
>
> > > Certainly you wouldn't do that in your workplace in favor
> > > of easing social intercourse . . . so why do it on YF?
>
> > speaking of the workplace, you realize that Yes WAS Anderson's
> > workplace, yet you think it was fine that HSW stabbed him in the back.
> > But, since you asked, the reason I discuss it on Yesfans is that it IS
> > Yesnews. Especially compared to such rah rah thread such as about
> > Squire's new pair of socks vid. Yawn, and even there in your own love
> > nest, such as that doesn't generate any interest, lol.
>
> > > Just because
> > > the posts on that thread went "through the roof" as you put it, it
> > > doesn't make it a good idea to let them go on forever, any more than
> > > you and your coworkers lining up to slap an unpopular supervisor would
> > > be a good idea.
>
> > It went through the roof because it is a pertinent subject about the
> > very foundations of yes, you idiot. You would know you ass from
> > pertinent subject, you cant even tell the difference between a
> > discussion and assault? Sheesh, no fuckin wonder
>
> > > As for the mods.  I know all of them personally and it sux for them
> > > that they have to spend their time babysitting so-called adults like
> > > you who don't know the simple rules of getting along with other
> > > people.
>
> > well, Mr. comprehension...it wasn't me that broke the rules there.
> > Again if you think you have evidence, post it here. But you wont,
> > because it doesnt exist, which shows the kind of lies and attacks I
> > had to deal with daily there.
>
> > > It's because of the posting behavior of people like you that
> > > such threads often wind up being closed or deleted.
>
> > LOL, no, it was because the pro-Benoit regime cant stand that someone
> > stood in their face and politely called Benoit on being the no talent
> > farce that HE IS.
>
> > > [btw, don't suppose you've ever met Beniot. He's a really nice guy who
> > > doesn't deserve to be slammed all over the internet, and certainly not
> > > by people like you are nothing but nasty]
>
> > If "nice" sounded good, I wouldn't even be in the discussion. If he
> > learns to sing, preferably on key, then I could accept him. Even the
> > pro-Benoit kiss up there admit he is often off key. This has nothing
> > to do with what a sweet person he might or might not be, it isn't like
> > you even know just because he nodded at you or whatever, sheesh.
>
> > > I suggest that you man up and accept the reality that Jon is not with
> > > them.
>
> > I suggest you clean you clean your ears out.
>
> If you think, rojon, that I'm going to waste my time searching for
> posts by you over at YF, then you are mistaken.
>
> As for your rant about concert going and partying, I am sober and do
> not 'party' but I like to hang with a lot of the people over there,
> and not just at shows.
>
> I suspect that your circle of friends is quite limited. You seem like
> an anti-social progboy.
>
> My name over there is irrelevant, but I've gone round with you over
> attacking a friend of mine.  I don't remember who, and I don't
> remember when, but I DO remember that it was you and I thought you a
> total asshole at the time.
>
> As for Jon - I love him and my favorite internet avatar is a pic of
> us taken in 2006.  I got to spend about 10 minutes talking to him - no
> other fans around.  He is a wonderful person and an historic talent.
>
> However.
>
> You don't know all the story of the relationships in the band.
> Neither do I, but I know more than you do.  I can say, again
> without reservation or qualification, that it is neither the entire
> truth nor the whole story that no one except Alan bothered to contact
> him when he was ill. These are complicated people with egos as big as
> their talents. There are complexities involved with creativity and ego
> and money that feed into problems between the band members
> personally.  I'm not at all surprised that it would be beyond your
> capacity to guess this for yourself, even without 'knowing' it.
>
> I'll venture to guess that you have not bothered to see the band.  As
> such, your opinion of Benoit's abilities has absolutely no merit
> whatsoever.

Fuck off, you disgusting cunt. Take your shit back to the sheltered
Yes forum from whence you were shat from. Quite obviously, you lack
the intellect to post here.

[skhatru]

On Dec 26, 2:17 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 1:44 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I can say without reservation or qualification that I think there has
> > been enough of the whole Benoit debate over there. Most of us...
>
> us? whoever you are. What is your user name there?
>
> > are sick
> > ...Seriously, the whole issue has caused so much
> > dissension since Jon posted his rant in October 2008 that it's
> > undermined the nature of the site.
>
> that you call a co-founder's post about being shocked that HSW left
> him on his sick bed, "a rant" says all we need to know about your pro-
> Benoit stance.
>
> > [and by that, I don't mean
> > 'syncophantic,' but rather that we are group of people who, in
> > general, like each other and get along with each other]
>
> what the site is, is a collection of sycophants that fret the loss of
> their concert going. That an original band member suffers is of no
> matter. That the band's image suffers is of no matter, as long as it
> doesn't affect your night of partying. You guys are one serious
> collection of tone deaf idiots.
>
> > I am compelled to ask you the musical question:
>
> > what the fuck are you doing on Yesfans if you hate the band and other
> > Yesfans.
>
> um, that isn't a MUSICAL QUESTION. (LOL, *tone deaf idiots*)
>
> > I've been a member there for 5 years and I KNOW for certain that you
> > weren't banned for posting some innocent posts stating your opinions.
> > Unfortunately, there are rule of conduct over there because there are
> > people like you who don't understand the concept of community and
> > can't help yourselves from posting every nasty thought that comes into
> > your mind?
>
> well, if I posted something nasty there, copy it here you tone deaf
> idiot liar. I was constantly called names there, yet I abided with the
> rules. I was about the only one too. (Hosford did too)
>
> > Certainly you wouldn't do that in your workplace in favor
> > of easing social intercourse . . . so why do it on YF?
>
> speaking of the workplace, you realize that Yes WAS Anderson's
> workplace, yet you think it was fine that HSW stabbed him in the back.
> But, since you asked, the reason I discuss it on Yesfans is that it IS
> Yesnews. Especially compared to such rah rah thread such as about
> Squire's new pair of socks vid. Yawn, and even there in your own love
> nest, such as that doesn't generate any interest, lol.
>
> > Just because
> > the posts on that thread went "through the roof" as you put it, it
> > doesn't make it a good idea to let them go on forever, any more than
> > you and your coworkers lining up to slap an unpopular supervisor would
> > be a good idea.
>
> It went through the roof because it is a pertinent subject about the
> very foundations of yes, you idiot. You would know you ass from
> pertinent subject, you cant even tell the difference between a
> discussion and assault? Sheesh, no fuckin wonder
>
>
>
> > As for the mods.  I know all of them personally and it sux for them
> > that they have to spend their time babysitting so-called adults like
> > you who don't know the simple rules of getting along with other
> > people.
>
> well, Mr. comprehension...it wasn't me that broke the rules there.
> Again if you think you have evidence, post it here. But you wont,
> because it doesnt exist, which shows the kind of lies and attacks I
> had to deal with daily there.
>
> > It's because of the posting behavior of people like you that
> > such threads often wind up being closed or deleted.
>
> LOL, no, it was because the pro-Benoit regime cant stand that someone
> stood in their face and politely called Benoit on being the no talent
> farce that HE IS.
>
> > [btw, don't suppose you've ever met Beniot. He's a really nice guy who
> > doesn't deserve to be slammed all over the internet, and certainly not
> > by people like you are nothing but nasty]
>
> If "nice" sounded good, I wouldn't even be in the discussion. If he
> learns to sing, preferably on key, then I could accept him. Even the
> pro-Benoit kiss up there admit he is often off key. This has nothing
> to do with what a sweet person he might or might not be, it isn't like
> you even know just because he nodded at you or whatever, sheesh.
>
> > I suggest that you man up and accept the reality that Jon is not with
> > them.
>
> I suggest you clean you clean your ears out.

As for Richard and the New Pair of Socks vid . . .

this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about when it comes to
you.

To wit:

It seems beyond you to comprehend that Yesfans would be excited for
Richard that Chris took the lyrics he wrote to Run With the Fox and
recorded it and played it on Rick's radio show a couple of years ago.
What a thrill it was for him to have Chris ring him up and tell him he
wanted to do a quick recording of Richard's lyrics! Maybe you
wouldn't be excited to answer the phone and hear Chris Squire on the
other end, but I would be and Richard was and many of us were thrilled
for him.

It IS important to us.

Richard is a wonderful, funny, smart guy. Nice as can be.
If you can't see why New Pair of Socks is important to us Yesfans,
then truly, you don't belong on the board.

[rojon]

On Dec 26, 2:44 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> As for Richard and the New Pair of Socks vid . . .
>
> this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about when it comes to
> you.
>
> To wit:
>
> It seems beyond you to comprehend that Yesfans would be excited for
> Richard that Chris took the lyrics he wrote to Run With the Fox and
> recorded it and played it on Rick's radio show a couple of years ago.
> What a thrill it was for him to have Chris ring him up and tell him he
> wanted to do a quick recording of Richard's lyrics!  Maybe you
> wouldn't be excited to answer the phone and hear Chris Squire on the
> other end, but I would be and Richard was and many of us were thrilled
> for him.
>
> It IS important to us.
>
> Richard is a wonderful, funny, smart guy.  Nice as can be.
> If you can't see why New Pair of Socks is important to us Yesfans,
> then truly, you don't belong on the board.
>

Um, lol, well as nice a story as that is, it is totally irrelevant to
the point I was making since I was NOT discussing the merits of the
song itself (sheesh), I was talking about the posting level the thread
"Something to brighten up your holiday season :)" generated, which was
a whopping 2 posts. You really are an olympic class idiot.

[Chris Jemmett]

On Dec 26, 2:17 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 1:44 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I can say without reservation or qualification that I think there has
> > been enough of the whole Benoit debate over there. Most of us...
>
> us? whoever you are. What is your user name there?

Is there a Melissa over there calling herself something?

I never understood why people hide the way they do. It comes down to
either spineless or a troll or a shill.
And yes, I do realise that it is possible to have a consistant online
identity without using your real name.

Still, when Ms Anonymous shows up representing herself as "we" or
"us", I have to wonder what merit her assertions could possibly have.

[Rob Allen]

On Dec 26, 10:44 am, skhatru <***@gmail.com> babbled:

> I can say without reservation or qualification that I think there has
> been enough of the whole Benoit debate over there.


lol..."over there".

The "Benoit debate" will be alive and well so long as HSWes continues
to misuse the Yes brand. Benoit David is central to that misuse and
so observations regarding his lack of qualifications for the position
he's been shoehorned into will be made, no matter the censorship that
might exist in a certain *Yesfan* forum.


>Most of us are sick
> and tired of seeing the threads that always degenerate into name
> calling and insults.


what a lot of fucking morons.


>In my humble opinion, if you recently - during
> the past several months, say - started yet another Beniot discussion
> thread over there, it was with the singular purpose of  stirring up
> more trouble.


"trouble"? "Trouble" like making accurate observations about the sham
currently misrepresenting itself as Yes?

 

>Seriously, the whole issue has caused so much
> dissension since Jon posted his rant in October 2008 that it's
> undermined the nature of the site. [and by that, I don't mean
> 'syncophantic,' but rather that we are group of people who, in
> general, like each other and get along with each other]


and blindly follow anything that calls itself Yes?

Seriously, the whole issue caused so much dissension since HSW decided
it a good idea to trash the Yes brand with this shameful fiasco.



> I am compelled to ask you the musical question:
>
> what the fuck are you doing on Yesfans if you hate the band and other
> Yesfans.


that isn't a "musical question", moron...it's a _poster_ question.

But while we're here...what the fuck are you doing on Yesfans is you
would support the trashing of the Yes brand and *Yesfans* who would do
the same?


> just don't see them or buy the new album. That'll show 'em.


I'll do that and talk about it too. You don't like that, fuck you.



> I've been a member there for 5 years and I KNOW for certain that you
> weren't banned for posting some innocent posts stating your opinions.


somehow I feel like you can't be trusted to your word on that...if
only because you clearly are a moron.


> Unfortunately, there are rule of conduct over there because there are
> people like you who don't understand the concept of community and
> can't help yourselves from posting every nasty thought that comes into
> your mind?  


er...for you wouldn't those "rule of conduct" be fortunate, moron?


>Certainly you wouldn't do that in your workplace in favor
> of easing social intercourse . . . so why do it on YF?


er..."YF" is somehow the same thing as "your workplace"?

WTF, c'mon, man.


>Just because
> the posts on that thread went "through the roof" as you put it, it
> doesn't make it a good idea to let them go on forever, any more than
> you and your coworkers lining up to slap an unpopular supervisor would
> be a good idea.


so conversation, even nasty conservation is somehow the same thing as
"slap[ping]" someone?

Grow some skin, moron. I assure you that anything I might say to
*anybody* could never hurt the same way as it might should I strike
them instead.



> As for the mods.  I know all of them personally and it sux for them
> that they have to spend their time babysitting so-called adults like
> you who don't know the simple rules of getting along with other
> people.  It's because of the posting behavior of people like you that
> such threads often wind up being closed or deleted.


the "mods" *are* might because they like the power of ~allowing~
certain discourse...or _not_.

It "sux" for people to be so weak as to need "the mods" and it also
"sux" for people to be so weak as to need to *be* "the mods".


> [btw, don't suppose you've ever met Beniot. He's a really nice guy who
> doesn't deserve to be slammed all over the internet, and certainly not
> by people like you are nothing but nasty]


I'm sure he's a great guy...I'm also sure he's an amateur talent that
has no business being in a band that calls itself Yes. He's willing
to work the position he's in, then he gets what he deserves for doing
that.



> I suggest that you man up and accept the reality that Jon is not with
> them.


I suggest you man up and accept the reality that Benoit David is
amateur level talent and HSWes is nothing but a sham intended to
bleed a last bit of income from blind fools like yourself and the rest
of the sheep "over there".


Rob "but you can't _man up_, can you, moron?" Allen

[Chris Hosford]

On Dec 26, 1:44 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 11:23 am, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > It looks as though criticism of the current band and Benoit David is
> > > no longer tolerated there.  There was a rather big thread with
> > > thousands of views and hundreds of posts that has now been deleted.  I
> > > asked about it in the "ask the admins" section and my post was deleted
> > > without response.
>
> > Let me give a little background on how this censorship came about.
>
> > A thread called "Steve Howe...meastro contradicto" had morphed into a
> > discussion about Benoit. I think it began in response to the Chris
> > Squire rimjob called smatt when he made a comment that HSW should be
> > thought of as only one of the many incarnations of Yes. So I posted a
> > link to a HD vid in which Benoit was caterwauling and asked if they
> > actually would go on record as saying this was a good vocal
> > performance, and if not if they would provide a link to one that was.
> > This lit up the thread like a roman candle, but with no one offering a
> > link. What they did offer were personal attacks to Chis and myself.
> > However, the posting level went through the roof, but pretty quickly
> > the thread was locked, either by or at the request of the guy who
> > started the Steve Howe subject saying that the reason was because the
> > thread had drifted off subject. Which was true enough, but the true
> > reason was to shut up the anti-Benoit stance that was being openly
> > stated. So, to solve this, and to make sure it was obviously intended
> > to carry on the discussion, I name a new thread "maestro Benoit...is
> > he up to snuff?"
>
> > Amid the constant cries that the thread was a dead subject, the
> > posting continued at a fevered pace. It soon became clear that the
> > staff wanted to shut it down and shut us up. They pretty much said so.
> > But their problem was that Chris and I remained polite even though we
> > were constantly getting personal attacks. This politeness kept them
> > from having an easy out. However, new threads were started and allowed
> > making fun of us and we were pretty much labeled as trolls simply
> > because we stated that Benoits vocals were not up to the level Yes
> > deserved. The site owner Tim Lutterbie chimed in, saying it was an
> > annoyance but as long as it was civil, it was OK. Some members asked
> > to have us banned. Even though Henry was not sided with us, he made
> > the case that censorship was not a good idea.
>
> > Within little more than week, the topic was between 500 and 600 posts
> > and like 26 pages plus. If combined with the previously silenced Steve
> > Howe topic, it was 800-900 posts, dwarfing most other topics
> > combined.
>
> > Twas the night before Christmas and I decided to make what was
> > unknowingly my last statement, saying that I didn't hold ill will to
> > the people that were taunting me and I wished them a merry Christmas.
> > I awoke the next morning to find a Christmas miracle, in that a mod
> > lock my thread, saying only, "run its course."
>
> > In response, I posted a new topic "Yescensorship" in which I recapped
> > the above numbers and said that the pro-Benoit regime had employed a
> > "I'll just take my toys and go home," methodology to try to win. The
> > new thread was quickly deleted. I supposed they sat and thought about
> > it and then decided to also remove my "maestro Benoit...is he up to
> > snuff?" thread also. I thought about posting a comment in another
> > thread when I found out I was banned, unable to post.
>
> > So that's it. The warm fuzzy love that glows from Yesfans, as long as
> > you don't voice your own opinions.
>
> I can say without reservation or qualification that I think there has
> been enough of the whole Benoit debate over there. Most of us are sick
> and tired of seeing the threads that always degenerate into name
> calling and insults. In my humble opinion, if you recently - during
> the past several months, say - started yet another Beniot discussion
> thread over there, it was with the singular purpose of  stirring up
> more trouble.  Seriously, the whole issue has caused so much
> dissension since Jon posted his rant in October 2008 that it's
> undermined the nature of the site. [and by that, I don't mean
> 'syncophantic,' but rather that we are group of people who, in
> general, like each other and get along with each other]
>
> I am compelled to ask you the musical question:
>
> what the fuck are you doing on Yesfans if you hate the band and other
> Yesfans.
>
> just don't see them or buy the new album. That'll show 'em.
>
> I've been a member there for 5 years and I KNOW for certain that you
> weren't banned for posting some innocent posts stating your opinions.
> Unfortunately, there are rule of conduct over there because there are
> people like you who don't understand the concept of community and
> can't help yourselves from posting every nasty thought that comes into
> your mind?  Certainly you wouldn't do that in your workplace in favor
> of easing social intercourse . . . so why do it on YF? Just because
> the posts on that thread went "through the roof" as you put it, it
> doesn't make it a good idea to let them go on forever, any more than
> you and your coworkers lining up to slap an unpopular supervisor would
> be a good idea.
>
> As for the mods.  I know all of them personally and it sux for them
> that they have to spend their time babysitting so-called adults like
> you who don't know the simple rules of getting along with other
> people.  It's because of the posting behavior of people like you that
> such threads often wind up being closed or deleted.
>
> [btw, don't suppose you've ever met Beniot. He's a really nice guy who
> doesn't deserve to be slammed all over the internet, and certainly not
> by people like you are nothing but nasty]
>
> I suggest that you man up and accept the reality that Jon is not with
> them.


If anybody was breaking the forum rules it was the Benoitians
launching personal attacks against me and Rojon in the deleted thread
and starting new threads attacking us. I don't necessarily disagree
with the decision to lock the thread in question, (If it had kept
going then I doubt I would have been able to restrain myself with the
aforementioned Smatt.) but deleting it is ridiculous. I've never
maintained that Benoit is anything other than a nice guy, just a "not-
very-talented" nice guy. The site is Yesfans, not Benoitfans. I've
got enough Yes stuff in my iTunes to listen to them for 2.5 days. Do
you know how many times I'd hear Benoit's voice? Zero. It is clearly
possible to be a HUGE fan of Yes and to also find the current band
pretty lame and useless. Is it beyond your comprehension that some
people might just want to talk about the band and talk about music
without joining in the snugglefest?

