anonymous user rant thread

[communist]

In this thread say whatever you want about another but do not say there name. This way we will not spam threads with you arguments.

This user claims that Tausig's ballade "Das Geisterschiff" is unprogrammable for competitions (whatever that means)

This user is obnoxious to everyone except for Ahinton.

[ahinton]

In this thread say whatever you want about another but do not say there name. This way we will not spam threads with you arguments.

This user claims that Tausig's ballade "Das Geisterschiff" is unprogrammable for competitions (whatever that means)

This user is obnoxious to everyone except for Ahinton.

What is that last remark supposed to mean. Of course I do not know which "user" you refer to, but I can assure you and everyone else here that I have never discussed or expressed a view on the Tausig work you mention or of any "user"'s view of it, nor have I ever indicated that anyone here is or is not "obnoxious" to me. You can have no idea whether or not the said "user" is or is not "obnoxious" to "everyone" unless you have sought and received an opinion on the subject from "everyone". You should therefore keep your unfounded opinions to yourself.

In accordance with the anonymity principle enshrined in your thread, you may, if you wish, PM me and identify the "user" of whom you write, just so that I know who you are writing about; however, I will not as a result identify that "user" on this forum.

Best,

Alistair

[communist]

What is that last remark supposed to mean. Of course I do not know which "user" you refer to, but I can assure you and everyone else here that I have never discussed or expressed a view on the Tausig work you mention or of any "user"'s view of it, nor have I ever indicated that anyone here is or is not "obnoxious" to me. You can have no idea whether or not the said "user" is or is not "obnoxious" to "everyone" unless you have sought and received an opinion on the subject from "everyone". You should therefore keep your unfounded opinions to yourself.

In accordance with the anonymity principle enshrined in your thread, you may, if you wish, PM me and identify the "user" of whom you write, just so that I know who you are writing about; however, I will not as a result identify that "user" on this forum.

Best,

Alistair

I have gotten a few opinions (certainly not a majority of the forum), and please do not ask which user i am talking about.

[ahinton]

I have gotten a few opinions (certainly not a majority of the forum), and please do not ask which user i am talking about.

I have not asked you to declare the identity of the "user" on the forum. It sstill makes no sense, since I have never pronounced upon the Tausig work in question (as I mentioned previously), so these "opinions" would appear to count for nothing in any case, especially as we cannot know whose they may be or how many there may be...

Best,

Alistair

[communist]

I have not asked you to declare the identity of the "user" on the forum. It sstill makes no sense, since I have never pronounced upon the Tausig work in question (as I mentioned previously), so these "opinions" would appear to count for nothing in any case, especially as we cannot know whose they may be or how many there may be...

Best,

Alistair

it is one user talking about the Tausig piece and a different one with the second remark. but the point of this thread is to say what you want about any other user with out specifying whom so we won't cut each others throats on other threads.

[argerichfan]

I would be more interested to know -in the opinion of the user- why they think the Tausig Ballade is unprogrammable.  Granted, it's not the greatest piece of music (Tausig seems to be channeling Liszt's 1st Mephisto Waltz), but a top notch performance would certainly impress any jury.

[communist]

I would be more interested to know -in the opinion of the user- why they think the Tausig Ballade is unprogrammable.  Granted, it's not the greatest piece of music (Tausig seems to be channeling Liszt's 1st Mephisto Waltz), but a top notch performance would certainly impress any jury.

Pokeythepenguin

[ahinton]

it is one user talking about the Tausig piece and a different one with the second remark. but the point of this thread is to say what you want about any other user with out specifying whom so we won't cut each others throats on other threads.

That may be so, but since I have never discussed that piece (as I have mentioned twice already), the reference to me in your post is neither relevant nor correct nor in any other sense meaningful, which is why I recommended that you keep your thoughts to yourself.

Best,

Alistair

[general disarray]

This user is obnoxious to everyone except for Ahinton.

I think communist is making a reference to your tolerance of this user, who earlier went by the name that refers to a speech in which an actor talks to himself, and was banned for acute viciousness on this forum.  He returned with a new name -- a reference to a polar creature, and behaved just as poorly. 

