The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"

[Davelee]

i and others simply arent bright enough to understand your ruminations.

It seems to be just you. I don't see anyone else here understanding my post as being about bans or censorship. No one else has commented on that. Just you. Repeatedly So I would rethink your post if I were you, before you're asked to tell us who these "others" are.

I seem to remember you saying about it, can't remember what thread it was, but you did babble on about certain outtakes should not be released, in your opinion, so therefore your opinion about these outtakes differ completely from others who want to hear all outtakes. Just because you don't like certain outtakes doesn't mean everyone should share your view, so your view is censorship to others who want to hear it all.

Does that make it any clearer for you? Probably not!! Oh well......

I have quoted that post on the previous page. Why don't you revisit it and see what was ACTUALLY written rather than "what you seem to remember."

Here is it YET AGAIN:

I've always thought that the outtakes that really need to be released are those where there is a slightly different arrangement, or a different element to the vocal, or something else that makes them of real interest. Just because they're a different take, doesn't qualify them for those categories. I don't know how Elvis would have felt about it - but I know that I'd be somewhat miffed if early drafts of books or articles or storied I'd written were released. They were rejected for a reason - either they weren't good enough, or maybe there was something in them I decided I didn't want people to see. We can probably say that for all outtakes in principal, but the way forward would probably have been to use restraint and, just as when Elvis was alive, that was thrown out of the window with regards to releases a long, long time ago.

Fn2drive is making the case REPEATEDLY that I wanted things censored, and outtakes banned. I said nothing of the sort, as I'm sure even you can see. Instead, there was a questioning of the ethics of issuing takes that Elvis himself had not deemed fit for release, and whether something you should be released just because it exists. There was no talking of bans or censorship or that people shouldn't hear stuff. That is all in fn2drive's (and your) overactive imagination.

Beans on toast.

Not everyone shares your view. Some people like to hear all of it. So if you was in charge of what outtakes should be released then that is censorship because the others you deem not fit for release wouldn't be heard.

[poormadpeter2]

i and others simply arent bright enough to understand your ruminations.

It seems to be just you. I don't see anyone else here understanding my post as being about bans or censorship. No one else has commented on that. Just you. Repeatedly So I would rethink your post if I were you, before you're asked to tell us who these "others" are.

I seem to remember you saying about it, can't remember what thread it was, but you did babble on about certain outtakes should not be released, in your opinion, so therefore your opinion about these outtakes differ completely from others who want to hear all outtakes. Just because you don't like certain outtakes doesn't mean everyone should share your view, so your view is censorship to others who want to hear it all.

Does that make it any clearer for you? Probably not!! Oh well......

I have quoted that post on the previous page. Why don't you revisit it and see what was ACTUALLY written rather than "what you seem to remember."

Here is it YET AGAIN:

I've always thought that the outtakes that really need to be released are those where there is a slightly different arrangement, or a different element to the vocal, or something else that makes them of real interest. Just because they're a different take, doesn't qualify them for those categories. I don't know how Elvis would have felt about it - but I know that I'd be somewhat miffed if early drafts of books or articles or storied I'd written were released. They were rejected for a reason - either they weren't good enough, or maybe there was something in them I decided I didn't want people to see. We can probably say that for all outtakes in principal, but the way forward would probably have been to use restraint and, just as when Elvis was alive, that was thrown out of the window with regards to releases a long, long time ago.

Fn2drive is making the case REPEATEDLY that I wanted things censored, and outtakes banned. I said nothing of the sort, as I'm sure even you can see. Instead, there was a questioning of the ethics of issuing takes that Elvis himself had not deemed fit for release, and whether something you should be released just because it exists. There was no talking of bans or censorship or that people shouldn't hear stuff. That is all in fn2drive's (and your) overactive imagination.

Beans on toast.

Not everyone shares your view. Some people like to hear all of it. So if you was in charge of what outtakes should be released then that is censorship because the others you deem not fit for release wouldn't be heard.

No, I never said they did. Which is why I said I was QUESTIONING decisions rather than saying anything about bans or censorship - clearly a concept that you do not understand.

[ICanHelp]

Dear Santa: Please have the mods yank this post and spare the rest of us the bickering from the 3 or 4 protagonists. Thank you, and I'll see you soon.

[Davelee]

i and others simply arent bright enough to understand your ruminations.

It seems to be just you. I don't see anyone else here understanding my post as being about bans or censorship. No one else has commented on that. Just you. Repeatedly So I would rethink your post if I were you, before you're asked to tell us who these "others" are.