[skhatru]

On Dec 26, 2:37 pm, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 1:44 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 11:23 am, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > It looks as though criticism of the current band and Benoit David is
> > > > no longer tolerated there.  There was a rather big thread with
> > > > thousands of views and hundreds of posts that has now been deleted.  I
> > > > asked about it in the "ask the admins" section and my post was deleted
> > > > without response.
>
> > > Let me give a little background on how this censorship came about.
>
> > > A thread called "Steve Howe...meastro contradicto" had morphed into a
> > > discussion about Benoit. I think it began in response to the Chris
> > > Squire rimjob called smatt when he made a comment that HSW should be
> > > thought of as only one of the many incarnations of Yes. So I posted a
> > > link to a HD vid in which Benoit was caterwauling and asked if they
> > > actually would go on record as saying this was a good vocal
> > > performance, and if not if they would provide a link to one that was.
> > > This lit up the thread like a roman candle, but with no one offering a
> > > link. What they did offer were personal attacks to Chis and myself.
> > > However, the posting level went through the roof, but pretty quickly
> > > the thread was locked, either by or at the request of the guy who
> > > started the Steve Howe subject saying that the reason was because the
> > > thread had drifted off subject. Which was true enough, but the true
> > > reason was to shut up the anti-Benoit stance that was being openly
> > > stated. So, to solve this, and to make sure it was obviously intended
> > > to carry on the discussion, I name a new thread "maestro Benoit...is
> > > he up to snuff?"
>
> > > Amid the constant cries that the thread was a dead subject, the
> > > posting continued at a fevered pace. It soon became clear that the
> > > staff wanted to shut it down and shut us up. They pretty much said so.
> > > But their problem was that Chris and I remained polite even though we
> > > were constantly getting personal attacks. This politeness kept them
> > > from having an easy out. However, new threads were started and allowed
> > > making fun of us and we were pretty much labeled as trolls simply
> > > because we stated that Benoits vocals were not up to the level Yes
> > > deserved. The site owner Tim Lutterbie chimed in, saying it was an
> > > annoyance but as long as it was civil, it was OK. Some members asked
> > > to have us banned. Even though Henry was not sided with us, he made
> > > the case that censorship was not a good idea.
>
> > > Within little more than week, the topic was between 500 and 600 posts
> > > and like 26 pages plus. If combined with the previously silenced Steve
> > > Howe topic, it was 800-900 posts, dwarfing most other topics
> > > combined.
>
> > > Twas the night before Christmas and I decided to make what was
> > > unknowingly my last statement, saying that I didn't hold ill will to
> > > the people that were taunting me and I wished them a merry Christmas.
> > > I awoke the next morning to find a Christmas miracle, in that a mod
> > > lock my thread, saying only, "run its course."
>
> > > In response, I posted a new topic "Yescensorship" in which I recapped
> > > the above numbers and said that the pro-Benoit regime had employed a
> > > "I'll just take my toys and go home," methodology to try to win. The
> > > new thread was quickly deleted. I supposed they sat and thought about
> > > it and then decided to also remove my "maestro Benoit...is he up to
> > > snuff?" thread also. I thought about posting a comment in another
> > > thread when I found out I was banned, unable to post.
>
> > > So that's it. The warm fuzzy love that glows from Yesfans, as long as
> > > you don't voice your own opinions.
>
> > I can say without reservation or qualification that I think there has
> > been enough of the whole Benoit debate over there. Most of us are sick
> > and tired of seeing the threads that always degenerate into name
> > calling and insults. In my humble opinion, if you recently - during
> > the past several months, say - started yet another Beniot discussion
> > thread over there, it was with the singular purpose of  stirring up
> > more trouble.  Seriously, the whole issue has caused so much
> > dissension since Jon posted his rant in October 2008 that it's
> > undermined the nature of the site. [and by that, I don't mean
> > 'syncophantic,' but rather that we are group of people who, in
> > general, like each other and get along with each other]
>
> > I am compelled to ask you the musical question:
>
> > what the fuck are you doing on Yesfans if you hate the band and other
> > Yesfans.
>
> > just don't see them or buy the new album. That'll show 'em.
>
> > I've been a member there for 5 years and I KNOW for certain that you
> > weren't banned for posting some innocent posts stating your opinions.
> > Unfortunately, there are rule of conduct over there because there are
> > people like you who don't understand the concept of community and
> > can't help yourselves from posting every nasty thought that comes into
> > your mind?  Certainly you wouldn't do that in your workplace in favor
> > of easing social intercourse . . . so why do it on YF? Just because
> > the posts on that thread went "through the roof" as you put it, it
> > doesn't make it a good idea to let them go on forever, any more than
> > you and your coworkers lining up to slap an unpopular supervisor would
> > be a good idea.
>
> > As for the mods.  I know all of them personally and it sux for them
> > that they have to spend their time babysitting so-called adults like
> > you who don't know the simple rules of getting along with other
> > people.  It's because of the posting behavior of people like you that
> > such threads often wind up being closed or deleted.
>
> > [btw, don't suppose you've ever met Beniot. He's a really nice guy who
> > doesn't deserve to be slammed all over the internet, and certainly not
> > by people like you are nothing but nasty]
>
> > I suggest that you man up and accept the reality that Jon is not with
> > them.
>
> If anybody was breaking the forum rules it was the Benoitians
> launching personal attacks against me and Rojon in the deleted thread
> and starting new threads attacking us.  I don't necessarily disagree
> with the decision to lock the thread in question, (If it had kept
> going then I doubt I would have been able to restrain myself with the
> aforementioned Smatt.) but deleting it is ridiculous.  I've never
> maintained that Benoit is anything other than a nice guy, just a "not-
> very-talented" nice guy.  The site is Yesfans, not Benoitfans.  I've
> got enough Yes stuff in my iTunes to listen to them for 2.5 days.  Do
> you know how many times I'd hear Benoit's voice?  Zero.  It is clearly
> possible to be a HUGE fan of Yes and to also find the current band
> pretty lame and useless.  Is it beyond your comprehension that some
> people might just want to talk about the band and talk about music
> without joining in the snugglefest?

It's a yes fan board, not a yes slam board.

I am hoping that it's not a complete waste to again point out to you
that this is about social relationships. People arguing over Benoit
engenders bad feeling that carry over to other threads and threaten to
carry over to off-the-board real life.
No, it's not the exact same as slapping someone, and yesfans is not
the workplace, but relationships are relationships. There are rules
governing social intercourse - being reasonably polite to other
people, for starters. Geez, are you ever literal-minded.

If you want to be able to speak your mind in your solitude at your
keyboard, then alt.music.yes is the right place for you; if you want
to create actual relationships that have the possibility to carry over
to fun and frolic and friendship in the real world, then Yesfans is
the place. It seems clear to me that you are interested in the
former, not the latter, and so you shouldn't care one whit about not
being able to post over there. It's a moderated board and you knew
that when you signed up.

And.

Has it ever occurred to y'all as your talking about the trashing of
the the bands legacy by HSW that at the end of the day they are people
who have to make a living too? Chris co-founded the band and has the
right to tour as Yes. Alan and Steve have been there so long and
contributed so much of what we know as Yes - why shouldn't they also
be entitled to pay their bills by touring as Yes? Jon is welcome to
rejoin them if and when he is ever physically capable - which he may
never be. He also uses the name in describing his shows, as he is
entitled to do.

It's almost funny to read you calling me a moron when clearly, any
subtleties in thought about the whole thing escape you.

[rojon]

On Dec 26, 3:28 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I am hoping that it's not a complete waste to again point out to you
> that this is about social relationships.  

Well good job. That is the worst behaved bunch on the net, despite of
what you have heard about the villians at AMY. I have never seen such
despicable behavior. I refer you to the thread where the promoter
first pointed out that HSW were shopping the tour with a possible
alternate singer, just weeks after Jon was ill. The regulars at
Yesfan's called that poor guy ever name in the book, and of course as
we all know now, it was 100% true.

So much for your social relationships. You guys are pigs.

[rojon]

On Dec 26, 3:28 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> People arguing over Benoit
> engenders bad feeling that carry over to other threads and threaten to
> carry over to off-the-board real life.

I assume some such twisted thinking was the base of "reasoning" that
made them feel justifed. But to that, they could have had the balls to
say this openly, instead of "run its course." Instead what they did
was pull the plug and remain silent on it. Cowardly.

And od course, the central issue has always been, those folks that say
they were upset from reading it could just simply not do so. I was
punished becasue THEY couldnt stop themselves from reading material
they were too immature to handle. there were scads of topics I didnt
care about on Yesfans and I had no problem NOT reading them.

What they were, was jealous that this topic they hated, this disdain
for Benoits mimicry, was getting almost all the attention. They
couldnt win, so they banned.

[Rob Allen]

On Dec 26, 12:28 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> babbled:


If I could make a suggestion, irrelevant...try trimming some of the
hundred or so quoted lines from your posts.


> It's a yes fan board, not a yes slam board.


so "homers" only.

I really have a problem with this notion that "fans" are should
somehow be required to be "homers". I can't be a "homer"...if my home
team is somehow failing the brand and it's customers, then my home
team needs to be called out. If that home team can't fix the problem,
I'm still talking about it, but I'm likely out as a customer.

Will I always have a place in my heart for that home team? Of course,
but the blind loyalty of a "homer" should never be expected.



> I am hoping that it's not a complete waste to again point out to you
> that this is about social relationships.  People arguing over Benoit
> engenders bad feeling that carry over to other threads and threaten to
> carry over to off-the-board real life.


So the key to succesful social relationships is for everyone to feel
the same way about things...everyone should have the same opinion. If
your opinion is contrary to that of whoever somehow _runs_ these
social relationships, then *keep it to yourself*, because we're trying
to get along here and so we require everyone to stay in line.


> No, it's not the exact same as slapping someone, and yesfans is not
> the workplace, but relationships are relationships.  There are rules
> governing social intercourse - being reasonably polite to other
> people, for starters. Geez, are you ever literal-minded.



best I can tell, both Chris and rojo believe they were polite enough,
but stated opinion that didn't fall properly in line with whatever
propaganda program is being run "over there". Obviously that
situation is about as far away from anything "social intercourse" as
one might get.


> If you want to be able to speak your mind in your solitude at your
> keyboard, then alt.music.yes is the right place for you;  if you want
> to create actual relationships that have the possibility to carry over
> to fun and frolic and friendship in the real world, then Yesfans is
> the place.  It seems clear to me that you are interested in the
> former, not the latter, and so you shouldn't care one whit about not
> being able to post over there. It's a moderated board and you knew
> that when you signed up.


I can't speak for anyone but me, but I'm certainly not going to
*anything* internet to look for friendship...let alone "fun and
frolic".



> And.


<blank stare>


> Has it ever occurred to y'all as your talking about the trashing of
> the the bands legacy by HSW that at the end of the day they are people
> who have to make a living too?


Yes.


>Chris co-founded the band and has the
> right to tour as Yes.  


um, he currently has a legal right to the name, which has nothing to
do with being a co-founder. That he has the legal right to the brand
name is interesting enough, that he's chosen to exercise that right in
such a shameful manner...is...well...fucking _shameful_.

Maybe he should think of making his living developing the Chris Squire
brand...that way there's not much history to get in the way of him
doing whatever he might like.


>Alan and Steve have been there so long and
> contributed so much of what we know as Yes - why shouldn't they also
> be entitled to pay their bills by touring as Yes?  


because they aren't delivering a Yes product.


>Jon is welcome to
> rejoin them if and when he is ever physically capable - which he may
> never be.  


saying things that are obviously not true does nothing to further
"social intercourse"...and it makes you appear as either a liar, or a
moron. There's not rules against that here, but you might expect
someone will point out that you seem to be either a liar or a moron.


>He also uses the name in describing his shows, as he is
> entitled to do.


HSW of Yes would work fine for me. They can have an amateur singer,
or whatever else they want, because then they wouln't be pretending to
be Yes, but only guys who have been in Yes.

There's just this gigantic difference between that and actually
calling their little HSWes fiasco Yes.



> It's almost funny to read you calling me a moron when clearly, any
> subtleties in thought about the whole thing escape you.


an absolutely classic moron comment if I've ever seen one.


Rob "*Yesfans*" Allen

[Michel Forest]

On 27 déc, 09:39, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:

> Maybe he should think of making his living developing the Chris Squire
> brand...that way there's not much history to get in the way of him
> doing whatever he might like.

That would require way too much effort... That's never been Squire's
thing.

[Rob Allen]

On Dec 27, 7:12 pm, Michel Forest <***@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On 27 déc, 09:39, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Maybe he should think of making his living developing the Chris Squire
> > brand...that way there's not much history to get in the way of him
> > doing whatever he might like.
>
> That would require way too much effort... That's never been Squire's
> thing.


and of course that's why he would be having Trevor Horn making a new
record for him.


Rob "the whole thing is a *very* bad joke" Allen

[Michel Forest]

On 28 déc, 12:29, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 7:12 pm, Michel Forest <***@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On 27 déc, 09:39, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Maybe he should think of making his living developing the Chris Squire
> > > brand...that way there's not much history to get in the way of him
> > > doing whatever he might like.
>
> > That would require way too much effort... That's never been Squire's
> > thing.
>
> and of course that's why he would be having Trevor Horn making a new
> record for him.
>
> Rob "the whole thing is a *very* bad joke" Allen

Back in the days of Yeswest, Squire could always count on another
Trevor to do the heavy lifting...

[Rob Allen]

On Dec 28, 5:53 pm, Michel Forest <***@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On 28 déc, 12:29, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 27, 7:12 pm, Michel Forest <***@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On 27 déc, 09:39, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Maybe he should think of making his living developing the Chris Squire
> > > > brand...that way there's not much history to get in the way of him
> > > > doing whatever he might like.
>
> > > That would require way too much effort... That's never been Squire's
> > > thing.
>
> > and of course that's why he would be having Trevor Horn making a new
> > record for him.
>
> > Rob "the whole thing is a *very* bad joke" Allen
>
> Back in the days of Yeswest, Squire could always count on another
> Trevor to do the heavy lifting...


and then some time later there was this guy called Billy...


Rob "he does all the work, I just come in and fuck with it" Allen

[skhatru]

On Dec 26, 2:37 pm, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 1:44 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 11:23 am, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > It looks as though criticism of the current band and Benoit David is
> > > > no longer tolerated there.  There was a rather big thread with
> > > > thousands of views and hundreds of posts that has now been deleted.  I
> > > > asked about it in the "ask the admins" section and my post was deleted
> > > > without response.
>
> > > Let me give a little background on how this censorship came about.
>
> > > A thread called "Steve Howe...meastro contradicto" had morphed into a
> > > discussion about Benoit. I think it began in response to the Chris
> > > Squire rimjob called smatt when he made a comment that HSW should be
> > > thought of as only one of the many incarnations of Yes. So I posted a
> > > link to a HD vid in which Benoit was caterwauling and asked if they
> > > actually would go on record as saying this was a good vocal
> > > performance, and if not if they would provide a link to one that was.
> > > This lit up the thread like a roman candle, but with no one offering a
> > > link. What they did offer were personal attacks to Chis and myself.
> > > However, the posting level went through the roof, but pretty quickly
> > > the thread was locked, either by or at the request of the guy who
> > > started the Steve Howe subject saying that the reason was because the
> > > thread had drifted off subject. Which was true enough, but the true
> > > reason was to shut up the anti-Benoit stance that was being openly
> > > stated. So, to solve this, and to make sure it was obviously intended
> > > to carry on the discussion, I name a new thread "maestro Benoit...is
> > > he up to snuff?"
>
> > > Amid the constant cries that the thread was a dead subject, the
> > > posting continued at a fevered pace. It soon became clear that the
> > > staff wanted to shut it down and shut us up. They pretty much said so.
> > > But their problem was that Chris and I remained polite even though we
> > > were constantly getting personal attacks. This politeness kept them
> > > from having an easy out. However, new threads were started and allowed
> > > making fun of us and we were pretty much labeled as trolls simply
> > > because we stated that Benoits vocals were not up to the level Yes
> > > deserved. The site owner Tim Lutterbie chimed in, saying it was an
> > > annoyance but as long as it was civil, it was OK. Some members asked
> > > to have us banned. Even though Henry was not sided with us, he made
> > > the case that censorship was not a good idea.
>
> > > Within little more than week, the topic was between 500 and 600 posts
> > > and like 26 pages plus. If combined with the previously silenced Steve
> > > Howe topic, it was 800-900 posts, dwarfing most other topics
> > > combined.
>
> > > Twas the night before Christmas and I decided to make what was
> > > unknowingly my last statement, saying that I didn't hold ill will to
> > > the people that were taunting me and I wished them a merry Christmas.
> > > I awoke the next morning to find a Christmas miracle, in that a mod
> > > lock my thread, saying only, "run its course."
>
> > > In response, I posted a new topic "Yescensorship" in which I recapped
> > > the above numbers and said that the pro-Benoit regime had employed a
> > > "I'll just take my toys and go home," methodology to try to win. The
> > > new thread was quickly deleted. I supposed they sat and thought about
> > > it and then decided to also remove my "maestro Benoit...is he up to
> > > snuff?" thread also. I thought about posting a comment in another
> > > thread when I found out I was banned, unable to post.
>
> > > So that's it. The warm fuzzy love that glows from Yesfans, as long as
> > > you don't voice your own opinions.
>
> > I can say without reservation or qualification that I think there has
> > been enough of the whole Benoit debate over there. Most of us are sick
> > and tired of seeing the threads that always degenerate into name
> > calling and insults. In my humble opinion, if you recently - during
> > the past several months, say - started yet another Beniot discussion
> > thread over there, it was with the singular purpose of  stirring up
> > more trouble.  Seriously, the whole issue has caused so much
> > dissension since Jon posted his rant in October 2008 that it's
> > undermined the nature of the site. [and by that, I don't mean
> > 'syncophantic,' but rather that we are group of people who, in
> > general, like each other and get along with each other]
>
> > I am compelled to ask you the musical question:
>
> > what the fuck are you doing on Yesfans if you hate the band and other
> > Yesfans.
>
> > just don't see them or buy the new album. That'll show 'em.
>
> > I've been a member there for 5 years and I KNOW for certain that you
> > weren't banned for posting some innocent posts stating your opinions.
> > Unfortunately, there are rule of conduct over there because there are
> > people like you who don't understand the concept of community and
> > can't help yourselves from posting every nasty thought that comes into
> > your mind?  Certainly you wouldn't do that in your workplace in favor
> > of easing social intercourse . . . so why do it on YF? Just because
> > the posts on that thread went "through the roof" as you put it, it
> > doesn't make it a good idea to let them go on forever, any more than
> > you and your coworkers lining up to slap an unpopular supervisor would
> > be a good idea.
>
> > As for the mods.  I know all of them personally and it sux for them
> > that they have to spend their time babysitting so-called adults like
> > you who don't know the simple rules of getting along with other
> > people.  It's because of the posting behavior of people like you that
> > such threads often wind up being closed or deleted.
>
> > [btw, don't suppose you've ever met Beniot. He's a really nice guy who
> > doesn't deserve to be slammed all over the internet, and certainly not
> > by people like you are nothing but nasty]
>
> > I suggest that you man up and accept the reality that Jon is not with
> > them.
>
> If anybody was breaking the forum rules it was the Benoitians
> launching personal attacks against me and Rojon in the deleted thread
> and starting new threads attacking us.  I don't necessarily disagree
> with the decision to lock the thread in question, (If it had kept
> going then I doubt I would have been able to restrain myself with the
> aforementioned Smatt.) but deleting it is ridiculous.  I've never
> maintained that Benoit is anything other than a nice guy, just a "not-
> very-talented" nice guy.  The site is Yesfans, not Benoitfans.  I've
> got enough Yes stuff in my iTunes to listen to them for 2.5 days.  Do
> you know how many times I'd hear Benoit's voice?  Zero.  It is clearly
> possible to be a HUGE fan of Yes and to also find the current band
> pretty lame and useless.  Is it beyond your comprehension that some
> people might just want to talk about the band and talk about music
> without joining in the snugglefest?

