Consensus on Pianistimo

[tds]

this fastest growing thread needs to stop now!! and we should all live in peace. and pianistimo stays here. final command!

[jre58591]

i have kept quiet long enough...

tell me, tds. what do you find so attractive about pianistimo? do you enjoy her constant religious rants? or the fact that she is an older woman that spends a LOT of her time on a piano forum (her post count is a great example)? i, personally, have almost had enough with her religious rants. her rash comments on homosexuality, even though i am straight, have only brought me closer to the last straw.

[prometheus]

I acknowledge that I have not read the bible from cover to cover.

Then ask her for a bible passage that condemns incest or pedophilia.

[pita bread]

If I went around calling black people "n*ggers" and saying that "Jews got what they deserved in the holocaust," I would just be making myself look like a flaming douchebag.

So what difference does it make that Pianistimo is brutally condemning gays in today's gay-aware and gay-tolerant society? She's only making herself look like an idiot.

[ahinton]

You did and here is the thread to prove it.

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,22297.0.html

Post of 17/12/06 at 11.07pm

Thal

In addition to that, in an earlier post on the same day, "pianistimo" wrote
"aids is a real disease. you are more likely to die of it than a christian killing you.  but, this is a 'personal choice' nowdays.  it is also legal in one state now in the usa, if i heard correctly."

I have to say that anyone who writes that AIDS is on the one hand a matter of "personal choice", on the other hand it's more potentially lethal than being killed by a Christian and on the third hand (Godowsky didn't have it, did he?!) one of the states in her country has "legalised" it. Excuse me?...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

My reservations were not thought as a reaction to your considered arguments, Alistair, but to the reason, why this discussion was reopened by soliloquy. I can't see any.

As I indicated, I am not at all in favour of "pianistimo" being banned from this forum, but "soliloquy" opened (not re-opened) this particular discussion by railing against the remarks that "pianistimo" had made in another thread at which he took understandable offence. I would not have responded to it in quite the same terms as "soliloquy" did in that other thread, but the promotion of the idea that "homosexuality is evil" - especially by people who cite the Bible in its supposed defence - is inevitably going to cause offence among homosexuals, so I nevertheless made my own views on it clear (or at least I hope I did); it is as demeaning to have this attitude expressed on this forum as it would be if the victims were Jews, Afro-Caribbeans or even Christians! Did "soliloquy" claim that heterosexuality is "evil". No. Does he have a problem with heterosexuality in others? I have no evidence of it.

We've aired our views - now, as the famous compatriot of "pianistimo" who wrote
"The things that you're li'ble
To read in the Bible
It ain't neessarily so"
wrote elsewhere,
"Let's call the whole thing off!".

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

yes. homosexuality - not homosexuals.  there is a difference.  i am not a judge of persons - but i can distinguish a sin.

Ah, now I see what you mean; homosexuals who do not practice homosexuality are not evil. Had you dispensed this uinque logic earlier, some of us might have understood your remarks on this better...

God can be merciful to any sinner he chooses.  why would He discriminate.

What's the difference in practice between "choosing" and "discriminating"?

sin grieves Him.

Not as much as it grieves me when you keep writing about it!

Anyway, you've not responded to this particular sinner's question as to whether I should repent for all the sins that I have committed to paper in the form of musical composition, nor the more specific one as to whether I've made it even worse by setting the words of two atheists - speaking of one of whom, which, in your mind, is the more heinous sinner? - Delius for his atheism or Barber for his homosexuality? Please simply answer either "Delius" or "Barber"...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

do you know why i think  homosexuality is more open today and more accepted.  because father figures don't exist that much anymore.  i mean genetic fathers.  how many of you on this forum have a close relationship (not sexual - but just a close father to son) with your Dad's?  one where you can talk about anything and you do stuff together a lot?

I had absolutely less than none with mine, yet I am not a homosexual, nor have I ever felt any personal leanings towards homosexuality. That such an argument is therefore specious in my case seems to me to be suggestive that it is equally so in many others.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

this fastest growing thread


needs to stop now!! and we


should all  live in peace.


and pianistimo stays here.


final command!

Using a large point size does not lend any weight to your point. As I have said, I'm not in favour of having "pianistimo" banned here, but then at the same time I'm not in favour of the kind of God-banging, sin-obsessed, anti-homosexual ranting of which we have surely all enountered far more than we would like to read here on a PIANO FORUM (for all that it appears mainly in its "Anything but Piano" section); if some people aren't careful, we may all find that Nils eventually decides to ban not "pianistimo" but the "Anything but Piano" thread...

As I have stated, I am neither a Christian nor a homosexual, so some may have cause to suppose that my authority on Christianity and same-sex relationships may be less than it would be if I were a homosexual Christian, but I stick to what I wrote earlier - that I can quite easily envisage Jesus Christ taking "pianistimo" to task - kindly but firmly - for her intolerant and bigoted expression in the name of Christian conduct.

