Posts by Mark Harris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And sitting down (and, in this case, throwing sticks and things at people who don't comply with your desires) isn't "behaviour"?
Of course it's behaviour. You seem to think that the word "behaviour" is pejorative. Take two dictionaries and call me in the morning. I would class throwing sticks and things as bad behaviour, but that's my subjective view. Their bad behaviour doesn't exclude anyone else's behaviour, and they have as much right to enjoy the show as you. Why should your enjoyment be paramount.
Honestly Mark, that's absurd. If you go to a rock concert and you want to sit down and have no one stand up in front of you, buy a seat that guarantees that right. Otherwise, you're shit out of luck and probably shouldn't have come in the first place.
See, that's what selfish pricks always resort to, because you want it your way and no other. "If you don't want to rock out LIKE ME, you shouldn't be here". Wow.
What's absurd, Russell, is that you focus on (your perspective of) one concert and miss my point that self-centered behaviour is the problem here, not venue design or disability.
-
/always
-
I'm confused now.
Sorry, Steve, I forgot how easily that happens for you. ;-)
Do you mean "if you think other peoples enjoyment is as important as your own then you are a selfish prick"? or "Don't be a selfish prick, think of other people's enjoyment as being as important as your own.
Quite right, there should have been a semi-colon instead of a comma between "prick" and "think". THere is alsays some separation between pricks and thinking.
-
This would mean no more gigs there, except maybe all-seater ones......
Not necessarily. You can get auditorium seating that is relatively easy to clear. It's a question of design.
-
Mark, if venues are set up with both dancing and seated areas, no problem. Without, friction. Bugger all that individual punters can do about that on the night - the decision is up to those who run the event and design the venue.
So, you're saying that people aren't responsible if their behaviour is not suitable to a venue?
-
there's only no "and" because the concert promoters, venue designers, etc have made it that way. Things will change, whether they like it or not.
Sacha, there's only no "and" because some choose to behave in a way that doesn't permit it. Promoters could think harder, but that doesn't excuse behaviour.
-
Standing up at a rock 'n' roll show is "behaviour"?
All right, if you want it in words of less than three syllables: Don't be a selfish prick and think of other people's enjoyment as being as important as your own.
Yes, standing up is "behaviour". What else could you possibly call it? Whether it is "good" or "bad" behaviour was not mentioned - what I said was "behaviour that impinges on other people's right of enjoyment."
Try not to see it as a personal attack, Russ, and more of a societal statement, mmmkay?
-
Can every blog / forum owner be expected to vet everything posted on their site? Seems to go against the whole point of it.
Since when is the law supposed to get the point?
Seriously, though, a blog owner or forum maintainer is regarded as a publisher under NZ law, as may be the ISP that hosts the site. It does miss the point, but it's more that the point of blogging misses large chunks of the law ;-)
-
Keep taking the tablets, Sacha
-
At the risk of being boring myself, why does a desire to dance take precedence over a desire to watch from a seat?
The problem I find, and see on this thread, is that you either must not be into the music if you don't dance, (in which case why did you come to the gig, dumbarse?) or you are disabled and so can only dance on the inside (in which case you should buy the DVD and stay home, eh, Gareth?).
There are those of us who don't like dancing, you know, who are what some would call "rhythm-challenged, in a physical context", who nonetheless can and do enjoy a good show. I'm with Roger here, in that I pay for a seat, I'm entitled to sit there and see the show. It's not like it's a $10 door charge for the gig - when individual tickets hit 3 figures as a starting point, you feel some entitlement to get your money's worth.
I can understand for some that that implies some movement, but I fail to see why "They shouldn't have been at a friggin' Stones show if they didn't want to dance" is seen as justification for behaviour that impinges on other people's right of enjoyment.
Society would be a lot better if we stopped thinking of only our own enjoyment.
That said, promoters could think a little harder. When we were teens, you could write off the setting out of seating in the Wellington Town Hall for a Split Enz show as being "an older guy running the place who didn't understand Rock and Roll". These days, the organizers haven't started shaving yet so you'd think they might have a better idea (Maybe they thought Lucinda only appealed to an oldie audience).