It's a yes fan board, not a yes slam board.

I am hoping that it's not a complete waste to again point out to you
that this is about social relationships. People arguing over Benoit
engenders bad feeling that carry over to other threads and threaten to
carry over to off-the-board real life.
No, it's not the exact same as slapping someone, and yesfans is not
the workplace, but relationships are relationships. There are rules
governing social intercourse - being reasonably polite to other
people, for starters. Geez, are you ever literal-minded.

If you want to be able to speak your mind in your solitude at your
keyboard, then alt.music.yes is the right place for you; if you want
to create actual relationships that have the possibility to carry over
to fun and frolic and friendship in the real world, then Yesfans is
the place. It seems clear to me that you are interested in the
former, not the latter, and so you shouldn't care one whit about not
being able to post over there. It's a moderated board and you knew
that when you signed up.

And.

Has it ever occurred to y'all as your talking about the trashing of
the the bands legacy by HSW that at the end of the day they are people
who have to make a living too? Chris co-founded the band and has the
right to tour as Yes. Alan and Steve have been there so long and
contributed so much of what we know as Yes - why shouldn't they also
be entitled to pay their bills by touring as Yes? Jon is welcome to
rejoin them if and when he is ever physically capable - which he may
never be. He also uses the name in describing his shows, as he is
entitled to do.

It's almost funny to read you calling me a moron when clearly, any
subtleties in thought about the whole thing escape you.

[Chris Hosford]

On Dec 26, 3:29 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2:37 pm, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 1:44 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 26, 11:23 am, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > It looks as though criticism of the current band and Benoit David is
> > > > > no longer tolerated there.  There was a rather big thread with
> > > > > thousands of views and hundreds of posts that has now been deleted.  I
> > > > > asked about it in the "ask the admins" section and my post was deleted
> > > > > without response.
>
> > > > Let me give a little background on how this censorship came about.
>
> > > > A thread called "Steve Howe...meastro contradicto" had morphed into a
> > > > discussion about Benoit. I think it began in response to the Chris
> > > > Squire rimjob called smatt when he made a comment that HSW should be
> > > > thought of as only one of the many incarnations of Yes. So I posted a
> > > > link to a HD vid in which Benoit was caterwauling and asked if they
> > > > actually would go on record as saying this was a good vocal
> > > > performance, and if not if they would provide a link to one that was.
> > > > This lit up the thread like a roman candle, but with no one offering a
> > > > link. What they did offer were personal attacks to Chis and myself.
> > > > However, the posting level went through the roof, but pretty quickly
> > > > the thread was locked, either by or at the request of the guy who
> > > > started the Steve Howe subject saying that the reason was because the
> > > > thread had drifted off subject. Which was true enough, but the true
> > > > reason was to shut up the anti-Benoit stance that was being openly
> > > > stated. So, to solve this, and to make sure it was obviously intended
> > > > to carry on the discussion, I name a new thread "maestro Benoit...is
> > > > he up to snuff?"
>
> > > > Amid the constant cries that the thread was a dead subject, the
> > > > posting continued at a fevered pace. It soon became clear that the
> > > > staff wanted to shut it down and shut us up. They pretty much said so.
> > > > But their problem was that Chris and I remained polite even though we
> > > > were constantly getting personal attacks. This politeness kept them
> > > > from having an easy out. However, new threads were started and allowed
> > > > making fun of us and we were pretty much labeled as trolls simply
> > > > because we stated that Benoits vocals were not up to the level Yes
> > > > deserved. The site owner Tim Lutterbie chimed in, saying it was an
> > > > annoyance but as long as it was civil, it was OK. Some members asked
> > > > to have us banned. Even though Henry was not sided with us, he made
> > > > the case that censorship was not a good idea.
>
> > > > Within little more than week, the topic was between 500 and 600 posts
> > > > and like 26 pages plus. If combined with the previously silenced Steve
> > > > Howe topic, it was 800-900 posts, dwarfing most other topics
> > > > combined.
>
> > > > Twas the night before Christmas and I decided to make what was
> > > > unknowingly my last statement, saying that I didn't hold ill will to
> > > > the people that were taunting me and I wished them a merry Christmas.
> > > > I awoke the next morning to find a Christmas miracle, in that a mod
> > > > lock my thread, saying only, "run its course."
>
> > > > In response, I posted a new topic "Yescensorship" in which I recapped
> > > > the above numbers and said that the pro-Benoit regime had employed a
> > > > "I'll just take my toys and go home," methodology to try to win. The
> > > > new thread was quickly deleted. I supposed they sat and thought about
> > > > it and then decided to also remove my "maestro Benoit...is he up to
> > > > snuff?" thread also. I thought about posting a comment in another
> > > > thread when I found out I was banned, unable to post.
>
> > > > So that's it. The warm fuzzy love that glows from Yesfans, as long as
> > > > you don't voice your own opinions.
>
> > > I can say without reservation or qualification that I think there has
> > > been enough of the whole Benoit debate over there. Most of us are sick
> > > and tired of seeing the threads that always degenerate into name
> > > calling and insults. In my humble opinion, if you recently - during
> > > the past several months, say - started yet another Beniot discussion
> > > thread over there, it was with the singular purpose of  stirring up
> > > more trouble.  Seriously, the whole issue has caused so much
> > > dissension since Jon posted his rant in October 2008 that it's
> > > undermined the nature of the site. [and by that, I don't mean
> > > 'syncophantic,' but rather that we are group of people who, in
> > > general, like each other and get along with each other]
>
> > > I am compelled to ask you the musical question:
>
> > > what the fuck are you doing on Yesfans if you hate the band and other
> > > Yesfans.
>
> > > just don't see them or buy the new album. That'll show 'em.
>
> > > I've been a member there for 5 years and I KNOW for certain that you
> > > weren't banned for posting some innocent posts stating your opinions.
> > > Unfortunately, there are rule of conduct over there because there are
> > > people like you who don't understand the concept of community and
> > > can't help yourselves from posting every nasty thought that comes into
> > > your mind?  Certainly you wouldn't do that in your workplace in favor
> > > of easing social intercourse . . . so why do it on YF? Just because
> > > the posts on that thread went "through the roof" as you put it, it
> > > doesn't make it a good idea to let them go on forever, any more than
> > > you and your coworkers lining up to slap an unpopular supervisor would
> > > be a good idea.
>
> > > As for the mods.  I know all of them personally and it sux for them
> > > that they have to spend their time babysitting so-called adults like
> > > you who don't know the simple rules of getting along with other
> > > people.  It's because of the posting behavior of people like you that
> > > such threads often wind up being closed or deleted.
>
> > > [btw, don't suppose you've ever met Beniot. He's a really nice guy who
> > > doesn't deserve to be slammed all over the internet, and certainly not
> > > by people like you are nothing but nasty]
>
> > > I suggest that you man up and accept the reality that Jon is not with
> > > them.
>
> > If anybody was breaking the forum rules it was the Benoitians
> > launching personal attacks against me and Rojon in the deleted thread
> > and starting new threads attacking us.  I don't necessarily disagree
> > with the decision to lock the thread in question, (If it had kept
> > going then I doubt I would have been able to restrain myself with the
> > aforementioned Smatt.) but deleting it is ridiculous.  I've never
> > maintained that Benoit is anything other than a nice guy, just a "not-
> > very-talented" nice guy.  The site is Yesfans, not Benoitfans.  I've
> > got enough Yes stuff in my iTunes to listen to them for 2.5 days.  Do
> > you know how many times I'd hear Benoit's voice?  Zero.  It is clearly
> > possible to be a HUGE fan of Yes and to also find the current band
> > pretty lame and useless.  Is it beyond your comprehension that some
> > people might just want to talk about the band and talk about music
> > without joining in the snugglefest?
>
> It's a yes fan board, not a yes slam board.
>
> I am hoping that it's not a complete waste to again point out to you
> that this is about social relationships.  People arguing over Benoit
> engenders bad feeling that carry over to other threads and threaten to
> carry over to off-the-board real life.
> No, it's not the exact same as slapping someone, and yesfans is not
> the workplace, but relationships are relationships.  There are rules
> governing social intercourse - being reasonably polite to other
> people, for starters. Geez, are you ever literal-minded.
>
> If you want to be able to speak your mind in your solitude at your
> keyboard, then alt.music.yes is the right place for you;  if you want
> to create actual relationships that have the possibility to carry over
> to fun and frolic and friendship in the real world, then Yesfans is
> the place.  It seems clear to me that you are interested in the
> former, not the latter, and so you shouldn't care one whit about not
> being able to post over there. It's a moderated board and you knew
> that when you signed up.
>
> And.
>
> Has it ever occurred to y'all as your talking about the trashing of
> the the bands legacy by HSW that at the end of the day they are people
> who have to make a living too? Chris co-founded the band and has the
> right to tour as Yes.  Alan and Steve have been there so long and
> contributed so much of what we know as Yes - why shouldn't they also
> be entitled to pay their bills by touring as Yes?  Jon is welcome to
> rejoin them if and when he is ever physically capable - which he may
> never be.  He also uses the name in describing his shows, as he is
> entitled to do.
>
> It's almost funny to read you calling me a moron when clearly, any
> subtleties in thought about the whole thing escape you.

This is irrelevant because, as previously stated, if anybody was
violating specifically outlined forum policies it was the ones
insulting me and Rojon and posting threads mocking us directly. There
is no rule on Yesfans stating that participating in the forum requires
one to join in the reindeer games. I think that there is a small
handful of folks on there with whom I would get along quite well in
the real world, but I'm not looking for social networking
opportunities.

[paul]

On Dec 27, 1:42 pm, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 3:29 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 2:37 pm, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 26, 1:44 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 26, 11:23 am, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > It looks as though criticism of the current band and Benoit David is
> > > > > > no longer tolerated there.  There was a rather big thread with
> > > > > > thousands of views and hundreds of posts that has now been deleted.  I
> > > > > > asked about it in the "ask the admins" section and my post was deleted
> > > > > > without response.
>
> > > > > Let me give a little background on how this censorship came about.
>
> > > > > A thread called "Steve Howe...meastro contradicto" had morphed into a
> > > > > discussion about Benoit. I think it began in response to the Chris
> > > > > Squire rimjob called smatt when he made a comment that HSW should be
> > > > > thought of as only one of the many incarnations of Yes. So I posted a
> > > > > link to a HD vid in which Benoit was caterwauling and asked if they
> > > > > actually would go on record as saying this was a good vocal
> > > > > performance, and if not if they would provide a link to one that was.
> > > > > This lit up the thread like a roman candle, but with no one offering a
> > > > > link. What they did offer were personal attacks to Chis and myself.
> > > > > However, the posting level went through the roof, but pretty quickly
> > > > > the thread was locked, either by or at the request of the guy who
> > > > > started the Steve Howe subject saying that the reason was because the
> > > > > thread had drifted off subject. Which was true enough, but the true
> > > > > reason was to shut up the anti-Benoit stance that was being openly
> > > > > stated. So, to solve this, and to make sure it was obviously intended
> > > > > to carry on the discussion, I name a new thread "maestro Benoit...is
> > > > > he up to snuff?"
>
> > > > > Amid the constant cries that the thread was a dead subject, the
> > > > > posting continued at a fevered pace. It soon became clear that the
> > > > > staff wanted to shut it down and shut us up. They pretty much said so.
> > > > > But their problem was that Chris and I remained polite even though we
> > > > > were constantly getting personal attacks. This politeness kept them
> > > > > from having an easy out. However, new threads were started and allowed
> > > > > making fun of us and we were pretty much labeled as trolls simply
> > > > > because we stated that Benoits vocals were not up to the level Yes
> > > > > deserved. The site owner Tim Lutterbie chimed in, saying it was an
> > > > > annoyance but as long as it was civil, it was OK. Some members asked
> > > > > to have us banned. Even though Henry was not sided with us, he made
> > > > > the case that censorship was not a good idea.
>
> > > > > Within little more than week, the topic was between 500 and 600 posts
> > > > > and like 26 pages plus. If combined with the previously silenced Steve
> > > > > Howe topic, it was 800-900 posts, dwarfing most other topics
> > > > > combined.
>
> > > > > Twas the night before Christmas and I decided to make what was
> > > > > unknowingly my last statement, saying that I didn't hold ill will to
> > > > > the people that were taunting me and I wished them a merry Christmas.
> > > > > I awoke the next morning to find a Christmas miracle, in that a mod
> > > > > lock my thread, saying only, "run its course."
>
> > > > > In response, I posted a new topic "Yescensorship" in which I recapped
> > > > > the above numbers and said that the pro-Benoit regime had employed a
> > > > > "I'll just take my toys and go home," methodology to try to win. The
> > > > > new thread was quickly deleted. I supposed they sat and thought about
> > > > > it and then decided to also remove my "maestro Benoit...is he up to
> > > > > snuff?" thread also. I thought about posting a comment in another
> > > > > thread when I found out I was banned, unable to post.
>
> > > > > So that's it. The warm fuzzy love that glows from Yesfans, as long as
> > > > > you don't voice your own opinions.
>
> > > > I can say without reservation or qualification that I think there has
> > > > been enough of the whole Benoit debate over there. Most of us are sick
> > > > and tired of seeing the threads that always degenerate into name
> > > > calling and insults. In my humble opinion, if you recently - during
> > > > the past several months, say - started yet another Beniot discussion
> > > > thread over there, it was with the singular purpose of  stirring up
> > > > more trouble.  Seriously, the whole issue has caused so much
> > > > dissension since Jon posted his rant in October 2008 that it's
> > > > undermined the nature of the site. [and by that, I don't mean
> > > > 'syncophantic,' but rather that we are group of people who, in
> > > > general, like each other and get along with each other]
>
> > > > I am compelled to ask you the musical question:
>
> > > > what the fuck are you doing on Yesfans if you hate the band and other
> > > > Yesfans.
>
> > > > just don't see them or buy the new album. That'll show 'em.
>
> > > > I've been a member there for 5 years and I KNOW for certain that you
> > > > weren't banned for posting some innocent posts stating your opinions.
> > > > Unfortunately, there are rule of conduct over there because there are
> > > > people like you who don't understand the concept of community and
> > > > can't help yourselves from posting every nasty thought that comes into
> > > > your mind?  Certainly you wouldn't do that in your workplace in favor
> > > > of easing social intercourse . . . so why do it on YF? Just because
> > > > the posts on that thread went "through the roof" as you put it, it
> > > > doesn't make it a good idea to let them go on forever, any more than
> > > > you and your coworkers lining up to slap an unpopular supervisor would
> > > > be a good idea.
>
> > > > As for the mods.  I know all of them personally and it sux for them
> > > > that they have to spend their time babysitting so-called adults like
> > > > you who don't know the simple rules of getting along with other
> > > > people.  It's because of the posting behavior of people like you that
> > > > such threads often wind up being closed or deleted.
>
> > > > [btw, don't suppose you've ever met Beniot. He's a really nice guy who
> > > > doesn't deserve to be slammed all over the internet, and certainly not
> > > > by people like you are nothing but nasty]
>
> > > > I suggest that you man up and accept the reality that Jon is not with
> > > > them.
>
> > > If anybody was breaking the forum rules it was the Benoitians
> > > launching personal attacks against me and Rojon in the deleted thread
> > > and starting new threads attacking us.  I don't necessarily disagree
> > > with the decision to lock the thread in question, (If it had kept
> > > going then I doubt I would have been able to restrain myself with the
> > > aforementioned Smatt.) but deleting it is ridiculous.  I've never
> > > maintained that Benoit is anything other than a nice guy, just a "not-
> > > very-talented" nice guy.  The site is Yesfans, not Benoitfans.  I've
> > > got enough Yes stuff in my iTunes to listen to them for 2.5 days.  Do
> > > you know how many times I'd hear Benoit's voice?  Zero.  It is clearly
> > > possible to be a HUGE fan of Yes and to also find the current band
> > > pretty lame and useless.  Is it beyond your comprehension that some
> > > people might just want to talk about the band and talk about music
> > > without joining in the snugglefest?
>
> > It's a yes fan board, not a yes slam board.
>
> > I am hoping that it's not a complete waste to again point out to you
> > that this is about social relationships.  People arguing over Benoit
> > engenders bad feeling that carry over to other threads and threaten to
> > carry over to off-the-board real life.
> > No, it's not the exact same as slapping someone, and yesfans is not
> > the workplace, but relationships are relationships.  There are rules
> > governing social intercourse - being reasonably polite to other
> > people, for starters. Geez, are you ever literal-minded.
>
> > If you want to be able to speak your mind in your solitude at your
> > keyboard, then alt.music.yes is the right place for you;  if you want
> > to create actual relationships that have the possibility to carry over
> > to fun and frolic and friendship in the real world, then Yesfans is
> > the place.  It seems clear to me that you are interested in the
> > former, not the latter, and so you shouldn't care one whit about not
> > being able to post over there. It's a moderated board and you knew
> > that when you signed up.
>
> > And.
>
> > Has it ever occurred to y'all as your talking about the trashing of
> > the the bands legacy by HSW that at the end of the day they are people
> > who have to make a living too? Chris co-founded the band and has the
> > right to tour as Yes.  Alan and Steve have been there so long and
> > contributed so much of what we know as Yes - why shouldn't they also
> > be entitled to pay their bills by touring as Yes?  Jon is welcome to
> > rejoin them if and when he is ever physically capable - which he may
> > never be.  He also uses the name in describing his shows, as he is
> > entitled to do.
>
> > It's almost funny to read you calling me a moron when clearly, any
> > subtleties in thought about the whole thing escape you.
>
> This is irrelevant because, as previously stated, if anybody was
> violating specifically outlined forum policies it was the ones
> insulting me and Rojon and posting threads mocking us directly.  There
> is no rule on Yesfans stating that participating in the forum requires
> one to join in the reindeer games.  I think that there is a small
> handful of folks on there with whom I would get along quite well in
> the real world, but I'm not looking for social networking
> opportunities.

Having followed the threads in question from early on, I personally
think yourself and Rojon were both extremely restrained and well
reasoned in the delivery of your points,opinions and arguments. The
animosity (calls for banning) and name-calling/bad netiquette that
originated from the "cheerleader" section of Yesfans in an effort to
provoke you into "suspension" territory, and your refusal to be so
goaded, certainly made for an interesting reading dynamic. Good on you
for keeping your cool.

Yesfans now seems to have followed the Yesworld (on the downward
spiral) path of removing counter opinion to this lineup (as well as
the obviously defamatory) and as such has revealed itself to be less
than its name implies.