Now - no offence to "soliloquy" who initiated this thread - but Ithink that we now have ample evidence of what peope here think of all this, so can we now wrap it up and move forward to something else? Since "soliloquy" DID start this thread, perhaps he might like to preside over its winding-up on the basis of the views expressed in it...

Best,

Alistair

[counterpoint]

this fastest growing thread


needs to stop now!! and we


should all  live in peace.


and pianistimo stays here.


final command!

I wanted to underline this. We can't change pianistimo in her "religious" beliefs, but apart from these beliefs she is a really nice person. She is as she is. Btw. there are many people in real life, who are thinking like that, and that's much worse than reading  crazy stories about a peaceful god, who will kill almost everyone on earth in a internet forum  

[ahinton]

this fastest growing thread needs to stop now!! and we should all live in peace. and pianistimo stays here. final command!

I had thought that who stays and who goes is Nils's decision...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Oh, yes - Susan, when I reminded you that you'd avoided replying (or perhaps just forgotten to reply) to my questions about this sinner's music, I omitted to remind you that you have likewise omitted to respond to my question about whether I am also a sinner because I have not participated in a procreation exercise as God intends; perhaps you could give that some thought when you have a moment and then let me know your take on these matters.

Now, on a somewhat nrelated subject - and I admit to reopening an issue that has been part of the discussion here even though I recommended closure on it, so please all forgive me that extra little sin - whilst I accept the term "gay" as a label for homosexuals because it is in general use, I do not especially care for it; I agree that it has the advantage of four syllables less than "homosexual" has, yet "gay" still has another and much more long-standing meaning quite unrelated to homosexuality whereas "homosexual" doesn't. I really do deprecate the term "faggot" and its abbreviation "fag" in this context and am rather surprised to see it used by a homosexual, given that it is generally thought of as a pejorative when so used; "faggot" has at least two other unrelated meanings as well - or at least they're unrelated other than in the context of a homosexual bassoonist making meatballs. The only problem with the term "homosexual" (apart from its length) seems to be that it has become generally understood to signify a male homosexual rather than a homosexual of either sex. We haver the term "lesbian", of course and we all know that this signifies a female homosexual, so perhaps it might be better for general understanding if one used the term "homosexual" only for male ones and continue to use "lesbian" for female ones. This, however, would create the problem of what group term to use for homosexuals of both sexes and it occurs to me that the one which Sorabji once quoted (although I cannot now recollect the source) - "unisexual".

Whether or not we should consider a possible need for yet another term to describe those who engage in any kind of sexual activity while posting in internet fora is quite another matter - and, although I am a peaceable person by nature, if anyone suggests "pianistimosexual" I'll shoot them personally!...

Best,

Alistair

[dnephi]

The claw is our master.  The claw chooses who will go and who will stay.

[ada]

Now, on a somewhat nrelated subject - and I admit to reopening an issue that has been part of the discussion here even though I recommended closure on it, so please all forgive me that extra little sin - whilst I accept the term "gay" as a label for homosexuals because it is in general use, I do not especially care for it; I agree that it has the advantage of four syllables less than "homosexual" has, yet "gay" still has another and much more long-standing meaning quite unrelated to homosexuality whereas "homosexual" doesn't. I really do deprecate the term "faggot" and its abbreviation "fag" in this context and am rather surprised to see it used by a homosexual, given that it is generally thought of as a pejorative when so used; "faggot" has at least two other unrelated meanings as well - or at least they're unrelated other than in the context of a homosexual bassoonist making meatballs. The only problem with the term "homosexual" (apart from its length) seems to be that it has become generally understood to signify a male homosexual rather than a homosexual of either sex. We haver the term "lesbian", of course and we all know that this signifies a female homosexual, so perhaps it might be better for general understanding if one used the term "homosexual" only for male ones and continue to use "lesbian" for female ones. This, however, would create the problem of what group term to use for homosexuals of both sexes and it occurs to me that the one which Sorabji once quoted (although I cannot now recollect the source) - "unisexual".

Best,

Alistair

Alistair, when I used the term faggot I was attempting to reflect the position of previous posters in terms of their attitudes towards gays. I was like, trying to be ironic. Also, cultural nuances may  make the term less offensive in some parts of the world than others.

It was also an oblique reference to the  American (of course, where else?) evangelical preacher who has a website called godhatesfaggots.com, of which some of the previous posters are apparently paid up members.

Hope this clarifies things 

[soliloquy]

Alistair, when I used the term faggot I was attempting to reflect the position of previous posters in terms of their attitudes towards gays. I was like, trying to be ironic. Also, cultural nuances may  make the term less offensive in some parts of the world than others.

