China???

Byrnzie

FenwayFaithful wrote:

Where's the China meet-up going to be? Are there dive bars in China where we can take over the jukebox?

If Pearl Jam play Beijing I'll organize a pre-show and after-show meet-up.

bunny

Until now, I had been caring only about my own country. How many times did they play in China ?
Japan tour ..ONLY ONLY 2 times
yes,we hunger for pearl jam-love
I hope you Chinese fans enjoy the PJ show any which way (and stop in Japan )

demetrios

Byrnzie wrote:

It would be great if Pearl Jam played here.

It sure will.

Byrnzie

Come on Kat! I'm dying here! :shifty:

Are any little birdy's tweeting near you?

Spiritual_Chaos

and they have also been found harvesting the organs of political dissidents!!

So do israel, USA:s little friend in the middle east. And ofc when a swedish newspaper ran a story about it Israel called sweden antisemetic(spelling?). Haha.

wolfamongwolves

Byrnzie wrote:

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Not saying they "organised" it, but they would have to sanction it for it to go ahead and to get this level of publicity. And do you really think that any gig with an advocacy agenda requires the organisers to be "fans" of any of the performers?! Come on!

So the Chinese government would have to sanction it.

So what?

And was it really the Chinese that wrecked Copenhagen? Last I heard it was the Americans who threw a spanner in the works.

For the record, I never suggested that China was exclusively responsible, but they were still largely responsible, and yes, the US should share it's shoulder of the blame, amongst others. But many of the reports that I heard suggested that the largest amount of obfuscation was coming from China. (e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... mark-lynas) And since China is who we're talking about here, why is it a problem that that's who I mention?

As for your "so what?" Well that's exactly my point in the first place. So this: I think it's hypocritical that a government who is taking pathetically weak steps to curb it's detrimental impact on the environment, and who stood in the way, for self-interested reasons (yes, amongst others who did the same but that's not the point here), of something that could reverse that, to sanction a gig that purports to show that it has green credentials.

Can say this any more clearly?

Smellyman

Byrnzie wrote:

FenwayFaithful wrote:

Where's the China meet-up going to be? Are there dive bars in China where we can take over the jukebox?

If Pearl Jam play Beijing I'll organize a pre-show and after-show meet-up.

I will be there!

Smellyman

kazuki.k wrote:

Until now, I had been caring only about my own country. How many times did they play in China ?
Japan tour ..ONLY ONLY 2 times
yes,we hunger for pearl jam-love
I hope you Chinese fans enjoy the PJ show any which way (and stop in Japan )

and never in Hong Kong too.

Off I Go.

Yes!! An Asian tour would be GREAT!!!
Please come to Japan again ,We Have been waiting patiently for so long!!!

Byrnzie

wolfamongwolves wrote:

For the record, I never suggested that China was exclusively responsible, but they were still largely responsible, and yes, the US should share it's shoulder of the blame, amongst others. But many of the reports that I heard suggested that the largest amount of obfuscation was coming from China. (e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... mark-lynas) And since China is who we're talking about here, why is it a problem that that's who I mention?

As for your "so what?" Well that's exactly my point in the first place. So this: I think it's hypocritical that a government who is taking pathetically weak steps to curb it's detrimental impact on the environment, and who stood in the way, for self-interested reasons (yes, amongst others who did the same but that's not the point here), of something that could reverse that, to sanction a gig that purports to show that it has green credentials.

Can say this any more clearly?

So you'll be protesting the next concert for the environment in the U.S too then?

wolfamongwolves

Byrnzie wrote:

wolfamongwolves wrote:

For the record, I never suggested that China was exclusively responsible, but they were still largely responsible, and yes, the US should share it's shoulder of the blame, amongst others. But many of the reports that I heard suggested that the largest amount of obfuscation was coming from China. (e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... mark-lynas) And since China is who we're talking about here, why is it a problem that that's who I mention?

As for your "so what?" Well that's exactly my point in the first place. So this: I think it's hypocritical that a government who is taking pathetically weak steps to curb it's detrimental impact on the environment, and who stood in the way, for self-interested reasons (yes, amongst others who did the same but that's not the point here), of something that could reverse that, to sanction a gig that purports to show that it has green credentials.

Can say this any more clearly?

So you'll be protesting the next concert for the environment in the U.S too then?

And back we come to the whole original issue of a gig in China being necessarily sanctioned by the government. It's not even close to being the same thing as in the US, where such an event does not need state sanction. I assume you are aware of the differences between communist and non-communist societies in terms of levels of state involvement.

Sheesh. Are you just nitpicking for the sake of having an argument?!

Byrnzie

wolfamongwolves wrote:

And back we come to the whole original issue of a gig in China being necessarily sanctioned by the government. It's not even close to being the same thing as in the US, where such an event does not need state sanction. I assume you are aware of the differences between communist and non-communist societies in terms of levels of state involvement.

Sheesh. Are you just nitpicking for the sake of having an argument?!

I think it's pretty clear to anyone reading this thread that you're the one nitpicking for the sake of having an argument.
Most other posters on this thread are expressing their wish to see their favourite band play at a concert in aid of something positive. If you think the Chinese deserve to be singled out for their effect on the environment then surely that's even more reason to play the concert in this country.

HollisBrown

I say a concert should be broadcast on Google.com so the Chinese can censor that, too.

Byrnzie

wolfamongwolves wrote:

For the record, I never suggested that China was exclusively responsible, but they were still largely responsible

Not according to this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -interests

Jeanwah

HollisBrown wrote:

I say a concert should be broadcast on Google.com so the Chinese can censor that, too.

Ya know, that would make more of an impact regarding Earth Day than the promotion of flying several musicians and their planes full of equipment to China, wouldn't it? A FREE Live internet concert with musicians performing near their homes. Now that's being Green.

wolfamongwolves

Byrnzie wrote:

wolfamongwolves wrote:

And back we come to the whole original issue of a gig in China being necessarily sanctioned by the government. It's not even close to being the same thing as in the US, where such an event does not need state sanction. I assume you are aware of the differences between communist and non-communist societies in terms of levels of state involvement.

Sheesh. Are you just nitpicking for the sake of having an argument?!

I think it's pretty clear to anyone reading this thread that you're the one nitpicking for the sake of having an argument.
Most other posters on this thread are expressing their wish to see their favourite band play at a concert in aid of something positive. If you think the Chinese deserve to be singled out for their effect on the environment then surely that's even more reason to play the concert in this country.

Y'know, I honestly can't tell if you're deliberately misinterpreting/simplifying everything I've said, or whether you're just completely missing the point time & time again. Either way, none of this is particularly relevant to anything I said. I said what I said, expresssed an opinion (which I do think has a fair amount of validity), nothing more.

But just for the record, I don't dispute the article you've posted (it's actually from the same source as the one I did) and I respect George Monbiot's opinions. But despite the headline, it still acknowledges that "It's true that the Chinese worked hard to mess [the talks] up, but Obama also put Beijing in an impossible position. " Which is no different from what I've been saying.

Anyway, I respect your opinion, you don't agree with me -that's fine. I still hold my opinion & you haven't said anything to really challenge that at all. But let's agree to disagree. So if it's all right with you, I'm going to leave it here. I've made my point, & I don't really have anything more to add to it.