Since there has been multiple posts after mine, I'll just post it as a new post.
I'm not sure whether or not you are hirsute (and it's none of my business anyway), but either way you do appear to having quite a bad hair day, as you suggested earlier, so perhaps we are all supposed to forgive you for ranting as you have now done.
Again, you are pretending to be an idiot.
That almost sounds like a kind of failed ad hominem to me - or at least it might do so were it not a fatuous notion that anyone who is not an idiot would seek to pretend to be one.
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?
What
you evidently fail to comprehend here is that I am not "taking sides" or inviting anyone else here to do so; I do, however, agree that words can indeed have many meanings and the English language has more of them than most and offers many more opportunities for varieties of interpretation.
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.
Multiple posting is a typical activity of spammers only when the content of the posts concerned indicates that it is such. You may observe as you choose as to what rights you think I may have, but that is a matter for you and you alone.
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.
There is no need to take any measures, desperate or otherwise, to "avoid" anything that is not actually present, as in this case; no point, therefore no opportunity for arguments for or against one.
I might as well say "I will ignore your compliment" to your whole post, but I feel like ranting today.
I have not complimented you, but you may nevertheless say so if you so choose; the fact that you feel like ranting is patently obvious and I'm sure that we'll all read your rant as such, rather than as the submission of interesting points for discussion.
If stating the fact that your own posts are off topic was "obvious", why would it be any different for mine?
Did I suggest that it is?
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 was hardly an "initiative" and, as I have already observed, I'm not even interested in side-taking here.
Again, off topic red herring.
What is?
It doesn't matter who said what, that doesn't lower the value of the statement itself.
When the statements have little or nothing useful to offer, I agree with you that it matters little who may have made them.
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.
OK, so your quoting of gyzzzmo was intended to reveal that you agree with what you quoted rather than credit yourself with having written it; that was not especially clear previously but at least you have made it so now. Of course you are entitled to agree with gyzzzmo, just as I am to write as I did in response to that post.
You clearly were responding to me with your post, which means you were arguing against me, my values and my opinions.
The two do not necessarily go together, but if I do disagree with any of your "values and opinions", as is indeed the case, it would be dishonest of me to suggest otherwise.
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 even pointed out my point, which you convienently chose to ignore and say there is no point.
We've already covered the first part of this but, as to your actual "point", I cannot ignore what is not there and I believe that you have failed to make one worthy of the name.
Ad hominem attack.
A thing to which you'd never personally stoop, of course...
Whether I write with perfect grammar or not does not lessen my argument.
No, indeed not; having little or no argument does that far more effectively.
No one is expecting everyone to have the same vocabulary.
I agree entirely; indeed, I have already said the same myself.
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.
Where are the "complicated words" in what I write? Some words might be unfamiliar to some, but none are of themselves "complicated" - which is the wrong descriptive term in any case, "complex" being the correct one. Something is only "complicated" is someone or something has enhanced its inherent complexity or turned something simple into something more complex. If it pleases you to think that I am "showing off" my linguistic prowess, so be it; I cannot agree, however, since I possess so little of it.
But obviously you're not showing off your intelligence.
That is presumably your personal opinion but, in any case, I am not trying to "show off" anything for the sake of so doing.
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.
I did not initiate this thread, so you should address your concerns as to its validity or otherwise to the forum member who did so - not to me.
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.
I know that, but I pointed out that john11inch has quoted what Mr Pace has written and this has been put forward as material for discussion; if you consider that material unworthy of discussion, all you ever needed to do is say so and then back off from further comment.
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.*
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)
I do agree with quite a bit of what you write here but, again, you seem to be writing from the perspective of assuming that it doesn't matter what Mr Pace thinks or why - and that his thoughts, valid or otherwise, should not and indeed cannot influence what others may think about Sorabji and his work; the member who began this thread has opened it up for discussion, as he is entitled to do, s I suggest once again that you address your concerns to him.
Basically, all you've done is red herring across my arguments and use ad hominem attacks against me and my writing.
You're a far more experienced ad hominem maker than I, so I bow to your superiority in this talent. I prefer red mullet to red herring anyway.
You've not cleared yourself of the FACT that you're both a hypocrit
"Hypocrite" ends in an "e" and, since I've not been placed in a court of law to answer charges of hypocrisy and since no one has proved that it is a FACT that I am a hypocrite, I have no more interest in "clearing" myself thereof than I have any need so to do.
...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...
Try to make sure that your mirror doesn't crack while you're holding it...
you have good writing skills, which I must admit
This time I'll accept your compliment, although I make no claim for it myself.
On the other hand, I really have nothing to say to djealnla.
Then please don't!
Not only does this person only use ad hominem
Really? And your evidence for this is...(?)...
but even their writing
"her" writing...
is unsophisticated and dull
Whereas yours is a model of intellectual brilliance and cultured intelligence?
But I guess that's why this person faithfully follows you, ahinton (again, not literal).
Or figurative either. I do not know who does any such thing.
Those with no intelligence do follow like sheep.
True in some instances, to be sure - so who do you follow, then? No, don't bother to answer - there's no need, really...
Back to topic, anyone?
Best,
Alistair
Topic: Ian Pace on Sorabji