As Rojon pointed out, the "contentious" threads inspired much larger
volumes of posts and IMHO definitely livened up the place. Many
lurkers entered the discussion and Yesfans, as a place, seemed a lot
more vital than it has for quite some time. I, for one, can only
handle so many posts about the latest trailer meet at rib-fest or some
such clubby thing. When I first joined Yesfans I thought it was about
Yes fans discussing the merits, or otherwise, of Yes. However, "Over
there", one has to filter through an awful lot of Yesfans talking
about *themselves* to get to any actual Yes related stuff. Did anyone
else read the thread "Reports from the studio"?

Now, the Mods are censoring members without warnings being issued?
And, as far as I can tell, Rojon's entire posting history on Yesfans
has been removed as part of his suspension. That all seems a bit
fascist.

paul

[Chris Hosford]

Incidentally...I lay claim to Benoitians, Yes (Not Yes) and YINO
(which stands for "Yes In Name Only").

[rojon]

On Dec 26, 8:33 pm, paul <***@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

>
> Having followed the threads in question from early on, I personally
> think yourself and Rojon were both extremely restrained and well
> reasoned in the delivery of your points,opinions and arguments. The
> animosity (calls for banning) and name-calling/bad netiquette that
> originated from the "cheerleader" section of Yesfans in an effort to
> provoke you into "suspension" territory, and your refusal to be so
> goaded, certainly made for an interesting reading dynamic. Good on you
> for keeping your cool.


Thanks Paul, I seriously appreciate these words, especially since you
were there and appeared to me to be of the pro-Benoit stance there.
Which brings up a good point, many were civil in voicing opposition to
us. Henry was civil. In some cases a soft answer would turn away wrath
and these seemed to be becoming more sympathetic to our stance. (not
implying whether this was your stance)

>
> Yesfans now seems to have followed the Yesworld (on the downward
> spiral) path of removing counter opinion to this lineup (as well as
> the obviously defamatory) and as such has revealed itself to be less
> than its name implies.
>
> As Rojon pointed out, the "contentious" threads inspired much larger
> volumes of posts and IMHO definitely livened up the place. Many
> lurkers entered the discussion and Yesfans, as a place, seemed a lot
> more vital than it has for quite some time. I, for one, can only
> handle so many posts about the latest trailer meet at rib-fest or some
> such clubby thing. When I first joined Yesfans  I thought it was about
> Yes fans discussing the merits, or otherwise, of Yes. However, "Over
> there", one has to filter through an awful lot of Yesfans talking
> about *themselves* to get to any actual Yes related stuff. Did anyone
> else read the thread "Reports from the studio"?

I was hit or miss on that one.

>
> Now, the Mods are censoring members without warnings being issued?
> And, as far as I can tell, Rojon's entire posting history on Yesfans
> has been removed as part of his suspension. That all seems a bit
> fascist.

Wow, I didnt even realize that. Sheesh. Its just nuts. I am surprised
that there isnt some type of backlash by the more level headed
members. However, most probably dont even know since like Chris said,
they're deleting posts on the subject. They dont want their actions
being held up for discussion. Like I said before, its done behind
closed doors. Very honest and democratic that. But I think it also
speaks to the fact that they know their dealings here are underhanded.
Crimes are committed in secret, in the dark.

So then, speaking of the thread "Reports from the studio," I did post
in that one and people replied to me. So they have made swiss cheese
of their threads, because you still have replies TO me, but no
instance where I actually said anything. It also changes their post
count. LOL, you would think I killed their puppy.

[paul]

On Dec 27, 5:46 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 8:33 pm, paul <***@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Having followed the threads in question from early on, I personally
> > think yourself and Rojon were both extremely restrained and well
> > reasoned in the delivery of your points,opinions and arguments. The
> > animosity (calls for banning) and name-calling/bad netiquette that
> > originated from the "cheerleader" section of Yesfans in an effort to
> > provoke you into "suspension" territory, and your refusal to be so
> > goaded, certainly made for an interesting reading dynamic. Good on you
> > for keeping your cool.
>
> Thanks Paul, I seriously appreciate these words, especially since you
> were there and appeared to me to be of the pro-Benoit stance there.

I'm more not-so anti-Benoit (as opposed to being pro-Benoit). I'm
waiting for the new album to see what he *really* brings to the table.
I did post you a link to part of the Philadelphia Tower theater
performance that I quite enjoyed too btw

> Which brings up a good point, many were civil in voicing opposition to
> us. Henry was civil. In some cases a soft answer would turn away wrath
> and these seemed to be becoming more sympathetic to our stance. (not
> implying whether this was your stance)

Fair enough. My stance is as it always was. I've been a big fan of Yes
during the periods 1975-1980, 1989-1994 and 1996-2004. By 2004 I'd
pretty much given up on hearing any new Yes material as the band
seemed to be only interested in touring the oldies + owner. Which is
exactly what we have now but with a new singer. In comparison this new
lineup is less mythic, the singer misses more notes and the process of
dumping JA has left a severe bad taste in the mouths of many long-time
Yes fans.


> > Now, the Mods are censoring members without warnings being issued?
> > And, as far as I can tell, Rojon's entire posting history on Yesfans
> > has been removed as part of his suspension. That all seems a bit
> > fascist.
>
> Wow, I didnt even realize that. Sheesh. Its just nuts. I am surprised
> that there isnt some type of backlash by the more level headed
> members. However, most probably dont even know since like Chris said,
> they're deleting posts on the subject. They dont want their actions
> being held up for discussion. Like I said before, its done behind
> closed doors. Very honest and democratic that. But I think it also
> speaks to the fact that they know their dealings here are underhanded.
> Crimes are committed in secret, in the dark.

ref Yesfans "rules"

15. Temporary and permanent bans are a private matter between the
staff and the individual member who has received the ban. They will
not be made public nor be discussed on site.

I'm not sure why you've been banned but there may be clues in the
following Yesfans clauses

5. We will not tolerate rudeness, name calling, mean-spirited or
insulting posts, personal attacks or purposeless inflammatory posts.

6. Trolling is not permitted. A 'troll' is a poster whose aim is
considered to be primarily to antagonize other site users.

Maybe your posts were seen as inflammatory? If so there's a sh*tload
of other folks "over there" who need banning too
Maybe they see you as a troll as someone posted? Images of wereo,
yesdick, raja, "B" et al come to mind. I seriously don't think they
know what a real troll is at yesfans.

> So then, speaking of the thread "Reports from the studio," I did post
> in that one and people replied to me. So they have made swiss cheese
> of their threads, because you still have replies TO me, but no
> instance where I actually said anything. It also changes their post
> count. LOL, you would think I killed their puppy.

I havn't gone through that entire thread but a thread search in that
topic for rojon returns nothing.

p

[stevesyn]

On Dec 27, 5:52 am, paul <***@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 5:46 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 26, 8:33 pm, paul <***@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > > Having followed the threads in question from early on, I personally
> > > think yourself and Rojon were both extremely restrained and well
> > > reasoned in the delivery of your points,opinions and arguments. The
> > > animosity (calls for banning) and name-calling/bad netiquette that
> > > originated from the "cheerleader" section of Yesfans in an effort to
> > > provoke you into "suspension" territory, and your refusal to be so
> > > goaded, certainly made for an interesting reading dynamic. Good on you
> > > for keeping your cool.
>
> > Thanks Paul, I seriously appreciate these words, especially since you
> > were there and appeared to me to be of the pro-Benoit stance there.
>
> I'm more not-so anti-Benoit (as opposed to being pro-Benoit). I'm
> waiting for the new album to see what he *really* brings to the table.
> I did post you a link to part of the Philadelphia Tower theater
> performance that I quite enjoyed too btw
>
> > Which brings up a good point, many were civil in voicing opposition to
> > us. Henry was civil. In some cases a soft answer would turn away wrath
> > and these seemed to be becoming more sympathetic to our stance. (not
> > implying whether this was your stance)
>
> Fair enough. My stance is as it always was. I've been a big fan of Yes
> during the periods 1975-1980, 1989-1994 and 1996-2004. By 2004 I'd
> pretty much given up on hearing any new Yes material as the band
> seemed to be only interested in touring the oldies + owner. Which is
> exactly what we have now but with a new singer. In comparison this new
> lineup is less mythic, the singer misses more notes and the process of
> dumping JA has left a severe bad taste in the mouths of many long-time
> Yes fans.
>
> > > Now, the Mods are censoring members without warnings being issued?
> > > And, as far as I can tell, Rojon's entire posting history on Yesfans
> > > has been removed as part of his suspension. That all seems a bit
> > > fascist.
>
> > Wow, I didnt even realize that. Sheesh. Its just nuts. I am surprised
> > that there isnt some type of backlash by the more level headed
> > members. However, most probably dont even know since like Chris said,
> > they're deleting posts on the subject. They dont want their actions
> > being held up for discussion. Like I said before, its done behind
> > closed doors. Very honest and democratic that. But I think it also
> > speaks to the fact that they know their dealings here are underhanded.
> > Crimes are committed in secret, in the dark.
>
> ref Yesfans "rules"
>
> 15. Temporary and permanent bans are a private matter between the
> staff and the individual member who has received the ban. They will
> not be made public nor be discussed on site.
>
> I'm not sure why you've been banned but there may be clues in the
> following Yesfans clauses
>
> 5. We will not tolerate rudeness, name calling, mean-spirited or
> insulting posts, personal attacks or purposeless inflammatory posts.
>
> 6. Trolling is not permitted. A 'troll' is a poster whose aim is
> considered to be primarily to antagonize other site users.
>
> Maybe your posts were seen as inflammatory? If so there's a sh*tload
> of other folks "over there" who need banning too
> Maybe they see you as a troll as someone posted? Images of wereo,
> yesdick, raja, "B" et al come to mind. I seriously don't think they
> know what a real troll is at yesfans.
>
> > So then, speaking of the thread "Reports from the studio," I did post
> > in that one and people replied to me. So they have made swiss cheese
> > of their threads, because you still have replies TO me, but no
> > instance where I actually said anything. It also changes their post
> > count. LOL, you would think I killed their puppy.
>
> I havn't gone through that entire thread but a thread search in that
> topic for rojon returns nothing.
>
> p

Yesfans exists as a marketing vehicle for Yes, it's not a discussion
forum at all.
That's how I viewed it from the start and I have been proved right.
Accept that they have an agenda dictated from HSW and read between the
lines, it's so obvious. The way the members have accepted the
treatment of Jon and his tribute band replacement speaks for itself
about the sheep-like mentality there, even Henry follows the forum
mantra, although I suspect he does that as part of his own agenda.

Yesfans represents the Titanic of HSWes, it's hit the iceberg and
going down fast; AMY is the lifeboats, watch the genuine fans jump on
board as reality dawns.

Steve Nardelli

[rojon]

On Dec 26, 8:33 pm, paul <***@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

>
> Now, the Mods are censoring members without warnings being issued?
> And, as far as I can tell, Rojon's entire posting history on Yesfans
> has been removed as part of his suspension. That all seems a bit
> fascist.
>

Well, and here is another odd twist. As of today, my removed posts
reappeared. Well, most...my "yescensorship" post is still totally gone
without a trace, but the "is maestro Benoit...up to snuff?" was placed
back, it's still locked, of course. So, just out of curiosity, I tried
logging in, and was able to. I have NO idea what the deal is.

[paul]

On Dec 29, 5:21 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 8:33 pm, paul <***@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Now, the Mods are censoring members without warnings being issued?
> > And, as far as I can tell, Rojon's entire posting history on Yesfans
> > has been removed as part of his suspension. That all seems a bit
> > fascist.
>
> Well, and here is another odd twist. As of today, my removed posts
> reappeared. Well, most...my "yescensorship" post is still totally gone
> without a trace, but the "is maestro Benoit...up to snuff?" was placed
> back, it's still locked, of course. So, just out of curiosity, I tried
> logging in, and was able to. I have NO idea what the deal is.

Maybe your temporary suspension is over?

I just checked the thread in question and its now officially closed...
meaning no one can add posts to that thread. And yes, your posts are
intact too.

I guess closing the thread is the mods indication of their solution
ie that they, on behalf of Yesfans, have had enough of _that_
discussion.

p

[Rob Allen]

On Dec 28, 11:20 pm, paul <***@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 5:21 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 26, 8:33 pm, paul <***@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > > Now, the Mods are censoring members without warnings being issued?
> > > And, as far as I can tell, Rojon's entire posting history on Yesfans
> > > has been removed as part of his suspension. That all seems a bit
> > > fascist.
>
> > Well, and here is another odd twist. As of today, my removed posts
> > reappeared. Well, most...my "yescensorship" post is still totally gone
> > without a trace, but the "is maestro Benoit...up to snuff?" was placed
> > back, it's still locked, of course. So, just out of curiosity, I tried
> > logging in, and was able to. I have NO idea what the deal is.
>
> Maybe your temporary suspension is over?
>
> I just checked the thread in question and its now officially closed...
> meaning no one can add posts to that thread. And yes, your posts are
> intact too.
>
> I guess closing the thread is the mods indication of their solution
> ie  that they, on behalf of Yesfans, have had enough of _that_
> discussion.


good news though...observations about Yesfans.com can continue here so
long as anybody cares to make those observations...


Rob "*somebody* has to be interested in that stuff!" Allen

[rojon]

On Dec 29, 2:20 am, paul <***@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 5:21 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 26, 8:33 pm, paul <***@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > > Now, the Mods are censoring members without warnings being issued?
> > > And, as far as I can tell, Rojon's entire posting history on Yesfans
> > > has been removed as part of his suspension. That all seems a bit
> > > fascist.
>
> > Well, and here is another odd twist. As of today, my removed posts
> > reappeared. Well, most...my "yescensorship" post is still totally gone
> > without a trace, but the "is maestro Benoit...up to snuff?" was placed
> > back, it's still locked, of course. So, just out of curiosity, I tried
> > logging in, and was able to. I have NO idea what the deal is.
>
> Maybe your temporary suspension is over?

IDK, I could imagine that for a temp suspend, I might not be able to
post, but removing ALL past threads? For a temp? I doubt it.

[rojon]

On Dec 26, 7:42 pm, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 3:29 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>
> > I am hoping that it's not a complete waste to again point out to you
> > that this is about social relationships.  People arguing over Benoit
> > engenders bad feeling that carry over to other threads and threaten to
> > carry over to off-the-board real life.
> > No, it's not the exact same as slapping someone, and yesfans is not
> > the workplace, but relationships are relationships.  There are rules
> > governing social intercourse - being reasonably polite to other
> > people, for starters. Geez, are you ever literal-minded.
>
> > If you want to be able to speak your mind in your solitude at your
> > keyboard, then alt.music.yes is the right place for you;  if you want
> > to create actual relationships that have the possibility to carry over
> > to fun and frolic and friendship in the real world, then Yesfans is
> > the place.  It seems clear to me that you are interested in the
> > former, not the latter, and so you shouldn't care one whit about not
> > being able to post over there. It's a moderated board and you knew
> > that when you signed up.
>
> > And.
>
> > Has it ever occurred to y'all as your talking about the trashing of
> > the the bands legacy by HSW that at the end of the day they are people
> > who have to make a living too? Chris co-founded the band and has the
> > right to tour as Yes.  Alan and Steve have been there so long and
> > contributed so much of what we know as Yes - why shouldn't they also
> > be entitled to pay their bills by touring as Yes?  Jon is welcome to
> > rejoin them if and when he is ever physically capable - which he may
> > never be.  He also uses the name in describing his shows, as he is
> > entitled to do.
>
> > It's almost funny to read you calling me a moron when clearly, any
> > subtleties in thought about the whole thing escape you.
>
> This is irrelevant because, as previously stated, if anybody was
> violating specifically outlined forum policies it was the ones
> insulting me and Rojon and posting threads mocking us directly.  There
> is no rule on Yesfans stating that participating in the forum requires
> one to join in the reindeer games.


Its true there is no such written rule, because if you put that into
words, you would have to deal with how absurd it is. But it doesnt
mean that there isnt a small inner click there. I've read many posts
by various people talking about how they felt ignored, passed over as
if unimportant. But the true name of the game there amounts to a small
inner sanhedrin that decides "what is allowed" behind the publically
viewable pages.

[Chris Jemmett]

On Dec 26, 1:44 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:


> [btw, don't suppose you've ever met Beniot. He's a really nice guy


Surely you must realize that no one is calling him a "not really nice
guy".
Unfortunately, he is not a very good singer, that is the reality that
you seek to avoid.
(since you go on to comment on "accept the reality")


who
> doesn't deserve to be slammed all over the internet, and certainly not
> by people like you are nothing but nasty]

He is posted all over the internet singing bad renditions of Yes
songs. That this is being talked about does seem to be disturbing of
those in denial of his vocal shortcomings.

> I suggest that you man up and accept the reality that Jon is not with them.

I'm pretty sure that this kind of comment is how you got the "moron"
label elsewhere in this thread. It usually takes a few posts for the
moron call to be made but you seem to have earned it right out of the
gate.

The reality that is not being faced is not that Jon is gone. That
reality is widely known. The reality that is being denied by some is
that his replacement is an amateur level talent who is helping to make
a band still calling itself Yes look like a joke.

Now you don't have to man-up to see that. You just have to stop
denying it.

[Rob Allen]

On Dec 26, 12:47 pm, Chris Jemmett <***@rogers.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 1:44 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [btw, don't suppose you've ever met Beniot. He's a really nice guy
>
> Surely you must realize that no one is calling him a "not really nice
> guy".
> Unfortunately, he is not a very good singer, that is the reality that
> you seek to avoid.
> (since you go on to comment on "accept the reality")
>
>  who
>
> > doesn't deserve to be slammed all over the internet, and certainly not
> > by people like you are nothing but nasty]
>
> He is posted all over the internet singing bad renditions of Yes
> songs. That this is being talked about does seem to be disturbing of
> those in denial of his vocal shortcomings.
>
> > I suggest that you man up and accept the reality that Jon is not with them.
>
> I'm pretty sure that this kind of comment is how you got the "moron"
> label elsewhere in this thread. It usually takes a few posts for the
> moron call to be made but you seem to have earned it right out of the
> gate.


actually I was just giving her an over-the-top version of _you're not
in Kansas anymore_. But I guess it was obvious enough that she'd earn
certain tags quickly enough.


> The reality that is not being faced is not that Jon is gone. That
> reality is widely known. The reality that is being denied by some is
> that his replacement is an amateur level talent who is helping to make
> a band still calling itself Yes look like a joke.
>
> Now you don't have to man-up to see that. You just have to stop
> denying it.


I just think it funny that there's *anyone* still buying this notion
of Anderson not being well enough work in a rock band. Apparently the
propaganda pushed by Henry does go over with some.


Rob "if they are stupid or ~faithful~ enough, they'll believe
anything" Allen

[Paul Goodwin]

On Dec 26, 10:44 am, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'll venture to guess that you have not bothered to see the band.


I have, twice. My review of the last show I saw is up on Yesfans, a
place I've been a member for a decade but only posted maybe 10-15
times (user name relayerone). Your posts here remind me of why I
generally avoid that particular online gag-inducing lovefest. Benoit
is very much the weak link, every song, every show. Period. I enjoyed
both shows overall because to me it's far more than just one guy, but
he's out of his depth. Clearly.
Seeing a vocally intact Jon Anderson a few weeks back re-enforces that
mindset. To say the least.

