Since there has been multiple posts after mine, I'll just post it as a new post.
I would have thought that this would be stating the b******g obvious. What you mean by those who are "on my side" I do not know in the present context. I will ignore your compliment.
Again, you are pretending to be an idiot. It is clear that "on my side" refers to the people who are, on your side. Or are you really incapable of comprehending the fact that besides literal meanings, words can also have figurative meanings, or be used a metaphors and examples?
On your side clearly means the people who agree with you, or the people who support you. I don't believe any person who can write such complicated sentences, and indeed, anyone who can read a picture book isn't capable of understanding such a clear phrase.
Also, I must say, multiple posting is the most typical act of spammers, and to not even have one of those posts be on topic, I really don't think you have the right to say anyone else is off topic.
I will ignore your compliment
But this sentence explains it all; You've got nothing to argue against my point, so you have to take such desperate measures to avoid this argument. I might as well say "I will ignore your compliment" to your whole post, but I feel like ranting today.
If stating the fact that your own posts are off topic was "obvious", why would it be any different for mine? Why do you take the initiative of commenting on how my post was off topic? Why not any of the people who are ON YOUR SIDE? Because they didn't criticize you?
It wasn't even you doing the saying; it was gyzzzmo. Please try therefore to to avoid crediting yourself, even if only by implication, with what someone else has written. The point that gyzzzmo was making - if indeed there was one - is less than clear whether or not what he wrote is interpreted literally, so the manner of interpretation appears not to make a whole lot of difference.
Again, off topic red herring. It doesn't matter who said what, that doesn't lower the value of the statement itself. But the fact is, my quoting of gyzzzmo's words shows two things:
1. I clearly intended to credit gyzzzmo, or else I wouldn't have quoted what he said, and just said it myself.
2. I clearly agree with what he said, which was why I quoted it in the first place. I'm not crediting myself with coming up with those words, but I am certainly trying to make the same point he was making; or am I not allowed to agree with him? What he wrote wasn't poetry or anything sophisticated; it is clear on how to interpret it. But I understand, you can't comprehend the fact that the meanings of individual words have slight variations, and you can't just put a dictionary definition of each of the words in the sentence together to get the true meaning.
You clearly were responding to me with your post, which means you were arguing against me, my values and my opinions. Thus, I am responding from my perspective. If I happen to agree with gyzzzmo, that doesn't mean I'm stealing his statement and giving credit to myself. Such a notion is laughable.
I am not pretending anything, nor being stupid, nor avoiding this "key point" that you mention (which is hardly surprising, since there isn't one). What Thal or i might write about might not appeal to you, but that's up to you.
I even pointed out my point, which you convienently chose to ignore and say there is no point.
What I write might not appeal to you, but that's up to you.
Insofar as what I and anyone else writes here is available to by read by anyone else who cares to do so, we're all "showing off our writing" in some way and to some degree.
Ignoring my argument.
Your confused use of pronouns and names here muddies the waters in terms of whom who're talking about and whom you're addressing. That said, if someone - anyone, including me - needs occasional recourse to a dictionary, what's the harm in that? You surely cannot expect everyone to have a precisely identical vocabulary range!
Ad hominem attack. Whether I write with perfect grammar or not does not lessen my argument. No one is expecting everyone to have the same vocabulary. After all, there are many professional jargon that only professionals know. However, for the purpose of a forum such as this, there is basically no need to use any complicated words that other people wouldn't understand to get your point across. You can just as easily use simpler words. In fact, it may be easier. But you choose not to, and instead write wordy sentences, which makes me think that you are trying to show off your writing.
But obviously you're not showing off your intelligence.
Read it and decide for yourself. Clearly, whichever way you or anyone might choose to interpret in and comment upon it, it involves Sorabji the mane and his work and Ian Pace's views thereon. It has to do with Ian Pace insofar as his views on Sorabji might be quoted and discussed in this thread, which is surely a perfectly legitimate thing to do under such a thread title. It is true that the fact that one's own views of Sorabji's work, be they positive or negative, are "nothing to do with Ian Pace", but that is hardly the point.
Just as well, you can quote my views on Sorabji, or even gyzzzmo's, although I'm not sure what the point would be. Similarly, there isn't a point in purely discussing about Ian Pace's views. It is much more productive to just discuss about Sorabji's music, and in the process bring in some comments from other musicians, which may or may not be Ian Pace.
Ian pace has written about Sorabji the man and his work on occasion, so what is known is what can be discovered from reading his writings; he doesn't actually have to have "told" anyone what he thinks. Ian Pace's views on Sorabvji presumably matter to him; they might matter to some others, whether or not they agree with any or all of them.
Again, you resort to a literal reading of my words. "Told" does not have to be him using his voice to say directly to someone. Written work counts as well.
Either way, there is no argument on what he thinks, if he thinks it he thinks it. What productive discussion can come from that?
"Mr. Ian Pace thinks x"
"I agree with Mr. Pace"
"I disagree"
/thread
*The above is an example, not to be taken literally. So please, don't say "I have no idea what x is, so I can't comment on whether Ian Pace believes in x or not, or something to that effect.*
So you don't allow any room for people changing their minds about anything, then?
Again, you take the literal meaning of my quote. Clearly people's opinions can change. But it doesn't change simply because someone thinks something. Or at least it shouldn't.
A change in perspectives and opinions can occur with a productive discussion. Discussing whether a believes b is not (see example above)
Basically, all you've done is red herring across my arguments and use ad hominem attacks against me and my writing. You've not cleared yourself of the FACT that you're both a hypocrit who goes off topic himself but does not allow others to do so, and a show off spammer with nothing significant to say, other than using a plethora of logical fallacies to argue against something that was not said, all to show that you have good writing skills, which I must admit.
On the other hand, I really have nothing to say to djealnla. Not only does this person only use ad hominem, but even their writing is unsophisticated and dull. But I guess that's why this person faithfully follows you, ahinton (again, not literal). Those with no intelligence do follow like sheep.