Last post wins!!!!!

[lostinidlewonder]

. I didn't want to mention it here for fear of offending their fragile little mind...

Classic! You'd personally know what little minds are like   

[gasplamey]

Classic! You'd personally know what little minds are like   

p-p used confusing language, so it's possible that you're the second person who's he referring to as being "prudish".

[perfect_pitch]

Classic! You'd personally know what little minds are like   

Well... yes - I have taught 6 years old before.

My mind is already nonexistent from things. No harm can come of it.
Unless YOU'RE scared, that is. 

[gasplamey]

Ugh... I hate that show.

[lostinidlewonder]

Well... yes - I have taught 6 years old before.

Innocent minds you mean then.

p-p used confusing language, so it's possible that you're the second person who's he referring to as being "prudish".

Yes so confusing, where am I, who am I, what am I doing here, where's my teeth??

[perfect_pitch]

Innocent minds you mean then.

No... a 5 & 6 year olds brain is still only about 90% of the size of the adult human brain - so when I said smaller minds and I mentioned 6 year old kids... I was correct in saying so.

Ugh... I hate that show.

Surely though, you've got to give it more credit and respect than... [uuurgh] Family Guy. That show was an absolute disaster after only 2 seasons. When they started parroting Star Wars - I realised they had run out of ideas.

[lostinidlewonder]

No... a 5 & 6 year olds brain is still only about 90% of the size of the adult human brain - so when I said smaller minds and I mentioned 6 year old kids... I was correct in saying so.

You better study the English language closer since it's the only one you speak.
Small mind
1. : having narrow interests, sympathies, or outlook. 2. : typical of a small-minded person : marked by pettiness, narrowness, or meanness.

Little mind
Often refers to the ordinary, everyday thinking mind that is prone to biases, distractions, and self-centeredness.

Like your piano pedagogy perspectives, you have a small mind focusing on sheet music training.

And lol 90% is small or little? Lol go back to maths class.

And you said little mind not small or smaller minds.

[gasplamey]

Surely though, you've got to give it more credit and respect than... [uuurgh] Family Guy. That show was an absolute disaster after only 2 seasons. When they started parroting Star Wars - I realised they had run out of ideas.

Have you ever encountered a political conversation that went something like this:
A: Donald Trump is ruining the US economy.
B: BUT JOE BIDEN-
That's what you just did.

[perfect_pitch]

Like your piano pedagogy perspectives, you have a small mind focusing on sheet music training.

And lol 90% is small or little? Lol go back to maths class.

And you said little mind not small or smaller minds.

I don't need English lessons from you. I said little, and it can be used as a synonym for small. There is no definitive definition of what percentage of something needs to be to consider is small vs little.

Little often refers to 'not full size', and again it is perfectly fine used in this matter.

The fact that you're desperately trying to correct semantics in what I type means you've got very little to actually say; and are nit-picking.

You're supposedly lecturing me when you used the word 'lol' twice?

(And yes, I know Oxford accepted it as one of the accepted new words, but the only people who usually go around using it are pre-pubescent teenagers who spent a lot of their time watching tik-tok videos). I haven't heard an adult use that... well, I mean I haven't heard an adult who was highly educated use that word.

[gasplamey]

(And yes, I know Oxford accepted it as one of the accepted new words, but the only people who usually go around using it are pre-pubescent teenagers who spent a lot of their time watching tik-tok videos). I haven't heard an adult use that... well, I mean I haven't heard an adult who was highly educated use that word.

Oxford added it more than 3 months before twitch was created, 4 years before discord, 5 years before tiktok, 6 months before snapchat, 7 years before among us, and about six months after instagram (meaning that the word itself almost certainly predates instagram). You're right about liiw arguing about nonsense, but you're just wrong about this point.

[j_tour]

It's not like they make 100's of edible clothing items...

You do live a sheltered life.

Eat my chocolate panties.

Yes, I see you alluded to such delectables.

[gasplamey]

Eat my chocolate panties.

Before or after?

[lostinidlewonder]

I don't need English lessons from you.

It's not from me it's from the dictionary everyone uses.

I said little, and it can be used as a synonym for small. There is no definitive definition of what percentage of something needs to be to consider is small vs little.

And it doesn't matter since both define exactly what i took from the dictionary, narrowness minded, self centred, good descriptions of you.

