Re: Rameau's legacy

On May 18, 6:57 am, LJS <ljsche...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sorry for the split post, minor emergency.

I think you are clearly a psychopath. It is not "spinning"; this is my
life we're talking about, not politics.

Cormagh

And this is exactly what I am saying. I give you a very honest
evaluation of what I see in your posts and replies and exactly why I
see it that way and offer you an opportunity to explain how this is
not true and I get a change of subject and nothing related to the
honesty of your statements.

I didn't "change the subject" on you. Anything that is a personal
attack needs only be refuted by observation. You've been exposed in
all these cases.

If I did not consider it important and if I did not consider that you
might be seriously interested in theory, I would not have wasted my
time giving you things to read (like Bloom) and kept "shaving" off so
much of the crap and spinning and diversion tactics throughout this
thread in order to allow you see how your answers are "not quite in
line" with the questions.

You didn't have any valid questions, only disguised insults. You
didn't "shave" off anything. You merely showed that you are a person
without class. Bloom was perhaps the only good thing you did here;
you
apparently don't have much to contribute to this forum, as others
have
pointed out.

music theory is an important part of one's life, then it is important
that one knows what one is saying when they say it and how others hear
and see what they are saying. It is the reason that I came to
newsgroups in the first place. I had been out of the academic loop for
a while and I wanted to see what was going on in the music theory world..

This was about 4 years ago. I have since seen a very wide degree of
serious thought and opinions. I have had many "extended conversations"
with both learned as well as not so learned musicians trying to learn
theory. I have challenged opinions that were just wrong and I have
inquired about things that were a correct or at least a valid opinion
and I have been at odds with many and in agreement with many. You have
not been singled out. I misread who had said what early in this thread
and I have apologized for that and asked you for clarification as to
what you said and what was not your opinion.

I have a different epistemology from many people, and things I
consider beliefs are often what others consider "facts". So I perhaps
feel freer to give my opinion that someone who believes it part of his
life's work to "protect the truth", so to speak. I didn't really have
much of a chance to say anything, thanks to yourself. Just that I
believe in Occam's Razor's general applicability to theory, and I have
a personal dislike for most of Carl Maria von Weber's music. Based on
this, I would say you went a little beserk, not just inquisitive, as
you seem to be implying.

I have stated that I thought you had experience and that you seemed to
have had some sort of musical education. BUT I have also asked for
clarification of several points. Unfortunately, I have not had
straight forward answers to the questions asked and I have seen
several examples of rephrasing comments to suit your opinion, changing
of contexts and answering with unrelated facts, leaving out (yes that
too) information that would have clarified things (the Piano sub-
thread is the MOST obvious)

You deleted stuff, not me. You apologised for it, too. Go back and
check. Perhaps your confused, because you refered to information in
this thread that was in a different topic. This is where you seem
completely incompetent, unable to hold a conversation in context,
simply because you're overly concerned with personality.

and other tactics that are used by trolls.

Ahem. If the shoe fits, wear it...

I had assumed in many cases that you are simply new to returning to
discussion of music theory. In the end, however, if you continue to
use the same techniques of the troll then eventually even I will wear
down and have to think that maybe you are not on the higher road that
I have been giving you credit for traveling.

Its really rather simple. You now come and in the final effort, try to
change the entire subject by claiming that you were only stating the
"razor". I did not say anything about the Razor. The Razor is fine.
You should apply it to your posts and take the time to see what was
essential and what was unrelated. If you had, this discussion would
have been wrapped up long ago. Instead, I followed the Razor and
pinpointed points that seemed to be out of context, etc (see the list
above) and you continued to go down that path.

Regarding theory, I only stated the "razor". Everything else was your
stuff, you sick man. I have not violated Occam's razor, but rather
shown you what a shame you bring to yourself and on the group by your
presence here.

If you are still serious about music theory, then get your act
together. Examine the contexts and try to see what is being said by
others and respond to THAT and not to something else that just pops
into your head. If you are just here to argue and to perpetuate the
argument by changing the subject and diverting attention to side
issues, then fine. I have done all I can do to show you how your posts
and comments come across when I read them.

