Track Listing for Flaming Star & Christmas Album

[Matthew]

This shows me what a selfish person PMP is...no consideration for others only himself....

I don't hold any malice towards Poormadpeter, far from it. And he is welcome to correct the details of that note because it is all from memory, which is after his Elvis book was published some crazy idiot took issue with some of the content, made threats etc.

[mysterytrainrideson]

This shows me what a selfish person PMP is...no consideration for others only himself....

I don't hold any malice towards Poormadpeter, far from it. And he is welcome to correct the details of that note because it is all from memory, which is after his Elvis book was published some crazy idiot took issue with some of the content, made threats etc.

Yes, but he should know better then to defend someone giving out the same kind of thing.

[poormadpeter]

Really and truly, the suggestion of the person in question being bullied is just laughable, considering how he has behaved on here. And you know that as well as anyone; you're not blind or daft.

The fact that you write "the guys involved are going to pointlessly continue to go about their ways, cheering each other on in order to bring some semblance of meaning and joy to their internet lives" is also rather ironic, bearing in mind that the same thing can be said about the writer of the liner notes and his followers on here. The double standard you are presenting is laughable and ridiculous - and anyone who has kicked around here for more than a few months will know that.

As for me "defending" things, I'm not defending anyone particularly. What is ridiculous is that a few lines that make a few critical comments about some liner notes have been blown out of all proportion, particularly by yourself. It wouldn't be so bad if you had actually countered the comments by suggesting how the notes in question are better than Piers suggests in his review, but you haven't. Nor have you said that, actually, writers in the past have listed their qualifications underneath their names on liner notes. You suggest they are "tongue in cheek" but, ironically, the only way anyone would even think that is by realising who the FECC alter ego of the writer was in the first place, and by being privy to his "humour".

Unbelievable.

Have at it, you're willfully ignoring the deeper issue here, peoples right to privacy and the unhinged dynamic that walk all over that as a power play in the small Elvis forum world that you yourself have kept company with elsewhere. You know it stinks, I cannot imagine you of all people thinking otherwise.

Bullying is bullying. Posting home addresses online is bullying. Posting the names of family members online is bullying. Pulling family photographs found from digital cyber stalking, digitally defacing them and posting them online with grotesque taglines is bullying. Making personal threats out of such information is bullying.

It doesn't matter what the target in question wrote before on FECC, or what they do elsewhere. Really, it doesn't. When a line is crossed that it gravitates to such disturbing behaviour there is a problem that should be discouraged, not applauded or excused.

I've recall reading things like "I know where he works, I've seen him, but I've not gone up to him" responded with "I would, you should!"

Good grief! What deranged people!

Do you not see how this stuff is disturbing? That it should be trampled down? I seem to recall you having a scare last year in this vein, that you had to file a police report over so it deeply surprises me how blasé you're being about such things. What Piers did is minor in comparison, but it sits under the same ultimate umbrella, and stems from the same distasteful core.

The review should have focused on the product at hand, with an unbiased mind not bent on oneupmanship and revenge. It didn't (and this has been confirmed to me separately).

Whatever, I've said my piece and I'm not arguing with you anymore about it.

I'm am sorry you've decided to use this issue as an excuse to seemingly argue for the sake of arguing again, considering the delicacy of the real issue at play.

Go for gold.

There has been an unhinged dynamic in the Elvis world for many years, including on here. But you are making out that all that Piers has written about is who the writer of the liner notes is on FECC - it isn't. It's one line.

For the rest of the review, he is concentrating on the product - and the liner notes are part of that product, and he has every right to state the credentials of the person writing those liner notes - credentials offered by the writer of the liner notes, I might add. Nothing that he says in that section of the review is untrue or out of order. No, he probably shouldn't have linked the name and the FECC handle, but then the Doc shouldn't link my name with my handle either, and yet has done repeatedly. And, believe me, of all people we are not on first name terms. Yes, my name is common knowledge, but so is his. Not through his choice, perhaps, but it is, and has been for years - as was mine long before it came to light through books coming out. Can you imagine the outcry if I suddenly started called him by his first name on here? Posts and threads would be deleted, and bans would be put in place, and everyone would be rushing to the side of the poor wounded soldier.

