Last post wins!!!!!

[perfect_pitch]

Easy... the ones in the wrong began shouting louder than the ones in the right.

Now you get every bleeding heart saying how their son or daughter who is serving in jail for [insert some malicious crime here] doesn't get enough yard time or something.

The pendulum has swung from one way to the absolute opposite... it will soon correct itself, I'm sure.

[j_tour]

The pendulum has swung from one way to the absolute opposite... it will soon correct itself, I'm sure.

I wouldn't bet on it.

The entire world's gone crazy.

Crazier than Wesley Willis.

Crazier than K-Pop and all that garbage.

Daddy don't live in that New York City no more.

[lostinidlewonder]

]The "book thrown at them"?

Yes like this.

[perfect_pitch]

I wouldn't bet on it.

The entire world's gone crazy.

Maybe, but eventually it reaches a level where people stop, stare and realise what's happening before initiating a revolt in the opposite direction.

I mean, lets look at a positive example. For centuries woman couldn't vote, maintain serious jobs, and were usually arranged to be married as if they were a chess pawn that their Father controlled. They were sick of being seen as second-class citizens and rose up - shouting that they requested equal rights, and deservedly so.

That small gap between what men are paid for jobs, and what women are getting paid for the same job is getting smaller and almost equal.

Things do eventually level out. It just takes time.

[j_tour]

Things do eventually level out. It just takes time.

Right.

And about half of the US population should not be gutted from vent to sternum like a trout.  A bunch of retardeds and children screeching like psychos.

I'll believe it when I see it.

I just stay inside my condo, holding my shotgun, because there ain't much out there for anyone with a goddamned lick of sense.

[perfect_pitch]

And about half of the US population should not be gutted from vent to sternum like a trout.  A bunch of retardeds and children screeching like psychos.

Hey, it's their country. The majority voted for who they wanted in power. At least it gives the rest of the world something to laugh at for the next 3 1/2 years.They only people I feel sorry for are those poor sods who didn't vote form him but continue to see him wreck havoc on their country...

...oh wait. Are you one of those poor sods???   

[j_tour]

...oh wait. Are you one of those poor sods???

What?

Ain't going to be no 3.5 years.  That fat load is on his last legs.

That's why I go to church every Sunday.  Just praying for the odds.

[perfect_pitch]

God didn't smite him the first time he got into office... what makes you think God is going to care now that he's got a second time in office???

[j_tour]

God didn't smite him the first time he got into office... what makes you think God is going to care now that he's got a second time in office???

It rubs the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again.

Just put the lotion in the fricking basket.

[perfect_pitch]

NO... I'm keeping the lotion...

[lostinidlewonder]

She will watch you

[j_tour]

She will watch you

That's a "she"?

Sure it's not a ghoul or an apparition?

[perfect_pitch]

She will watch you

GREAT... who doesn't love a live audience.     

[gasplamey]

Sh*t is something though. Silence is something too I guess, but in a concert hall it's more like listen to people breathing and coughing. I wonder what real silence is like, it would likely make you go a bit mad.... I'd totally want to try that.

I saw a video debunking that on my reccommendations a while ago.

[j_tour]

No, it's true.

Procure a large bucket, fill it with water or another aqueous solution, and put your head in it for about twenty minutes.

It will make you crazy, guaranteed.

I think there's a British word of slang about that phenomenon, but I cannot remember quite.

[gasplamey]

I'm glad I know what some of those actually mean, otherwise I'd have believed it entirely.

[lostinidlewonder]

I saw a video debunking that on my reccommendations a while ago.

Dunno if it "debunked" it, his conclusion said it was weird that he heard his blood pump through his body and hearing his heart and that certain mind types would likely get more freaked out that others. Just because he didn't react strongly to it, well that's one person, huge sample space?

[gasplamey]

Dunno if it "debunked" it, his conclusion said it was weird that he heard his blood pump through his body and hearing his heart and that certain mind types would likely get more freaked out that others. Just because he didn't react strongly to it, well that's one person, huge sample space?

I must have misremembered the video.

Also, liiw, over the last few pages you've tried to make it clear how rich and famous and talented and all that you are. If all of that is true, then surely your real name must at least be out there. Would you mind telling us who you are to silence the doubters once and for all?

[lostinidlewonder]

...you've tried to make it clear how rich and famous and talented and all that you are. ...Would you mind telling us who you are to silence the doubters once and for all?

I did silence my doubter in this very thread by posting my concerting media which I deleted afterward because it reached the target required. https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=51107.msg739875#msg739875

 Please quote a single instance where I claimed I was famous, rich or even talented. The fruits of my work speak for itself. What's rich anyway? I'm richer than most but most of the world is quite poor anyway so its not really saying much. Talent? Well I must be talented in music otherwise how could I make a 30+ year career out of it?