And there is yet another poster tolerated by ahinton who was particularly vicious to me and the originator of a thread on statistics and classical music not so long ago.  The poster was savaged in a series of ad hominem attacks that finally drove him to call his attacker, rightfully, a "mad wolf."  The "mad wolf" turned on me, calling me, among other things, a "dumbshit," when I asked ahinton a question regarding what constitutes a typical "French sound" in composition.  ahinton, you may recall, that you remained peculiarly cool regarding the langugage used against me.  As to the original poster who was attacked beyond all civility, you only obliquely called on the attacker not to be rude.  A curiously tepid response.

Both these posters have an interest in modernism.  And they are young, smart, verbal and astonishingly rude and insulting to anyone with very little provocation.  In fact, the former one mentioned, attacked ahinton mercilessly a couple of years ago.  I remember this event simply because ahinton's response to it was one of appeasement instead of indignation.  Regarding this attack, certainly, indignation was called for.

Communist seems to be wondering why you tolerate, at least, this poster he has mentioned.  I wonder that as well, and why you tolerate the second one.

[ahinton]

I think communist is making a reference to your tolerance of this user, who earlier went by the name that refers to a speech in which an actor talks to himself, and was banned for acute viciousness on this forum.  He returned with a new name -- a reference to a polar creature, and behaved just as poorly. 

And there is yet another poster tolerated by ahinton who was particularly vicious to me and the originator of a thread on statistics and classical music not so long ago.  The poster was savaged in a series of ad hominem attacks that finally drove him to call his attacker, rightfully, a "mad wolf."  The "mad wolf" turned on me, calling me, among other things, a "dumbshit," when I asked ahinton a question regarding what constitutes a typical "French sound" in composition.  ahinton, you may recall, that you remained peculiarly cool regarding the langugage used against me.  As to the original poster who was attacked beyond all civility, you only obliquely called on the attacker not to be rude.  A curiously tepid response.

Both these posters have an interest in modernism.  And they are young, smart, verbal and astonishingly rude and insulting to anyone with very little provocation.  In fact, the former one mentioned, attacked ahinton mercilessly a couple of years ago.  I remember this event simply because ahinton's response to it was one of appeasement instead of indignation.  Regarding this attack, certainly, indignation was called for.

Communist seems to be wondering why you tolerate, at least, this poster he has mentioned.  I wonder that as well, and why you tolerate the second one.

OK, now someone is talking sense rather than in riddles. Thank you for this clarification. That said, I do not think that you or anyone else should assume "tolerance" in anyone just because they happen, as I am, to be unwilling to retort to other people's rudeness with the same kind of rudeness; choosing not to do this does not of itself constitute appeasement, either. People who express outright rudeness on this or other fora openly accuse themselves by virtue and by means of their unwarranted and intemperate language. I endeavour to respond to posts as they appear and, if a once rude poster happens later to write something that appears to be serious in intent, lacking in such rudeness and otherwise worthy of response, I may respond in kind if I so choose. I find the kind of rudeness to which you refer at least as obnoxious and intolerable as anyone, but retorting to this kind of expression with more of the same merely adds fuel to someone else's fire; two blacks neither make a white nor stand a snowball's chance in hell of ameliorating such a situation (and that is meant neither as a racist remark nor as a slight on the excellent member Richard Black, perish which thought!). I trust that I make myself clear.

Best,

Alistair

[general disarray]

Your response is eminently logical and civilized. 

Of course responding to rudeness with rudeness achieves next to nothing -- particularly in regard to the offenders mentioned above.  To them, rudeness is a manner of expression, generally speaking.

But I'm referring to episodes on this forum where the attacks were vicious enough to be the equivalent of a savage beating of another human on a street corner in any city.  People need to say something.  You, in particular and in the particular instance where I was repeatedly misunderstood, insulted, put down, cyber-ly shouted down, and then ultimately heaped with coarse invective and foul language.  For NO reason whatsoever, except that the "mad wolf" was having one of his characteristic feeding frenzies on another human.