Yes, bullying is bullying, but I don't see you or many others shouting from the rafters when it happens on here by the very person supposedly being bullied on this occasion, and the fact that his bullying (or put-downs and insults - but, hey, bullying is bullying) has resulted in fine members of this forum leaving. The hypocrisy is ludicrous.

[mysterytrainrideson]

Really and truly, the suggestion of the person in question being bullied is just laughable, considering how he has behaved on here. And you know that as well as anyone; you're not blind or daft.

The fact that you write "the guys involved are going to pointlessly continue to go about their ways, cheering each other on in order to bring some semblance of meaning and joy to their internet lives" is also rather ironic, bearing in mind that the same thing can be said about the writer of the liner notes and his followers on here. The double standard you are presenting is laughable and ridiculous - and anyone who has kicked around here for more than a few months will know that.

As for me "defending" things, I'm not defending anyone particularly. What is ridiculous is that a few lines that make a few critical comments about some liner notes have been blown out of all proportion, particularly by yourself. It wouldn't be so bad if you had actually countered the comments by suggesting how the notes in question are better than Piers suggests in his review, but you haven't. Nor have you said that, actually, writers in the past have listed their qualifications underneath their names on liner notes. You suggest they are "tongue in cheek" but, ironically, the only way anyone would even think that is by realising who the FECC alter ego of the writer was in the first place, and by being privy to his "humour".

Unbelievable.

Have at it, you're willfully ignoring the deeper issue here, peoples right to privacy and the unhinged dynamic that walk all over that as a power play in the small Elvis forum world that you yourself have kept company with elsewhere. You know it stinks, I cannot imagine you of all people thinking otherwise.

Bullying is bullying. Posting home addresses online is bullying. Posting the names of family members online is bullying. Pulling family photographs found from digital cyber stalking, digitally defacing them and posting them online with grotesque taglines is bullying. Making personal threats out of such information is bullying.

It doesn't matter what the target in question wrote before on FECC, or what they do elsewhere. Really, it doesn't. When a line is crossed that it gravitates to such disturbing behaviour there is a problem that should be discouraged, not applauded or excused.

I've recall reading things like "I know where he works, I've seen him, but I've not gone up to him" responded with "I would, you should!"

Good grief! What deranged people!

Do you not see how this stuff is disturbing? That it should be trampled down? I seem to recall you having a scare last year in this vein, that you had to file a police report over so it deeply surprises me how blasé you're being about such things. What Piers did is minor in comparison, but it sits under the same ultimate umbrella, and stems from the same distasteful core.

The review should have focused on the product at hand, with an unbiased mind not bent on oneupmanship and revenge. It didn't (and this has been confirmed to me separately).

Whatever, I've said my piece and I'm not arguing with you anymore about it.

I'm am sorry you've decided to use this issue as an excuse to seemingly argue for the sake of arguing again, considering the delicacy of the real issue at play.

Go for gold.

There has been an unhinged dynamic in the Elvis world for many years, including on here. But you are making out that all that Piers has written about is who the writer of the liner notes is on FECC - it isn't. It's one line.

For the rest of the review, he is concentrating on the product - and the liner notes are part of that product, and he has every right to state the credentials of the person writing those liner notes - credentials offered by the writer of the liner notes, I might add. Nothing that he says in that section of the review is untrue or out of order. No, he probably shouldn't have linked the name and the FECC handle, but then the Doc shouldn't link my name with my handle either, and yet has done repeatedly. And, believe me, of all people we are not on first name terms. Yes, my name is common knowledge, but so is his. Not through his choice, perhaps, but it is, and has been for years - as was mine long before it came to light through books coming out. Can you imagine the outcry if I suddenly started called him by his first name on here? Posts and threads would be deleted, and bans would be put in place, and everyone would be rushing to the side of the poor wounded soldier.