It was also an oblique reference to the  American (of course, where else?) evangelical preacher who has a website called godhatesfaggots.com, of which some of the previous posters are apparently paid up members.

Hope this clarifies things 

HOW DARE YOU!  ahahaha jk

I used "fag" and "faggot" too to illustrate the amount of pure hate spewing from pianistimo's mouth.

[ahinton]

Alistair, when I used the term faggot I was attempting to reflect the position of previous posters in terms of their attitudes towards gays. I was like, trying to be ironic. Also, cultural nuances may  make the term less offensive in some parts of the world than others.

It was also an oblique reference to the  American (of course, where else?) evangelical preacher who has a website called godhatesfaggots.com, of which some of the previous posters are apparently paid up members.

Hope this clarifies things 

Yes, chère "ada", it does indeed. I'm about to reply also to "soliloquy" about this, especially since my concern about the use of that term was rather more directed to him than to you, but I do very much appreciate your input here; I did not know about that delightfully-named website that you mention and, in my sheer incredulity, I did attempt to open it to see what it was that you were writing about, but it would not open (which fact is less than a matter of dismay to me, believe me!).

I daresay that "pianistimo" may have made faggots before, but I am not aware that she is a closet bassoonist...

Best,

Alistair

[dnephi]

Potato Chips.

[ahinton]

HOW DARE YOU!  ahahaha jk

I used "fag" and "faggot" too to illustrate the amount of pure hate spewing from pianistimo's mouth.

I'm sure that you did, just as I'm sure that you knew what I thought and think about this. That said, I honestly do not think that it is "hate" as such that spews from her mouth but sheer carelessness (in the literal sense) born of the most appalling closed-minded bigotry; I really do not believe that Susan actually spews "hate" per se, for all that I find some of her sentiments as unacceptable as they are unbelievable.

I think that we understand one another here. The one thing on which I do agree with Susan here is the extent of far too many people's sexual prurience towards others whose affairs are absolutely none of their goddam' business; where she and I do not concur, however, is that she seems bent on moralising about such matters whereas I merely observe, consider and try to learn something of value.

Now I'm off to write a nice, pretty and fraternally-inspired trio for bassoon, banjo and piano that you, Thal and Susan can play together HEY, STOP THROWING YOUR BOOZY 290 AT ME 'CAUSE THAT HURTS!...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Potato Chips.

Er - OK, so since this is neither of the word association threads on this forum, would you please care to enlighten us all as to the identity of the person upon whose shoulders you believe these "chips" to reside?

Many thanks in advance.

Best,

Alistair

[ada]

Yes, chère "ada", it does indeed. I'm about to reply also to "soliloquy" about this, especially since my concern about the use of that term was rather more directed to him than to you, but I do very much appreciate your input here; I did not know about that delightfully-named website that you mention and, in my sheer incredulity, I did attempt to open it to see what it was that you were writing about, but it would not open (which fact is less than a matter of dismay to me, believe me!).


Best,

Alistair

ah i think it has been taken off ... but the delightful character in question is Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church, look him up as a lesson of the direction in which p&p are taking us.

Like them, he too takes a literal translation of god's word on those nasty gays.

Inexplicably, he also hates Norwegians. His website godhatesnorwegians.com may still be there if it hasn't also been expunged.

And now, I am just about to issue a story about the proliferation of hate websites on the internet, true!

[thalbergmad]

Sister Susan, the preacher from Pa has been silent for a while.

She will talk privately to the Holy Spirit to seek guidance.

Thal

[ahinton]

ah i think it has been taken off ... but the delightful character in question is Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church, look him up as a lesson of the direction in which p&p are taking us.

I'd really rather not, escpecially since the "p&p" (an expresion meaning "postage and packing" in UK, by the way) are not "taking me anywhere any time...

Like them, he too takes a literal translation of god's word on those nasty gays.

So there's no helps for Phelps, then.

Inexplicably, he also hates Norwegians. His website godhatesnorwegians.com may still be there if it hasn't also been expunged.

"Mephisto" won't like that, for sure! And anyway, that's not there either. Are you winding us up, "ada"?! Just show us the www.godandnzilindershateastraaaalians.com and we might just begin to believe ya!

G'naaght, "a"!

Best,

A

[pianowolfi]

Absolutely off topic: Piano. 

[ada]

Absolutely off topic: Piano. 

do not be so frivolous wolfi, this is a serious discussion 

[pianowolfi]

do not be so frivolous wolfi, this is a serious discussion 

Well at least better than "potatoe chips". Though perhaps it would be worth to research about the positive effect of latter's on piano playing. 

( I apologize, my silliness today is the result of SERIOUS work, like so often, now go on with the serious discussion )

[gonzalo]

Question to moderator: In the end, is pianistimo going to be banned?

