I also think Deapoh has been misrepresented by this. As far as I can see, he didn't slander anyone. He posted up the facts, and people drew their own conclusions. The snippets he posted didn't demonise Ammunition, and they didn't distort the truth. Respect for posting up the full emails, but the situation is the same.
i whole-heartedly agree. i didn't feel there was any slander on deapoh's part, and genuinely feel he conducted himself as professionally as can be expected considering this is something he feels so passionately about.
Sarah and Gee made the decisions about Barefiles. No one else was involved and the others that work for Ammo I have a lot of respect for.
i really would just like to say that i don't think deapoh should be held responsible for any slanderous or unverifiable statements made in the original post. he posted his account of the situation as he saw it, and as a result people responded with their OWN views and opinions based on this.
to suggest he misled us somehow is unfair, as without including ALL correspondence made (which i very much doubt anyone would actually want to see) all either side can do is put forward their version of events anyway, so we're only ever given an out of context distortion of events at best. common sense should imply that you're not going to get the full extent of a complex business arrangement via a post on a forum. this should be generally implied without deapoh having to stipulate this. so to imply that deapoh somehow mislead us and distorted the truth by not revealing all details of negotiations (ie the financial info) is unfair.
if some slanderous or unverifiable statements were made, deapoh did nothing to incite this, in fact as i see it, quite the opposite. and i honestly can't see what he's done wrong, i certaintly can't see what would merit a ban from fwd anyway. was it for something he actually said or rather the backlash and somewhat extreme views expressed by some of the forum members in their responses? would the situation be the same if the original post only got 2 responses ? hmmm...
anyway, for me, someone who posted in the original thread the situation, my stance and overall view remains the same.
initially, the attitude towards deapoh, someone who's done so much for rinse fm aside, i was disappointed with the decision from a once humble pirate radio station to ban ANYONE from hosting ANY material related to them, and make profit from hosting radio mixes made by djs and producers who will never receive any of the proceeds.
sure you reserve the right to be the sole outlet of all your material, but u don't HAVE to, and sure u can charge £7 quid entry instead of £5, or add ridiculous mark ups on rare records, but again, u don't HAVE to.
it's this ethos of 'we can so we will' that i was opposed to in the original thread and still am now. the momment rinse fm becomes a profit making organisation everything changes. how long until the artists start demanding the royalties they're entitled to ? and we can no longer hear them because of financial implications. it's all a downward spiral if u ask me.
i don't even care if i come across idealistic or sentimental, because dubstep, in terms of the music, the dances, the people and general atmosphere surrounding it is something i tend to feel sentimental and idealistic towards. i'm not saying that this decision has done anything to diminish my affection for dubstep, but at the same time has done nothing to strengthen it either.
anyway
thanx Luke, Sarah and Geeneus for replying and sorry if anything i've said personally has offended any of u, i hope it hasn't, but if it has, i do apologise.