I seem to remember you saying about it, can't remember what thread it was, but you did babble on about certain outtakes should not be released, in your opinion, so therefore your opinion about these outtakes differ completely from others who want to hear all outtakes. Just because you don't like certain outtakes doesn't mean everyone should share your view, so your view is censorship to others who want to hear it all.

Does that make it any clearer for you? Probably not!! Oh well......

I have quoted that post on the previous page. Why don't you revisit it and see what was ACTUALLY written rather than "what you seem to remember."

Here is it YET AGAIN:

I've always thought that the outtakes that really need to be released are those where there is a slightly different arrangement, or a different element to the vocal, or something else that makes them of real interest. Just because they're a different take, doesn't qualify them for those categories. I don't know how Elvis would have felt about it - but I know that I'd be somewhat miffed if early drafts of books or articles or storied I'd written were released. They were rejected for a reason - either they weren't good enough, or maybe there was something in them I decided I didn't want people to see. We can probably say that for all outtakes in principal, but the way forward would probably have been to use restraint and, just as when Elvis was alive, that was thrown out of the window with regards to releases a long, long time ago.

Fn2drive is making the case REPEATEDLY that I wanted things censored, and outtakes banned. I said nothing of the sort, as I'm sure even you can see. Instead, there was a questioning of the ethics of issuing takes that Elvis himself had not deemed fit for release, and whether something you should be released just because it exists. There was no talking of bans or censorship or that people shouldn't hear stuff. That is all in fn2drive's (and your) overactive imagination.

Beans on toast.

Not everyone shares your view. Some people like to hear all of it. So if you was in charge of what outtakes should be released then that is censorship because the others you deem not fit for release wouldn't be heard.

No, I never said they did. Which is why I said I was QUESTIONING decisions rather than saying anything about bans or censorship - clearly a concept that you do not understand.

Clearly you do not understand that your view is not seen as a good one by someone who is reading your view. You have always believed that only certain outtakes should be released - I have news for you, not everyone shares that view.

Do you understand that your view is not shared by everyone?

[drjohncarpenter]

No, I never said they did. Which is why I said I was QUESTIONING decisions rather than saying anything about bans or censorship - clearly a concept that you do not understand.

Clearly you do not understand that your view is not seen as a good one by someone who is reading your view. You have always believed that only certain outtakes should be released - I have news for you, not everyone shares that view.

Do you understand that your view is not shared by everyone?

This is kind of the general point fn2drive has been trying to get across to him. But he won't take yes for an answer he'd rather just rant.

[poormadpeter2]

i and others simply arent bright enough to understand your ruminations.

It seems to be just you. I don't see anyone else here understanding my post as being about bans or censorship. No one else has commented on that. Just you. Repeatedly So I would rethink your post if I were you, before you're asked to tell us who these "others" are.

I seem to remember you saying about it, can't remember what thread it was, but you did babble on about certain outtakes should not be released, in your opinion, so therefore your opinion about these outtakes differ completely from others who want to hear all outtakes. Just because you don't like certain outtakes doesn't mean everyone should share your view, so your view is censorship to others who want to hear it all.

Does that make it any clearer for you? Probably not!! Oh well......

I have quoted that post on the previous page. Why don't you revisit it and see what was ACTUALLY written rather than "what you seem to remember."

Here is it YET AGAIN:

I've always thought that the outtakes that really need to be released are those where there is a slightly different arrangement, or a different element to the vocal, or something else that makes them of real interest. Just because they're a different take, doesn't qualify them for those categories. I don't know how Elvis would have felt about it - but I know that I'd be somewhat miffed if early drafts of books or articles or storied I'd written were released. They were rejected for a reason - either they weren't good enough, or maybe there was something in them I decided I didn't want people to see. We can probably say that for all outtakes in principal, but the way forward would probably have been to use restraint and, just as when Elvis was alive, that was thrown out of the window with regards to releases a long, long time ago.

Fn2drive is making the case REPEATEDLY that I wanted things censored, and outtakes banned. I said nothing of the sort, as I'm sure even you can see. Instead, there was a questioning of the ethics of issuing takes that Elvis himself had not deemed fit for release, and whether something you should be released just because it exists. There was no talking of bans or censorship or that people shouldn't hear stuff. That is all in fn2drive's (and your) overactive imagination.

Beans on toast.

Not everyone shares your view. Some people like to hear all of it. So if you was in charge of what outtakes should be released then that is censorship because the others you deem not fit for release wouldn't be heard.

No, I never said they did. Which is why I said I was QUESTIONING decisions rather than saying anything about bans or censorship - clearly a concept that you do not understand.

Clearly you do not understand that your view is not seen as a good one by someone who is reading your view. You have always believed that only certain outtakes should be released - I have news for you, not everyone shares that view.