[ahinton]

do not be so frivolous wolfi, this is a serious discussion 

I hope you realise that God does not approve of people deliberately going - still less staying - off topic on Pianoforum...

Anyway, to return to the topic (or at least an anagrammatical interpretation thereof), "Susan cops emotion in sin".

Hmmm. Serious discussion, as you rightly say...

Best,

Anagramistair

[pianistimo]

am i supposed to apologize now to everyone for believing what i do?  i'm not forcing anyone to hold my views.  but, when i am asked - am i then subjected to apologizing because i think.  i don't just take the public consensus?  are we supposed to live in consensus now?  is this for real?

give me a break while i think about leaving on my own terms.  just remember - everybody gets a turn at talking with God sometime.  better to talk now than later.  and, the amount of teasing christians get is WAYYYYY more than what i give to anyone doubting the veracity of the bible.  well, at least equal to.

and, alistair - i don't quite know what to say about your music because i've never heard it.  does that make me a lawyer?  i think you are very generous.  in any case, i'd probably sit down to dinner with all of you - excepting unless soliloquy was going to poison my drink or something.  in that case, i'd just not eat or drink.  just smile.  maybe sneak a potato chip if everyone wasn't avoiding them.  and, i'll keep holding my purse in front of me just in case thal decides to knock me off the chair with a sudden move or something.  i'm very fragile but my purse is not.  it has things in it that could kill a man if he tried anything.  i mean - things like popsicle sticks, art projects, stuff  like that.

[ahinton]

am i supposed to apologize now to everyone for believing what i do?

No, but I do think that people will appreciate it if you make at least some effort to extend the arm of apology for having upset and annoyed some people by certain bigoted views that you have expressed about sin, who will or will not be entitled to "enter the kingdom of God", homosexuality, etc. and by your incessant resorting to Biblical reference which is at times wearing even to some Christians here but not at all considerate to those members who happen to be atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Muslims, etc. - but then I think that this is what you are doing, so that's fine.

i'm not forcing anyone to hold my views.

No, I know that, but you have often forced your views on people even if you have done so without intending or expecting to "convert" them to your ways of thinking.

but, when i am asked

Most of your comments as described above have NOT arisen from your being asked about anything to do with them; that has happened only rarely.

am i then subjected to apologizing because i think.

I believe that some people here might prefer you to apologise for those occasions on which you DON'T think, preferring instead to cite the Bible as though, just because it happens to be there to cite, that saves you the trouble of having to think for yourself.

i don't just take the public consensus?  are we supposed to live in consensus now?  is this for real?

I have suggested no such thing, nor do I advocate it.

give me a break while i think about leaving on my own terms.

Leaving what, or whom? This forum? I'm not advocating that you leave this forum. Indeed I'd rather you apologise as indeed you have already done and remain a member here.

just remember - everybody gets a turn at talking with God sometime.  better to talk now than later.

PLEASE stop this, Susan; it is a typical example of the problems that we've been examining here. We don't / can't all "talk with God", nor He with us - or, if I'm wrong about that, I must be absolutely stone deaf, because I can't hear Him speaking to me (yet if I were truly so deaf, how come I can nevertheless hear music inside me that I then write down?).

and, the amount of teasing christians get is WAYYYYY more than what i give to anyone doubting the veracity of the bible.  well, at least equal to.

Christians don't ever get any teasing from me (well, not any malicious teasing, anyway) - at least not for their Christianity.

and, alistair - i don't quite know what to say about your music because i've never heard it.  does that make me a lawyer?

Why on earth would it do that? A Harvard Law School degree and a desire to practice law rather than the piano might make you one, but not having listened to any of my music (yet!) could do nothing of the sort. Or do you mean that your reluctance to write about it without having heard it first is indicative of a lawyer's kind of response? I'd say that that was more of an honest and sensible response than a lawyer's one...

i think you are very generous.  in any case, i'd probably sit down to dinner with all of you - excepting unless soliloquy was going to poison my drink or something.  in that case, i'd just not eat or drink.

I'm sure that no one would seek to poison you on such an occasion! Perhaps we could all dine on five loaves and two fish and you could turn the water into wine (just kidding!), but we'd almost certainly all be better off sampling the creations of Chef Susanne.

Oh, by the way, while on the subject of "creations", you still haven't answered my question about whether I have sinned by not participating in procreation "as God intended" (though maybe you should respond to that one in a PM)...

just smile.  maybe sneak a potato chip if everyone wasn't avoiding them.  and, i'll keep holding my purse in front of me just in case thal decides to knock me off the chair with a sudden move or something.  i'm very fragile but my purse is not.  it has things in it that could kill a man if he tried anything.  i mean - things like popsicle sticks, art projects, stuff  like that.