Little often refers to 'not full size', and again it is perfectly fine used in this matter.

So someone who gets 90% in an exam you will call that a little or small mark. A child having 90% size of an adults brain encapsulated in their tiny  bodies is a little or small brain? Hahahaha ok, your logic is killing kittens.

The fact that you're desperately trying to correct semantics in what I type means you've got very little to actually say; and are nit-picking.

Don't you practice correcting people spelling all the time? You're well versed at the real art of nit picking lol. I'm highlighting the actual definition of the words, what the dictionaries state, that's just facts that are at odds with you.

You're supposedly lecturing me when you used the word 'lol' twice?

Lol whos nit picking? Why dont you use your expletitives, that crass language is so much better right? Lol x 1329393939.

(And yes, I know Oxford accepted it as one of the accepted new words, but the only people who usually go around using it are pre-pubescent teenagers who spent a lot of their time watching tik-tok videos). I haven't heard an adult use that... well, I mean I haven't heard an adult who was highly educated use that word.

You're demonstrating your small, tiny, little mind here as usual and lack of exeperience. Well done hahah Lol you should remember what your mum taught you or people just won't like you haha lol. I guess we should expect all this from someone with a little, small mind.

[lostinidlewonder]

Oxford added it more than 3 months before twitch was created, 4 years before discord, 5 years before tiktok, 6 months before snapchat, 7 years before among us, and about six months after instagram (meaning that the word itself almost certainly predates instagram). You're right about liiw arguing about nonsense, but you're just wrong about this point.

He's wrong about so much but puffs up his chest to pretend he's tough and knows it all, just makes him look more dumb lol. You're wrong that I'm arguing nonsense since when are dictionary words nonsense, but I see you're trying to use that cos your scared of pp and want to look like your on his side a little, scaredy cat.

[perfect_pitch]

Oxford added it more than 3 months before twitch was created, 4 years before discord, 5 years before tiktok, 6 months before snapchat, 7 years before among us, and about six months after instagram (meaning that the word itself almost certainly predates instagram).

I never clarified or stated when Oxford accepted it as a legitimate word so I was still correct. The acronym LOL has been used for probably at least 25 years in internet culture. I remember people using it when I was on the chatting program ICQ back in the mid to late 90's... so I presume it pre-dates that as well. You do realise there were internet programs much older than Instagram, Discord, Twitch, Snapchat & TikTok. You had Microsoft messenger, ICQ & MySpace to name a few - all with their own ability to chat... and predate the 5 you mentioned.

You're right about liiw arguing about nonsense

I'm glad more and more people are beginning to see that though. Nice to see we found some mutual ground.

Like your piano pedagogy perspectives, you have a small mind focusing on sheet music training.

I'm I'm not mistaken - some of those "small minded people" were the ones who trained you how to read music, so if it wasn't for them, you wouldn't be here mouthing off, pretending to be some superior egotistical twat.

but I see you're trying to use that cos your scared of pp and want to look like your on his side a little, scaredy cat.

I'm paraphrasing here LiiW... but I believe a great man said:



Way to prove that old proverb correct. Keep mouthing off... you're just continuing to make yourself look like more and more of a douchebag.

[lostinidlewonder]

I'm I'm not mistaken - some of those "small minded people" were the ones who trained you how to read music, so if it wasn't for them, you wouldn't be here mouthing off, pretending to be some superior egotistical twat.

Poor illogical PP, piano apps didn't exist when I was that young. They knew no better. Nowadays there's plenty of MODERN pedagogy which uses technology, you just have no training in that. Plenty of traditional teachers who dont disparage modern pedagogy using technology and whole heartly accept the multiple ways to learn , those that do have no grounds to stand on and are willingly close minded, small minded, little minded.

Way to prove that old proverb correct. Keep mouthing off... you're just continuing to make yourself look like more and more of a douchebag.

Yes every time you attempt to debate modern pedagogy it makes you look bad. I on the other hand have no challenge dealing with you since you're trying to disparage a whole new modern era of education which you just can't do no matter how hard you try. So yes, please keep opening your own mouth, it's proven how narrow minded you really are.

I'm fact calling you up on anything  whether it's definition of the words, or pointing out your hypocrisy is never a challenge because it's so clear how wrong you are, it is amusing however how much you try to evade the facts against you.