> [btw, don't suppose you've ever met Beniot.

I have, yes, in fact we chatted one on one for nearly half an hour in
2009. Shared some stories about various Quebec bars & venues. Nice guy
to be sure, very humble, very aware of the tenuous nature of his gig,
but what has that to do with his role in what passes for Yes? Alan is
a nice guy as well, Steve, not so much, Chris, depends on the day &
whether or not he's been in his cups, as they say. What's your point?
Give him a pass on his musical failings because he's a "nice guy"?
WTF.

--

Paul

[Michel Forest]

On 26 déc, 13:44, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> [btw, don't suppose you've ever met Beniot. He's a really nice guy who
> doesn't deserve to be slammed all over the internet, and certainly not
> by people like you are nothing but nasty]

I'm sure he's a nice guy (he's a Montrealer, like me). The thing is,
Miles Davis was, by all accounts, one nasty fucker, but he was a
musical genius. You know what I mean?

> I suggest that you man up and accept the reality that Jon is not with
> them.

I've accepted that a long time ago. Does not mean I have to *like it*.

Interesting post, because it is a good example of the tone at Yesfans:
anyone who has not touched the Kool-Aid and is even a little bit
critical of the band is immediately cast as a trouble-maker. That's
the main reason I left Yesfans very quickly after posting there for a
while in 2004.

Being a fan is one thing. Blindly accepting any crap Howe and Squire
come up with is another.

[skhatru]

On Dec 26, 11:23 am, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It looks as though criticism of the current band and Benoit David is
> > no longer tolerated there.  There was a rather big thread with
> > thousands of views and hundreds of posts that has now been deleted.  I
> > asked about it in the "ask the admins" section and my post was deleted
> > without response.
>
> Let me give a little background on how this censorship came about.
>
> A thread called "Steve Howe...meastro contradicto" had morphed into a
> discussion about Benoit. I think it began in response to the Chris
> Squire rimjob called smatt when he made a comment that HSW should be
> thought of as only one of the many incarnations of Yes. So I posted a
> link to a HD vid in which Benoit was caterwauling and asked if they
> actually would go on record as saying this was a good vocal
> performance, and if not if they would provide a link to one that was.
> This lit up the thread like a roman candle, but with no one offering a
> link. What they did offer were personal attacks to Chis and myself.
> However, the posting level went through the roof, but pretty quickly
> the thread was locked, either by or at the request of the guy who
> started the Steve Howe subject saying that the reason was because the
> thread had drifted off subject. Which was true enough, but the true
> reason was to shut up the anti-Benoit stance that was being openly
> stated. So, to solve this, and to make sure it was obviously intended
> to carry on the discussion, I name a new thread "maestro Benoit...is
> he up to snuff?"
>
> Amid the constant cries that the thread was a dead subject, the
> posting continued at a fevered pace. It soon became clear that the
> staff wanted to shut it down and shut us up. They pretty much said so.
> But their problem was that Chris and I remained polite even though we
> were constantly getting personal attacks. This politeness kept them
> from having an easy out. However, new threads were started and allowed
> making fun of us and we were pretty much labeled as trolls simply
> because we stated that Benoits vocals were not up to the level Yes
> deserved. The site owner Tim Lutterbie chimed in, saying it was an
> annoyance but as long as it was civil, it was OK. Some members asked
> to have us banned. Even though Henry was not sided with us, he made
> the case that censorship was not a good idea.
>
> Within little more than week, the topic was between 500 and 600 posts
> and like 26 pages plus. If combined with the previously silenced Steve
> Howe topic, it was 800-900 posts, dwarfing most other topics
> combined.
>
> Twas the night before Christmas and I decided to make what was
> unknowingly my last statement, saying that I didn't hold ill will to
> the people that were taunting me and I wished them a merry Christmas.
> I awoke the next morning to find a Christmas miracle, in that a mod
> lock my thread, saying only, "run its course."
>
> In response, I posted a new topic "Yescensorship" in which I recapped
> the above numbers and said that the pro-Benoit regime had employed a
> "I'll just take my toys and go home," methodology to try to win. The
> new thread was quickly deleted. I supposed they sat and thought about
> it and then decided to also remove my "maestro Benoit...is he up to
> snuff?" thread also. I thought about posting a comment in another
> thread when I found out I was banned, unable to post.
>
> So that's it. The warm fuzzy love that glows from Yesfans, as long as
> you don't voice your own opinions.

Just noticed that you are rojon. I've seen your posts over the years
and you ARE nothing but a trouble maker. You don't limit your insults
to Benoit. I've seen you attack other members over personal things.

[rojon]

On Dec 26, 1:47 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 11:23 am, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > It looks as though criticism of the current band and Benoit David is
> > > no longer tolerated there.  There was a rather big thread with
> > > thousands of views and hundreds of posts that has now been deleted.  I
> > > asked about it in the "ask the admins" section and my post was deleted
> > > without response.
>
> > Let me give a little background on how this censorship came about.
>
> > A thread called "Steve Howe...meastro contradicto" had morphed into a
> > discussion about Benoit. I think it began in response to the Chris
> > Squire rimjob called smatt when he made a comment that HSW should be
> > thought of as only one of the many incarnations of Yes. So I posted a
> > link to a HD vid in which Benoit was caterwauling and asked if they
> > actually would go on record as saying this was a good vocal
> > performance, and if not if they would provide a link to one that was.
> > This lit up the thread like a roman candle, but with no one offering a
> > link. What they did offer were personal attacks to Chis and myself.
> > However, the posting level went through the roof, but pretty quickly
> > the thread was locked, either by or at the request of the guy who
> > started the Steve Howe subject saying that the reason was because the
> > thread had drifted off subject. Which was true enough, but the true
> > reason was to shut up the anti-Benoit stance that was being openly
> > stated. So, to solve this, and to make sure it was obviously intended
> > to carry on the discussion, I name a new thread "maestro Benoit...is
> > he up to snuff?"
>
> > Amid the constant cries that the thread was a dead subject, the
> > posting continued at a fevered pace. It soon became clear that the
> > staff wanted to shut it down and shut us up. They pretty much said so.
> > But their problem was that Chris and I remained polite even though we
> > were constantly getting personal attacks. This politeness kept them
> > from having an easy out. However, new threads were started and allowed
> > making fun of us and we were pretty much labeled as trolls simply
> > because we stated that Benoits vocals were not up to the level Yes
> > deserved. The site owner Tim Lutterbie chimed in, saying it was an
> > annoyance but as long as it was civil, it was OK. Some members asked
> > to have us banned. Even though Henry was not sided with us, he made
> > the case that censorship was not a good idea.
>
> > Within little more than week, the topic was between 500 and 600 posts
> > and like 26 pages plus. If combined with the previously silenced Steve
> > Howe topic, it was 800-900 posts, dwarfing most other topics
> > combined.
>
> > Twas the night before Christmas and I decided to make what was
> > unknowingly my last statement, saying that I didn't hold ill will to
> > the people that were taunting me and I wished them a merry Christmas.
> > I awoke the next morning to find a Christmas miracle, in that a mod
> > lock my thread, saying only, "run its course."
>
> > In response, I posted a new topic "Yescensorship" in which I recapped
> > the above numbers and said that the pro-Benoit regime had employed a
> > "I'll just take my toys and go home," methodology to try to win. The
> > new thread was quickly deleted. I supposed they sat and thought about
> > it and then decided to also remove my "maestro Benoit...is he up to
> > snuff?" thread also. I thought about posting a comment in another
> > thread when I found out I was banned, unable to post.
>
> > So that's it. The warm fuzzy love that glows from Yesfans, as long as
> > you don't voice your own opinions.
>
> Just noticed that you are rojon.  I've seen your posts over the years
> and you ARE nothing but a trouble maker. You don't limit your insults
> to Benoit.  I've seen you attack other members over personal things.- Hide quoted text -
>

post it here liar

[Chris Jemmett]

On Dec 26, 11:23 am, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It looks as though criticism of the current band and Benoit David is
> > no longer tolerated there.  There was a rather big thread with
> > thousands of views and hundreds of posts that has now been deleted.  I
> > asked about it in the "ask the admins" section and my post was deleted
> > without response.
>
> Let me give a little background on how this censorship came about.
>
> A thread called "Steve Howe...meastro contradicto" had morphed into a
> discussion about Benoit. I think it began in response to the Chris
> Squire rimjob called smatt when he made a comment that HSW should be
> thought of as only one of the many incarnations of Yes. So I posted a
> link to a HD vid in which Benoit was caterwauling and asked if they
> actually would go on record as saying this was a good vocal
> performance, and if not if they would provide a link to one that was.

I actually looked in around this time with smatt going on about hating
You Tube critics but actually coming off as a completely insincere
Benoit's Yes apologist. That is probably the kindest description of
him available.

> This lit up the thread like a roman candle, but with no one offering a
> link. What they did offer were personal attacks to Chis and myself.
> However, the posting level went through the roof, but pretty quickly
> the thread was locked, either by or at the request of the guy who
> started the Steve Howe subject saying that the reason was because the
> thread had drifted off subject. Which was true enough, but the true
> reason was to shut up the anti-Benoit stance that was being openly
> stated.

I did sprinkle a bit of bait in the water but it was wisely ignored.
All for the best as I am sure the thread would just have been closed
down a little faster.

> So, to solve this, and to make sure it was obviously intended
> to carry on the discussion, I name a new thread "maestro Benoit...is
> he up to snuff?"

That would have been fun, alas I don't want to take the amount of time
that this could develop into.

> Amid the constant cries that the thread was a dead subject, the
> posting continued at a fevered pace. It soon became clear that the
> staff wanted to shut it down and shut us up. They pretty much said so.
> But their problem was that Chris and I remained polite even though we
> were constantly getting personal attacks. This politeness kept them
> from having an easy out. However, new threads were started and allowed
> making fun of us and we were pretty much labeled as trolls simply
> because we stated that Benoits vocals were not up to the level Yes
> deserved.

It is very sad that the existance of the band (Benoit's Yes) hinges
entirely on this amateur dupe continuing to do as he is told.

The site owner Tim Lutterbie chimed in, saying it was an
> annoyance but as long as it was civil, it was OK. Some members asked
> to have us banned. Even though Henry was not sided with us, he made
> the case that censorship was not a good idea.

Of course he did. I did not see the thread but I sure can see Henry
"urging caution".

> Within little more than week, the topic was between 500 and 600 posts
> and like 26 pages plus. If combined with the previously silenced Steve
> Howe topic, it was 800-900 posts, dwarfing most other topics
> combined.

Who would have known that carrying on with a boat apolstery repairman/
amateur singer instead of Jon Anderson would create a reaction?

> Twas the night before Christmas and I decided to make what was
> unknowingly my last statement, saying that I didn't hold ill will to
> the people that were taunting me and I wished them a merry Christmas.
> I awoke the next morning to find a Christmas miracle, in that a mod
> lock my thread, saying only, "run its course."

Again, very sad that the thing that gets the most people talking the
most about Yes is the very thing that has most people staying away
from their shows.

> In response, I posted a new topic "Yescensorship" in which I recapped
> the above numbers and said that the pro-Benoit regime had employed a
> "I'll just take my toys and go home," methodology to try to win. The
> new thread was quickly deleted. I supposed they sat and thought about
> it and then decided to also remove my "maestro Benoit...is he up to
> snuff?" thread also. I thought about posting a comment in another
> thread when I found out I was banned, unable to post.

Presumeably the operators of the site are preparing to be called upon
to start promoting the new Trevor Horn Album which I hear he is using
some current Benoit's Yes members to make (they are still planning to
call it a Yes album as far as I know). Co-ordinating shills praising
leaked snippets of that will be very challenging and moderating actual
fan comments ... well that needs to stop right now.

> So that's it. The warm fuzzy love that glows from Yesfans, as long as
> you don't voice your own opinions.


Yesfans = Benoit's Yesshills

Even funnier is that when Jon returns, they will all fall over each
other going on about how that is what they wanted all along.

[skhatru]

On Dec 26, 2:30 pm, Chris Jemmett <***@rogers.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 11:23 am, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > It looks as though criticism of the current band and Benoit David is
> > > no longer tolerated there.  There was a rather big thread with
> > > thousands of views and hundreds of posts that has now been deleted.  I
> > > asked about it in the "ask the admins" section and my post was deleted
> > > without response.
>
> > Let me give a little background on how this censorship came about.
>
> > A thread called "Steve Howe...meastro contradicto" had morphed into a
> > discussion about Benoit. I think it began in response to the Chris
> > Squire rimjob called smatt when he made a comment that HSW should be
> > thought of as only one of the many incarnations of Yes. So I posted a
> > link to a HD vid in which Benoit was caterwauling and asked if they
> > actually would go on record as saying this was a good vocal
> > performance, and if not if they would provide a link to one that was.
>
> I actually looked in around this time with smatt going on about hating
> You Tube critics but actually coming off as a completely insincere
> Benoit's Yes apologist. That is probably the kindest description of
> him available.
>
> > This lit up the thread like a roman candle, but with no one offering a
> > link. What they did offer were personal attacks to Chis and myself.
> > However, the posting level went through the roof, but pretty quickly
> > the thread was locked, either by or at the request of the guy who
> > started the Steve Howe subject saying that the reason was because the
> > thread had drifted off subject. Which was true enough, but the true
> > reason was to shut up the anti-Benoit stance that was being openly
> > stated.
>
> I did sprinkle a bit of bait in the water but it was wisely ignored.
> All for the best as I am sure the thread would just have been closed
> down a little faster.
>
> > So, to solve this, and to make sure it was obviously intended
> > to carry on the discussion, I name a new thread "maestro Benoit...is
> > he up to snuff?"
>
> That would have been fun, alas I don't want to take the amount of time
> that this could develop into.
>
> > Amid the constant cries that the thread was a dead subject, the
> > posting continued at a fevered pace. It soon became clear that the
> > staff wanted to shut it down and shut us up. They pretty much said so.
> > But their problem was that Chris and I remained polite even though we
> > were constantly getting personal attacks. This politeness kept them
> > from having an easy out. However, new threads were started and allowed
> > making fun of us and we were pretty much labeled as trolls simply
> > because we stated that Benoits vocals were not up to the level Yes
> > deserved.
>
> It is very sad that the existance of the band (Benoit's Yes) hinges
> entirely on this amateur dupe continuing to do as he is told.
>
>  The site owner Tim Lutterbie chimed in, saying it was an
>
> > annoyance but as long as it was civil, it was OK. Some members asked
> > to have us banned. Even though Henry was not sided with us, he made
> > the case that censorship was not a good idea.
>
> Of course he did. I did not see the thread but I sure can see Henry
> "urging caution".
>
> > Within little more than week, the topic was between 500 and 600 posts
> > and like 26 pages plus. If combined with the previously silenced Steve
> > Howe topic, it was 800-900 posts, dwarfing most other topics
> > combined.
>
> Who would have known that carrying on with a boat apolstery repairman/
> amateur singer instead of Jon Anderson would create a reaction?
>
> > Twas the night before Christmas and I decided to make what was
> > unknowingly my last statement, saying that I didn't hold ill will to
> > the people that were taunting me and I wished them a merry Christmas.
> > I awoke the next morning to find a Christmas miracle, in that a mod
> > lock my thread, saying only, "run its course."
>
> Again, very sad that the thing that gets the most people talking the
> most about Yes is the very thing that has most people staying away
> from their shows.
>
> > In response, I posted a new topic "Yescensorship" in which I recapped
> > the above numbers and said that the pro-Benoit regime had employed a
> > "I'll just take my toys and go home," methodology to try to win. The
> > new thread was quickly deleted. I supposed they sat and thought about
> > it and then decided to also remove my "maestro Benoit...is he up to
> > snuff?" thread also. I thought about posting a comment in another
> > thread when I found out I was banned, unable to post.
>
> Presumeably the operators of the site are preparing to be called upon
> to start promoting the new Trevor Horn Album which I hear he is using
> some current Benoit's Yes members to make (they are still planning to
> call it a Yes album as far as I know). Co-ordinating shills praising
> leaked snippets of that will be very challenging and moderating actual
> fan comments ... well that needs to stop right now.
>
> > So that's it. The warm fuzzy love that glows from Yesfans, as long as
> > you don't voice your own opinions.
>
> Yesfans = Benoit's Yesshills
>
> Even funnier is that when Jon returns, they will all fall over each
> other going on about how that is what they wanted all along.

It IS what Yesfans want! Who wouldn't want Jon Anderson as Yes
vocalist again!
You are mistaken if you think that's what this is all about . . .

It's about accepting that Jon has said he's not up to the rigors of a
Yes tour and accepting that lead vocals are now being handled by
Benoit David. It's about listening to the live music and being happy
to see them, 41 years on.

And subject is not referred to as dead. Read more carefully and
you'll see the that the idea is that it's a 'dead horse.'
This has been going on for two years now. The subject has been picked
clean. That the mods don't delete the threads the minute they appear
speaks to the fact that it's not about their being pro-Benoit. Every
time one of those thread starts it mean they have to monitor it
carefully and everyone waits for the inevitable email notifications of
a Reported Post. At that point, mods have to log in, go to mod space,
and have yet another discussion about whether or not the poster should
be asked to edit the post. Enough already!

Benoit is not an amateur dupe. This is exactly what I'm talking about.
Why bother calling the guy names. He is a contributing artistic member
of the band, especially recording the new album.

By the way, I'm not a man, I'm a woman and I am NOT a YF mod [I just
know that's what's coming next]

[rojon]

On Dec 26, 3:07 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:


> Every
> time one of those thread starts it mean they have to monitor it
> carefully and everyone waits for the inevitable email notifications of
> a Reported Post.  At that point, mods have to log in, go to mod space,
> and have yet another discussion about whether or not the poster should
> be asked to edit the post.  Enough already!
>

Aha!, Case in point, never ONCE, was I asked to edit or remove a post.
It was never needed, yet my threads were still removed.

[Rob Allen]

On Dec 26, 12:07 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> whined:

> > Even funnier is that when Jon returns, they will all fall over each
> > other going on about how that is what they wanted all along.
>
> It IS what Yesfans want! Who wouldn't want Jon Anderson as Yes
> vocalist again!
> You are mistaken if you think that's what this is all about . . .
>
> It's about accepting that Jon has said he's not up to the rigors of a
> Yes tour and accepting that lead vocals are now being handled by
> Benoit David. It's about listening to the live music and being happy
> to see them, 41 years on.


Jon Anderson indicated he was ready to tour...so WTF are you
"accepting"?

You are accepting amateur quality vocals from a band using the Yes
brand...and apparently, doing it gladly...41 years on.


> And subject is not referred to as dead.  Read more carefully and
> you'll see the that the idea is that it's a 'dead horse.'


<blank stare>

Who brought this bitch?


> This has been going on for two years now.  The subject has been picked
> clean. That the mods don't delete the threads the minute they appear
> speaks to the fact that it's not about their being pro-Benoit. Every
> time one of those thread starts it mean they have to monitor it
> carefully and everyone waits for the inevitable email notifications of
> a Reported Post.  At that point, mods have to log in, go to mod space,
> and have yet another discussion about whether or not the poster should
> be asked to edit the post.  Enough already!