I am equally sure that no one would attempt common assualt on you on such an occasion either! - not even Thal, for all that he occasionally presents himself as being to gallantry what President George non Washington is to Iranian fundamentalist clerics...

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

It is interesting that on most biblical issues we might consider any fundamentalist  silly, misguided or even deluded, but when homosexuality arises the emotions do as well.

There is no "sin" mentioned in the bible that inspires the loathing, discrimination, and yes violence that this one does from the more conservative believer.  Yet it is not particularly singled out biblically; there is nothing in scriptures that would result in this reaction.  So why does this happen?  One can only suspect the reaction comes first, and the scriptures are searched for justification later. 

It is not clear to me that homosexuality as an orientation per se was known to the writers of Old or New Testaments.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any unambiguous reference.  Is it possible it did not exist?  This seems unlikely, given the modern 5 - 10% incidence, but perhaps in that limited genetic pool it was more rare.  Clearly homosexual acts by heteros were well known and considered deviant.  See Paul in Corinthians, e.g., or the Baal temple taboos in Leviticus.   

And yet, there are those three very intriguing, very very close same sex relationships in the OT, which were not condemned but held up as examples.  While they were not explicitly sexual, in two of the three cases it is almost impossible there was not a sexual component.  You know who I'm talking about, I'm sure. 

In this light, it is quite possible to read the bible as condemning sexual licentiousness of all kinds, hetero and homo, but supporting committed godly relationships both same and opposite sex. 

pianistimmo would be unable to consider that possibility, and that is truly sad.  It is a glaring blind spot in an otherwise kindly person.   

[ahinton]

It is interesting that on most biblical issues we might consider any fundamentalist  silly, misguided or even deluded, but when homosexuality arises the emotions do as well.

There is no "sin" mentioned in the bible that inspires the loathing, discrimination, and yes violence that this one does from the more conservative believer.  Yet it is not particularly singled out biblically; there is nothing in scriptures that would result in this reaction.  So why does this happen?  One can only suspect the reaction comes first, and the scriptures are searched for justification later. 

It is not clear to me that homosexuality as an orientation per se was known to the writers of Old or New Testaments.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any unambiguous reference.  Is it possible it did not exist?  This seems unlikely, given the modern 5 - 10% incidence, but perhaps in that limited genetic pool it was more rare.  Clearly homosexual acts by heteros were well known and considered deviant.  See Paul in Corinthians, e.g., or the Baal temple taboos in Leviticus.   

And yet, there are those three very intriguing, very very close same sex relationships in the OT, which were not condemned but held up as examples.  While they were not explicitly sexual, in two of the three cases it is almost impossible there was not a sexual component.  You know who I'm talking about, I'm sure. 

In this light, it is quite possible to read the bible as condemning sexual licentiousness of all kinds, hetero and homo, but supporting committed godly relationships both same and opposite sex. 

I think that you make a good deal of sense here.

pianistimmo would be unable to consider that possibility, and that is truly sad.  It is a glaring blind spot in an otherwise kindly person.   

Let's just wait and see if she now does so, in her own time. In the meantime, there is the issue of bisexuality which has been largely absent from these discussions so far. If we accept your interpretative premise above that the Bible condemns sexual licentiousness but supports "committed godly relationships [between] both same and opposite sex [couples]", this would presumably mean that monogamy is OK but non-monogamy is not and that bisexual practices would thus still be subject to condemnation except in very rare cases when someone who is bisexual nevertheless has only one partner of either sex at any one time. What would you (or anyone else) say about that?

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

if there is a place in the bible that states that david and jonathan had this type of relationship - i would be surprised.  david was a 'man after God's own heart.'  that means, he knew the law (the law of moses) wherein homosexuality was pointedly a sin.  why would he do this with jonathan?  there is no mention of it.  in the middle east it is common for men friends to kiss one another on the cheek.  this is a far cry from sexual interaction or kissing on the mouth.  i don't believe it.

also, i am positive Jesus Christ was not 'gay' with his disciples.  sure, he wasn't married.  but, that doesn't mean he was 'gay.'  why would he break HIS OWN LAWS? 

the only thing i can figure is that paul mentions that he had 'a thorn in the flesh.'  a sin - or something that he had a very difficult time with.  now, you all know that paul was a persecutor of the christians before conversion.  he had actually helped to murder stephen - and witnessed his death.  now, after conversion - he SEES - that giving up 'the fleshly desires' is more advantageous than fulfilling them.  why?  because he finally sees that God is omnipotent through the things that paul begins to suffer.