Yes, bullying is bullying, but I don't see you or many others shouting from the rafters when it happens on here by the very person supposedly being bullied on this occasion, and the fact that his bullying (or put-downs and insults - but, hey, bullying is bullying) has resulted in fine members of this forum leaving. The hypocrisy is ludicrous.

You still don't get it do you...giving out personal info on someone is wrong if you can't see that then you have a problem....

[Matthew]

There has been an unhinged dynamic in the Elvis world for many years, including on here. But you are making out that all that Piers has written about is who the writer of the liner notes is on FECC - it isn't. It's one line.

For the rest of the review, he is concentrating on the product - and the liner notes are part of that product, and he has every right to state the credentials of the person writing those liner notes - credentials offered by the writer of the liner notes, I might add. Nothing that he says in that section of the review is untrue or out of order. No, he probably shouldn't have linked the name and the FECC handle, but then the Doc shouldn't link my name with my handle either, and yet has done repeatedly. And, believe me, of all people we are not on first name terms. Yes, my name is common knowledge, but so is his. Not through his choice, perhaps, but it is, and has been for years - as was mine long before it came to light through books coming out. Can you imagine the outcry if I suddenly started called him by his first name on here? Posts and threads would be deleted, and bans would be put in place, and everyone would be rushing to the side of the poor wounded soldier.

Yes, bullying is bullying, but I don't see you or many others shouting from the rafters when it happens on here by the very person supposedly being bullied on this occasion, and the fact that his bullying (or put-downs and insults - but, hey, bullying is bullying) has resulted in fine members of this forum leaving. The hypocrisy is ludicrous.

Why do you continue to side-step the issue, one you have direct experience with?

We're not talking about silly forum banter and people getting hot headed about it that a moderator has to step in, we're talking about true-to-life personal information being exposed and exploited online without permission, that has resulted in grotesque threats being made.

You're right, "he probably shouldn't have linked the name and the FECC handle." Remove the word "probably" and you're there.

Your name is linked with your forum name because you yourself have directly revealed the connection here, quite openly. That is your right. Hell, I've addressed you with your name on occasion because of that very thing, and you've never expressed any problem with it. How could you, you revealed it!

It is an explicit difference between you, and anyone else who has opted NOT to reveal such things. It doesn't matter one bit what people consider to be "common knowledge", or what has been "known for years", not a single bit. Your comparison doesn't have legs.

This has been spelled out for you already, I guess you're not actually reading the posts here in full.

[poormadpeter]

This shows me what a selfish person PMP is...no consideration for others only himself....

I don't hold any malice towards Poormadpeter, far from it. And he is welcome to correct the details of that note because it is all from memory, which is after his Elvis book was published some crazy idiot took issue with some of the content, made threats etc.

Yes, but he should know better then to defend someone giving out the same kind of thing.

The book issue was far different to what has happened here. No-one has given out or hunted down the address or work-place of the writer of the liner notes, hasn't threatened their friends and family, or stated they would contact his boss with a pack of lies in order to put his job at risk. Instead, they have linked one name with one used on a website. No info on addresses, telephone numbers, emails, etc. Place of work? Yes, I guess, regarding the FM radio station - but that info was offered willingly by the writer, and anyone interested could easily have done a google search to find which radio station he DJ'd for because he used his (presumably) real name. Ironically, had that "qualification" line not been included in the liner notes, there would be a lot more to complain about here. But if was given freely, and google is our friend.

I'll be honest - there are limits of acceptability here, and I went out of my way a year or so ago when someone on the Monkey forum was offering to give out the address and place of work (not the radio station) of the author of those liner notes to make sure he knew about it so that no harm could be done - and promptly left the forum for six months afterwards. That is a far different kettle of fish to revealing that someone writes under a pseudonym on a forum. It wasn't a secret - anyone who visited this forum would already know if they cared enough, and anyone who didn't know would wonder why they were being told this information in the first place.

