hello! i find romance when i dance in boogie wonderland.
... good for you...
Show & Tell

#extradirty
Fieri Frames

oozey mess

No title available
No title available
Cosimo Galluzzi
The Stonewall Inn
h
sheepfilms

Love Begins

tannertan36

ellievsbear
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
Claire Keane
KIROKAZE

bliss lane

@theartofmadeline

Game Changer & Make Some Noise
macklin celebrini has autism
seen from Brazil
seen from Brazil
seen from T1
seen from United States
seen from Lithuania

seen from Bangladesh
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Vietnam
seen from United States

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Colombia
seen from United States
seen from United States
@thejondebate-blog
hello! i find romance when i dance in boogie wonderland.
... good for you...
oh hey i heard black sabbath kicked ozzy osbourn out of his own band like 30 years ago maybe you should start a debate blog about that too. :D
Your job, if you choose to accept it. That is something I know nothing about.
You brought me into this when someone asked if you were me. No, the answer is not "close", because you are a coward. If I had something to say, I would say it publicly and own it. You just bully the Bennetts from afar and keep this stupid topic alive
uh, I think you misunderstood me. Any time anyone asks who I am, in any form, I've been saying "Close". Because I got very very tired of people not reading my FAQs, which state that I'm not going to say who I am because it's dangerous due to hate mail reasons.
Bob is a very common name. I was asked if I was Bob. I thought it was Bob Anybody, not Bob You. If it was Bob You, and I said close, it's not because I'm attempting to imply I'm you. I'm-- I can't even believe I'm having to explain this.
Many many people on the planet have your name.
Anyway, I find a great deal of irony in the observation that those who come out about what they have to say are treated poorly, but those who maintain anonymity are called cowards.
Look, no matter how I handled this, someone would have had a problem with it, because People Don't Like Uncomfortable Truths.
This topic would die if people would stop sending me asks like this.
I get it; you're not thejondebate, Bob. Neither am I you. That's what I said.
Doesn't mean you have to so vehemently distance yourself from me.
since you dragged me into this, privately tell me who you are.
1) I don't know you.
2) How did I drag you in?
BITCH U DUN KNO MY BIDNESS!
... OkAy?
Honestly, everything was going great with what you were doing in trying to put out an opinion...except you got, or appeared, big headed. Who the hell are you to be 'judicial' with all this? To represent those who are silenced enough to waste so much time making a blog to crusade this hunt for the truth? It made you look like a snob about it.
I never think that speaking for those who felt alone is a waste of time. I did what I felt was right. If that makes me big headed, then...
Continuing from that last ask, I wanted to point out that Jon's drinking was, in fact, disruptive to the band's performances and stability. The rest of the members, Sam and Steve included, were uncomfortable with Jon's lifestyle choices. And Bunny's made it abundantly clear that she understands that it went down in a rather negative way, and if she could do it differently she would. So you've already reached your objective about "exposing what the Bennett's did". Please give it a rest now.
Thank you for taking the time to write out such a long and thoughtful response to me; it means a lot that you'd be so verbose.
I understand your perspective in terms of not getting why I'm doing it this way-- but I think, maybe, I've been misunderstood on a few points. The reason I gathered and posted links to other people upset at Jon's departure was not to show THAT they were upset; rather, that they hinted in their messages as to something else going on other than what was publicly available. Some of the links I gathered are emotionally charged; I'm aware. But I wanted to point out that a lot of people knew something more than what went public, and that there was this whole community of people that kind of dropped off the facee of the fandom in the aftermath. Not the kind of thing that happens without reason, right?
I'm glad if people were ok with the explanation given by SPG-- this blog isn't really for them. But some were left feeling lost and not knowing why everything was so different all of a sudden, wondering why people who'd been around for a long time were suddenly leaving with lots of fireworks and explosions. This blog is for them. For those who had questions, and wanted to know more.
And I suppose, in the end, SPG is just a band and company-- but for many, it was more than that. A source of inspiration and a pull from the darkness, a beautiful breath of life to people who needed it most. It still is. I want that to continue. But I feel like it needs to do so in honesty and openness-- which is very similar to how the band handles things-- most of the time. Most of the time, they tell us a lot of intimate personal details-- which is way more than other bands do, and really neat, right? But then, when it comes to the hard stuff... they tell us essentially to feel lucky we get what we do, because we're not getting any more.
I feel like this does a disservice to the people who love them most-- who loved Jon the most. He existed here too; he was a part of the creation and the company. He was part of what made up the diversity of Steam Powered Giraffe-- and when he was kicked out, it felt like different people aren't welcome-- at least to some of the fans.
Addressing the part about Jon's drinking, he's posted (through Miyukilypuff) that his drinking was not a problem for him, that he is responsible around SPG and careful with their equipment and personages... he's not an alcoholic, and f he has a problem with any substance consumption, it's chocolate. ;) Perhaps the Bennetts may FEEL as though his life choices were disruptive to the band, but I wish to keep in mind, Jon's not the only one in the band with some perhaps disruptive lifestyle choices. I refer you to Seppi1447's post on this one; Jon got fired for a combination of reasons that other people in the band get away with... essentially, they "just didn't want to work with him anymore!" (David said this). And hey, you know what? That's fine. Their band, their choice-- but Jon was a part of that band and that choice too, so he at least deserved the decency of conduct expected of any other large corporation-- you let your employee have time to gather the photos off their desk before escorting them to the door.