the christian life is not an easy one.  you can't just keep doing whatever you like and consider yourself a saint.  it is a difficult road.  Jesus said that 'not one jot or title shall pass from the law until ALL is fulfilled.'  and, He himself kept the law entirely.  an entirely perfect being.  we cannot possibly do this - but we at least attempt - in the spirit of the law - to keep from sinning.  if homosexuality is a sin - (and it is mentioned in leviticus to be a sin - if a man lies with a man like a woman) - then it is something among MANY SINS that is to be taken seriously.

am i wrong to state my literal reading of the bible?  that's what it says.  you can change it to say anything you want.  you can get angry.  but, what i would suggest is that you do away with the urtext altogether and not believe the bible at all.  that is better than changing words.  there are dangerous words in revelations 22:18 'i testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book (where 22:15 says 'outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying) 'if anyone adds to them (God's word) -God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.'

so, you see - it is much better that you either read and believe the bible - or NOT read it and misinterpret it to others.  simply to disbelieve that it is true at all and not to believe it.

'

[soliloquy]

Here is pianistimo's entire argument to vindicate her disgusting actions:

'if you don't want to know the answer- don't ask the question'


It's now her signature.



Susan, go into this thread, and show me where anyone asked what your views on homosexuality was, before you started talking about it.

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,23748.0.html


You're not going to find it.  Nobody asked you, nobody wanted to hear your opinion.  You are delusional, and the only possible explanation that you have for your actions I have just shown you is complete bull.  Maybe you should think about that.  And if you thought someone asked you for your opinion, maybe you should think about seeing a psychiatrist for your narcissism.

[gilad]

solioquy. Go and write in your diary. This is getting very old. You have crossed the line. You have taken personal swipes. stop it already. Have some decency. This is a music forum, stop the disharmony. I say ban soliloquy if he does not shut it. BAN HIM.

[prometheus]

Funny how you typed 'solioguy' rather than 'Pianistimo'.


If the code of conduct were enforced then Pianistimo would have been banned.

[gilad]

prometheus my good fellow. Maybe that is so. But two wrongs dont equal a right. And while the topic of discussin about banning forum members has been opened by the ever so humble and mannerly Soliloquy, I am saying that he has not monitored his own behavioural output, or thinks that he is exempt from the rule of consensus about what equates with offensive and disorderly conduct.
He is on an ego trip and truly his tendencies towards maliciously driving his point home are bothersome and foul mouthed. What makes it worse for him is that he is not quoting from the bible or some such writing. He is on his own volition striking out in a detestable manner that warrants censure if he can not do so himself. He obviously enjoys a dual and feels he is top dog. He certainly is acting like a dog, I'll give him that.

[pianistimo]

thal asked me if homosexuals were evil.  i said no.  homosexuality was a sin.  then, someone else asks me what i think about lesbians.  here is what the bible says:

romans 1:26 'for this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the women and burned in their desire toward one another, men comitting indecent acts and receiving  in their own persons the due penalty of their error.  and just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not proper.'

explain that if you believe the bible!  that is  my question to you, timothy42b.

[gilad]

And perhaps pianistimo should have her own bible thread and give up posting bible quotes. Can we work together on this people? Yu have a raging fire going on here. Stop feeding it, stop fanning it.

[thalbergmad]

thal asked me if homosexuals were evil.  i said no.  homosexuality was a sin. 

You seem to keep forgetting what you in fact said.

Do i need to post the link again?

Thal

[soliloquy]

solioquy.

Don't know him/her.  You mean "soliloquy"?  I didn't think it would be quite so hard to spell with it sitting right in front of your face.

Go and write in your diary.

I wish I had one.  Would you please buy me one?

This is getting very old.

I agree fully.  But I'm not going to simply stand silent while pianistimo continues to go on and try to defend herself with, well, no other word for it than lies.

You have crossed the line. You have taken personal swipes.

Ok.  Go burn in hell.  Go die.  Not a swipe, you're just not loving your neighbor enough.  That's a sin you know.

This is a music forum, stop the disharmony.

This is the OFF-TOPIC forum.  Forum topic: piano.  Off-topic: everything else.  Please just stop talking.

I say ban soliloquy if he does not shut it. BAN HIM.

Why shouldn't we ban pianistimo?  She's being quite a bit more active than I am at this point.  Oh I see, the bias.  Hey how bout this: go *** yourself sideways with your dog's *** you ****-pregnant dog while I slap your mother around with mine, f*ggot **** face.  Now, if you defend yourself, you're banned.  Sound fair?

He is on an ego trip and truly his tendencies towards maliciously driving his point home are bothersome and foul mouthed.

I am not on an ego trip, I am simply very offended.  Believe me, if I was better friends with nils, the vocabulary I would be using throughout this little ordeal would be quite a bit more vivid.  What would you prefer I do after having my entire lifestyle bashed, then having that bashing defended by falsehoods?  Say please more ma'am and thank you too?  If someone wants to be an idiot, then they shouldn't have to get lil gilad to come to the rescue when someone calls them what they are.  Also, I think you're probably just embarrassing pianistimo.