No...not "enough already"...not so long as HSWes continues with this
shameful sham.



> Benoit is not an amateur dupe. This is exactly what I'm talking about.


Yes he is...and you don't really seem to know what you are talking
about...or how to post on a ng.


> Why bother calling the guy names. He is a contributing artistic member
> of the band, especially recording the new album.


I'm calling him what he is, an amateur dupe, a person that simply does
not carry the talent level necessary to being in a band calling itself
Yes.

Of course, I also call him coach trimmer and parrot...and other stuff
like that.



> By the way, I'm not a man, I'm a woman and I am NOT a YF mod [I just
> know that's what's coming next]


lol...tell me you aren't one of those fat chick
*Yesfans*...*please*...I mean the horror of that mental image is just
*too* _funny_, so say it ain't so.


Rob "it's too late, I'm already grossed out beyond repair" Allen

[rojon]

On Dec 26, 3:17 pm, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:

>
> Who brought this bitch?
>

LOL, well, I dont claim her, but I assume she came looking for an
argument about Yesfan's censorship.

[Rob Allen]

On Dec 26, 2:03 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 3:17 pm, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Who brought this bitch?
>
> LOL, well, I dont claim her, but I assume she came looking for an
> argument about Yesfan's censorship.



one should think she'd do better to just stay "over there".



Rob "safe social intercourse" Allen

[stevesyn]

On Dec 27, 2:41 pm, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2:03 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 26, 3:17 pm, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Who brought this bitch?
>
> > LOL, well, I dont claim her, but I assume she came looking for an
> > argument about Yesfan's censorship.
>
> one should think she'd do better to just stay "over there".
>
> Rob "safe social intercourse" Allen

If she is the 'Imperatrix' person, or as I often misread it
'Apairoftits', she is definitely one of the holier-than-thou Yesfans
brigade that dictates total nonsense to the sychophantic audience
there. The problem she will have here is trying to dictate to Yes
fans who have independent opinion and are not frightened to express
it.
I wonder if this person can confirm that Trevor Horn is producing the
new album, I remain unconvinced.

Steve Nardelli

[Rob Allen]

On Dec 27, 7:41 am, stevesyn <***@synmusic.net> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 2:41 pm, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 26, 2:03 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 26, 3:17 pm, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Who brought this bitch?
>
> > > LOL, well, I dont claim her, but I assume she came looking for an
> > > argument about Yesfan's censorship.
>
> > one should think she'd do better to just stay "over there".
>
> > Rob "safe social intercourse" Allen
>
> If she is the 'Imperatrix' person, or as I often misread it
> 'Apairoftits', she is definitely one of the holier-than-thou Yesfans
> brigade that dictates total nonsense to the sychophantic audience
> there.    The problem she will have here is trying to dictate to Yes
> fans who have independent opinion and are not frightened to express
> it.


I suspect she won't post here much beyond that little drive-by she was
on about yesterday.

No "social intercourse" to be found...and all.


> I wonder if this person can confirm that Trevor Horn is producing the
> new album, I remain unconvinced.


Stop it...it's Horn "or somebody"...and I still believe it's a Horn
record centered around the Buggles classic "We Can Fly From Here".
I'm certain the 23 minutes version that Horn is working up will be
_jamtastic_, featuring all that Yes fans love about Chris Squire and
Steve Howe...*including* Steve Howe's breathtaking vocal work.


Rob "nobody's ever even thought about fuckin' that, I'm gonna make her
mine" Allen

[Chris Hosford]

On Dec 27, 10:41 am, stevesyn <***@synmusic.net> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 2:41 pm, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 26, 2:03 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 26, 3:17 pm, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Who brought this bitch?
>
> > > LOL, well, I dont claim her, but I assume she came looking for an
> > > argument about Yesfan's censorship.
>
> > one should think she'd do better to just stay "over there".
>
> > Rob "safe social intercourse" Allen
>
> If she is the 'Imperatrix' person, or as I often misread it
> 'Apairoftits', she is definitely one of the holier-than-thou Yesfans
> brigade that dictates total nonsense to the sychophantic audience
> there.    The problem she will have here is trying to dictate to Yes
> fans who have independent opinion and are not frightened to express
> it.
> I wonder if this person can confirm that Trevor Horn is producing the
> new album, I remain unconvinced.
>
> Steve Nardelli

Either you are suffering a severe case of mistaken identity or you are
totally and completely talking out of your ass because "Imperatrix"
and "sycophant" don't belong in the same galaxy with one another, let
alone the same sentence.

[rojon]

On Dec 27, 10:41 am, stevesyn <***@synmusic.net> wrote:

>
> If she is the 'Imperatrix' person, or as I often misread it
> 'Apairoftits', she is definitely one of the holier-than-thou Yesfans
> brigade that dictates total nonsense to the sychophantic audience
> there.  

No, I think we just have a little mix-up here. The woman who came to
pick the fight, goes by the screen name Melissa. Imperatrix was
another gal. I dont think I personally ever had any interaction with
Imperatrix, but I did with her husband and they both struck me as
individual thinkers.

[beekay]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 10:41:34 -0500, stevesyn wrote
(in article
<d4750bcd-4883-4e05-94e0-***@y3g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>):

> On Dec 27, 2:41 pm, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 2:03 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 26, 3:17 pm, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Who brought this bitch?
>>
>>> LOL, well, I dont claim her, but I assume she came looking for an
>>> argument about Yesfan's censorship.
>>
>> one should think she'd do better to just stay "over there".
>>
>> Rob "safe social intercourse" Allen
>
> If she is the 'Imperatrix' person, or as I often misread it
> 'Apairoftits', she is definitely one of the holier-than-thou Yesfans
> brigade that dictates total nonsense to the sychophantic audience
> there. The problem she will have here is trying to dictate to Yes
> fans who have independent opinion and are not frightened to express
> it.
> I wonder if this person can confirm that Trevor Horn is producing the
> new album, I remain unconvinced.
>
> Steve Nardelli

Don't you have an Ego-Village to tend to? Or are you just blowing smoke up
our arses again?

-beekay

[Chris Jemmett]

On Dec 26, 3:07 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2:30 pm, Chris Jemmett <***@rogers.com> wrote:

> > Even funnier is that when Jon returns, they will all fall over each
> > other going on about how that is what they wanted all along.

> It IS what Yesfans want!

It is what some Yes fans want. Some seem very happy to have a poor
imitation.


>Who wouldn't want Jon Anderson as Yes vocalist again!

Steve Howe and Chris Squire. Henry has stated here very clearly that
they simply do not want to work with him again.
In addition to that we have all seen the online shills going on about
how "great" Benoit's vocals are when he can be clearly heard missing
notes all over the place.

> You are mistaken if you think that's what this is all about . . .

Well, here we are sorting out what each of us the other thinks is
mistaken about...


> It's about accepting that Jon has said he's not up to the rigors of a
> Yes tour

You are mistaken about that and you can check to see that Jon has
played more shows than Benoit's Yes in the last 9 months or so and he
did state his ability to do so.

. and accepting that lead vocals are now being handled by Benoit
David.

You are mistaken about this too. While acknowldgeing that the band is
using a new singer of inferior quality, there is no reason to accept
that as anything but a really bad move by the band


.. It's about listening to the live music and being happy

No, it is about going out to dinner and being served a turd instead of
the dish you ordered AND THEN eating it and enjoying it because you
were out having fun with some friends or possibly you couldn`t taste
your entree, whichever the case is, it means accepting a bad product
and robotically going on supporting whatever Squire and Howe throw out
there.
Seriously, if Benoit suddenly said `I quit`, how bad of a replacement
would have to get before you drew the line


> to see them, 41 years on.

The least they could have done was get a top level singer, the best
they could find. Instead they got a guy who imitated Jon in a tribute
band and passed him off with that ``understudy`` bullshit line.

> Benoit is not an amateur dupe.

He absolutely is. He is the singer that Squire and Howe can get to do
whatever they tell to do and pay less than Jon.
Poor guy is just glad to be in the show and the anti-Jon slant of the
band is so bad that even the shrinking attendence doesn`t matter.


This is exactly what I'm talking about.
> Why bother calling the guy names. He is a contributing artistic member
> of the band, especially recording the new album.

That clearly remains to be seen. I am certain that the only reason any
album work is being done is because Trevor Horn has allowed his name
to be used in conjunction with the project. How much of an artistic
contibutor Benoit is remains to be seen. So far, his contribution is
that of a poor Jon Anderson imitator.

> By the way, I'm not a man, I'm a woman

I have identified you as such much earlier, elsewhere on this thread.


and I am NOT a YF mod [I just
> know that's what's coming next]

I have made no claim about you being a YF mod and you surely do not
know what is coming.

will you marry me...

see what I mean ;)

How is it that we can manage to have this discussion, racked with such
strong diagreement without some babysitters getting together to try
and decide what to do about us...

[Paul Goodwin]

On Dec 26, 1:58 pm, Chris Jemmett <***@rogers.com> wrote:
>Henry has stated here very clearly that
> they simply do not want to work with him again.

Henry has also stated that *he* doesn't want Jon back, under any
circumstances.
Which really explains a lot of things that have puzzled me about some
of his posts & reviews.

--

Paul

[paul]

On Dec 27, 4:28 pm, Paul Goodwin <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 1:58 pm, Chris Jemmett <***@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> >Henry has stated here very clearly that
> > they simply do not want to work with him again.
>
> Henry has also stated that *he* doesn't want Jon back, under any
> circumstances.
> Which really explains a lot of things that have puzzled me about some
> of his posts & reviews.

I'm not sure I've ever read Henry stating that.

p

[u***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk]

Paul Goodwin <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Chris Jemmett <***@rogers.com> wrote:
> > Henry has stated here very clearly that they simply do not want to work with him again.
>
> Henry has also stated that *he* doesn't want Jon back, under any circumstances.

Paul, your punctuation is misleading there. I don't want him back
under *any* circumstances. That is, I don't want Jon back if that
means the band ceases to work on any new material, barely plays any
live shows and takes another 4-year hiatus. I do want him back under
most reasonable circumstances.
--
Henry

[Rob Allen]

On Dec 27, 9:40 am, "***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk"
<***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> muttered:
> Paul Goodwin <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Chris Jemmett <***@rogers.com> wrote:
> > > Henry has stated here very clearly that they simply do not want to work with him again.
>
> > Henry has also stated that *he* doesn't want Jon back, under any circumstances.
>
> Paul, your punctuation is misleading there. I don't want him back
> under *any* circumstances. That is, I don't want Jon back if that
> means the band ceases to work on any new material, barely plays any
> live shows and takes another 4-year hiatus. I do want him back under
> most reasonable circumstances.

Henry just can't help but to attempt to paint Anderson in the worst
possible light. So much bullshit from the HSWes shill.

Of course it would have been a lot simpler to say something along the
lines of _I'd only want JA under certain conditions_...or _I'd only
want an actual Yes under certain conditions_...or _I'd only want Howe
and Squire to compromise with Anderson because they have some actual
integrity and they actually care about the Yes brand beyond it being
an easy payday for them_...or...


Rob "the possibilities for honesty and clearly expressed thought are
kinda *endless*" Allen

[Paul Goodwin]

On Dec 27, 9:40 am, "***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk"
<***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Paul, your punctuation is misleading there. I don't want him back
> under *any* circumstances. That is, I don't want Jon back if that
> means the band ceases to work on any new material, barely plays any
> live shows and takes another 4-year hiatus. I do want him back under
> most reasonable circumstances.

Fair enough, but when you first posted that you didn't explain what
you meant, that sentence can be taken more than one way.
Why would you think that Jon would cease to work on any new material,
when he's been more prolific than any of the current members the past
few years, or barely play any live shows, when he's been as active, or
more so, than the current lineup, or take a four year hiatus? What
would be the point of him going back were that the case? His income
would come grinding to a halt, save for royalties from the back
catalog, and I'm pretty sure that's something he'd rather avoid lol.

--

Paul

[Rob Allen]

On Dec 27, 4:04 pm, Paul Goodwin <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 9:40 am, "***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk"
>
> <***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Paul, your punctuation is misleading there. I don't want him back
> > under *any* circumstances. That is, I don't want Jon back if that
> > means the band ceases to work on any new material, barely plays any
> > live shows and takes another 4-year hiatus. I do want him back under
> > most reasonable circumstances.
>
> Fair enough, but when you first posted that you didn't explain what
> you meant, that sentence can be taken more than one way.
> Why would you think that Jon would cease to work on any new material,
> when he's been more prolific than any of the current members the past
> few years, or barely play any live shows, when he's been as active, or
> more so, than the current lineup, or take a four year hiatus?


he also had new music for Yes before he fell ill and went unavailable
to tour in 2008.


>What
> would be the point of him going back were that the case? His income
> would come grinding to a halt, save for royalties from the back
> catalog, and I'm pretty sure that's something he'd rather avoid lol.


it's just the same nonsense that Henry has been on about for the last
two years...Anderson blocked recording of new music, Anderson blocked
tours and so forth.

Not a statement can be made from certain quarters, without attempting
to paint Anderson as some sort of Yes blocking bad guy. It's a
strategy intended to help convince people of the necessity of a Benoit
David, even if the whole thing is nothing but total bullshit.


Rob Allen
NP: Yes, "Lift Me Up"

[u***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk]

On Dec 28, 12:04 am, Paul Goodwin <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Paul, your punctuation is misleading there. I don't want him back
> > under *any* circumstances. That is, I don't want Jon back if that
> > means the band ceases to work on any new material, barely plays any
> > live shows and takes another 4-year hiatus. I do want him back under
> > most reasonable circumstances.
>
> Fair enough, but when you first posted that you didn't explain what
> you meant, that sentence can be taken more than one way.
> Why would you think that Jon would cease to work on any new material,
> when he's been more prolific than any of the current members the past
> few years, or barely play any live shows, when he's been as active, or
> more so, than the current lineup, or take a four year hiatus? What
> would be the point of him going back were that the case? His income
> would come grinding to a halt, save for royalties from the back
> catalog, and I'm pretty sure that's something he'd rather avoid lol.

I don't know what would happen if Anderson re-joined Yes. I'm not
saying one thing or another would happen. I'm saying under what
circumstances I'd be happy or not happy to see him return.

But this is all hypothetical. What matters is what has happened and
what does happen. As I believe I have said before, I get very bored of
discussing hypotheticals.
--
Henry

[Rob Allen]

On Dec 28, 4:24 am, "***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk"
<***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> muttered:
> On Dec 28, 12:04 am, Paul Goodwin <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > <***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Paul, your punctuation is misleading there. I don't want him back
> > > under *any* circumstances. That is, I don't want Jon back if that
> > > means the band ceases to work on any new material, barely plays any
> > > live shows and takes another 4-year hiatus. I do want him back under
> > > most reasonable circumstances.
>
> > Fair enough, but when you first posted that you didn't explain what
> > you meant, that sentence can be taken more than one way.
> > Why would you think that Jon would cease to work on any new material,
> > when he's been more prolific than any of the current members the past
> > few years, or barely play any live shows, when he's been as active, or
> > more so, than the current lineup, or take a four year hiatus? What
> > would be the point of him going back were that the case? His income
> > would come grinding to a halt, save for royalties from the back
> > catalog, and I'm pretty sure that's something he'd rather avoid lol.
>
> I don't know what would happen if Anderson re-joined Yes. I'm not
> saying one thing or another would happen. I'm saying under what
> circumstances I'd be happy or not happy to see him return.
>
> But this is all hypothetical. What matters is what has happened and
> what does happen. As I believe I have said before, I get very bored of
> discussing hypotheticals.



I get very annoyed reading purposeful bullshit.


Rob "and with people who have a *very* loose relationship with the
truth" Allen

[Chris Hosford]

If anybody is registered at the site and wishes to put in their $.02,
the thread I started on this censorship topic at progressiveears.com
is in the OT forum there.

[Rob Allen]

On Dec 28, 7:54 am, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> If anybody is registered at the site and wishes to put in their $.02,
> the thread I started on this censorship topic at progressiveears.com
> is in the OT forum there.


that place isn't quite as silly as Yesfans.com, but it's pretty
close. I wouldn't touch it with your keyboard.


Rob "or a ten foot pole" Allen

[Chris Jemmett]

On Dec 28, 11:11 am, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 7:54 am, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If anybody is registered at the site and wishes to put in their $.02,
> > the thread I started on this censorship topic at progressiveears.com
> > is in the OT forum there.
>
> that place isn't quite as silly as Yesfans.com, but it's pretty
> close.  I wouldn't touch it with your keyboard.
>
> Rob "or a ten foot pole" Allen

hmm, Yesfans...

... bigger audience... more laughs, more action, more idiotic
anger ... more laughs

hmmm

...more carnage...


ChrisplantaseedandseewhathappensJemmett

[Rob Allen]

On Dec 30, 7:50 am, Chris Jemmett <***@rogers.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 11:11 am, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 28, 7:54 am, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If anybody is registered at the site and wishes to put in their $.02,
> > > the thread I started on this censorship topic at progressiveears.com
> > > is in the OT forum there.
>
> > that place isn't quite as silly as Yesfans.com, but it's pretty
> > close.  I wouldn't touch it with your keyboard.
>
> > Rob "or a ten foot pole" Allen
>
> hmm, Yesfans...
>
> ... bigger audience... more laughs, more action, more idiotic
> anger ... more laughs
>
> hmmm
>
> ...more carnage...
>
> ChrisplantaseedandseewhathappensJemmett


there's not enough water and/or fertilizer in the..._universe_ ...to
make that seed grow.


Rob "what are you, some kind of *fanboard* terrorist?" Allen

[Chris Jemmett]

On Dec 30, 10:53 am, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 7:50 am, Chris Jemmett <***@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 11:11 am, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 28, 7:54 am, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > If anybody is registered at the site and wishes to put in their $.02,
> > > > the thread I started on this censorship topic at progressiveears.com
> > > > is in the OT forum there.
>
> > > that place isn't quite as silly as Yesfans.com, but it's pretty
> > > close.  I wouldn't touch it with your keyboard.
>
> > > Rob "or a ten foot pole" Allen
>
> > hmm, Yesfans...
>
> > ... bigger audience... more laughs, more action, more idiotic
> > anger ... more laughs
>
> > hmmm
>
> > ...more carnage...
>
> > ChrisplantaseedandseewhathappensJemmett
>
> there's not enough water and/or fertilizer in the..._universe_ ...to
> make that seed grow.
>
> Rob "what are you, some kind of *fanboard* terrorist?" Allen

It's called Freedom Fighter.

If not us, then who? If not now, then when?

...more laughs...