Whether Piers was right or wrong or somewhere in the middle is debatable, and clearly different people have different viewpoints. That's fine. But we all know that, if you go out of your way to piss people off and make enemies, that you're then going to have to put up with those enemies in the future. That's the way it is. Perhaps if a certain person hadn't insulted me after my very first post on this forum, my relationship with him would be very different, too. But if you treat someone with such disdain for no reason, you pay the consequences. The person who came after me last year was not an enemy, was not someone I had said anything bad to, was not a member of this or any other forum or facebook group, was just a nutcase. A very different scenario.

[poormadpeter]

We're not talking about silly forum banter and people getting hot headed about it that a moderator has to step in, we're talking about true-to-life personal information being exposed and exploited online without permission, that has resulted in grotesque threats being made.

What threats have been made as a result of that review? If I have missed something, then please let me know.

(I should also add that my name was "outed" on here long before I offered it myself).

[Matthew]

What threats have been made as a result of that review? If I have missed something, then please let me know.

You are trying frame the discussion in such a way to attempt to upend it through misdirection. I'm not playing into that game.

Piers' tact is part of a wider ongoing problem. I do not know why you are being willfully obtuse about this, for kicks I suppose.

I've been perfectly clear in each post that you clearly haven't read or processed in full.

I am not bothering going around the houses with you on this anymore, it seems to be a futile and time wasting endeavour.

[Matthew]

(I should also add that my name was "outed" on here long before I offered it myself).

I do not recall that, but if you say so. Perhaps you openly acknowledged the connection elsewhere.

[poormadpeter]

What threats have been made as a result of that review? If I have missed something, then please let me know.

You are trying frame the discussion in such a way to attempt to upend it through misdirection. I'm not playing into that game.

Piers' tact is part of a wider ongoing problem. I do not know why you are being willfully obtuse about this, for kicks I suppose.

I've been perfectly clear in each post that you clearly haven't read or processed in full.

I am not bothering going around the houses with you on this anymore, it seems to be a futile and time wasting endeavour.

Actually, the question was an honest one. I assumed from what you had said that there HAD been threats following the review, and I thought I had missed that somewhere in what is a very long thread. So, no underhand tactics, I can assure you.

Look, this is the way I view it. I know that Joseph Pirzada was the first to publically link the two names together (at least on a large scale), and I totally believe he was wrong to do so. The rant in that interview was ridiculous, spiteful, and idiotic. That said, the war between the two men had raged for some time, before I was here, and I have no idea who started it or the history behind it prior to the 2007 interview.

Would I have published that interview if the website was mine? Probably, but I would have bleeped out the personal information; the rant itself would have stayed.

Why? Well, because it does just as much harm to Mr Pirzada as it does to the man he is attacking. Yes, the man he is attacking is often insulting, belittling and, yes, bullying on this forum. But Pirzada comes over simply as a ridiculous, venomous, dick.

Was EIN irresponsible for publishing the personal info and the picture? Yes, it was. That said, my understanding is that the information and picture was known for some time within the "inner sanctum" of the Elvis world. However, it shouldn't have done it and, personally, I would have looked into legal action following the interview, but due to the potentially slanderous comments, not the naming - and I say that because of the legal view of the issue, not the moral one. Did the website know what it was doing? Hell, yeah. And I say all this NOT knowing what started the rather strained relationship between the website and the man at the centre of this furore. Haven't got a clue - wasn't around then, and don't care.

BUT...that was eight years ago. This thread is about the recent review and not that interview. Do I think any harm was done by linking those names together in the review? No, I don't. The information is well-known now - yes, due to that interview on the same website, but that's not the point here. A simple Google search will give you pages and pages of links with the same information - the harm was done long ago. The information is no longer private or secret. Do I think the review, aside from the naming, is prejudiced? Not particularly. Every review is biased in some way; that's the point of a review. If a film star insults a reviewer at a party, then the review of his next film is possibly going to be biased because of it. That's the way of the world. Is it spiteful? No. Is it wrong to print the name of the radio station? No - the info was offered by the writer, anyone wanting to know what radio station could just look it up.