I would have greatly appreciated a little support from you -- you were directly involved since he was attacking me over a question asked of you in this particular thread -- but you let the attacks pass without comment.

A comment from you, indicating he was behaving like a bully, might have slowed him in his tracks and made him think of how vicious he can become on the internet.

No one is asking you to respond with rudeness, anymore than I would expect you to beat up a man attacking another on the street.  Shouting to the attacker to stop and then calling for help would be an appropriate response.   

[Petter]

General, at the end of the day, they're just arrogant kids. It's nothing compared to unprovoked physical violence.

[ahinton]

Your response is eminently logical and civilized. 

Of course responding to rudeness with rudeness achieves next to nothing -- particularly in regard to the offenders mentioned above.  To them, rudeness is a manner of expression, generally speaking.

But I'm referring to episodes on this forum where the attacks were vicious enough to be the equivalent of a savage beating of another human on a street corner in any city.  People need to say something.  You, in particular and in the particular instance where I was repeatedly misunderstood, insulted, put down, cyber-ly shouted down, and then ultimately heaped with coarse invective and foul language.  For NO reason whatsoever, except that the "mad wolf" was having one of his characteristic feeding frenzies on another human.

I would have greatly appreciated a little support from you -- you were directly involved since he was attacking me over a question asked of you in this particular thread -- but you let the attacks pass without comment.

A comment from you, indicating he was behaving like a bully, might have slowed him in his tracks and made him think of how vicious he can become on the internet.

No one is asking you to respond with rudeness, anymore than I would expect you to beat up a man attacking another on the street.  Shouting to the attacker to stop and then calling for help would be an appropriate response.   

You seem to be very clear about how I should respond to the lucubrations of others and, accordingly, appear to assume that I need your advice in such matters. I might therefore ask you if you are familiar (as I would assume you to be) with the phrase "don't feed the troll". There are several ways in which to approach the kind of rudeness that you identify; it is up to me to choose which, if any, of those I may adopt in any given circumstance. The first thing to do in dealing with such entreaties is note the kind of attitude that prompts such rudeness; were you to do that, I would hope that you'd think twice before suggesting, as you do - rather ridiculously, I'm sorry to have to tell you - that a "comment from (me), indicating he was behaving like a bully, might have slowed him in his tracks and made him think of how vicious he can become on the internet", would have been an advisable stance for me to take when, in reality, this would surely instead have attracted yet more inflammatory response in the instance under discussion.

It is not up to me to pass comment on apparent or actual attacks upon you or anyone else when those attacks are not only arguably unfounded but also without substance; try to regard them as gunshots that are destined to miss while at the same time drawing attention to the person firing them.

You begin your post by remarking that my "response is eminently logical and civilized"; I appreciate this from you but hope that you in turn can appreciate that there may be reasons for such logic and civility that may include continuing to expose the rudenes of the party concerned by adhering thereto.

Just think about it.

This has nothing to do with the extent to which I might support you or anyone else in a particular situation. Perhaps I am so old as to have become inured to such attacking gestures in cases when I can immediately perceive that they carry no inherent weight or substance but merely make lots of noise in order to draw attention to the "attacker" and his occasional means and manner of expression.

Best,

Alistair

[pies]

With Skepto all you have to do is troll back at him.  Inevitably, he'll have a meltdown, will get banned, and will disappear from here for a few months.  It's a cycle.

[general disarray]

General, at the end of the day, they're just arrogant kids. It's nothing compared to unprovoked physical violence.

I appreciate the thougthfulness of this, Petter, and thank you for your post.  Likewise, I thank ahinton for his comments, and pies for his response.  But, I respectfully disagree with your comment that "verbal violence" on the internet pales before unprovoked physical violence in the so-called "real world."

The internet is simply an extension of our physical world.  If we use verbal violence, we are violent.  Period.  I recall that the poster who got great pleasure in attacking me and others, became quite incensed when another poster, cmg, I think, called him on his abusive language and reported him to the the moderators here.  The abusive poster found criticism of his behavior to be absurd and responded that, basically, anything goes, because this is "the internet."

