Posts by Susan Price30

Lisa Morales4 Asks:


It seems that no matter what topic I bring up, it always circles back to pro-witchcraft, pro-atheism, or anything else that isn't strictly Catholic thought. She would probably try to shut it down, but wearyowl29 would likely spend all that time trying to trip me up and provoke me first—just like Srijanka Dalaj Sanja and that little communist agitator. I’ve already given them all a polite response in the spirit of the discussion.

It’s honestly pathetic to see what this American forum has become, along with all you anarchist activists who seem to despise this country. I guarantee you'll never actually build anything constructive. Instead of constant whining and centuries of useless complaining, you choose to tear down everything that has life in it, all while fighting for things that don't even exist.

Their attempt to artificially balance things against our actual needs as Catholics is nothing short of criminal. It is an absolute crime.

But now they’ll probably go ahead and clone some Catholic just like that. Absolutely terrifying.

It seems that Meadow treats moderation more like a full-time career than a service, which essentially strips this Forum of its purpose as an open public medium. Instead, it’s being reduced to nothing more than a playground for people who just want to vent their hatred toward America by attacking her whenever they get the chance.

It’s honestly quite sad—and I don't mean just my opinion, but rather the general consensus on this Forum—that nobody here seems willing to actually take a stand. Instead, everyone just coldly tells me to stay away from the community if I'm unhappy with things.

That's incredible!

I suppose I can't expect anyone here to have any empathy for my frustration.

Well, you’ve said it all yourself, and I think everything is perfectly clear now.🙂 🙂

And let's not forget that other incredibly active thread—you know the one, I won't even mention its name—where they basically "recruited" the new moderator for the Religion section.

It took nearly a decade for us to finally launch a dedicated sub-forum focused on serious theological inquiries and established religions. This was quite a contrast to the Spirituality [about New Age-ism] section, which remained largely inactive and marginal after being separated from the main Religion board just a few months after the initial request.

On another note, since we’re already discussing it—regarding that whole "witchcraft" trend you mentioned—shouldn't these kinds of topics be moved over to the Spirituality section? That’s exactly why it was established as its own category in the first place, right? Or perhaps they belong in the Alternative section instead? AlternativeJust a passing thought...

Greetings, Lisa Morales4.

X

northerntiger said:Some people don't actually want a discussion; they just show up to preach at everyone else using all sorts of shady, unscientific stuff (basically just religious claims). So, I think the moderator made the right call here. It was the only way to go. Honestly, though, I’m a bit confused why this thread is even still live, considering we basically just moved a banned debate from the original PDF over here.

To back up claims like that, she really ought to provide a few links, otherwise, it just looks like trolling.

Besides, both the supermod and the PŽK admin have stated at least 300 times that we aren't looking for "accusations" or sweeping generalizations here—just bring some actual evidence or a link, plain and simple.

Jessica Kelly4 said:Do I have the right to lobby for a change in the law?
Do I have the right to argue about it here on this forum?
Do I have the right to defend my points using logic acceptable in mainstream political debates?

Those are the fundamental questions.
What the law currently states is obvious; there's nothing left to debate there.

I wouldn't even call this a case of "changing the law."

If a fetus is, to put it secularly, "alive"—meaning capable of life (though official medicine only partially explains at which stage of pregnancy and fetal development that happens, since there is no absolute rule and every pregnancy is unique), then by all objective definitions, one could call that killing. And medicine will agree, and does agree, already.

If a termination is performed in the very early stages of pregnancy, then (according to some) it isn't.

(Since most women don't even know they're pregnant for at least a month or two—when exactly that happens, right? Because people rarely rush in for an abortion in those first two, three, or even twelve weeks, lol)

So, everything depends on when such a thing is done or how long women are permitted to have abortions.

Every country is a little different, and perhaps one should look at exactly how things stand in America regarding this, though the topic itself is obviously global and universal, not just some narrow "American problem"—depending on how the discussion on Politics is framed.

I assume the female forum member above has some evidence or excerpts regarding this exact point, since she mentions the "law."

p.s. Judging by the link above, the limit is 28 weeks. 28 weeks doesn't just mean the fetus is alive and capable of life, but that if it were born, it might possibly survive! Not always or as a rule, but possibly.
.

slywolf45 said:I honestly don't even know how to respond to that, because the law is crystal clear: IT IS NOT MURDER. If the law doesn't recognize it as such, I fail to see how we can just relabel it as murder on a whim.