It should also be said that, as far as I'm aware, the writer of the liner notes for the FTD Christmas album and the man he is supposedly the same as on here have both strenuously denied that they are one and the same on multiple occasions, including recently. Bearing this in mind, the multiple people who commented on this review, saying how terrible it is that the "real" identity has been given away, have actually only added fuel to the fire of the linking of these names and given it credence. This only adds to my assertion that the info is now common knowledge - I have yet to see anyone post here with the words "wow, I didn't know that!"

[mike edwards66]

..........I have yet to see anyone post here with the words "wow, I didn't know that!"

Shane, take a minute, pal. You're not seeing this right.

Right is right, even if no one is doing it. Wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it.

.....few critical comments about some liner notes have been blown out of all proportion

The only thing that's "over blown" on here, is You.............In many ways your the worst member on here...

Are you not familiar with my work?

[poormadpeter]

..........I have yet to see anyone post here with the words "wow, I didn't know that!"

Shane, take a minute, pal. You're not seeing this right.

Right is right, even if no one is doing it. Wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it.

This is true - not saying it isn't. Which is why the suggestion that there is a victim here on either side is totally ludicrous.

[memphisound]

You guys argue worse than women sometimes.

[poormadpeter]

You guys argue worse than women sometimes.

I think that's probably more offensive in 2015 than anything said by any parties in these discussions or reviews!

And there's nothing wrong with arguing or having an exchange of viewpoints. With the exception of one person, no-one has thrown insults or got vicious or insulting - it's just an exchange of views.

[mysterytrainrideson]

You guys argue worse than women sometimes.

I think that's probably more offensive in 2015 than anything said by any parties in these discussions or reviews!

And there's nothing wrong with arguing or having an exchange of viewpoints. With the exception of one person, no-one has thrown insults or got vicious or insulting - it's just an exchange of views.

But there is something wrong with a person who misses or avoids the real point of the arguement and that's why this and other arguements that your involved in always continues and becomes a mess.

You actually remind me of a politician - whenever you ask a politician a question, they never give you a direct answer, instead they work their way around the question and come up with all sorts of sh*t which causes the interviewer a lot of stress and discomfort and ends up in a rguements because they won't stick to the main point of the subject. And like politicians, I gave up with them a long time ago - they are a waste of time.

[mysterytrainrideson]

What threats have been made as a result of that review? If I have missed something, then please let me know.

You are trying frame the discussion in such a way to attempt to upend it through misdirection. I'm not playing into that game.

Piers' tact is part of a wider ongoing problem. I do not know why you are being willfully obtuse about this, for kicks I suppose.

I've been perfectly clear in each post that you clearly haven't read or processed in full.

I am not bothering going around the houses with you on this anymore, it seems to be a futile and time wasting endeavour.

He never reads posts properly or even bothers reading a whole post - he sees the first two lines of a post that attracts his attention then goes streaming in with all sorts without careful thinking.

[poormadpeter]

What threats have been made as a result of that review? If I have missed something, then please let me know.

You are trying frame the discussion in such a way to attempt to upend it through misdirection. I'm not playing into that game.

Piers' tact is part of a wider ongoing problem. I do not know why you are being willfully obtuse about this, for kicks I suppose.

I've been perfectly clear in each post that you clearly haven't read or processed in full.

I am not bothering going around the houses with you on this anymore, it seems to be a futile and time wasting endeavour.

He never reads posts properly or even bothers reading a whole post - he sees the first two lines of a post that attracts his attention then goes streaming in with all sorts without careful thinking.

Have you finished? Because, you know when I said that all but one person on this thread had been able to have a heated debate without throwing insults....?

[mysterytrainrideson]

What threats have been made as a result of that review? If I have missed something, then please let me know.

You are trying frame the discussion in such a way to attempt to upend it through misdirection. I'm not playing into that game.