[Rob Allen]

On Dec 30, 8:16 am, Chris Jemmett <***@rogers.com> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 10:53 am, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 30, 7:50 am, Chris Jemmett <***@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 28, 11:11 am, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 28, 7:54 am, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > If anybody is registered at the site and wishes to put in their $.02,
> > > > > the thread I started on this censorship topic at progressiveears.com
> > > > > is in the OT forum there.
>
> > > > that place isn't quite as silly as Yesfans.com, but it's pretty
> > > > close.  I wouldn't touch it with your keyboard.
>
> > > > Rob "or a ten foot pole" Allen
>
> > > hmm, Yesfans...
>
> > > ... bigger audience... more laughs, more action, more idiotic
> > > anger ... more laughs
>
> > > hmmm
>
> > > ...more carnage...
>
> > > ChrisplantaseedandseewhathappensJemmett
>
> > there's not enough water and/or fertilizer in the..._universe_ ...to
> > make that seed grow.
>
> > Rob "what are you, some kind of *fanboard* terrorist?" Allen
>
> It's called Freedom Fighter.
>
> If not us, then who? If not now, then when?
>
> ...more laughs...


not too long ago I tried progressive ears for a couple a weeks or so.
Coincidently, about a week into that experiment, the guy who runs the
site (Sean) started a thread questioning how to attract more posting
activity to the site. While there was certainly laughs to be had, and
most of the posters seemed quite knowledgeable about so many things
"prog" (even if many seemed not so knowledgeable about Yes, so as to
accept basically *everything* dropped on them by Henry).

During that same time they basically ran off Billy Sherwood with
complaints about him breaking rules by posting info re: Yoso.

I decided the whole thing, with it's seemingly thin-skinned posters,
pile of rules (even if the rules wouldn't effect my posting activity
at all) and a kinda *interesting* moderator, to be a bit too silly for
my taste...or time.

Just what I've scanned of Yesfans.com tells me that it's that kind of
silly multiplied by a number bigger than I can imagine...so...


Rob "I'm not looking to cause any trouble, man" Allen

[Peter]

On Dec 26, 3:07 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2:30 pm, Chris Jemmett <***@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 11:23 am, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > It looks as though criticism of the current band and Benoit David is
> > > > no longer tolerated there.  There was a rather big thread with
> > > > thousands of views and hundreds of posts that has now been deleted.  I
> > > > asked about it in the "ask the admins" section and my post was deleted
> > > > without response.
>
> > > Let me give a little background on how this censorship came about.
>
> > > A thread called "Steve Howe...meastro contradicto" had morphed into a
> > > discussion about Benoit. I think it began in response to the Chris
> > > Squire rimjob called smatt when he made a comment that HSW should be
> > > thought of as only one of the many incarnations of Yes. So I posted a
> > > link to a HD vid in which Benoit was caterwauling and asked if they
> > > actually would go on record as saying this was a good vocal
> > > performance, and if not if they would provide a link to one that was.
>
> > I actually looked in around this time with smatt going on about hating
> > You Tube critics but actually coming off as a completely insincere
> > Benoit's Yes apologist. That is probably the kindest description of
> > him available.
>
> > > This lit up the thread like a roman candle, but with no one offering a
> > > link. What they did offer were personal attacks to Chis and myself.
> > > However, the posting level went through the roof, but pretty quickly
> > > the thread was locked, either by or at the request of the guy who
> > > started the Steve Howe subject saying that the reason was because the
> > > thread had drifted off subject. Which was true enough, but the true
> > > reason was to shut up the anti-Benoit stance that was being openly
> > > stated.
>
> > I did sprinkle a bit of bait in the water but it was wisely ignored.
> > All for the best as I am sure the thread would just have been closed
> > down a little faster.
>
> > > So, to solve this, and to make sure it was obviously intended
> > > to carry on the discussion, I name a new thread "maestro Benoit...is
> > > he up to snuff?"
>
> > That would have been fun, alas I don't want to take the amount of time
> > that this could develop into.
>
> > > Amid the constant cries that the thread was a dead subject, the
> > > posting continued at a fevered pace. It soon became clear that the
> > > staff wanted to shut it down and shut us up. They pretty much said so.
> > > But their problem was that Chris and I remained polite even though we
> > > were constantly getting personal attacks. This politeness kept them
> > > from having an easy out. However, new threads were started and allowed
> > > making fun of us and we were pretty much labeled as trolls simply
> > > because we stated that Benoits vocals were not up to the level Yes
> > > deserved.
>
> > It is very sad that the existance of the band (Benoit's Yes) hinges
> > entirely on this amateur dupe continuing to do as he is told.
>
> >  The site owner Tim Lutterbie chimed in, saying it was an
>
> > > annoyance but as long as it was civil, it was OK. Some members asked
> > > to have us banned. Even though Henry was not sided with us, he made
> > > the case that censorship was not a good idea.
>
> > Of course he did. I did not see the thread but I sure can see Henry
> > "urging caution".
>
> > > Within little more than week, the topic was between 500 and 600 posts
> > > and like 26 pages plus. If combined with the previously silenced Steve
> > > Howe topic, it was 800-900 posts, dwarfing most other topics
> > > combined.
>
> > Who would have known that carrying on with a boat apolstery repairman/
> > amateur singer instead of Jon Anderson would create a reaction?
>
> > > Twas the night before Christmas and I decided to make what was
> > > unknowingly my last statement, saying that I didn't hold ill will to
> > > the people that were taunting me and I wished them a merry Christmas.
> > > I awoke the next morning to find a Christmas miracle, in that a mod
> > > lock my thread, saying only, "run its course."
>
> > Again, very sad that the thing that gets the most people talking the
> > most about Yes is the very thing that has most people staying away
> > from their shows.
>
> > > In response, I posted a new topic "Yescensorship" in which I recapped
> > > the above numbers and said that the pro-Benoit regime had employed a
> > > "I'll just take my toys and go home," methodology to try to win. The
> > > new thread was quickly deleted. I supposed they sat and thought about
> > > it and then decided to also remove my "maestro Benoit...is he up to
> > > snuff?" thread also. I thought about posting a comment in another
> > > thread when I found out I was banned, unable to post.
>
> > Presumeably the operators of the site are preparing to be called upon
> > to start promoting the new Trevor Horn Album which I hear he is using
> > some current Benoit's Yes members to make (they are still planning to
> > call it a Yes album as far as I know). Co-ordinating shills praising
> > leaked snippets of that will be very challenging and moderating actual
> > fan comments ... well that needs to stop right now.
>
> > > So that's it. The warm fuzzy love that glows from Yesfans, as long as
> > > you don't voice your own opinions.
>
> > Yesfans = Benoit's Yesshills
>
> > Even funnier is that when Jon returns, they will all fall over each
> > other going on about how that is what they wanted all along.
>
> It IS what Yesfans want! Who wouldn't want Jon Anderson as Yes
> vocalist again!
> You are mistaken if you think that's what this is all about . . .
>
> It's about accepting that Jon has said he's not up to the rigors of a
> Yes tour and accepting that lead vocals are now being handled by
> Benoit David. It's about listening to the live music and being happy
> to see them, 41 years on.
>
> And subject is not referred to as dead.  Read more carefully and
> you'll see the that the idea is that it's a 'dead horse.'
> This has been going on for two years now.  The subject has been picked
> clean. That the mods don't delete the threads the minute they appear
> speaks to the fact that it's not about their being pro-Benoit. Every
> time one of those thread starts it mean they have to monitor it
> carefully and everyone waits for the inevitable email notifications of
> a Reported Post.  At that point, mods have to log in, go to mod space,
> and have yet another discussion about whether or not the poster should
> be asked to edit the post.  Enough already!

If they didn't practice censorship, then they wouldn't have that
problem. I quit going to Yesfans long ago over their censorship and
their deletion of posts with relevant factual data that didn't fit
their preconceptions, This is nothing new over there.

[Michel Forest]

On 26 déc, 15:07, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2:30 pm, Chris Jemmett <***@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 11:23 am, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > It looks as though criticism of the current band and Benoit David is
> > > > no longer tolerated there.  There was a rather big thread with
> > > > thousands of views and hundreds of posts that has now been deleted.  I
> > > > asked about it in the "ask the admins" section and my post was deleted
> > > > without response.
>
> > > Let me give a little background on how this censorship came about.
>
> > > A thread called "Steve Howe...meastro contradicto" had morphed into a
> > > discussion about Benoit. I think it began in response to the Chris
> > > Squire rimjob called smatt when he made a comment that HSW should be
> > > thought of as only one of the many incarnations of Yes. So I posted a
> > > link to a HD vid in which Benoit was caterwauling and asked if they
> > > actually would go on record as saying this was a good vocal
> > > performance, and if not if they would provide a link to one that was.
>
> > I actually looked in around this time with smatt going on about hating
> > You Tube critics but actually coming off as a completely insincere
> > Benoit's Yes apologist. That is probably the kindest description of
> > him available.
>
> > > This lit up the thread like a roman candle, but with no one offering a
> > > link. What they did offer were personal attacks to Chis and myself.
> > > However, the posting level went through the roof, but pretty quickly
> > > the thread was locked, either by or at the request of the guy who
> > > started the Steve Howe subject saying that the reason was because the
> > > thread had drifted off subject. Which was true enough, but the true
> > > reason was to shut up the anti-Benoit stance that was being openly
> > > stated.
>
> > I did sprinkle a bit of bait in the water but it was wisely ignored.
> > All for the best as I am sure the thread would just have been closed
> > down a little faster.
>
> > > So, to solve this, and to make sure it was obviously intended
> > > to carry on the discussion, I name a new thread "maestro Benoit...is
> > > he up to snuff?"
>
> > That would have been fun, alas I don't want to take the amount of time
> > that this could develop into.
>
> > > Amid the constant cries that the thread was a dead subject, the
> > > posting continued at a fevered pace. It soon became clear that the
> > > staff wanted to shut it down and shut us up. They pretty much said so.
> > > But their problem was that Chris and I remained polite even though we
> > > were constantly getting personal attacks. This politeness kept them
> > > from having an easy out. However, new threads were started and allowed
> > > making fun of us and we were pretty much labeled as trolls simply
> > > because we stated that Benoits vocals were not up to the level Yes
> > > deserved.
>
> > It is very sad that the existance of the band (Benoit's Yes) hinges
> > entirely on this amateur dupe continuing to do as he is told.
>
> >  The site owner Tim Lutterbie chimed in, saying it was an
>
> > > annoyance but as long as it was civil, it was OK. Some members asked
> > > to have us banned. Even though Henry was not sided with us, he made
> > > the case that censorship was not a good idea.
>
> > Of course he did. I did not see the thread but I sure can see Henry
> > "urging caution".
>
> > > Within little more than week, the topic was between 500 and 600 posts
> > > and like 26 pages plus. If combined with the previously silenced Steve
> > > Howe topic, it was 800-900 posts, dwarfing most other topics
> > > combined.
>
> > Who would have known that carrying on with a boat apolstery repairman/
> > amateur singer instead of Jon Anderson would create a reaction?
>
> > > Twas the night before Christmas and I decided to make what was
> > > unknowingly my last statement, saying that I didn't hold ill will to
> > > the people that were taunting me and I wished them a merry Christmas.
> > > I awoke the next morning to find a Christmas miracle, in that a mod
> > > lock my thread, saying only, "run its course."
>
> > Again, very sad that the thing that gets the most people talking the
> > most about Yes is the very thing that has most people staying away
> > from their shows.
>
> > > In response, I posted a new topic "Yescensorship" in which I recapped
> > > the above numbers and said that the pro-Benoit regime had employed a
> > > "I'll just take my toys and go home," methodology to try to win. The
> > > new thread was quickly deleted. I supposed they sat and thought about
> > > it and then decided to also remove my "maestro Benoit...is he up to
> > > snuff?" thread also. I thought about posting a comment in another
> > > thread when I found out I was banned, unable to post.
>
> > Presumeably the operators of the site are preparing to be called upon
> > to start promoting the new Trevor Horn Album which I hear he is using
> > some current Benoit's Yes members to make (they are still planning to
> > call it a Yes album as far as I know). Co-ordinating shills praising
> > leaked snippets of that will be very challenging and moderating actual
> > fan comments ... well that needs to stop right now.
>
> > > So that's it. The warm fuzzy love that glows from Yesfans, as long as
> > > you don't voice your own opinions.
>
> > Yesfans = Benoit's Yesshills
>
> > Even funnier is that when Jon returns, they will all fall over each
> > other going on about how that is what they wanted all along.
>
> It IS what Yesfans want! Who wouldn't want Jon Anderson as Yes
> vocalist again!
> You are mistaken if you think that's what this is all about . . .
>
> It's about accepting that Jon has said he's not up to the rigors of a
> Yes tour and accepting that lead vocals are now being handled by
> Benoit David. It's about listening to the live music and being happy
> to see them, 41 years on.

Right. It's about accepting whatever crap is handed over to you on a
plate...

> He is a contributing artistic member of the band, especially recording the new album.

I propose this for "Funniest a.m.y. quote of 2010".

[rojon]

On Dec 26, 2:30 pm, Chris Jemmett <***@rogers.com> wrote:

>
> I actually looked in around this time with smatt going on about hating
> You Tube critics but actually coming off as a completely insincere
> Benoit's Yes apologist. That is probably the kindest description of
> him available.
>

Chris Squire rimjob was the kindest I had. Does it show that Im sick
of their rules?


> > This lit up the thread like a roman candle, but with no one offering a
> > link. What they did offer were personal attacks to Chis and myself.
> > However, the posting level went through the roof, but pretty quickly
> > the thread was locked, either by or at the request of the guy who
> > started the Steve Howe subject saying that the reason was because the
> > thread had drifted off subject. Which was true enough, but the true
> > reason was to shut up the anti-Benoit stance that was being openly
> > stated.
>
> I did sprinkle a bit of bait in the water but it was wisely ignored.
> All for the best as I am sure the thread would just have been closed
> down a little faster.
>

Well, honestly, I ignored it because I was happy to see for non-Benoit
kiss up voice of reason and as you could see, I already had a target
on my back.

...
>
> Again, very sad that the thing that gets the most people talking the
> most about Yes is the very thing that has most people staying away
> from their shows.
>

So true, yet still the Yesfans regulars dont see the writing on the
wall.



>
> Even funnier is that when Jon returns, they will all fall over each
> other going on about how that is what they wanted all along.
>

My thoughts exactly.

[Chris Hosford]

On Dec 26, 11:23 am, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It looks as though criticism of the current band and Benoit David is
> > no longer tolerated there.  There was a rather big thread with
> > thousands of views and hundreds of posts that has now been deleted.  I
> > asked about it in the "ask the admins" section and my post was deleted
> > without response.
>
> Let me give a little background on how this censorship came about.
>
> A thread called "Steve Howe...meastro contradicto" had morphed into a
> discussion about Benoit. I think it began in response to the Chris
> Squire rimjob called smatt when he made a comment that HSW should be
> thought of as only one of the many incarnations of Yes. So I posted a
> link to a HD vid in which Benoit was caterwauling and asked if they
> actually would go on record as saying this was a good vocal
> performance, and if not if they would provide a link to one that was.
> This lit up the thread like a roman candle, but with no one offering a
> link. What they did offer were personal attacks to Chis and myself.
> However, the posting level went through the roof, but pretty quickly
> the thread was locked, either by or at the request of the guy who
> started the Steve Howe subject saying that the reason was because the
> thread had drifted off subject. Which was true enough, but the true
> reason was to shut up the anti-Benoit stance that was being openly
> stated. So, to solve this, and to make sure it was obviously intended
> to carry on the discussion, I name a new thread "maestro Benoit...is
> he up to snuff?"
>
> Amid the constant cries that the thread was a dead subject, the
> posting continued at a fevered pace. It soon became clear that the
> staff wanted to shut it down and shut us up. They pretty much said so.
> But their problem was that Chris and I remained polite even though we
> were constantly getting personal attacks. This politeness kept them
> from having an easy out. However, new threads were started and allowed
> making fun of us and we were pretty much labeled as trolls simply
> because we stated that Benoits vocals were not up to the level Yes
> deserved. The site owner Tim Lutterbie chimed in, saying it was an
> annoyance but as long as it was civil, it was OK. Some members asked
> to have us banned. Even though Henry was not sided with us, he made
> the case that censorship was not a good idea.
>
> Within little more than week, the topic was between 500 and 600 posts
> and like 26 pages plus. If combined with the previously silenced Steve
> Howe topic, it was 800-900 posts, dwarfing most other topics
> combined.
>
> Twas the night before Christmas and I decided to make what was
> unknowingly my last statement, saying that I didn't hold ill will to
> the people that were taunting me and I wished them a merry Christmas.
> I awoke the next morning to find a Christmas miracle, in that a mod
> lock my thread, saying only, "run its course."
>
> In response, I posted a new topic "Yescensorship" in which I recapped
> the above numbers and said that the pro-Benoit regime had employed a
> "I'll just take my toys and go home," methodology to try to win. The
> new thread was quickly deleted. I supposed they sat and thought about
> it and then decided to also remove my "maestro Benoit...is he up to
> snuff?" thread also. I thought about posting a comment in another
> thread when I found out I was banned, unable to post.
>
> So that's it. The warm fuzzy love that glows from Yesfans, as long as
> you don't voice your own opinions.

I'm not banned, but I might ditch the place anyway. Did you get any
kind of explanatory message? I changed my avatar and sig as a protest
over the censorship. I did take the liberty of reporting this
business on Jon's Facebook, the unofficial Yes Facebook page and
ProgEars.

[skhatru]

On Dec 26, 2:46 pm, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 11:23 am, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > It looks as though criticism of the current band and Benoit David is
> > > no longer tolerated there.  There was a rather big thread with
> > > thousands of views and hundreds of posts that has now been deleted.  I
> > > asked about it in the "ask the admins" section and my post was deleted
> > > without response.
>
> > Let me give a little background on how this censorship came about.
>
> > A thread called "Steve Howe...meastro contradicto" had morphed into a
> > discussion about Benoit. I think it began in response to the Chris
> > Squire rimjob called smatt when he made a comment that HSW should be
> > thought of as only one of the many incarnations of Yes. So I posted a
> > link to a HD vid in which Benoit was caterwauling and asked if they
> > actually would go on record as saying this was a good vocal
> > performance, and if not if they would provide a link to one that was.
> > This lit up the thread like a roman candle, but with no one offering a
> > link. What they did offer were personal attacks to Chis and myself.
> > However, the posting level went through the roof, but pretty quickly
> > the thread was locked, either by or at the request of the guy who
> > started the Steve Howe subject saying that the reason was because the
> > thread had drifted off subject. Which was true enough, but the true
> > reason was to shut up the anti-Benoit stance that was being openly
> > stated. So, to solve this, and to make sure it was obviously intended
> > to carry on the discussion, I name a new thread "maestro Benoit...is
> > he up to snuff?"
>
> > Amid the constant cries that the thread was a dead subject, the
> > posting continued at a fevered pace. It soon became clear that the
> > staff wanted to shut it down and shut us up. They pretty much said so.
> > But their problem was that Chris and I remained polite even though we
> > were constantly getting personal attacks. This politeness kept them
> > from having an easy out. However, new threads were started and allowed
> > making fun of us and we were pretty much labeled as trolls simply
> > because we stated that Benoits vocals were not up to the level Yes
> > deserved. The site owner Tim Lutterbie chimed in, saying it was an
> > annoyance but as long as it was civil, it was OK. Some members asked
> > to have us banned. Even though Henry was not sided with us, he made
> > the case that censorship was not a good idea.
>
> > Within little more than week, the topic was between 500 and 600 posts
> > and like 26 pages plus. If combined with the previously silenced Steve
> > Howe topic, it was 800-900 posts, dwarfing most other topics
> > combined.
>
> > Twas the night before Christmas and I decided to make what was
> > unknowingly my last statement, saying that I didn't hold ill will to
> > the people that were taunting me and I wished them a merry Christmas.
> > I awoke the next morning to find a Christmas miracle, in that a mod
> > lock my thread, saying only, "run its course."
>
> > In response, I posted a new topic "Yescensorship" in which I recapped
> > the above numbers and said that the pro-Benoit regime had employed a
> > "I'll just take my toys and go home," methodology to try to win. The
> > new thread was quickly deleted. I supposed they sat and thought about
> > it and then decided to also remove my "maestro Benoit...is he up to
> > snuff?" thread also. I thought about posting a comment in another
> > thread when I found out I was banned, unable to post.
>
> > So that's it. The warm fuzzy love that glows from Yesfans, as long as
> > you don't voice your own opinions.
>
> I'm not banned, but I might ditch the place anyway. Did you get any
> kind of explanatory message?  I changed my avatar and sig as a protest
> over the censorship.  I did take the liberty of reporting this
> business on Jon's Facebook, the unofficial Yes Facebook page and
> ProgEars.