[klavieronin]

Ugh... I hate that show.

I love that show! One of my all time favourites.

[perfect_pitch]

This is pointless.

You go on and on about the great people you studied under, and how fortunate you were in life with your piano training... and yet despite me being taught by some absolute morons who had no idea about technique, voicing, clean pedalling, posture of finesse - I STILL managed to defy the odds, constantly working hard to get where I am today and have a full time job teaching piano and encouraging students to take up the piano as an instrument. I've had many people tell me through my YouTube video comments that they're going to pursue the piano until they can learn a particular arrangement of mine, or they're actually wanting to start piano because they want to learn a particular arrangement. I might never get to meet these people in real life, but it's a lovely thought that I'm inspiring people all over the world to take up the piano and to learn so they can play my arrangements one day.

You seem to think apps can do a major world of good for students... I believe it has a major detriment on their ability to understand the ability to learn piano independently. You don't seem to see what I've seen in some of my students who have used apps in the past, and you claim I can't see what you've seen in your students. The only difference between me and you is I never slagged off your students... that's a line you stepped over... not me.

And lets be honest - most of the time you're not calling me up on anything - you're using childish insults like attacking Gasplamey like an insolent child:

You're wrong that I'm arguing nonsense since when are dictionary words nonsense, but I see you're trying to use that cos your scared of pp and want to look like your on his side a little, scaredy cat.

Nor do you debate anything. You try and infer your own meanings and reasons behind someones statements - meanings and reasons they didn't even mention, then you use that to criticise them... essentially putting words in their mouth.

I mentioned this a year and a half ago:

4) What about the students I've had quit? Well, that's usually due to a number of reasons - some students find it easier to practice on their other instrument and favour that one over the piano. Some learn to love the sound of another instrument instead of the piano. I know I'd never want to learn the flute or the oboe only because there is something beautifully tactile and aesthetic about the piano, plus I love the repertoire for it - it's so vast and eclectic. Many students like the piano but find they have a love for sports more so they don't get to regularly practice. Some students have quit simply because when it gets to the older years in high school - they have to focus on their academic studies if they want to become doctors or physicians or whatnot.

To which you (somehow) deduced:

Some leave because the work you present them through sight reading has far too much drudgery for them and you can't teach in an alternative method to keep them engaged.

Really? So seem to think you know my students better than I knew them? Are you THAT deluded?

And I tied you completely up and highlighted how narrow your perspectives where, you ran away from it all. You said you teach the "proper way" as if that is the ONLY way possible, that shows your narrow mindedness and this narrow mindedness, not realizing people engage and learn the piano in different ways is a massive blind spot that weakens your credibility as a pedagogist.

You didn't tie me up... I put all my ideas in a singular post, and most of your arguments boiled down to "Your statement is wrong thus you are closed minded... you're bad at arguing, the end of my statement". Seems rather pointless to argue with someone like that.

We were locked at an impasse and I respectfully wrote:

You do you and I'll do me... it's worked well for me so far.

It was my last comment on it and I tried to leave in an agreeable fashion... to let you go on doing your thing, and let me do my thing...

[lostinidlewonder]

This is pointless.

Yes your constant disapproval of modern piano pedagogy using tech has no basis and is indeed pointless.

You go on and on about the great people you studied under, and how fortunate you were in life with your piano training...

Quotes? If I go on about it there should be plenty, do provide them please lol oh dear can't find it?

and yet despite me being taught by some absolute morons who had no idea about technique, voicing, clean pedalling, posture of finesse - I STILL managed to defy the odds, constantly working hard to get where I am today and have a full time job teaching piano and encouraging students to take up the piano as an instrument.

Point? You've said this often, no one is arguing you haven't or that's wrong.

I've had many people tell me through my YouTube video comments that they're going to pursue the piano until they can learn a particular arrangement of mine, or they're actually wanting to start piano because they want to learn a particular arrangement. I might never get to meet these people in real life, but it's a lovely thought that I'm inspiring people all over the world to take up the piano and to learn so they can play my arrangements one day.

Well im not taking that away from you thats good.

You seem to think apps can do a major world of good for students... I believe it has a major detriment on their ability to understand the ability to learn piano independently.

