Trollheart

Ah come on man. You're most certainly making the accusation. The thread titles proves that. You've made up your mind based on very flimsy "evidence" (hard sarcasm on the air quotes) and are now asking "don't you think so too?" You're not giving any time to the possibility that everything you mention could be coincidence, the result of an overactive mind or one that sees conspiracies everywhere, or an actual concerted campaign against the band.

Now you're using the BBC as justification! Oh noes! The BBC! They evil man! Jesus ****ing Christ hang-gliding way off course over the Andes! You want to accuse everyone associated with the Beeb now of supporting paedophilia? Saville was a brutal case and certainly highlighted the corporation/government's all but willingness to cover up for him, but it's an entirely different thing. He was a powerful bastard with powerful bastard friends, and nobody wanted to admit they had covered for him so kept schtumm. Plus they were afraid of legal action if they said anything, as he was, at the time, a "national treasure".

It seems to me like you're flailing around wildly, trying to point to this or that to support your "theory", and what you point out could more than likely be found in any heavy metal, hip-hop or other album. People use these themes; doesn't mean they believe in or practice them. In fact, as I pointed out, it's often the ones who DON'T reference these things that turn out to be child molesters.

I think the answer to your thread is NO, I don't think they're pro-paedophilia, and if you think they are, then prove it otherwise shut it.

Sorry but you're really getting on my nerves now. It's like listening to a QAnon lecture. There's enough bad **** in the world without people trying to manufacture more out of thin air, loose connections and their own insecurities.

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

The Batlord

I think this is a QAnon lecture. Who besides QTards conflate pedophilia with satanism? Sweet, sweet Satanism.

__________________

bob_32_116

I haven't listened to Boards of Canada, apart from maybe hearing one or two tracks on radio, I have to say that themes of satanisn or of anything illegal are a turnoff for me no natter who sings about them - but that's very different from accusing the artist of indulging in same, or even of encouraging it.

What disturbs me is this: you seem to be saying that the presence or absence of evidence is of no great importance. That would be news to most judges and lawyers. I reject that totally. I think you would reject it too if someone who for some reason doesn't like you decided to give you a hard time by broadcasting their opinion on the internet that Thomas4 is interested in child pornography or cannibalism or some other illegal activity.

The bear analogy is silly. Maybe we don't have photographic evidence that a particular bear defaecates in the woods, but observation of animals over the centuries have established with reasonable certainty that they all do something that can be called defaecation. More to the point, no one is accusing the bear of any crime and suggesting it be punished for it.



Next up: what is to be done about the penchant for serial killing held by such artists as Steven Wilson and Sufjan Stevens. We know they do this, because they have written songs about serial killers.

rostasi

Fox Spews is good at that “we don’t make accusations, we just ask questions” kind of blather. If the OP seems unable to shake his dislike of various elements of BOC, then he shouldn’t listen to them. Simple as that. Quit trying to evangelize and go listen to what you do like.

I had a chance to study with someone who created ritualized sound-events that had a sound that was magnificent, but since the rituals involved animal sacrifice, I just couldn’t be a part of it - and so I took from the sound and performances the elements I loved and substituted the sacrificial parts with something else - and those were actual real elements that were not hidden. It’s the least the OP can do when dealing with far-out mental gymnastic creations based on lyrics, and colors of album covers.

Thomas4

You might be right, it very well could be clouding my "curiosity" (for want of a better word) but equally as it might sound strange, but my experience could be the very thing that allows me to sense that danger as well. I was abused by a man im his late 60s early 70s when I was 6 years old.

Beatles:

How about ‘Run for Your Life’ by the Fab Four themselves?

I find this very problematic:

'You better run for your life if you can, little girl / Hide your head in the sand, little girl / Catch you with another man — that's the end, little girl.'

So yeah, even the Beatles could write some seriously dodgy lyrics, like a song about a guy threatening to kill a girl if he sees her loving a different man."
How should I read into that if Im being paranoid?

Thomas4

So basically BoC are beyond reproach, there is no such thing as guilt by association and the saying birds of a feather doesn't apply.
Also I don't make any accusations against a couple of blokes...but their own musical creation and outlet for what could be in their hearts ... That is why I didn't use the title of the thread as:

Are Marcus Eion and Mark Sandison Pedophiles?

Notice the difference?
Im asking about a band called Boards of Canada!
I thought I made that clear.

Thomas4

Because satanism is based upon one law : Do as thou will (which kinda covers any and all perversions including having sex with minors or seeing nothing wrong in that).

Frownland

First, there are 3 words in their name. Second, if we assign numbers to letters in alphabetical order (A=1, B=2, C=3, etc), BOC gives us 2, 15, and 3. Everyone knows that 15+3=18 and that 18-2=16.

Take 3 and 16, convert them into letters and what do you get? That's right: CP. Child pornography.

It goes all the way to the top.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

rubber soul

I had a feeling that was the song you were referring to but I wanted to see what you would do with it.

Anyway, yes, it is one of Lennon's more controversial songs that even he denounced later but it has nothing to do with child abuse. Adult women have also been referred to as 'little girls' in song. Basically, it is an angry song, more about domestic abuse than child abuse actually (still doesn't make it right, obviously).

Also, you may note that the line, I'd rather see you dead, little girl, than to be with another man, is in fact, ripped off word for word from Baby Let's Play House, made famous by one Elvis Presley (though itself a remake of the Arthur Crudup song). I think it's why Lennon disavowed it later.

__________________

Thomas4

I don't think it is silly. It clearly outlines that things are covered up or puposefully obfuscated where it might otherwise be known to happen, hence the analogy, we all know bears defacate in the woods, the premise was given "have you got proof" of something that is only allowed to come to light many years after the damage has been done. How do you propose preventing harm to children, you never did say! I would love to hear what people suggest because no matter how many clues or hints were given no body who could of done something at the time suspected Saville was a paedo.
Also....your reasoning is assuming that paedos want to be caught and it is easy to prosecute them, or assumes that paedos don't try to hide their crimes, or goad people knowing they cannot be stopped...also with the Saville and Glitter revelations it did prove these predators were very careful not to be caught and not because they feel remorse or guilt but so they can continue to act out their fantasies, Gary glitter was given another opportunity to offend due to the very arguement he wasn't caught in the act. Also there was plenty of "archive" evidence only recently coming to light to show all of them were causing harm, how did it escape our knowledge? Why did all the clear signs fall on deaf ears? At the time the children were all conspiracy nuts or attention seekers ...but no one denies the charges now but it was too late.
Saville never got caught in the act, proving my point, neither did John Peel....
So basically your saying there is no fire and there is no smoke either.