Oh, yes, please ditch the place.

[rojon]

On Dec 26, 2:46 pm, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not banned, but I might ditch the place anyway. Did you get any
> kind of explanatory message?  

No, no message. Just this screen that came up and said I didnt have
posting priviledges. At this popint I assume it is their temporary
ban, but who knows, it isnt like they play by their own rules, is it?

[Chris Hosford]

On Dec 26, 4:51 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2:46 pm, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm not banned, but I might ditch the place anyway. Did you get any
> > kind of explanatory message?  
>
> No, no message. Just this screen that came up and said I didnt have
> posting priviledges. At this popint I assume it is their temporary
> ban, but who knows, it isnt like they play by their own rules, is it?

Now this presents an obvious question: Why you and not me?

Are they looking at keeping me as a token representative of the "This
lineup is bullshit." faction as long as I kinda keep my head down?
Are they so captivated by my warm personality and my sparkling wit
that they can't bear the thought of the joint without me? Are they
just tailing me around waiting for me to slip up so they can nail me
more "legitimately"? Are they hoping I'll flip over to the other side
when the album comes out? Incidentally, I don't think there is
necessarily unity amongst all the mods and so forth. Why would there
be? I think it's entirely possible that some are more sympathetic
than others.

[rojon]

On Dec 26, 7:33 pm, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 4:51 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 26, 2:46 pm, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm not banned, but I might ditch the place anyway. Did you get any
> > > kind of explanatory message?  
>
> > No, no message. Just this screen that came up and said I didnt have
> > posting priviledges. At this popint I assume it is their temporary
> > ban, but who knows, it isnt like they play by their own rules, is it?
>
> Now this presents an obvious question:  Why you and not me?
>


Well, oddly enough, you posted much more about it than I did, yet you
were always more accepted by them, but I'm not sure I'm the best judge
of why that is.

[paul]

On Dec 27, 5:12 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 7:33 pm, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 26, 4:51 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 26, 2:46 pm, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I'm not banned, but I might ditch the place anyway. Did you get any
> > > > kind of explanatory message?  
>
> > > No, no message. Just this screen that came up and said I didnt have
> > > posting priviledges. At this popint I assume it is their temporary
> > > ban, but who knows, it isnt like they play by their own rules, is it?
>
> > Now this presents an obvious question:  Why you and not me?
>
> Well, oddly enough, you posted much more about it than I did, yet you
> were always more accepted by them, but I'm not sure I'm the best judge
> of why that is.

maybe spoken for by Imperatrix?

p

[Chris Hosford]

On Dec 26, 11:33 pm, paul <***@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 5:12 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 7:33 pm, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 26, 4:51 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 26, 2:46 pm, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I'm not banned, but I might ditch the place anyway. Did you get any
> > > > > kind of explanatory message?  
>
> > > > No, no message. Just this screen that came up and said I didnt have
> > > > posting priviledges. At this popint I assume it is their temporary
> > > > ban, but who knows, it isnt like they play by their own rules, is it?
>
> > > Now this presents an obvious question:  Why you and not me?
>
> > Well, oddly enough, you posted much more about it than I did, yet you
> > were always more accepted by them, but I'm not sure I'm the best judge
> > of why that is.
>
> maybe spoken for by Imperatrix?
>
> p

When I spoke of there being a handful of folks over there with whom I
think I could get on socially in the real world I was mentally
including her and her husband. I go back all the way to the AOL Yes
board with them and they've always struck me as cool folks.

[u***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk]

So, to clarify, Rojon can now post to Yesfans.com, Chris H can post to
Yesfans.com, there is criticism of the current band at Yesfans.com.
This censorship at Yesfans.com ultimately consisted of one thread
being curtailed.
--
Henry

[Rob Allen]

On Dec 30, 4:24 am, "***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk"
<***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> muttered:

> So, to clarify, Rojon can now post to Yesfans.com, Chris H can post to
> Yesfans.com, there is criticism of the current band at Yesfans.com.
> This censorship at Yesfans.com ultimately consisted of one thread
> being curtailed.


is all of that actually true, or is this another case of falsehoods
hidden behind small truths?


Rob "there's a first time for everything?" Allen

[Chris Jemmett]

On Dec 30, 7:24 am, "***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk"
<***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> So, to clarify, Rojon can now post to Yesfans.com, Chris H can post to
> Yesfans.com, there is criticism of the current band at Yesfans.com.
> This censorship at Yesfans.com ultimately consisted of one thread
> being curtailed.

Holy shit, Henry do you even read what you write anymore?

If the dissidents have been released and can now post once again, it
means they personally were curtailed/banned/censored. So, obviously
the censorship consisted of more than "one thread" being curtailed.

... to clarify ...

[Chris Hosford]

On Dec 30, 7:24 am, "***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk"
<***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> So, to clarify, Rojon can now post to Yesfans.com, Chris H can post to
> Yesfans.com, there is criticism of the current band at Yesfans.com.
> This censorship at Yesfans.com ultimately consisted of one thread
> being curtailed.
> --
> Henry

The thread was gone for days. Rojon was "disappeared" for the same
period. The fact that these actions have now been reversed does not
provide answers. It raises more questions as to what the heck
happened there and what will happen there in the future.

[stevesyn]

On Dec 30, 12:24 pm, "***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk"
<***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> So, to clarify, Rojon can now post to Yesfans.com, Chris H can post to
> Yesfans.com, there is criticism of the current band at Yesfans.com.
> This censorship at Yesfans.com ultimately consisted of one thread
> being curtailed.
> --
> Henry

Don't want to be a little Jack Horner
Tapping keys hiding in a corner
Don't want to be a coward in a coward's game
I've got Roman blood in my viens.

Yesfans is a shill site that has conspired to sell this sub-standard
line-up to its mainly sycophantic members, they rely on safety in
numbers.
There is serious censorship, often downright bullying, of anyone that
does not follow the company line. You should stop hiding in the
corner, Henry, and own up to being part of the agenda team there.

Steve Nardelli

[rojon]

On Dec 30, 11:45 am, stevesyn <***@synmusic.net> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 12:24 pm, "***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk"
>
> <***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > So, to clarify, Rojon can now post to Yesfans.com, Chris H can post to
> > Yesfans.com, there is criticism of the current band at Yesfans.com.
> > This censorship at Yesfans.com ultimately consisted of one thread
> > being curtailed.
> > --
> > Henry
>
> Don't want to be a little Jack Horner
> Tapping keys hiding in a corner
> Don't want to be a coward in a coward's game
> I've got Roman blood in my viens.
>
> Yesfans is a shill site that has conspired to sell this sub-standard
> line-up to its mainly sycophantic members...

Yesfans and Henry, two peas in a pod

[u***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk]

On Dec 30, 5:03 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 11:45 am, stevesyn <***@synmusic.net> wrote:
> > <***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > So, to clarify, Rojon can now post to Yesfans.com, Chris H can post to
> > > Yesfans.com, there is criticism of the current band at Yesfans.com.
> > > This censorship at Yesfans.com ultimately consisted of one thread
> > > being curtailed.
> >
> > Don't want to be a little Jack Horner
> > Tapping keys hiding in a corner
> > Don't want to be a coward in a coward's game
> > I've got Roman blood in my viens.
> >
> > Yesfans is a shill site that has conspired to sell this sub-standard
> > line-up to its mainly sycophantic members...
>
> Yesfans and Henry, two peas in a pod

Rojon, if I've learnt anything in recent years, it's that if you're
agreeing with Steve Nardelli, something is seriously wrong! I will
take your words to be born of an anger that I hope will fade in time.

Whatever happened, I'm glad you're back posting at Yesfans.com. You
certainly add to the range of opinions expressed there.

It seems to me that, generally speaking, Yesfans.com is a community
embracing a diverse array of opinions on Yes (current and previous
line-ups). In fact, I can't think of any other Yes forum with the same
spread of opinions -- can you? That said, I think it's a good thing
that there is also a diversity of fora where Yes fans can talk online
beyond Yesfans.com.
--
Henry

[Rob Allen]

On Dec 30, 9:58 am, "***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk"
<***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 5:03 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 30, 11:45 am, stevesyn <***@synmusic.net> wrote:
> > > <***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > So, to clarify, Rojon can now post to Yesfans.com, Chris H can post to
> > > > Yesfans.com, there is criticism of the current band at Yesfans.com.
> > > > This censorship at Yesfans.com ultimately consisted of one thread
> > > > being curtailed.
>
> > > Don't want to be a little Jack Horner
> > > Tapping keys hiding in a corner
> > > Don't want to be a coward in a coward's game
> > > I've got Roman blood in my viens.
>
> > > Yesfans is a shill site that has conspired to sell this sub-standard
> > > line-up to its mainly sycophantic members...
>
> > Yesfans and Henry, two peas in a pod
>
> Rojon, if I've learnt anything in recent years, it's that if you're
> agreeing with Steve Nardelli, something is seriously wrong! I will
> take your words to be born of an anger that I hope will fade in time.


meanwhile, if I've learned anything in recent years, it's that Henry
is just a very dishonest personality.


> Whatever happened, I'm glad you're back posting at Yesfans.com. You
> certainly add to the range of opinions expressed there.


And here we have a classic example.

A few days back, in doing a quick scan of the thread Chris Hosford
referenced on progressive ears, I saw this same kid Henry going on
about how rojo trolled a.m.y with talk of God and Creationism for
years before his recent acting out on Yesfans.com...and now he looks
to fool rojo with this bullshit.

Maybe that PE post should be copied here.


> It seems to me that, generally speaking, Yesfans.com is a community
> embracing a diverse array of opinions on Yes (current and previous
> line-ups). In fact, I can't think of any other Yes forum with the same
> spread of opinions -- can you? That said, I think it's a good thing
> that there is also a diversity of fora where Yes fans can talk online
> beyond Yesfans.com.


it just doesn't stop with this kid...indeed he just can't seem to help
himself.


Rob "so much bullshit from just one little guy" Allen

[Chris Jemmett]

On Dec 30, 1:18 pm, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 9:58 am, "***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk"
>
>
>
>
>
> <***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 5:03 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:

> > > > <***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > > > > So, to clarify, Rojon can now post to Yesfans.com, Chris H can post to
> > > > > Yesfans.com, there is criticism of the current band at Yesfans.com.
> > > > > This censorship at Yesfans.com ultimately consisted of one thread
> > > > > being curtailed.

> > > Yesfans and Henry, two peas in a pod
>
> > Rojon, if I've learnt anything in recent years, it's that if you're
> > agreeing with Steve Nardelli, something is seriously wrong! I will
> > take your words to be born of an anger that I hope will fade in time.

> > Whatever happened, I'm glad you're back posting at Yesfans.com. You
> > certainly add to the range of opinions expressed there.


> A few days back, in doing a quick scan of the thread Chris Hosford
> referenced on progressive ears, I saw this same kid Henry going on
> about how rojo trolled a.m.y with talk of God and Creationism for
> years before his recent acting out on Yesfans.com...


This is a whole new layer of funny shit. Were rojon and Hosford not
careful to remain respectfull and within the stated rules of
Yesfans.com? Were they not both openly mocked in direct contradiction
to the existing rules? What I saw personally answers those questions,
yes. And we have Henry characterizing this sequence as "rojon acting
out".

In addition to that, truthfully calling rojon a troll at a.m.y.
probably requires the reclassification of a good number of a.m.y.
regulars past and present.




and now he looks
> to fool rojo with this bullshit.
>
> Maybe that  PE post should be copied here.

If you could, please. If only for those who may still hold out hope
that Henry has not drifted further away from honest reporting.

>
> > It seems to me that, generally speaking, Yesfans.com is a community
> > embracing a diverse array of opinions on Yes (current and previous
> > line-ups). In fact, I can't think of any other Yes forum with the same
> > spread of opinions -- can you? That said, I think it's a good thing
> > that there is also a diversity of fora where Yes fans can talk online
> > beyond Yesfans.com.

> it just doesn't stop with this kid...indeed he just can't seem to help
> himself.
>
> Rob "so much bullshit from just one little guy" Allen

I had never noted the small mindness of the people running Yesfans
until now. The closing of legitmate discussion in the face of such a
divisive move by the band (face it, this is now Yes Featuring Benoit
David) and the act of then shutting out of non-party line posters is
pretty bad. The presence and support of Henry Potts is actually one of
the things that gives them some credibility. I understand that Henry
will support the band that legally calls itself Yes but I wonder how
he feels being a poster boy for the Yes Thought Control Board.

[stevesyn]

On Dec 30, 5:58 pm, "***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk"
<***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 5:03 pm, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 30, 11:45 am, stevesyn <***@synmusic.net> wrote:
> > > <***@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > So, to clarify, Rojon can now post to Yesfans.com, Chris H can post to
> > > > Yesfans.com, there is criticism of the current band at Yesfans.com.
> > > > This censorship at Yesfans.com ultimately consisted of one thread
> > > > being curtailed.
>
> > > Don't want to be a little Jack Horner
> > > Tapping keys hiding in a corner
> > > Don't want to be a coward in a coward's game
> > > I've got Roman blood in my viens.
>
> > > Yesfans is a shill site that has conspired to sell this sub-standard
> > > line-up to its mainly sycophantic members...
>
> > Yesfans and Henry, two peas in a pod
>
> Rojon, if I've learnt anything in recent years, it's that if you're
> agreeing with Steve Nardelli, something is seriously wrong! I will
> take your words to be born of an anger that I hope will fade in time.
>
> --
> Henry- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You're mixing up the forums, Henry, people are allowed freedom of
thought here.
This is not Yesfans, your company line counts for nothing.

Steve Nardelli

[Rick]

On Dec 30, 10:45 am, stevesyn <***@synmusic.net> wrote:

> There is serious censorship, often downright bullying, of anyone that
> does not follow the company line.  

Thank goodness that sort of stuff would never happen here.

[Chris Jemmett]

On Dec 30, 9:45 pm, Rick <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 10:45 am, stevesyn <***@synmusic.net> wrote:
>
> > There is serious censorship, often downright bullying, of anyone that
> > does not follow the company line.  
>
> Thank goodness that sort of stuff would never happen here.

Well, lets see. No one has has been banned from posting, or locked
out. No threads have been closed by any politicos to "deal with"
disagreements or topic shift. No one's posts have been erased for the
purpose of eliminating dissent. So far, so good. Obviously there are
other elements that detract horribly from what is otherwise a free
forum. (raja, wereo and the occasional drive-by name shifting trolls)

Apart from that, seeing as there is no company, a company line is not
much of a possibility.

Bullying is a word that gets used here occasionally, usually by
someone who shows up and has his logic exposed as flawed or facts as
wrong. That this happens is not in dispute and that it happens with
humour is often missed by the recipient. To be fair, there are those
who arrive with opinions and agendas that are disliked by people who
often agree on very little but are some how galvanised by certain
issues.

Consider that over the years there has probably not been a single
person more viciously lambasted than rojon has been over his
religiously influenced offerings to this group. (I don't count Chet as
he was clearly playing some nasty court-jester/villiage idiot role)

I'm pretty sure that at the height of attacks against him, rojon
(*rojo* *rojob*) never showed up to discover that those who opposed
his opinions had deleted all of his posts or had locked him out of the
newsgroup.
Whatever personal, philosophical Yes-fan sub-issues that played out
were played out until something shiny caught peoples eye and they
started fighting about that instead...

Thank goodness? No, but there is still somewhere that disagreement can
occur with some passion, emotion and some flare without little back-
room busy-bodies scurrying around trying to "deal with it".

[rojon]

Lutterbie opened the "is maestro Benoit....up to snuff," thread to
scoff at the notion of censorship on Yesfans. After which, to avoid
any reply, he re-locked it.

[Chris Hosford]

On Dec 31, 1:10 am, rojon <***@aol.com> wrote:
> Lutterbie opened the "is maestro Benoit....up to snuff," thread to
> scoff at the notion of censorship on Yesfans. After which, to avoid
> any reply, he re-locked it.

Funny stuff...He describes censorship and then claims it isn't
censorship because he names it something else. The post strikes me as
somewhat Bushian in both content and mastery of the English language.

[Chris Jemmett]

On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Chris Hosford <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> It looks as though criticism of the current band and Benoit David is
> no longer tolerated there.  There was a rather big thread with
> thousands of views and hundreds of posts that has now been deleted.  I
> asked about it in the "ask the admins" section and my post was deleted
> without response.

The Season has had me back in touch with some old friends, some of
whom are long time Yes fans. Not a single one of them has any interest
at all in a Yes fronted by Benoit David. This seems very much the wide
spread, real-world attitude. It looks like the very vocal friends and
family of Squire and Howe over at Yesfans may well be the last fans
this band has. As this reality sets in I suspect the current bunker
mentality to ripen there. The non-believers must be weeded out. The
turd they have been served apparently tastes very good to them.

[rojon]

On Dec 26, 3:41 pm, skhatru <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> AHA, yes that was it.
>
> There is a deaf woman on YF and she is actually deaf and her name is
> not Melissa. Her name is Jacqueline and she now goes by Colors of Jade
> because of Jade Anderson.
>

LOL, you dont even get raja's joke. So, what is "Jacqueline's"
favorite Jade song to listen to?


> I am Melissa, okay, satisfied. Wooo fucking hooo.


For the record, you didnt tell. I DID. Coward.


> I was keeping my name out of it because I said I know more of the
> story. As a general rule, I don't post that I know things for reasons
> of my own having nothing to do with this discussion.
>
> As for my fat ass - you've never met me and my ass isn't even in the
> pic with Jon. Nice try tho.
> I don't need to see your head to know it's both fat and empty. Your
> posts in this thread alone are enough to tell me that.
>

which is better, a fat head or ass? and btw, Ive seen your
neck....trust me, it clued me in.


> I notice that you 'conveniently' don't respond to much of what I said
> - e.g. that there is more to the story.

This from the person who cant take the time to hunt her own posts that
she thinks would prove her assertions.


> You are hell-bent on calling
> YF administration Benoittians and ignoring other issues.

I am enjoying your confusion here on who has said what. I have never
once used the term Benoittians. Just these few gaffs (that you are
obviously not even aware of), show me your level of confusion and
that I dont need to 'conveniently' respond to what ever you think you
know.


> That Jon is
> physically incapable of doing a Yes tour seems to just go right over
> your head, prog boy

Jon offered his services already, so HE must think he could. THAT goes
over your head. What more could you possibly "know?"