What makes it worse for him is that he is not quoting from the bible or some such writing.

And there it is   So pianistimo saying what she did is ok because it comes out of the bible.  Gays should go to hell and die of AIDS; you insinuate that you agree with this stance because she is "quoting from the bible" which I am not, and you are saying that that is the reason I am not creditable, ergo if I WERE quoting from the bible I would be, and since she is, homosexuals are evil in your mind.  Way to join the bigot bandwagon.  You're in real good company.

He is on his own volition striking out in a detestable manner that warrants censure if he can not do so himself.

Whose volition exactly would I be on other than my own?  Yours?  Thal's?  Comme's?  The Gay League's?  I don't know if they're interested in taking the case on at the moment.

He obviously enjoys a dual and feels he is top dog. He certainly is acting like a dog, I'll give him that.

They're only fun with Alistair and max; with people who simply repeat themselves ver batim, ignore all logic, refuse to actually comment on any points the other person is making and simply continue to fine-tune their inane argument on a single point that the other person has already proven to be false just gets tiresome.  This isn't about some duel; it's about how I don't think bigotry should simply be "looked over" on this forum.  Like someone else said, if it was pro-Nazi anti-Semitism, I'm sure she would be banned by now, and I, along with most of civilization, consider it the same.

[maul]

Hey now, Pianistimo is just a representation of the majority of humans. Stupid. It's not her fault. Added to the fact that her gene pool is simply a filthy encrusted mass located at the bottom of the barrel, her existance has been mixed with the toxic sludge we call religion. Brainwashed so to speak. What do I suggest? A nice and gentle shock treatment. Hell, it definitely can't make anything worse.

[pianistimo]

a nice and gentle shock treatment?  and what might that be.  taking my bible away.  give me back my bible!  i daresay that i cannot live without it - and i think that some of you may be inclined not to live without your cheerios either.  in anycase - alistair is in good company because Jesus Christ didn't marry and neither was he gay.  hope that answers the very last question.

ok.  i am off to practice the piano.

excepting that i have one last word to say...and that is (shhhh)  i have friends that i really don't know if they 'are or aren't' - but couldn't care less.  does that make you happy.

what i do think is IF they asked me - i would tell them.  there are probably several couples in my neighborhood that might be gay - two guys and another house two ladies.  i really don't know and don't care and treat them just the same as any other neighbor.  personal and  private matters are just that -and at least i agree with several people on the forum that one's personal matters aren't anybody else's business.

[gilad]

Soliloquy, please, I have bad eyes. no need to knock me for a spelling error. I dont care for spelling on the internet anyway.
I am not defending pianistimo. I am simply telling you, that your apparently emotional reaction is overwhelming and unproductive.
I dont care for the bible, my closest friend is homosexual, I didnt really read much of what you said in your response to me above because it is almost 99% emotional and 1% logical.
I have nothing against your contention, I just strongly think you have gone about this in an undesirable way. On the other hand if someone quoted the protocols of the elders of zion or mein kampf to express their opnion on jews i might also have gotten emotional and a little psycho.
I personally believe that in conversation there are two major issues that should never rear their head, politics and religion.
Sorry if i grated you soliloquy. I can now see where you're coming from.
apologies on what i said.
Please relax though for your own well being, being upset and anxious about stuff is no good for anyone.

[ahinton]

Why shouldn't we ban pianistimo?  She's being quite a bit more active than I am at this point.  Oh I see, the bias.  Hey how bout this: go *** yourself sideways with your dog's *** you ****-pregnant dog while I slap your mother around with mine, f*ggot **** face.  Now, if you defend yourself, you're banned.  Sound fair?

Sounds all pretty unpleasant to me. You know my views on the subject matter and you have read what I have written about "pianistimo"'s remarks. I am not about to repeat it.

I am not on an ego trip, I am simply very offended.  Believe me, if I was better friends with nils, the vocabulary I would be using throughout this little ordeal would be quite a bit more vivid.  What would you prefer I do after having my entire lifestyle bashed, then having that bashing defended by falsehoods?  Say please more ma'am and thank you too?  If someone wants to be an idiot, then they shouldn't have to get lil gilad to come to the rescue when someone calls them what they are.  Also, I think you're probably just embarrassing pianistimo.

I am not being unsympathetic towards you because I fully understand why you would be and have been offended, but please do try to remember that it is not just your lifestyle that may have been "bashed" by the comments about homosexuality being "evil" (which notion, as you know, I reject unequivocally), but that of all homosexuals; that's not a defence - indeed, it makes it all worse still. Make your point, please, as you have - and we'll listen and understand - but try not to protest TOO much...