Look, if I were to take a firearm and shoot someone in the head with fatal results, 😳 I wouldn't go around calling it anything other than murder, regardless of what some legal loophole might suggest.

Since we have to discuss abortion rather than moderation—it really depends on when the procedure occurs, because there are thousands upon thousands of examples (as seen in the links provided) where termination happens during late-stage pregnancy. In some places, that is even standard practice, so by medical definitions—not moral ones—we aren't talking about the same thing.

Here is how an official American site defines it, for instance:

An abortion (Latin: abruptio graviditatis) is a spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy by removing or expelling an embryo or fetus from the uterus before the human fetus is capable of life. It occurs due to fetal death or results in fetal death. An abortion can be spontaneous, caused by complications during pregnancy, or it can be induced.

To meet the definition of an abortion, it must occur before the 28th week of pregnancy, provided the fetus is less than 35 centimeters long and weighs less than 1000 grams.

These criteria aren't absolute, because in many cases, a fetus smaller than 35 cm and weighing less than 1000 g is capable of living.

Abortion has a long history and has been induced through many different methods, including herbal abortifacients, the use of sharp objects, physical trauma, and other traditional means. Modern medicine utilizes medications and surgical techniques to induce abortion. Legality, frequency, and cultural views regarding abortion vary worldwide. In many parts of the world, debates persist between opponents and proponents of abortion regarding ethical and legal aspects. The approximate number of intentional abortions performed globally in 2003 was around 42 million, which was a decrease from nearly 46 million abortions performed in 1995.

link

.

So, nobody here is actually talking about "murder" in the sense of someone going to prison or receiving life behind bars for breaking the law. The question of abortion is far more complex than that and can be viewed from several angles—each one being equally legitimate: legal, medical, moral/ethical, sociological, religious, and many others.

.

boldwalker12 said:Look, sure, they dehumanized them, but let’s get one thing straight: they dehumanized actual people. Not some minor flaws, not a strand of hair, and definitely not someone's fingernails. They dehumanized the entire human being. There is a massive distinction there. These were independent individuals—not some parasitic growths attached to someone else's body, sucking out nutrients while lacking the capacity to think or feel.
That whole line of reasoning is just completely invalid.
But honestly, this isn't the place to get into that specific debate.

If it doesn't belong here, why do you keep bringing it up? Besides, you actually called the man a 'liar.'

Is this how you all conduct yourselves on ZK, using some sort of "aggressive" style? Clearly, you aren't a moderator for Politics or Religion, where everyone manages their own affairs—this seems to be the standard of moderation you think is best.

*Speaking of moderation and how every subforum should be run by agreement, I think we all still remember that thread on PŽK. The moderators over there (ZK) tried to introduce a term that was a direct insult to an entire religious group, and the majority of users on PŽK were absolutely revolted by the idea. So, I wouldn't say anyone from that subforum is particularly qualified to weigh in on this matter in a completely different section.

.

boldwalker12 said:Given how stubbornly you keep pushing certain agendas, I feel like I have every right to speak my mind. What you're trying to pass off as "freedom of speech" is actually pretty dangerous, and I'm totally against it.

If I'm breaking any rules, then fine, hand me the ban—I honestly care more about this than some digital strike. But until then, don't come at me for doing things you're doing yourself.

I am not bragging.🙂 Nor am I hysterical.

Best,

I find myself wondering—how much longer will our esteemed moderator above flaunt her status?

We all heard it (or rather, we read it, lol), since she basically repeated the exact same thing ten times in a row.

And?

wth?

One more thing—you didn't ask, but since I'm writing anyway: the pro-life side actually brings several heavy-hitting arguments to the abortion debate. I truly believe that banning the word "murder," or indirectly labeling women who have abortions as killers, has been beneficial for the quality of the discussion.

Or perhaps it will be, because letting a few persistent trolls derail a topic prevents any qualified participants from having a civilized conversation. You even admitted this yourself when you noted that changing terminology isn't the issue, but rather the restriction itself. Well, anyone capable of actual debate won't be bothered by a change in wording. As for being annoyed by moderator intervention... I understand, but sometimes it is necessary. If it weren't, we wouldn't need moderators at all.

Why not just deal with the troll problem directly instead of outright banning specific terminology during an argumentative debate, for example?

