babble home - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Some clarification

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Some clarification
Babbler # 9770

posted 23 March 2006 04:03 PM      Profile for Mudd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Dear babblers,

To stop the confusion about how this thread, an important one got hijacked and turned into a rant-fest about ego and babble dirty laundry, I’d like to explain a few things.

Yes, I’ve been on this board before and was banned for merely answering a question that a few people in the thread had been asking. Not a very good reason if you ask me. I e-mailed Audra asking for an explanation, but didn't receive a reply.

So why did I come back, or why do “we” keep coming back? Why do we come back to a place where, according to a few voices, we’re not welcome?

Well, it’s because several members of the babble community do share our belief that the arts can be used to help speak out against oppression and have very valid and interesting opinions on important subjects and I do feel welcomed by them and want to hear what they have to say.

The thread about the censorship of Rachel’s Words proves that.

No one jumped in to ban fourteenrivers when he opened the first thread, no one jumped in to ban any of the babblers who were getting a little hot under the collar (I think two of the threads were closed due to that, though).

Fourteen rivers was banned for linking to a script that was used in a reading on Thursday, March 16th. Fourteenrivers was banned for linking to a script five days after the event. This can hardly be considered plugging a show or “trolling”.

What changed the discourse from important to petty? Michelle, you did by flying off the handle and banning fourteenrivers. I get the impression that you were just waiting to pounce, looking for anything that could possibly justify doing what you were planning on doing.

That, unfortunately blinded you to the obvious effect – a change in the discourse. I hope you were oblivious to the effect, that is, and not intentionally trying to suppress the real discussion.

If this is the kind of knee-jerk reaction that is to be expected at babble, then mudd wants no more of it.

Lagatta, sorry you missed the show, it was a very powerful piece of theatre. By the way, nice one catching the on-scary-oh, I was planning a trip there when I created the character and it seemed like a witty thing to.

Magoo and Heywood, personally I don’t agree with what you had to say, but if you read the script, you'll see that your words weren't censored or kept out of the discourse.

Mary123 and other babblers did make some very good points about the censorship issue that should be heard and may be in revisions of the script.

Fourteenrivers had even asked for dramaturgical feedback and that's still welcome. While mudd won't be posting on the board (for reasons outlined above), I'll be checking my messages for feedback. Feel free to pm me.

For those of you that don’t know the script in question is a dramaturgy of words said in public in interviews, statements, news reports and e-mail releases about the censorship of Rachel’s Words and censorship in general. The preceeded the reading of Rachel Corrie's e-mails from Palestine.

To keep the discussion going, I'm going to do one more thing before I leave the board (if I don't get banned first) - re-open the previous discussion in hopes it picks up where it was before Michelle hijacked it.

I find it ironic that a thread of censorship was hijacked by an act of censorship, and a silly one at that.

I'd also like to say that overall, and babble are great resources that are needed and it's been fun.

see ya,


[ 23 March 2006: Message edited by: Mudd ]

From: On-Scary-Oh | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Babbler # 11389

posted 23 March 2006 05:57 PM      Profile for skeptikool        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thank you for that link. What amazingly powerful words from a 10-year-old.

While some will attempt to suppress her voice, Rachel and her spirit will live on.

From: Delta BC | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Babbler # 1448

posted 23 March 2006 06:13 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And I'm sure the author/producers of this piece have releases to use the words/interviews that this piece has been cobbled together from. Because otherwise, they run the risk of copyright infringement and can be sued.

So naturally they would have gone to the trouble, right?

I mean, we have to when we make a documentary...

From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
Babbler # 8312

posted 23 March 2006 06:20 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wonderful script. Thank you.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008