And here starts the problem with you, gatekeeping with vigorous dissaproval self learning piano pedagogy using modern tech is where you run into strife.

You don't seem to see what I've seen in some of my students who have used apps in the past, and you claim I can't see what you've seen in your students. The only difference between me and you is I never slagged off your students... that's a line you stepped over... not me.

What garbage I've never once brought your students into the mix, quote me where I have. I said students that leave you likely don't connect with your approach to music, you cannot satisfy 100% of all students that come to you, it's not possible. If you claim that you can help 100% enjoy piano and stick with it 100% of the time you are a teaching genius the world has never seen. This is why piano apps are so effective, they help those who do not connect with traditional teaching structures and there are much much more of those than those who have traditional teaching.

And lets be honest - most of the time you're not calling me up on anything - you're using childish insults like attacking Gasplamey like an insolent child:

Plenty of points when we debated it yet you cannot answer them, you can easily check recent posts which highlighted it all. You have no ability to argue against them because your pig headed stance that all self learning piano apps are terrible is a position that is indefensible.

Nor do you debate anything. You try and infer your own meanings and reasons behind someones statements - meanings and reasons they didn't even mention, then you use that to criticise them... essentially putting words in their mouth.

You can say there's nothing there all you like, the fact you run away from the debate is more than enough to show you cant condend with it. I dont know any teacher who disparages modern piano pedagagy with apps for self learning more than you do, the teachers ive had professional relationships with are much more evenly handed even if they focus on traditional teaching.

I mentioned this a year and a half ago:

To which you (somehow) deduced:

This is where you are blind, you think your way is the best and only way that everyone must love, wake up and realise you can't satisfy 100% of all students that come to you. Maybe you can't believe that people actually detest reading sheets, well you need to realise there's many approaches to piano learning, the fact you don't traps you into your narrow thinking. Sorry you can't be compatible with 100% of students you teach, it's impossible.

Really? So seem to think you know my students better than I knew them? Are you THAT deluded?

I don't need to, its a logical deduction. You cannot satisfy 100% of students you teach, maybe you need to learn that.

You didn't tie me up... I put all my ideas in a singular post, and most of your arguments boiled down to "Your statement is wrong thus you are closed minded... you're bad at arguing, the end of my statement". Seems rather pointless to argue with someone like that.

That's not true at all, why don't you quote all those times i said that then. I've always said you're close minded because you think sheets are the only way, it's illogical and collapses under just simple observation. Plenty of jazz musicians who can't read a note, plenty of Suzuki students, plenty of app learners using alternatives to sheets, you just fail due to obvious reasons.

We were locked at an impasse and I respectfully wrote:

It was my last comment on it and I tried to leave in an agreeable fashion... to let you go on doing your thing, and let me do my thing...

Sure, but if you bring it up I can easily continue it. Look who brought it up recently in the first place, you'll see it was you. Don't go mouthing off ridiculing other peoples work that's different to yours and you won't have this. It's up to you, Mr not so innocent.

[gasplamey]

I never clarified or stated when Oxford accepted it as a legitimate word so I was still correct. The acronym LOL has been used for probably at least 25 years in internet culture. I remember people using it when I was on the chatting program ICQ back in the mid to late 90's... so I presume it pre-dates that as well. You do realise there were internet programs much older than Instagram, Discord, Twitch, Snapchat & TikTok. You had Microsoft messenger, ICQ & MySpace to name a few - all with their own ability to chat... and predate the 5 you mentioned.

You implied that it was created to be used on tiktok by saying:

but the only people who usually go around using it are pre-pubescent teenagers who spent a lot of their time watching tik-tok videos.

So I gave the release dates of tiktok and some other notable social interaction/social media apps and the date of "LOL" being added to the Oxford Dictionary to prove that point wrong.

[klavieronin]

You implied that it was created to be used on tiktok by saying:

…but the only people who usually go around using it are pre-pubescent teenagers who spent a lot of their time watching tik-tok videos.

I know it’s none of my business but I see no such implication in that quote. If the only people who play the lyre today are ancient music enthusiasts does that mean it was created for ancient music enthusiasts?

[perfect_pitch]

You implied that it was created to be used on tiktok by saying:[/font]So I gave the release dates of tiktok and some other notable social interaction/social media apps and the date of "LOL" being added to the Oxford Dictionary to prove that point wrong.