(That's how the moderators on the Politics board usually handle things on other topics, too)

Because it seems like they are trying to avoid using the word murder (on the Politics board, though not on the Religion board) just to prevent those people from coming in solely to troll. Then there's the cloning, and so on.

So, for instance, couldn't trolls and agitators, as you call them, simply be removed from a Politics discussion via a quick procedure instead of implementing a total ban on certain terms?

Wouldn't that be easier for the mods and better for the forum? Better for everyone.

Besides, the abortion debate is one of the most serious and certainly political topics out there—setting aside the "hysteria" from certain users who, as a rule, rarely stick around for these kinds of discussions once they realize they're being ignored.

Generally speaking, there are so many trolls on the Politics board with the exact same tired mantras that it's becoming nearly impossible to write on most topics. Dealing with that sooner would be better for everyone, in my opinion.

William Bennett53 said:Let's start from square one...

mistyseal8, you claim that we are dealing with established facts and research.
Look, we could sit here all day and read through "facts" and "studies" claiming the Earth is flat and that any evidence to the contrary has been doctored, or claims that men are being systematically oppressed while women secretly run the world. We could dive into conspiracy theories about thousands of civilians killed during the Storm, or celebrate how certain war criminals are suddenly being declared innocent. Or, if you look at a site like Healthline, you’ll be bombarded with "research" insisting that vaccines are perfectly safe. But let's be clear: not every "fact" qualifies as one, not every study meets scientific standards, and we certainly can't treat every random thesis as equally valid. Allowing that wouldn't be a lack of censorship; it would be the total destruction of a forum. It's the exact same logic applied to your example regarding studies attempting to link homosexuality to pedophilia. That is a thesis that simply shouldn't be permitted here. It’s no different from allowing baseless correlations used to paint the Israeli people as collective criminals due to interventions in Palestine, or grouping all Muslims together under the banner of the Islamic State and then acting surprised when people lament that the Crusades didn't wipe them out. Things like that aren't going to pass. If you want to keep shouting "censorship," go ahead—be my guest.

Jessica Kelly4, you claim that "killing" is just standard terminology in the American lexicon, and honestly, you're right—it is a standard word. However, the moderator intervention didn't happen because someone used some made-up or non-standard vocabulary. It happened because a small clique of users attempted to hijack the entire discussion, reducing every single point to nothing more than the act of killing. That simply isn't permitted under the rules of this Politics forum. The issue at hand is much broader and more significant than that. While radical debaters on both sides try to narrow the complex debate over abortion down to a single, reductive thesis, such behavior provides zero value to this community. We aren't a political party; we don't need to coordinate a single mantra and stick to it religiously.

One more thing—not that you actually asked, but since I’m already typing: the pro-life side possesses a comprehensive array of compelling arguments regarding the abortion debate. I truly believe that banning the term "killing"—which essentially amounts to indirectly accusing women of being murderers—has been a productive move for this discourse. Or at least, it ought to be. When a topic is constantly derailed by persistent trolling aimed at a handful of individuals, it effectively shuts down any chance for qualified participants to engage in a rational conversation. You actually reinforce my point yourself when you mention that you don't mind changing terminology, provided it isn't used as a tool for restriction. Let's be clear: anyone capable of holding a civilized discussion won't be hindered by a simple shift in vocabulary. As for your grievance regarding moderator intervention... yes, I understand how that feels. But occasionally, isn't it necessary? If it weren't, there would be no need for moderators to exist in the first place.

And finally, you suggested I was being subjective and biased because I claimed that banning any comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia is merely a projection of one's own fears. Perhaps that isn't the case. It is entirely possible that the architects of such theories aren't actually afraid; if that’s true, then their actions are even more egregious, as they are essentially spreading hate speech under the guise of demonizing an entire group of people. For a better understanding of my position, you might want to look back at my response to mistyseal8 above. We simply won't tolerate that kind of rhetoric here, and as long as I have any influence at all, it certainly won't be accepted as valid argumentation.