I responded to everything the poster was saying, I just did it too
succinctly for someone as dimwitted as you to understand. Because you
didn't want to discuss any topics of relevance, and perhaps you can''t
competently discuss them, there was nothing for me to handle here
except to remind you what an ass you were making of yourself. That was
completely in context. There is nothing here where I deverted any
attention to side issues. That was done entirely by you. None of my
ideas "popped" into my head, but were rather reactions to your
stupidities and personal attacks here.

If you don't care about me, that is fine, but if you are serious and
you don't care about the issues that I brought up, then that is your
choice. If you really think that I am the only one that has seen this
in your posts, then you should maybe re-read all the posts by others.
I may be the most blunt, but I certainly have not been alone with
comments related to what I have said. Most of them do not have the
time nor the desire to help you get a perspective of what you seem to
think you have said and what you have really said and to try to get
you to read the posts and reply to what was stated.

These posts you refer to don't exist. Danny Schorr attributed a quote
to me, which may be from a different topic. He responded to you, and
his point was somewhat oblique to me. Perhaps he can find points in
the introductions to all of these books where the writers all
disagreed with me, or you, I don't know. Danny was ambiguous, he
certainly wasn't derogatory like you. The idea that there is a legion
of people out there who have agreed with you is a pure invention of
your sick mind. It's not in this topic.

I have an impression of your being a dishonest poster. I explained why
I thought so and I gave examples. I asked for clarification if I am
mistaken and for something to show how you are trying to be honest
with your opinions. Your answer was that I am a psychopath. Just as in
all the previous examples, you did not address the questions nor did
you provide any relevant information, nor do you care that someone
with my background in theory finds your posts to be as I described.
Just name calling.

That's right. My opinions were honest. Yours are name calling and
maligning. What you are incapable of understanding is that I or no one
owes you any clarification or demonstration of how we are "trying" to
be "honest" with our opinions. The opinions just exist; they have
their own life, they are to be agreed or disagreed with. No one has to
demonstrate an particular "attempts" or "trying" to substantiate them
- and certainly no bully has the right to requite that others need to
do that - regardless of how many years he spent as a troll here.

So, until you address my concerns, I suppose I have to rely on one of
your previous statements: "If I don't reply to your statement, then I
agree with it."  I thought this statement by you was a bit overboard
and ripe for misunderstanding, but since you made it,  I must assume
that you agree with my conclusions.

No, I made the statement about the statements I don't reply to - not
the one's I do reply to, or haven't had the time to reply to. Your
conclusions as usual - are 100% wrong. When I made that statement I
didn't realize you were a psychopath. Why don't you just assume that
every one of my statements is code for the opposite of what is says
from now on?

Personally, I was hoping that I
was wrong. If you change your mind and want to get serious about music
theory, I am always here.

I may or may not be serious about music theory, in the sense that I
wish to innovate, or write my own book, but I will be quite interested
in joining in the discussions on criticism and theory I see here, when
they appear.

Enjoy your life. I wish you the best.

LJS
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 50 Years Ago Today....
    ... honest) look at your motives? ... Your insistence on defining the expression of opinions you disagree with as ... Got under your skin again, ... cut and paste is the minority of my posts, and some of them serve some ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: Rameaus legacy
    ... I give you a very honest ... evaluation of what I see in your posts and replies and exactly why I ... a while and I wanted to see what was going on in the music theory world. ... I have challenged opinions that were just wrong and I have ...
    (rec.music.theory)
  • Re: Am i right in thinking this?
    ... I'll start in saying that i have posted several posts on this board ... > backdoor code so a problem occurs in the program. ... > from the honest one. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.video)
  • Re: Am i right in thinking this?
    ... Printing & Imaging ... I'll start in saying that i have posted several posts on this board ... > from the honest one. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.video)
  • Re: for BMJ and all other parochial lot re moon landing
    ... I spent maybe 1-2 hours using Google to examine a few websites on this subject and in reading your posts and composing my posts. ... landing -but haven't dismissed the landing as a fake. ... I think it is OK to ask for some opinions about anything and those opinions. ... Second, I've read a lot of posts authored by Indians who have no hesitation to taunt and tease all these US guys who lost their jobs and are mad; those Indians are not helping the situation, either. ...
    (sci.research.careers)