Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 14:48:12 GMT -5
Would this qualify as quality information? Yes, definitely, as low quality.
|
|
|
Post by Beachguy on Jun 5, 2017 14:50:12 GMT -5
The issue of criticizing the Evanchos needs resolution. I don't have to know the history of this forum to recognize that there is an underlying and long standing animosity here held by a few toward Jackie's parents, particularly her mother. In my opinion that does not represent the ethos of a fan forum created to support and encourage Jackie. Rather, it seems an inherent contradiction. The Evanchos are in my view as loving and mutually supportive as any family I know, perhaps more so considering the extraordinary challenges they have met together. An offense to one is an offense to the other. To me, it's absurd to suppose Jackie would be appreciative of "concern" for her from someone who maintains an attitude of disapproval toward her mother or father, who each have devoted themselves to supporting Jackie's dream, besides being protective parents. "Concern for Jackie's interest" seems disingenuous to me and simply used as a justification to excuse or perpetrate the animosity. I see no benefit in this for Jackie. It seems to me that the "freedom" to disapprove is considered paramount to any regard for Jackie's sensitivities. The high percent of fans follow Jackie the Artist and no one cares what we think about the family and the family surely does not care about us , most here have been following her since JEFC and know her family , a Jackie forum is to talk about Jackie in total as she is in Show-Biz thanks to her parents , I find it silly to censor opinions or info . again my views is I see nothing of their private life , you seem to know all about them
|
|
|
Post by Beachguy on Jun 5, 2017 14:53:45 GMT -5
Would this qualify as quality information? Yes, definitely, as low quality. what , is that all ben ? , come on give us some wisdom
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 15:09:32 GMT -5
The issue of criticizing the Evanchos needs resolution. I don't have to know the history of this forum to recognize that there is an underlying and long standing animosity here held by a few toward Jackie's parents, particularly her mother. In my opinion that does not represent the ethos of a fan forum created to support and encourage Jackie. Rather, it seems an inherent contradiction. The Evanchos are in my view as loving and mutually supportive as any family I know, perhaps more so considering the extraordinary challenges they have met together. An offense to one is an offense to the other. To me, it's absurd to suppose Jackie would be appreciative of "concern" for her from someone who maintains an attitude of disapproval toward her mother or father, who each have devoted themselves to supporting Jackie's dream, besides being protective parents. "Concern for Jackie's interest" seems disingenuous to me and simply used as a justification to excuse or perpetrate the animosity. I see no benefit in this for Jackie. It seems to me that the "freedom" to disapprove is considered paramount to any regard for Jackie's sensitivities. It never will be resolved. For every person that criticizes Jackie's parents, another "Guardian of the Evanchos" will spring up. We've seen both sides go to extremes. Some will lay responsibility for every setback in Jackie's career right at the feet of Jackie's parents; others think that Jackie's parents and other managers can do no wrong. I've never been knowledgeable or even interested in who does what in Jackie's management. So, my criticism has always been general--"management". For example, I complained about the neglect of Jackie's web site. (Just checked. Still shows Waukegan and Carmel on the home page and is missing three future concerts.) I have no idea who is responsible for that. Shortly after this forum was created, the same issue was discussed. Within a few days the site was updated. Somebody was watching. So, it's worth mentioning. IMO, from what I can see, tip of the iceberg maybe, the Evanchos are great parents. And while some mistakes have surely been made, they've done well enough enabling Jackie to have a career that is surely the envy of many aspiring singers. C'mon, singing with Andrea Bocelli at age 15?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 18:30:27 GMT -5
The issue of criticizing the Evanchos needs resolution. I don't have to know the history of this forum to recognize that there is an underlying and long standing animosity here held by a few toward Jackie's parents, particularly her mother. In my opinion that does not represent the ethos of a fan forum created to support and encourage Jackie. Rather, it seems an inherent contradiction. The Evanchos are in my view as loving and mutually supportive as any family I know, perhaps more so considering the extraordinary challenges they have met together. An offense to one is an offense to the other. To me, it's absurd to suppose Jackie would be appreciative of "concern" for her from someone who maintains an attitude of disapproval toward her mother or father, who each have devoted themselves to supporting Jackie's dream, besides being protective parents. "Concern for Jackie's interest" seems disingenuous to me and simply