So I'm glad Bunny made it clear that she could have/should have handled it differently. Makes me feel better that mayeb there's some hope for the future in all of this.
And in closing, I wish to say that I feel I've done what I set out to do, yes. And it is my intention to lay the matter to rest herein; I haven't made any new posts for some time now. The information is available now for htose who wish to see it. I am sorry that some have lost friends over this, some have felt bitter and bad, some have turned from a neutral-positive opinion of Jon to a negative one of me (and somehow extrapolated that onto him)-- there's a lot of projection going on here. But the point is, I wish truth weren't so hard for people to deal with, and I wish it had come out from the start so it was easier and whistleblowers like me weren't necessary.
Furthermore, you use several examples of fans who were greatly upset at Jon being fired from the band, which is completely understandable. What's not understandable, however, is how you use these clearly emotional responses as justification for your "debate" here. The majority of the fandom was okay with the explanation given. Steam Powered Giraffe did not owe anyone a detailed explanation: they're also a company. What happened was a personal matter between a group of friends.
(cont.)
If there's one thing that bothers me deeply about your blog, it's how you justify everything you write. Essentially, you post opinions that provoke people's emotions on what has become an extremely sensitive topic and then, when they express those feelings to you, you say that they're "hate-mailing" you and trying to "silence the truth". If you want to know the truth of what's happened, it's this: you've created a swirling vortex of bad feelings under the pretense of "exposing the truth".
(I'll post an answer on your last ask; reposting the first two here for everyone's ref)
I'm not sure what your intention was here but holy shit am I sick of Jon's face now. This blog makes him look awful (way worse than Bunny's post) and that's not fair because I'm sure he's not involved. I understand that this is super important to you for some reason although I can't for the life of me figure out why but your vagueness and deflection is annoying and useless. I get the "truth" thing but I don't think you're enlightening the people you think you are. Those who want to know, know.
A lot of people have submitted asks both to me and others who they thought were me since this blog came out, asking for clarification on what the original story was. So no, a lot of people who wanted to know what had happened didn't, at least as of a few days ago.
What I find disturbing, frankly, is your insistence that people were "shut up," and how you believe that was handled. I am familiar with fandoms. I am well aware that they are full of bullies. But it is not as if Bunny and David are plotting to snuff out people who miss Jon. The backlash of people being "silenced" is not the result of Bunny Bennett sitting on her throne and cackling "Fly, my pretties!" to a roving band of trolls. Just a thought.
I think a lot of times, people can do things they don't mean to do. By behaving the way that they did, Bunny and David might not have MEANT to be encouraging of ostracism, but as she said... she's in the limelight, and should be a good example for those who look up to her.
Bob.
...CLOSE.
Wow, Jim, really? You're the best brother!1!1!!
...CLOSE.
You completely misread me, and other ask submissions, in order to defend yourself and trump them. No, it is not 'asking' by tagging this blog of an unpopular opinion, but it draws attention obviously. Making sure all browsers of the main tags can see for sure means you are more likely to get ALL opinions good and the bad, more than being a no-name blogger that no one knows about. Obviously. Common sense. Just exactly what you were talking about for those who had unpopular Jon opinions.
Then I am sorry if I misread you.
My intention, in tagging things to the Jon Sprague tag, was to make sure that people who had long ago decided they didn't want to see anything anymore related to the Jon would continue to have my messages blocked. Same deal with TheJon tag. SPG tags are because this is directly related to SPG, and no, I'm not going to keep it off-tag because this is part of the community and culture.
Different anon, it's called tagging your hate. It's when someone posts an inflammatory/negative idea and tags it with related topics so that people who are into those topics will get angry and retaliate.
Can we please take a moment to appreciate the difference between negative ideas and hateful ideas? Never did I say, "I hate the Bennetts and everything they stand for and think they should go die--"
Ok, so in a sarcastic response to a question someone asked about why I wasn't ashamed of my CLEARLY sadistic tendencies, I did-- but otherwise, I haven't.
Because I don't believe that.
I believe they made a mistake-- I'm calling them on that. Just because I stand against the majority on this does not mean I hate the majority on this.
Alan Moore wrote V for Vendetta, which I've seen other people point out. I think its because you keep quoting that damn 'mask' quote to make yourself look cultured and intelligent. I'm sure you're aware that that comic book and the trolling-anon movement associated with the mask is stereotyped badly on the internet? Also uh, buddy, people have spoken up before, you just made yourself a target more. I also trust you are aware of this as well, tagging this blog = painting a bullseye on your askbox
Tagging something so that people who are interested in it means I'm just asking for people to come hate on me? This is victim blaming?
Cultured and intelligent?
Internet?
Sure, by posting a differing opinion to a tag, I'm just ASKING for people to come yell at me.
It's done. It's over. Let it die.
It would be if people stopped sending asks... I will continue to answer because that's what I've said I'll do. I said my piece long ago-- but I'll defend it again whenever given the opportunity.