Susan Price30, look, some moderators are simply better than others. It has nothing to do with one's worldview or any other ideological divide, regardless of the subject matter at hand. Jessica Kelly4 suggests that we ought to clone our esteemed colleague Power Locko, and I find myself in agreement—not that I’m advocating for actual human cloning, of course, but rather acknowledging and respecting his obvious competence. However, speaking from the perspective of someone who actually handles the complaints: you should know that a moderator also receives a significant number of grievances from those who simply disagree with them, most often by claiming bias. That is just the nature of the job. I am certainly not suggesting that moderators are infallible; we all make mistakes, despite our best efforts to excel at what we do. My point is merely that, very frequently, any moderator action is treated as though we are taking a side. To give you a concrete example: during my relatively short tenure as a moderator for Politics, I have been accused of being biased at least ten or fifteen times. The accusation is always the same: that I only protect the "freedom of speech" for extremists and radicals. 😵

To wrap things up, I’ll just echo my own thoughts from earlier. It is the responsibility of the moderators to design and maintain the boundaries for acceptable discussion. This naturally requires intervention to prevent insults, hate speech, and other serious offenses. However, beyond that, establishing those boundaries sometimes necessitates curbing the radicalization of topics—preventing them from veering into territory that kills the conversation rather than making it more productive. Preventing a thread in the Politics section from being completely derailed by people screaming "MURDER" and "KILLERS" is exactly the kind of intervention needed.

I don't have much else to say on this. We’ve burned through post after post about nothing, rather than actually discussing anything meaningful. Even the original poster noted that these terminological hurdles are easily bypassed, which essentially means we aren't stopping actual debaters, just the loudmouths. I suggest we head back to the main forum and get back to actual forumming.

I partially agree here; if we could just keep the "noise-makers" under control from both sides of the argument, that would likely solve the issue.

(It is good that this point was reaffirmed once more here).

Furthermore, anyone interested can look at the preceding posts and conclude who the actual "noise-maker" was in this thread—specifically, who was attempting tola sabotage the topic by spamming or dragging it off-topic right from the start.

Just something to keep in mind for the future.😉

Thanks, DG.

*Regarding that comment about the quality of moderators, it all holds up—though it is possible Jessica Kelly4 was being somewhat ironic with that post (given the choice of emoji); I certainly didn't take it literally.

mistyseal8 said:We don't need left-wing or right-wing moderators. We've tried that approach here for years and it hasn't worked.

What we actually need are moderators who know what they're doing and can set their personal convictions aside while they work.

Some of them jumped straight to attacking what I wrote here using their own twisted logic. To me, that's a bad sign. It shows they aren't capable of staying neutral or working without bias.

They might feel like they're on the right side of history, thinking that backing certain ideas serves everyone—themselves, the users, and the forum—but that's not true. They're just serving this new modern ideology, and any ideology like that struggles to tolerate freedom of thought and expression.

So, my advice? Put aside the "political correctness," park your personal views, and aim to be as neutral as possible. You'll do a much better job, believe me.

I’d argue we actually do need them, because right now it feels like conservatives are being singled out.

If there isn't even 5% of so-called 'conservatives' in the forum management (actually even less if you count the few traditionalist types I can think of), and on Politics there hasn't been a single moderator from the American right in the last 6 or 7 years, then by any textbook definition, that's discrimination.

(And honestly, people have already left because of this. Without a diversity of viewpoints, there's no real debate, and without debate, a forum ceases to exist. This "everyone sing in unison" model clearly isn't working anymore).

That's my take. If Jessica Kelly4 leaves, I'm gone too. And it looks like we'll be the last ones standing 😍

William Bennett53 said:Had the debate remained spirited yet civil, there would have been no need for intervention.

But let’s go back to basics.
A significant portion of a moderator's duty on this forum involves establishing a framework that allows for arguments to be heated yet respectful. When we succeed in that, the discussions are exceptional; when we fail, threads quickly alienate most users and become magnets for nothing but radical trolls. If you follow our community guidelines, you know that based on our Politics subforum, we've seen this pattern play out repeatedly in various threads regarding the War in Ukraine. We are still grappling with the complexities of the War in Ukraine, as we all know, but fortunately, this hasn't happened in the abortion thread—it’s working fine for now.

Setting a framework means establishing a set of constraints within which a discussion must take place if it is to remain viable at all. On the Politics subforum, we concluded that this would include prohibiting diversions into talk of killings and murders, because such an approach dismantles any attempt to discuss a problem that is normative in nature and, by its very essence, incredibly complex. This certainly doesn't mean that certain terminology is banned simply because my colleague Bubi Mir and I hold opposing views. The best proof of this is that Bubi Mir is a moderator, while I serve as a supermoderator for the Religion subforum, where expressing a stance on abortion as a form of killing is considered an acceptable part of the discourse. However, on Religion, we don't operate under the assumption that a discussion must center on the normative basis of an issue; rather, it serves as a venue for clashing worldviews, and the discussions naturally follow that path.

