Posted: 06 April 2006 at 2:10pm | IP Logged

It's news to me.

Ah well, I hope he's ok and getting on with his music anyway

Posted: 06 April 2006 at 2:24pm | IP Logged

hmm, never looked past the first couple of threads on that post.

If it's something I said, then I apologise.

There is obviously a serious problem of interpretation on a messageboard, and it looks like that thread got a bit out of control.

Posted: 06 April 2006 at 4:01pm | IP Logged

As I understand it, the problem was that the song in question was presented as a real-true-to-life-eyewitness-involved-and-even-injured  ! accounting of the events on a bombed subway car that day.

It evoked much emotional turmoil and sympathy amongst listeners, most of whom were already very nervous at that time.

Subsequently, it was noticed (by many people) that there were several inaccuracies in the reporting.

The overall rumour-mill concensus was that it was a load of nonsense -- that it was not a true story -- and understandably, listeners are annoyed at having had their emotions toyed with at such a bad time.

There would have been no problem, had the song been presented as a fictional interpretation.

It was actually a very impressive song.

But there is a lingering impression of dishonesty, here -- and it is reflecting itself in many people's attitudes about the overall credibility of the site.  It cheapens us all.

We have always been very generous at giving each other some leeway... that's one of the things I like best about this place... but this was over the top... has never been properly addressed, and still hasn't.

Posted: 06 April 2006 at 4:21pm | IP Logged

Chris, you know, I really don't want this to go on forever...

The thing is, the accusation is, that you have 3 identities Tedd-Z, Gabba, and DJIYORWH...

Is that, or is that not true ?

That wouldn't be a problem in itself... several on here have more than one identity...

The problem would be that those 3 identities play off of each other and there is often a sympathy-evoking emotional element in what is going on with them. 

Posted: 06 April 2006 at 7:04pm | IP Logged

I feel that I need to take a fair portion of the blame here for agreeing to record the track in the first place. It's been safely removed, and Im relieved about this.

I obviously noticed many inconsistancies within the lyrics at the time of recording it, but being honour bound to proceed via a binding promise,  and simply assuming that the artist had used a certain amount of poetic license, I had no honourable way of refusing, or backing out from this promise, even after all the broo-ha-ha of the accusations that were to follow a few weeks later.

I don't really want to getting involved in all the 'accusations of aliases' business, true or false, it's really none of my business, or at least my place to make such accusations.... and I lose - whatever the truth of the matter

For what it's worth, I'm sorry that recording the track has created such problems and negativity, it was the last thing I intended... though I really could not see any alternatives at the time that would allow me to keep faith with both sides (hence I lose out in all cases).

If it helps I will happily stick my head in a bucket of water.