I don't agree.  The internet has become our new social gathering place and violence and incivility are no more welcome here than they are in the town square.  Socialized rules of behavior should be enforced here -- by each and everyone of us -- as they are in the physical worlds we inhabit.

I was just in New York, to visit my family, and I saw a new production of Thornton Wilder's "Our Town."  You all must know this great play.  In the final scene of this amazing production, Emily Webb has died in childbirth, but, among the dead in the town's cemetery, she is speaking with them, and begs to reclaim just one day in her past life.  She is given a birthday and what she encounters is her beloved parents going through the motions of life without noting them.  Thinking they are present, but not.  She realizes that only the dead are aware of what the living miss.

The living behaving as egotistical bullies is a tiresome behavior, a dead behavior, that I want to protest against here and everywhere.  I will not accept it as simply the way "some people" are.  I will not "overlook it" or appease them.       

ahinton has more cyber-tolerance for bullies than I do. 

It is here that he and I disagree.  I don't believe than anyone has the right to verbally abuse and humiliate anyone here than they have the right to physically attack others in their own communities.

 

[ahinton]

I appreciate the thougthfulness of this, Petter, and thank you for your post.  Likewise, I thank ahinton for his comments, and pies for his response.  But, I respectfully disagree with your comment that "verbal violence" on the internet pales before unprovoked physical violence in the so-called "real world."

I am not sure that it is helpful or constructive to seek to compare verbal with physical violence, whether the former be face to face, in written material or on fora such as this one; that said, however, I would at least say that such expressions are, in my view, as undesirable and unwarrantable as physical violence and they are also wholly unnecessary.

I recall that the poster who got great pleasure in attacking me and others, became quite incensed when another poster, cmg, I think, called him on his abusive language and reported him to the the moderators here.  The abusive poster found criticism of his behavior to be absurd and responded that, basically, anything goes, because this is "the internet."

I do not at all hold with the view of the abusive poster that you cite here. The attitude that "anything goes" on the internet simply because it is the internet is what also encourages some people to upload and distribute (or make available for distribution) copyright material without the owners' prior written permission - and my views on that are too well known to repeat here. I have myself used the "Reoprt to Moderator" button on occasion and this is one way to react to such behaviour as you mention, although I have never actually called for a forum membr to be banned as such, since that is Nils's decision and his aloneto make. I mentioned the "don't feed the troll" expression; pies has not offered another alternative way to deal with this kind of instance, which is continuing to feed the troll until is collapses with indigestion.

The internet has become our new social gathering place and violence and incivility are no more welcome here than they are in the town square.  Socialized rules of behavior should be enforced here -- by each and everyone of us -- as they are in the physical worlds we inhabit.

I would hope that it has not taken the place of the real face-to-face one, but in all other respects I agree with you, except perhaps that adopting deceny of behaviour is obviously a healthier and more welcome frameowkr for conduct than being made subject to its enforcement, for the latter suggests that, were civility not "enforced", it would not occur, which would be far too unpleasant a situation to contemplate.

The living behaving as egotistical bullies is a tiresome behavior, a dead behavior, that I want to protest against here and everywhere.  I will not accept it as simply the way "some people" are.  I will not "overlook it" or appease them.

Nor will I; there are, however, as I have mentioned previously, several different ways in which to approach it when it occurs, which is not the same as suggesting that acceptance, overlooking or appeasement are among them.

ahinton has more cyber-tolerance for bullies than I do. 

It is here that he and I disagree.  I don't believe than anyone has the right to verbally abuse and humiliate anyone here than they have the right to physically attack others in their own communities.

No. Where we disagree - still, it seems - is over what you and I perceive to be "tolerance". For the record and for the avoidance of doubt, I have no tolerance toward this kind of behaviour, as I would hope I have made amply clear by now. Where I agree with you is in the last of your sentences above.

Best,

Alistair