Piers' tact is part of a wider ongoing problem. I do not know why you are being willfully obtuse about this, for kicks I suppose.

I've been perfectly clear in each post that you clearly haven't read or processed in full.

I am not bothering going around the houses with you on this anymore, it seems to be a futile and time wasting endeavour.

He never reads posts properly or even bothers reading a whole post - he sees the first two lines of a post that attracts his attention then goes streaming in with all sorts without careful thinking.

Have you finished? Because, you know when I said that all but one person on this thread had been able to have a heated debate without throwing insults....?

Here we go....blaming others for your own faults.

[poormadpeter]

What threats have been made as a result of that review? If I have missed something, then please let me know.

You are trying frame the discussion in such a way to attempt to upend it through misdirection. I'm not playing into that game.

Piers' tact is part of a wider ongoing problem. I do not know why you are being willfully obtuse about this, for kicks I suppose.

I've been perfectly clear in each post that you clearly haven't read or processed in full.

I am not bothering going around the houses with you on this anymore, it seems to be a futile and time wasting endeavour.

He never reads posts properly or even bothers reading a whole post - he sees the first two lines of a post that attracts his attention then goes streaming in with all sorts without careful thinking.

Have you finished? Because, you know when I said that all but one person on this thread had been able to have a heated debate without throwing insults....?

Here we go....blaming others for your own faults.

Having you own opinion is not a fault, whereas mouthing off and adding nothing to discussion is. You have proven time and time again that you are unable to enter a discussion without throwing insults of making things personal. It would be very nice if you stayed out of such discussions until you learned manners.

[mysterytrainrideson]

What threats have been made as a result of that review? If I have missed something, then please let me know.

You are trying frame the discussion in such a way to attempt to upend it through misdirection. I'm not playing into that game.

Piers' tact is part of a wider ongoing problem. I do not know why you are being willfully obtuse about this, for kicks I suppose.

I've been perfectly clear in each post that you clearly haven't read or processed in full.

I am not bothering going around the houses with you on this anymore, it seems to be a futile and time wasting endeavour.

He never reads posts properly or even bothers reading a whole post - he sees the first two lines of a post that attracts his attention then goes streaming in with all sorts without careful thinking.

Have you finished? Because, you know when I said that all but one person on this thread had been able to have a heated debate without throwing insults....?

Here we go....blaming others for your own faults.

Having you own opinion is not a fault, whereas mouthing off and adding nothing to discussion is. You have proven time and time again that you are unable to enter a discussion without throwing insults of making things personal. It would be very nice if you stayed out of such discussions until you learned manners.

Where are the insults?

[Ciscoking]

Good old John..calls me Joachim for ages now..and I dont mind ..and he doesn't mind either..

... that is what I call friendly behaviour..!... ...

[drjohncarpenter]

Good old John..calls me Joachim for ages now..and I dont mind ..and he doesn't mind either..

... that is what I call friendly behaviour..!... ...

I always addressed you as Ciscoking until one day you began all your replies to me with "John."

At that point, having seen others on FECC use "Joachim," I began to return the favor.

[Ciscoking]

Good old John..calls me Joachim for ages now..and I dont mind ..and he doesn't mind either..

... that is what I call friendly behaviour..!... ...

I always addressed you as Ciscoking until one day you began all your replies to me with "John."

At that point, having seen others on FECC use "Joachim," I began to return the favor.

And I have NOOOOO problem with it..John.....

[ICanHelp]

Matthew correctly notes that internet bullying, by anyone, is repugnant, childish and dangerous. All of us should take a lesson from this regrettable incident and treat others with the respect we all deserve and desire.

[Mike Windgren]

Hi there!! .

Good old John..calls me Joachim for ages now..and I dont mind ..and he doesn't mind either..

... that is what I call friendly behaviour..!... ...

I always addressed you as Ciscoking until one day you began all your replies to me with "John."

At that point, having seen others on FECC use "Joachim," I began to return the favor.

I always call you Doc but you never addressed me as Mike, why? . Bye for now .