used as a justification to excuse or perpetrate the animosity. I see no benefit in this for Jackie. It seems to me that the "freedom" to disapprove is considered paramount to any regard for Jackie's sensitivities. The high percent of fans follow Jackie the Artist and no one cares what we think about the family and the family surely does not care about us , most here have been following her since JEFC and know her family , a Jackie forum is to talk about Jackie in total as she is in Show-Biz thanks to her parents , I find it silly to censor opinions or info . again my views is I see nothing of their private life , you seem to know all about them OK. I don't suggest to do anything "silly". Btw, I see nothing of their private life either. As I've said before, my opinions are based on observation, public statements, and common sense, period. I've been following Jackie since 2012.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 18:42:27 GMT -5
The issue of criticizing the Evanchos needs resolution. I don't have to know the history of this forum to recognize that there is an underlying and long standing animosity here held by a few toward Jackie's parents, particularly her mother. In my opinion that does not represent the ethos of a fan forum created to support and encourage Jackie. Rather, it seems an inherent contradiction. The Evanchos are in my view as loving and mutually supportive as any family I know, perhaps more so considering the extraordinary challenges they have met together. An offense to one is an offense to the other. To me, it's absurd to suppose Jackie would be appreciative of "concern" for her from someone who maintains an attitude of disapproval toward her mother or father, who each have devoted themselves to supporting Jackie's dream, besides being protective parents. "Concern for Jackie's interest" seems disingenuous to me and simply used as a justification to excuse or perpetrate the animosity. I see no benefit in this for Jackie. It seems to me that the "freedom" to disapprove is considered paramount to any regard for Jackie's sensitivities. It never will be resolved. For every person that criticizes Jackie's parents, another "Guardian of the Evanchos" will spring up. We've seen both sides go to extremes. Some will lay responsibility for every setback in Jackie's career right at the feet of Jackie's parents; others think that Jackie's parents and other managers can do no wrong. I've never been knowledgeable or even interested in who does what in Jackie's management. So, my criticism has always been general--"management". For example, I complained about the neglect of Jackie's web site. (Just checked. Still shows Waukegan and Carmel on the home page and is missing three future concerts.) I have no idea who is responsible for that. Shortly after this forum was created, the same issue was discussed. Within a few days the site was updated. Somebody was watching. So, it's worth mentioning. IMO, from what I can see, tip of the iceberg maybe, the Evanchos are great parents. And while some mistakes have surely been made, they've done well enough enabling Jackie to have a career that is surely the envy of many aspiring singers. C'mon, singing with Andrea Bocelli at age 15? Thank you for your considerate reply. I've had no interest in the family with regard to management. I just object to those who do, with unnecessary criticism and disapproval. Your bringing attention to the web site is not criticism or disapproval in my view, just concern.
|
|
|
Post by ads on Jun 5, 2017 21:53:20 GMT -5
The issue of criticizing the Evanchos needs resolution. .... It never will be resolved. For every person that criticizes Jackie's parents, another " Guardian of the Evanchos" will spring up. Mike: some people do see it as "Guardians of Evanchos" (correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think you were speaking from other peoples view not your own?) And some people see it as "Attacking free speech". Let me assure everyone, I don't think the E's and managers can do not wrong. And I would go to war and die for free speech. But like the many people I get up and turn off the TV when Jerry Springer comes on. As I turned off Amazon like the hundreds if not thousands of other Jackie fans. If you want to help Jackie then encourage a forum which doesn't allow a Jerry Springer environment, so the maximum number of people stay informed of what she is up to. If you foster a Jerry Springer environment, those that turn it off will leave, which probably speaks for the majority on non contributors. Along with contributors that don't see themselves on the set of Jerry Springer. Sound familiar? Lets fill in the missing letters "Amazo_" This will never be resolvedThis can be done, and it is done in many other forums. There will be casualties, poster that don't comply will be evicted, saving hundreds of readers in the meantime (currently there have been up to 200 readers). You can have a forum which is good for Jackie's career or you can cater to the Jerry Springer candidates, but you can't have both, these too are mutually exclusive. NB. Cleonard's social discourse post was spot on. And if you need a good role model, there was this little blond girl who at the age of 10 had a knack for knowing what not to say and when.
|
|