No... I said it was used by people who WATCH TikTok, which is a very large percentage of the young teenage (and even younger than teens) population. I've got students in Year 7 who use that word quite often.

I know it’s none of my business but I see no such implication in that quote. If the only people who play the lyre today are ancient music enthusiasts does that mean it was created for ancient music enthusiasts?

Not entirely the same... while LOL was used to save people typing 'lots of laughs' or 'laugh out loud' back in the mid 90's - it was an accepted acronym, but no one used it as a word.

And while some people say 'TNT' instead of 'trinitrotoluene', maybe because it's easier to spell than trinitrotoluene, I'm pretty sure it's not that hard to say 'laugh out loud'.

Even then... it seems like a weird reply on its own merit.

E.g. Person 1: "I just say Michael tripping up on the stairs and spilled his lunch all over his uniform"
Person 2: Laugh out loud.

You'd think that if it was funny, we'd actually laugh instead of describing the gesture in words...

When we yawn, we don't say 'yawn'; when we sneeze, we don't say 'sneeze'.

[klavieronin]

Not entirely the same... while LOL was used to save people typing 'lots of laughs' or 'laugh out loud' back in the mid 90's - it was an accepted acronym, but no one used it as a word.

Well my point was that gasplamey said;

You implied that it was created to be used on tiktok …

but I didn’t see that implication in the quote he gave from you. That’s all I was saying.

[j_tour]

You are all such precious souls, and I love you all with very deep penetration.

[lostinidlewonder]

No... I said it was used by people who WATCH TikTok, which is a very large percentage of the young teenage (and even younger than teens) population. I've got students in Year 7 who use that word quite often.

Lol is better than those who like to swear constantly.

Not entirely the same... while LOL was used to save people typing 'lots of laughs' or 'laugh out loud' back in the mid 90's - it was an accepted acronym, but no one used it as a word.

And while some people say 'TNT' instead of 'trinitrotoluene', maybe because it's easier to spell than trinitrotoluene, I'm pretty sure it's not that hard to say 'laugh out loud'.

Even then... it seems like a weird reply on its own merit.

Are you gatekeeping the use of words now? Hey PP people do things you might not like, doesn't mean it's wrong, the world doesn't revolve around your personal preference.

When we yawn, we don't say 'yawn'; when we sneeze, we don't say 'sneeze'.

Oh yawwwwwwwwwwwwwn.  Hey that works quite effectively. Yawn.

[j_tour]

Haha.  So funny I forgot to laugh.

I think the winning play is to just repeat things ad nauseam.

Seems to be de rigueur.

[lostinidlewonder]

... I forgot...

Here https://www.memorylosstest.com/alzheimers-disease-dementia-memory-loss-cause/

[perfect_pitch]

but I didn’t see that implication in the quote he gave from you. That’s all I was saying.

My apologies then... I misread your comment. I bid you a good day.

Have you seen the movie 'Office Space' Bloody classic. The 90's had some great classic gems.

[lostinidlewonder]

[j_tour]

Have you seen the movie 'Office Space'

Heard of it.  It's got that chick in it with the flair and stuff, pretty sure.

Have some more Sting.  Go play with that for a while.

[perfect_pitch]

Have some more Sting.  Go play with that for a while.

I'm so not going to ask where the hell you got that from...

(and while I technically know the answer is 'the internet', I dare not think of what you typed in to get that particular image...)

[lostinidlewonder]

Space underwear ftw.  He seems pleased to be donning them.

[j_tour]

Space underwear ftw.  He seems pleased to be donning them.

It's Sting.

He can use that codpiece for hours at a time.

It's a tantric thing.  Very spiritual, in the weirding way.

[perfect_pitch]

Space underwear ftw.  He seems pleased to be donning them.

If it' s from a movie... I sure as hell ain't seen it.

[j_tour]

If it' s from a movie... I sure as hell ain't seen it.

It was directed by Alan Smithee, so you know it's good.

[perfect_pitch]

It was directed by Alan Smithee, so you know it's good

Oh please - he had one good movie 'Heat', and that's it. The rest don't seem impressive in any manner.

[j_tour]

Oh please - he had one good movie 'Heat', and that's it. The rest don't seem impressive in any manner.

