Re: Jimi or Jerry?

On Dec 20, 3:28 pm, Avant Grape <avantnograpec...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

I don't know about New Years,

I do.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, I don't trust that you do. Is
it because you don't know anything about what you are talking about?
No. You clearly know *** about music in general, and you even know a
little bit about the Dead. So, overall knowledge isn't the problem.
Your penchant for bull*** and disingenuousness, however, is. You may
be right as rain about lots of stuff, but without question, I would
verify anything you say before taking your word on it because you dont
play a straight game and you never have.

Like you said in another post about politics this morning:

"I don't believe in static definitions of "right" and "wrong". See, to
me, that's Bushspeak."

"I'm sick of all this talk about moral and values too. That's
Bushspeak. In politics, you play to win. It's ALWAYS been that way"

Certainly, this isn't politics, but your stances there are indicative
of your general modus here on rmgd, and you are certainly like a
politician. You will change your tune, your stripes, or whatever needs
changing if it will allows you to "win" by scoring points. Like you
said, you don't believe in the static definitions of right and wrong,
but, then again, if you get in a situation where it would be useful to
you for then present purposes, I have no doubt you would sing the tune
the other way around. It just depends on who you are talking to. If
the person is someone you are at odds with, you will take one stance
to oppose them. Not because it is necessarily right or wrong, but
becuase it is in opposition. If, later, someone you are not in
opposition takes the same stance as the first person, you will alter
you stance in order to agree with the second person.

A recent and classic example would the inane and inept about-face you
tried to do with the "formerly" trained nonsense in the Zappa thread.
You adamantly say multiple times that something means x and then all
of a sudden you turn around and say the exact same thing you had been
vehemently denying and pretend that's what you meant all along. It's
amusing to behold, but not without a certain pathos.

But, of course, that's not the only time, and a pristine example of
your duplicity is coming up later in this very thread. It's quite a
doozy, but first . . .

but for the 87 Civic Center shows
extenuating circumstances win out. He had to put Otis to sleep the day
of the first show. I was there for the second two, my first west coast
shows. He was a zombie, which isn't too difficult to understand.
Still, pretty interesting definition of "many."

You didn't ask me to list "many". You said, "..I'm sure you will have
no problem naming a couple." Always moving the goal post Fred, all the while
accusing others of doing the same.

Now here's a classic example of the difference between you and me, JC,
because unlike you, I don't need to go through contortions to weasle
out of stuff, nor do I change my tune or stripes because of who I am
speaking to. Watch:

JC, you are correct, and I apologize for my lapse. I in fact did not
say "many." I in fact did say "a couple." That is a classic example of
moving the goalpoast and I am guilty of it in this instance, no ifs,
ands, or buts. It was careless and I was wrong to do so, and I will be
more careful in the future because I really do value accuracy.

But, true to your untrue self (paradox found), even when you nail me
dead to rights, you gotta go and distort it. I don't always do such,
and I don't accuse "others" of doing the same. I accuse you, JC
Martin, of such, and you alone. T'was ever thus, and even if someone
does such inadvertantly or in an instance, that's not the same as it
being a regular part of their repetoire, as it clearly is part of
yours.

Okay, here comes your latest bit of disingenous bull***, and like I
said, it's a doozy. It is a clearcut example of what I don't like
about you.

Over the years, Bob was easiliy the most night in night out consistent
guy on the stage.

Fred

You say that as if its a fact, but I see no evidence of its truth. How
many nights did Bob fiddle around with his equipment for a portion of a
show OR was inaudible OR sang without any energy? I see no less or more
consistency than the other band members. They all had varying good or
bad nights. You can keep insisting there's a huge difference between
the rest, but that's not going to make your statement true.

Nope, it's not going to make my statement true because, well, *I* said
it, and you'd much rather "win" than get hung up on static notions of
right and wrong. I say over the years, Bob's the most night in night
out consistent guy on stage and you say you see no evidence of its
truth and you see no more consistency than with the other guys. That,
in the trade, is known as a blanket refutation. No evidence, ergo
invalid opinion.

So Edwin pops up and says:

OK, we're talking about one of the most inconsistent bands of the 20th
century, but I have to say that from my not necessarily completely
objective perspective Bob was the most consistent guy I saw on stage
from 1976 to 1994. Certainly anecdotal evidence points to that they each
did slip here or there, but there are no arguments about listless
drumming, Heineken'd Phil or mentally absent Jerry. I saw all of those
more than once. I did see Bob fiddle, can't recall thinking that he sang
without enthusiasm and as far as being inaudible, that was a complaint
with Healy more than with Bob. The other band members falling down was a
lot more apparent and embarrassing to me than anything Bob ever did.

So, Edwin holds the same opinion I do: Bob was the most consistent guy
over the years. You saw no evidence of my opinion being true, and
listed reasons why you thought it wasn't true.

[Please, do not now try and say what you meant by "I see no evidence
of its truth" was that I didn't back it up, hence you didn't see *me*
provide any evidence. That's clearly not what you meant, given the
rest of your statement, but you will try anything to get out of your
bull*** when it's exposed, so I'm heading you off at the pass.]

Your response to Edwin:

Hey, I wasn't arguing with you Edwin. It's a completely valid opinion.
We all saw different shows in different years. I'm just pointing out
that I saw some real Bob stinkers in my time (I should add that I wasn't
the only one who held that opinion within my peer group). It was never
my intention to refute what you said though. I was just giving my own
perspective. Unlike Fred, I don't see every opinion tossed out as
reason to commence a battle.

So, someone you oppose says something, you flatyly refute it, saying
there is no evidence. No qualifier about seeing shows from different
years, but only,"I see no evidence of its truth."

Someone you don't oppose says the very same thing, and lo and behold,
it is then magically transformed into "a perfectly valid opinion" and
you are just offering your own perspective.

Classic JC disingenuous bull***. At least you are consistent in
that.

Fred

.

Loading