Do you understand that your view is not shared by everyone?

Do you not understand that I DON'T CARE?

If I say something or think something it is not in desparation that someone comes up behind me on the board, licks my backside and hits the thumbs up button. It is because it is my own belief.

You can agree or you can disagree with my point of view, which AGAIN does not call for any outtakes to not see the light of day but simply QUESTIONS why everything has to be released (something you STILL fail to understand), but I have every right to that point of view and not have it distorted into something it is not.

[ICanHelp]

i and others simply arent bright enough to understand your ruminations.

It seems to be just you. I don't see anyone else here understanding my post as being about bans or censorship. No one else has commented on that. Just you. Repeatedly So I would rethink your post if I were you, before you're asked to tell us who these "others" are.

I seem to remember you saying about it, can't remember what thread it was, but you did babble on about certain outtakes should not be released, in your opinion, so therefore your opinion about these outtakes differ completely from others who want to hear all outtakes. Just because you don't like certain outtakes doesn't mean everyone should share your view, so your view is censorship to others who want to hear it all.

Does that make it any clearer for you? Probably not!! Oh well......

I have quoted that post on the previous page. Why don't you revisit it and see what was ACTUALLY written rather than "what you seem to remember."

Here is it YET AGAIN:

I've always thought that the outtakes that really need to be released are those where there is a slightly different arrangement, or a different element to the vocal, or something else that makes them of real interest. Just because they're a different take, doesn't qualify them for those categories. I don't know how Elvis would have felt about it - but I know that I'd be somewhat miffed if early drafts of books or articles or storied I'd written were released. They were rejected for a reason - either they weren't good enough, or maybe there was something in them I decided I didn't want people to see. We can probably say that for all outtakes in principal, but the way forward would probably have been to use restraint and, just as when Elvis was alive, that was thrown out of the window with regards to releases a long, long time ago.

Fn2drive is making the case REPEATEDLY that I wanted things censored, and outtakes banned. I said nothing of the sort, as I'm sure even you can see. Instead, there was a questioning of the ethics of issuing takes that Elvis himself had not deemed fit for release, and whether something you should be released just because it exists. There was no talking of bans or censorship or that people shouldn't hear stuff. That is all in fn2drive's (and your) overactive imagination.

Beans on toast.

Not everyone shares your view. Some people like to hear all of it. So if you was in charge of what outtakes should be released then that is censorship because the others you deem not fit for release wouldn't be heard.

No, I never said they did. Which is why I said I was QUESTIONING decisions rather than saying anything about bans or censorship - clearly a concept that you do not understand.

Take the pledge!

Sorry PMP. I couldn't help myself.

[drjohncarpenter]

Do you not understand that I DON'T CARE?

Given your numerous replies on this and many other topics, I suggest the opposite is true.

[fn2drive]

Do you not understand that I DON'T CARE?

Given your numerous replies on this and many other topics, I suggest the opposite is true.

A perfect one sentence summary that discovers the cause of the disease. If only treatment was possible.

[poormadpeter2]

Do you not understand that I DON'T CARE?

Given your numerous replies on this and many other topics, I suggest the opposite is true.

On the contrary - if I come under attack repeatedly for something I did not say, then I am going to defend myself. Disagree with me about something I did say, and things are likely to be much more tolerable.

A perfect one sentence summary that discovers the cause of the disease. If only treatment was possible.

no-one needs treatment when there is prevention: you not bringing up the same issues, intentionally misreading what was written, months after they were already discussed ad infinitum. Who brought up the subject on this thread? You did.

We already know how many padres, pledges and Jarvis posts you have written this year. It seems to me that you personally are beyond treatment.

In the last seven days, you have made 26 posts. 14 of them are about Felton Jarvis. 9 of them were about misconstruing my four month old post about outtakes. NONE of those 23 were on topic.

That's 88% of your posts in the last week had nothing to do with the original topic of the thread on which they appeared.

[drjohncarpenter]

Do you not understand that I DON'T CARE?

Given your numerous replies on this and many other topics, I suggest the opposite is true.

A perfect one sentence summary that discovers the cause of the disease. If only treatment was possible.

Probably not.

On the bright side, he seems to have a newfound love for the forum's search application.

[fn2drive]

Do you not understand that I DON'T CARE?

Given your numerous replies on this and many other topics, I suggest the opposite is true.

On the contrary - if I come under attack repeatedly for something I did not say, then I am going to defend myself. Disagree with me about something I did say, and things are likely to be much more tolerable.