Are you claiming that fame is the only way to be a highly successful concert pianist and educator? If so you're just plain wrong. I've posted media from my PianoVision project which is a top seller on the Meta store where I am in the videos of it.

[gasplamey]

I did silence my doubter in this very thread by posting my concerting media which I deleted afterward because it reached the target required.

There are literally tens of thousands of people who have read that part of the thread and don't believe you entirely. Attaching a name to yourself would help all of us believe more in your story.
And I never said this:

Are you claiming that fame is the only way to be a highlly successful concert pianist and educator?

Please quote a single instance where I claimed I was famous.

You have this insanely famous and popular app on the meta store that you link to in your signature. I don't think anyone is doubting you on that front.

The part that I'm doubting is that you're this super accomplished pianist who did all this amazing stuff, yet your name never showed up anywhere. So, what's your name?

[lostinidlewonder]

Stop being stupid klav was hounding me for proof for days, I gave it to him and he admitted it was good enough. I'm not doing it for you now. Get out, you think 10k+ people think what you do?? Lol

Again, why dont you quote a single instance where i said I'm famous.

[gasplamey]

Stop being stupid klav was hounding me for proof for days, I gave it to him and he admitted it was good enough. I'm not doing it for you now. Gtfo

As soon as you say what your name is, literally everyone who doubts you can look you up and will believe you. So just say it. It's not that hard.

Edit: I don't need to quote you saying that you're famous because that's not what I'm trying to argue. You've already stated that your concerts are all insanely successful and that you have an insanely successful app on meta; those are both things that you've said and everyone believes you on the app thing. I'm wondering about the concerts part.

[lostinidlewonder]

You're just showing your ignorance correlating successful concert artist with fame. That's just short sighted on your behalf. I know the business of selling concerts, that's is key, you also need a good product which I did have. I don't need to jump though any of your hoops.

A third time, where did I say I was famous? Since you said with your very words I said that, shows you're twisting a situation to satisfy your own conclusions.

Again I already posted news article on my successful concerting which was enough to silence my most critical responder on this thread regarding my concert success. Is that not good enough for you??

[lostinidlewonder]

Even if the concerts somehow didn't put your name out there somewhere, surely your app did.[/font]

Why do you want to know my name? Ok its Joe Bloggs, now what?

No one is denying that you had a successful product, regardless of whether or not they think that that product was good. And before you try to twist my words, I don't have an opinion on whether Piano Vision is a good product or not; I'm simply stating the fact that it was undeniably successful.[/font]

Before quoting someone please realize you need to stay on topic what that quote is on about. Nothing in my quote you responded to has anything to what you are responding to here.

I'm not really sure what this sentence means in this context.

I don't have to provide you with any information despite you melodramatically claiming 10k+ people believe what you believe about me in this thread lol.

At no point did I say that you were famous.

At no point did I say I was famous, yet you claim thats exactly what I did, still waiting for you to quote me anywhere where I said that or for you to admit you are totally wrong about it.

Point out to me where in that paragraph I said that you were famous.[/font]

When you instigated this line of questioning about my concerting you opened with that i said I was famous yet you still fail to show any evidence that I said anything of that sort.  You then illogically believe that since I claim I am famous I must be well known so you want to know my name. Your entire foundation is wrong.

You deleted that evidence. But since you clearly have it on hand, surely it can't be too hard for you to just post it again. Or post more than one, for that matter. You said you have "multiple newspaper articles about it all."

I already have shown that my most powerful critic klav who talked A LOT about my concerting and asking for evidence over and over again was given it. I am not here to "show off" so why would I leave my article up to prove anything to anyone else? I really don't care that much. Klav asked for it consistently, I provided it after not wanting to give it to him and then he realized I was not lying.  It was sufficient the evidence that he admitted it was and apologized for doubting. If you have no ability to understand what that means then I guess I am thinking too highly of your intelligence. https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=51107.msg739875#msg739875
I have sufficiently proven my situation when i didn't have to, I deleted it because I don't want it to be used for anything but appeasing what someone wanted, something I didn't want to do but in a rare moment decided why not. Now I am not going to do it for you nor any other person who wants to ask, I will merely refers them to what happened to another user who didn't believe me then changed their mind. That is as strong evidence anyone needs, if they can't understand what that means well that is on them not me.

The former is literally all that I'm asking. If it has your name in it, then that's the end of the argument

Why do you need to know my name though? You incorrectly believe that successful concerting must = you are famous. You still refuse to contend that this is not a requirement, so it just shows your short sightedness.

It seems like it'd be so easy to prove my and others doubts wrong, so why aren't you doing that?[/font]

Because I already provided the evidence and silenced my biggest critic. If that is not enough evidence for you, then I fear for your ability to reason.

For the last time, I never said that you were famous.

You instead put words in my mouth saying I claimed to be famous, yet you have ZERO evidence to show any quote at all where I ever said that. You can't side step this no matter how much you try.