And there it is   So pianistimo saying what she did is ok because it comes out of the bible.  Gays should go to hell and die of AIDS; you insinuate that you agree with this stance because she is "quoting from the bible" which I am not, and you are saying that that is the reason I am not creditable, ergo if I WERE quoting from the bible I would be, and since she is, homosexuals are evil in your mind.  Way to join the bigot bandwagon.  You're in real good company.

I know that you are not addressing this to me, but let's get this straight (sorry!) once and for all. P has recanted a certain amount of what she wrote (although I don't recall her having actually written in so many words that "Gays should go to hell and die of AIDS"); please try to accept that. She has stated, at last, that other people's private sexual lifestyles and orientations are none of her business (ergo also none of yours, mine or anyone else's). Please let's leave it at that. It's a fact. Homosexuality is "unnatural" to me, but only because I am not a homosexual; I accept without question that it IS natural to homosexuals and I have no problem with that, nor have I ever done so as far back as I can remember. No homosexual has ever chided me for not being one, either.

Whose volition exactly would I be on other than my own?  Yours?  Thal's?  Comme's?  The Gay League's?  I don't know if they're interested in taking the case on at the moment.

They're only fun with Alistair and max; with people who simply repeat themselves ver batim, ignore all logic, refuse to actually comment on any points the other person is making and simply continue to fine-tune their inane argument on a single point that the other person has already proven to be false just gets tiresome.

Although I admit that I have on occasion tried to induce abit of humour into these proceedings, believe me when I tell you that I do not find much of this at all "fun"ny. I hope that my various posts on the subject also make that clear. It's a serious subject and focuses on some of the worst aspects of human intolerance and bigotry, as you rightly observe; you have focussed here on that kind of attitude as you have witnessed it springing from what seems to be a Christian fundamentalist standpoint yet, as another contributor has rightly observed, this kind of offensive bigotry is by no means confined to Christian fundamentalists or any other kind of religious fundamentalist - it is all too rife in many places and persuasions.

This isn't about some duel; it's about how I don't think bigotry should simply be "looked over" on this forum.  Like someone else said, if it was pro-Nazi anti-Semitism, I'm sure she would be banned by now, and I, along with most of civilization, consider it the same.

Yes, indeed, but please let us not get so hung up on "she" if "she" is now prepared to stop and think about what "she" has written and the effect that it has had; maybe in time her contemplations on this may temper her expressions. As a matter of fact, I think that she may already have  begun to pull herself up on this, up to a point, although the extent to which this may takes general effect here is something that only time will tell (and I am not being patronising to anyone in so saying). She has written things that I simply cannot accept and which I have described openly as being unChristian. You have been exceedingly abrasive in your responses. I understand some of both of these things. If she can try to reconsider her emphases and notions, I hope that you can likewise ease off and consider the possibility of trying to forgive - or at least to be patient and watch what may happen on the sidelines. We make mistakes, us humans. We all do. Heaven knows (sorry - shouldn't have mentioned heaven!), "I've made heaps" (as the silly woman in Bolcom's cabaret song Lime Jello sings). I do not like mealy-mouthedness, but on the other hand I do not reject the notion that it is possible to rethink, forgive, etc. We all have things to learn. well - I certainly do...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

.

[counterpoint]

Soliloquy, please stop this senseless fight.

There is one single person, who has a somewhat extreme and strange view on gay people. But we are only in an internet forum. How can you be that consternated by some silly statements from a person, you only know from an internet forum?

It seems to me, that you propably have other problems in real life, and you project these problems on pianistimo. That's the only sense, I can make out of your escalating rage.

[ahinton]

do you think it a slight bit hilarious that 'organ virtuoso' is under this thread?

That depends on the circumstances. One might argue that Sorabji, for example, in his three symphonies for the instrument (whose durations require the organist to keep going respectively for two hours, around seven hours and around seven hours again), contributed to the repertoire of the instrument works which are very big, extremely long, incredibly hard and full of immense and intense sensitivity...

Well, you did ask...

Now you know that sinfonias can be as sinful as sin can get...

Best,

A (miserable - or actually not so miserable) sinner...

[rc]

I'm going against my instinct to avoid this ruckus, but since it's still going on, and it's rude to ignore a question...  You asked if I would take such things lightly Soliloquy?

Probably.

It's an internet forum.  I can certainly be offended, but it's silly to let somebody elses opinions bother you this much.  I figure I'd just argue until it becomes useless (it's usually useless to begin with).

Take a step back and try to see this objectively.  Although Pianistimo has the controversial opinions, from here it looks like you're the one making it personal.

I think some could benefit from thicker skin.  Last week there was a few calling Lau a psychopath, this week we have this drama...  Mountains of molehills.

[pianistimo]

.

[sharon_f]

Pianistimo,

I will pray for you.