A perfect one sentence summary that discovers the cause of the disease. If only treatment was possible.

no-one needs treatment when there is prevention: you not bringing up the same issues, intentionally misreading what was written, months after they were already discussed ad infinitum. Who brought up the subject on this thread? You did.

We already know how many padres, pledges and Jarvis posts you have written this year. It seems to me that you personally are beyond treatment.

In the last seven days, you have made 26 posts. 14 of them are about Felton Jarvis. 9 of them were about misconstruing my four month old post about outtakes. NONE of those 23 were on topic.

That's 88% of your posts in the last week had nothing to do with the original topic of the thread on which they appeared.

They call them conversations. Life would be boring if conversation didnt morph and take other directions. And as an aside when a false claim is made with direct or indirect intent to as an example shower erroneous praise on Felton Jarvis expect it to be challenged. This thread is a perfect example. OCAYF is majestic. More like a mediocre performance overdubbed to monstrous proportions under the supervision of you guessed it. That's how we get there and why it is on topic.

Seems like what you are trying to do now censor discussion and debate because you dont agree. Thats the problem, first out takes should be restricted to what you believe have artistic merit ie censorship, now free discussion should be restricted. What's next?

[poormadpeter2]

Do you not understand that I DON'T CARE?

Given your numerous replies on this and many other topics, I suggest the opposite is true.

On the contrary - if I come under attack repeatedly for something I did not say, then I am going to defend myself. Disagree with me about something I did say, and things are likely to be much more tolerable.

A perfect one sentence summary that discovers the cause of the disease. If only treatment was possible.

no-one needs treatment when there is prevention: you not bringing up the same issues, intentionally misreading what was written, months after they were already discussed ad infinitum. Who brought up the subject on this thread? You did.

We already know how many padres, pledges and Jarvis posts you have written this year. It seems to me that you personally are beyond treatment.

In the last seven days, you have made 26 posts. 14 of them are about Felton Jarvis. 9 of them were about misconstruing my four month old post about outtakes. NONE of those 23 were on topic.

That's 88% of your posts in the last week had nothing to do with the original topic of the thread on which they appeared.

They call them conversations. Life would be boring if conversation didnt morph and take other directions. And as an aside when a false claim is made with direct or indirect intent to as an example shower erroneous praise on Felton Jarvis expect it to be challenged. This thread is a perfect example. OCAYF is majestic. More like a mediocre performance overdubbed to monstrous proportions under the supervision of you guessed it. That's how we get there and why it is on topic.

Seems like what you are trying to do now censor discussion and debate because you dont agree. Thats the problem, first out takes should be restricted to what you believe have artistic merit ie censorship, now free discussion should be restricted. What's next?

I do have one very real wish, but it's sadly not happened yet.

[Davelee]

i and others simply arent bright enough to understand your ruminations.

It seems to be just you. I don't see anyone else here understanding my post as being about bans or censorship. No one else has commented on that. Just you. Repeatedly So I would rethink your post if I were you, before you're asked to tell us who these "others" are.

I seem to remember you saying about it, can't remember what thread it was, but you did babble on about certain outtakes should not be released, in your opinion, so therefore your opinion about these outtakes differ completely from others who want to hear all outtakes. Just because you don't like certain outtakes doesn't mean everyone should share your view, so your view is censorship to others who want to hear it all.

Does that make it any clearer for you? Probably not!! Oh well......

I have quoted that post on the previous page. Why don't you revisit it and see what was ACTUALLY written rather than "what you seem to remember."

Here is it YET AGAIN:

I've always thought that the outtakes that really need to be released are those where there is a slightly different arrangement, or a different element to the vocal, or something else that makes them of real interest. Just because they're a different take, doesn't qualify them for those categories. I don't know how Elvis would have felt about it - but I know that I'd be somewhat miffed if early drafts of books or articles or storied I'd written were released. They were rejected for a reason - either they weren't good enough, or maybe there was something in them I decided I didn't want people to see. We can probably say that for all outtakes in principal, but the way forward would probably have been to use restraint and, just as when Elvis was alive, that was thrown out of the window with regards to releases a long, long time ago.

Fn2drive is making the case REPEATEDLY that I wanted things censored, and outtakes banned. I said nothing of the sort, as I'm sure even you can see. Instead, there was a questioning of the ethics of issuing takes that Elvis himself had not deemed fit for release, and whether something you should be released just because it exists. There was no talking of bans or censorship or that people shouldn't hear stuff. That is all in fn2drive's (and your) overactive imagination.

Beans on toast.

Not everyone shares your view. Some people like to hear all of it. So if you was in charge of what outtakes should be released then that is censorship because the others you deem not fit for release wouldn't be heard.