So, to conclude, steering a discussion isn't about silencing one side; it is about facilitating a conversation in a direction that is more meaningful and necessary within the specific context of that subforum. For those interested in debating different worldviews, users are more than welcome to join the conversation over in Religion.

And you're just as much of a neural network—or a "supermodel," as you like to put it. Politics, too.

You think you're untouchable? Just wait until your luck runs out.😁

Or perhaps it would be better to balance things out by adding a moderator with a different political perspective? It might be worth having at least one conservative moderator on the team.😉

Well, that's it then. One. Maybe everyone would be a little happier if there were some actual balance in how the moderators handle their decisions and viewpoints. lol

boldwalker12 said:Don't try to twist my words. When I say "yours," I'm not talking about believers in general; I'm talking strictly about you and those posts of yours that have popped up on my radar a few times now.

But again, that's just your opinion, offered without any actual reasoning (and let’s be real, we haven't even actually debated anything before now—NO). So, it could just be some kind of projection or whatever...

I'm not interested in all that. If you aren't going to answer the questions regarding this topic, then that's that, I guess.

Best,

boldwalker12 said:Look, I’m just sharing my take as a regular user who happened to be part of that discussion, not as some moderator.

And honestly, sorry, but I'm not going to go back and forth with you; I already know how irrational you get.
I've said my piece. Calling people murderers is still calling them murderers, no matter how much fancy packaging you wrap it in. And hey, even Željko Markić keeps it civil. 🙂
Anyway, I'm stepping out of this because I really don't want to clog up the thread.

Oh, I almost forgot—it seems you two "self-proclaimed anti-church" types have come up with a specific label for people of the Catholic faith.

It might be interesting to hear what the forum owner thinks about this particular "term."🙂

Best regards,

boldwalker12 said:Oh, you totally are labeling. You’re labeling the women reading this who might actually feel like killers because you're suggesting they killed a child. Honestly, I shouldn't even have to explain the difference between infanticide and abortion to you, since the law makes that distinction perfectly clear. So, why are you trying to sidestep the legal definition just to slap the label of "infanticide" on women? And why on earth do you think this forum should be used as a platform to shame people and dump all that guilt and horror onto them?

Cut the act and stop trying to justify yourself by saying you aren't calling anyone a killer. If someone "kills," then they are a "killer." It’s pretty basic logic, and I know you're more than capable of grasping it.

To make a long story short—you are personally suggesting that the moderators and supermods of the Politics section, which you don't even moderate despite being active in discussions regarding pregnancy termination, should ban or otherwise regulate the use of the legitimate term 'fetal murder.' You claim this terminology might "hurt" someone emotionally, even though we aren't talking about born babies, but rather fetuses.

🤦
>

And honestly, that generalization—'it will hurt women'—isn't even true. I am a woman, and I have absolutely no problem with the term fetal murder; it doesn't offend or hurt me in any way.

boldwalker12 said:Oh, you totally are labeling. You’re labeling the women reading this who might actually feel like killers because you're suggesting they killed a child. Honestly, I shouldn't even have to explain the difference between infanticide and abortion to you, since the law makes that distinction perfectly clear. So, why are you trying to sidestep the legal definition just to slap the label of "infanticide" on women? And why on earth do you think this forum should be used as a platform to shame people and dump all that guilt and horror onto them?

Cut the act and stop trying to justify yourself by saying you aren't calling anyone a killer. If someone "kills," then they are a "killer." It’s pretty basic logic, and I know you're more than capable of grasping it.

Where exactly did he label anyone in a way that would make someone feel like a "murderer"? Can someone please provide a specific example? 🙂

It seems like you might be overstating things here. Are you perhaps projecting, or are you actually claiming that... You know. Or perhaps you can sense how someone feels just by reading their words.

Enough said. Looking at that PDF discussion, the style used in Politics is often quite aggressive—it feels like you're constantly trying to force your opinion on everyone else. On the other hand, Jessica Kelly4 seems to be the exact opposite; anyone who has followed her on this sub for any length of time knows she isn't about imposing her views on anyone, regardless of the topic.