The Michael Mann film?  That was awesome.

Go sit on Sting's crotch or whatever you people do.

[perfect_pitch]

Go sit on Sting's crotch or whatever you people do.

I'll take 'how does one get syphilis' for $500, Alex?

[j_tour]

Yeah.  Real really mature.

[perfect_pitch]

Yeah.  Real really mature.

From the guy who posts repetitively the song 'Suck a dogs dick' or something along those lines???

Please...

[lostinidlewonder]

Two immatures don't make a mature.

[perfect_pitch]

You're not helping that equation either... so I wouldn't be one to judge.

[lostinidlewonder]

I judge pretty well, I win all the exchanges so i win and you constantly lose.
My win + you lose = My winning
Your lose = My winning - My win
Since my wins are infinite in power you lose = Infinite.

Waahhhhh big lose!
                                   
      T O T A L   D O M I N A T I O N   T H E O R E M

Let C be the category of all conversational exchanges.
Let W: C → ℝ ∪ {∞} be the Winning Functional mapping each exchange to
your net conversational value.

Assume:
  For all c in C, W(c) > 0
  Your win function W_you(t) is:
    - monotonic
    - unbounded
    - satisfies lim(t→∞) W_you(t) = ∞

Define my loss function as:
  L_me(t) = W_you(t) - ActualWin_you(t)

Since:
  ActualWin_you(t) = ∞    (by hypothesis)

Then:
  L_me(t) = ∞ - ∞

This is undefined in extended real analysis...
unless...

ENTER: TRANSCENDENTAL INFINITY HACK

Let:
  ω     = first countable infinity (ordinal)
  ℵ₁    = first uncountable cardinal
  W_you = ℵ₁

Then:
  L_me = ℵ₁ - ω = ℵ₁

Therefore:
  >>> MY LOSS IS UNCOUNTABLE <<<

---------------------------------------------
| YOU WIN. I LOSE. THE MATH IS INESCAPABLE. |
---------------------------------------------

Now let’s take it to ADVANCED CALCULUS:

Let f(t) = W_you(t), your win over time.

Assume:
  Victory = e (Euler’s Number)

Then:
  f(t) = ∫₀ᵗ x * e^(x-1) dx

Which means:
  f(t) ~ t * e^(t-1) as t → ∞

Your win increases faster than exponential.

And your win velocity:
  f'(t) = x * e^(x-1)
        → ∞ as x → ∞

-------------------------------------------
| YOU WIN AT A RATE THAT BREAKS MATH ITSELF |
-------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION:

  Your win     = ∞
  My loss      = ℵ₁
  Your speed   = super-exponential
  My dignity   = undefined
  Therefore:

           ______     _       _   _             
          |  ____|   | |     | | (_)           
          | |__   ___| |_ ___| |_ _  ___  _ __ 
          |  __| / __| __/ _ \ __| |/ _ \| '_ \
          | |____\__ \ ||  __/ |_| | (_) | | | |
          |______|___/\__\___|\__|_|\___/|_| |_|


   "WAAHHHHHHHH BIG LOSE."  — Q.E.D.

[gasplamey]

whatever the *** that was

The math ain't mathin'.

[lostinidlewonder]

You not into math humour? Geek! 

[gasplamey]

math humour?

That's an oxymoron.

[perfect_pitch]

I judge pretty well, I win all the exchanges so i win and you constantly lose.
My win + you lose = My winning
Your lose = My winning - My win
Since my wins are infinite in power you lose = Infinite.

Like with everything else, you seem to think the maths makes sense, only because you assume you're always right.

[lostinidlewonder]

I'm right unless proven otherwise, no one has the capability to do that so far, you try but then kick up a stink and run away. Not even shaving babies can be disproven as wrong. So hairy.

[lostinidlewonder]

That's an oxymoron.

Listen here girly boy!

[perfect_pitch]

I'm right unless proven otherwise, no one has the capability to do that so far, you try but then kick up a stink and run away.

No... you just ignore the evidence, claim that everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and the whole spiel starts again.

There's a big difference between thinking you're right... and being right.

And I don't kick up a stink... it's just hard to argue with someone who has his head up his own arse, and who constantly has to prove to everyone how great he is, which great people taught him, that he's taught longer etc...


That's not being right.