No, I never said they did. Which is why I said I was QUESTIONING decisions rather than saying anything about bans or censorship - clearly a concept that you do not understand.

Clearly you do not understand that your view is not seen as a good one by someone who is reading your view. You have always believed that only certain outtakes should be released - I have news for you, not everyone shares that view.

Do you understand that your view is not shared by everyone?

Do you not understand that I DON'T CARE?

If I say something or think something it is not in desparation that someone comes up behind me on the board, licks my backside and hits the thumbs up button. It is because it is my own belief.

You can agree or you can disagree with my point of view, which AGAIN does not call for any outtakes to not see the light of day but simply QUESTIONS why everything has to be released (something you STILL fail to understand), but I have every right to that point of view and not have it distorted into something it is not.

Yes, you do care, because if you didn't, you wouldn't keep coming back to argue with the discussion.

If you write your opinion(s) on here, such as the one about questioning what outtakes should be released, than you have to expect certain members on here will disagree, like me, after all it is a discussion forum and you have just written your opinion for everyone to see. So your questioning people's choices on what outtakes you think should be released, so therefore you are questioning people's actions on doing such things, you don't have the right to do that, yes your allowed your opinion, but don't constantly moan and groan when people don't agree with you.

It's ok for you to challenge and rip other people's opinion and views apart, and you have done so many times, but when your opinion is challenged, you don't like it and get angry about it and constantly keep coming back and arguing with people.

[fn2drive]

Do you not understand that I DON'T CARE?

Given your numerous replies on this and many other topics, I suggest the opposite is true.

On the contrary - if I come under attack repeatedly for something I did not say, then I am going to defend myself. Disagree with me about something I did say, and things are likely to be much more tolerable.

A perfect one sentence summary that discovers the cause of the disease. If only treatment was possible.

no-one needs treatment when there is prevention: you not bringing up the same issues, intentionally misreading what was written, months after they were already discussed ad infinitum. Who brought up the subject on this thread? You did.

We already know how many padres, pledges and Jarvis posts you have written this year. It seems to me that you personally are beyond treatment.

In the last seven days, you have made 26 posts. 14 of them are about Felton Jarvis. 9 of them were about misconstruing my four month old post about outtakes. NONE of those 23 were on topic.

That's 88% of your posts in the last week had nothing to do with the original topic of the thread on which they appeared.

They call them conversations. Life would be boring if conversation didnt morph and take other directions. And as an aside when a false claim is made with direct or indirect intent to as an example shower erroneous praise on Felton Jarvis expect it to be challenged. This thread is a perfect example. OCAYF is majestic. More like a mediocre performance overdubbed to monstrous proportions under the supervision of you guessed it. That's how we get there and why it is on topic.

Seems like what you are trying to do now censor discussion and debate because you dont agree. Thats the problem, first out takes should be restricted to what you believe have artistic merit ie censorship, now free discussion should be restricted. What's next?

I do have one very real wish, but it's sadly not happened yet.

Just another thinly veiled cry for censorship and conformity to your world view. Pleasantville.

[Juan Luis]

..

[Fish]

Pff, the wrong people get banned....this board has become utterly ridiculous with all this I said, you said, I said nonsense which the moderators somehow have no problem with and allow to happen.
Each and every topic....nobody is going to change their opinions anyway so why waste time when someone accuses you? There is no f'ing point. Who cares. All these topics get derailed by these pointless discussions, which are in fact without a point. It is all very stupid, empty-headed and a waste of time.

[rollinson1]

Pff, the wrong people get banned....this board has become utterly ridiculous with all this I said, you said, I said nonsense which the moderators somehow have no problem with and allow to happen.
Each and every topic....nobody is going to change their opinions anyway so why waste time when someone accuses you? There is no f'ing point. Who cares. All these topics get derailed by these pointless discussions, which are in fact without a point. It is all very stupid, empty-headed and a waste of time.

Bang on the money

[drjohncarpenter]

Pff, the wrong people get banned....this board has become utterly ridiculous with all this I said, you said, I said nonsense which the moderators somehow have no problem with and allow to happen.
Each and every topic....nobody is going to change their opinions anyway so why waste time when someone accuses you? There is no f'ing point. Who cares. All these topics get derailed by these pointless discussions, which are in fact without a point. It is all very stupid, empty-headed and a waste of time.

Thanks, that was insightful.

What are your thoughts on the majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"?

[Fish]

I could do without the song, though I appreciate the sincerity Elvis sings with and the care taken in the arrangement. Somehow his voice sounds a lot stronger than on the Christmas tracks I do enjoy.
Still, certainly not one of his worst 70s songs and I can listen to it without feeling the need to skip it.