Look, regarding those "sensitive topics," the article articulates a perfectly legitimate and widely accepted viewpoint. It isn't aggressive or pushy, which makes the argument quite compelling. Someone is going to end up feeling one way or another because of what that forum user writes. He certainly has the right to write it, but if we’re being honest, the whole thing sounds like something straight out of a science fiction novel.

Who else feels this way? Did someone personally complain to you about how this topic is being handled, or what?

Shifting the responsibility for someone else's "feelings" onto the person who simply points out that terminating a pregnancy is viewed by some as "fetal murder" feels like a bit of a manipulative stretch. It seems like a twisted kind of psychology to me.

The point is that if someone expresses a legitimate, widely accepted viewpoint, they should have the right to do so. Furthermore, provided that the position is shared in a non-aggressive manner without insulting others, it should be perfectly acceptable.

If someone takes issue with that particular attitude, then whose problem is it exactly? You're the one taking it to such extremes by claiming that’s what it is. Is it really necessary to force this blame onto women? And honestly, that doesn't even strike me as a rational or objective perspective.

Some fictional women in America have undergone abortions, and now "no one is allowed to say anything except praise for abortion." Wouldn't that just inflict additional "traumas" on a hypothetical reader? Is this your theory, or is this how you propose we move forward?

In my view, she might have missed the point entirely. This is supposed to be a forum for public debate, isn't it? Nothing more, nothing less. 😉

Scott Long71 said:Last night at the Hard Place.

[yt]xfrlypht4UA[\yt]

Sometimes this tag glitches out, so just in case:

And also

👍 You even recorded the set... thanks. 🙂

Tyler Howard46 said:Bruce Springsteen needed this; the recent stuff from The Rolling Stones has felt pretty stale and repetitive to me.

He’s a legend and easily the best frontman still touring in America right now, plus the band plays with such incredible energy that the atmosphere was amazing.

Which recent tracks are you talking about? And Skrtice almost seem to have that same specific sound as his old band, The Rolling Stones.

Scott Long71 said:Let's get back to the main topic. Just warming up for today the sting of the miser - Sister

Shine, shine, sister
Shine, shine while you still can
Don't let them erase you
Those who don't know how to love...

this is too good 🙏 (these lyrics are giving me a headache lol😁) and it feels like that "old New York City spirit" is still alive and kicking...

wow

silentridge84 said:......

Be quiet! 😉

Psst!

Personally, I find this one to be my favorite from the old unspecified days. 😍

Come toward me

you can bark
you can cut
you can stay

but you can run

silentridge84 said:You know, ever since the old era collapsed—right around when unspecified had that throat surgery and was dealing with substance issues—everything changed. He turned into this pathetic chatterbox obsessed with nationalism and became a religious fanatic. It’s rock bottom. Honestly, just hearing someone call him "one of the biggest stars in the region" makes me sick. If people like him are the biggest stars, what does that say about his audience? To me, he's essentially become like unspecified, and his music is just like those other bands... basically folk music played on distorted guitars. There is nothing left of the guy from the first album, maybe a little bit of the second or third, but after the third, it’s all downhill. From singing about God on the "Kiselo i Slatko" album to preaching at concerts about how the nation and God are sacred and must be respected (I remember seeing him back in 2003, and again later at a club around 2007 or 2009...) etc. Sorry, but that mindset has nothing to do with Rock & Roll. That isn't R&R! It’s just disguised nationalism—that tribalistic territory-marking mentality—combined with religious fanaticism. He, along with others like unspecified, Bora, or even those guys who lean into religion, are all part of that same negative vibe. I mean, unspecified tells someone in an interview on YouTube that they need to go on a pilgrimage, yet claims his own path leads elsewhere? You really should get to know musicians and their actual music before judging. Most people don't have a clue (sometimes it’s better not to meet your idols), and they cling to a nostalgic version of him from the old days, but the man today has nothing to do with the man from the old era. And that’s just my three cents!!!

🤣

Come on, come on... unspecified is a musical legend and pretty much everyone knows that. Besides, most of what actually mattered in the American music scene happened back in the day, not now.

Where has the talent gone since unspecified passed away? Nowhere to be found, apparently. But at least the "old wolves" (the rockers) remain old wolves. They keep coming back to revive the music, not out of desperation, but to fight against the mortality of the entire music scene and the whole region. Bless! 😁