But since you just don't want to give up this point, here's all the times I could find by skimming where you said that things that I did say you claimed:[/font]RichVery successful concert pianist + rich beyond belief + extraordinarily talented (though in the same post you also said that you never made a recording of yourself in concert: "I never did recordings because there was no money to make there and I also have musical philosophy reasons for not doing that")Extremely successful + extraordinarily rich.Extraordinarily successful + unfathomably richYou're repeating this constantly. extraordinarily wealthy

It is no doubt that there are functional illiterate people out there, I think you are demonstrating that very strongly here. Where is the evidence that I said I am "extraordinarily rich, unfathomably rich etc etc"?? It is not there. Why because I bought a house when I was in my early 20s with cash? Or that I sold out my concerts and made more money than other solo pianists who tried at the same venue? Your measurement of richness is ridiculous. I am not here to help you read things and interpret it correctly. You are reading what I write and interpret it in your skewed demented perspective and talking as if your postulation on it is the ultimate truth. It just demonstrates functional illiteracy, an inability to interpret a string of information in a coherent way.

So your name is out there, and you have some form of name recognition, however minor it may be (very few people get multiple newspaper articles about them, excluding obituaries).

How old are you? Did you know that the internet was no where near as much used 25 years ago? Can't you imagine that? Unless you are famous why would anyone want to do such things on the internet years later?

That's just what I found from skimming. There's probably more stuff that's in there (stated and implied), but I'm not going to read through every line of your massive walls of text for that.

Well its obvious you skimmed and applied very little thought into what it actually meant. Based on all your assumptions from it. You refuse to contend that my most vigorous critic about my concerting was silenced when I posted the articles proving my "stories". You merely side step that bit of evidence because you cannot contend with it, it utterly dismantles your biases and you can't deal with it.

I did, however, find one other interesting thing:[/font]How much of your startup money for your company was inherited/provided by relatives? Not related to the rest of this argument; just curious.

Stop being ridiculous I am not going to divulge any of this kind of thing with you. It has nothing to do with relatives, this just shows your lack of understanding of the computer app business. You can always educate yourself on this and the multiple ways they can be funded.

[gasplamey]

Why do you want to know my name? Ok its Joe Bloggs, now what?

Now I look your name up to confirm, and listen to any videos of performances if they exist. And we're done here.
Except we're not, because searching "Joe Bloggs" + "pianovision" yeilds only one result, which is this thread from 2005 started by a user named "pianist_joe_bloggs" that you yourself responded to:
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=7768.0
So I'm reasonably confident that that was a lie.
And I'm now going to go ahead and make a prediction that you're going to defend yourself here and claim that "well I've given you my name and you won't accept it so no reason to continue the conversation." I'll gladly be proven wrong here.

Before quoting someone please realize you need to stay on topic what that quote is on about. Nothing in my quote you responded to has anything to what you are responding to here.

It does stay on-topic and I think that that is self-evident.

I don't have to provide you with any information despite you melodramatically claiming 10k+ people believe what you believe about me in this thread lol.

This thread has 2.4 million views. 10.000 of those views being by people who are at least a little bit skeptical of some part of your backstory is basically guaranteed. But fine, I'll lower it to multiple thousands. Happy now?

When you instigated this line of questioning about my concerting you opened with that i said I was famous yet you still fail to show any evidence that I said anything of that sort.  You then illogically believe that since I claim I am famous I must be well known so you want to know my name. Your entire foundation is wrong.

You keep saying that I said you were famous, but you've yet to quote me saying that you specifically are famous in earnest. The closest I've come is saying that your app is famous, which I feel like I've provided pretty substantial proof that you have essentially said that.

I already have shown that my most powerful critic klav who talked A LOT about my concerting and asking for evidence over and over again was given it. I am not here to "show off" so why would I leave my article up to prove anything to anyone else? I really don't care that much. Klav asked for it consistently, I provided it after not wanting to give it to him and then he realized I was not lying.  It was sufficient the evidence that he admitted it was and apologized for doubting. If you have no ability to understand what that means then I guess I am thinking too highly of your intelligence. https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=51107.msg739875#msg739875

Oh, so it's about being humble? Then PM it to me on this platform. At this point there is no excuse for you to not at least share actual proof in some capacity, though then again you keep thinking up another reason to not do it each time I explain why your previous reason doesn't work.

I have sufficiently proven my situation when i didn't have to, I deleted it because I don't want it to be used for anything but appeasing what someone wanted, something I didn't want to do but in a rare moment decided why not. Now I am not going to do it for you nor any other person who wants to ask, I will merely refers them to what happened to another user who didn't believe me then changed their mind. That is as strong evidence anyone needs, if they can't understand what that means well that is on them not me.

"Some random guy saw a piece of my evidence and changed his mind, therefore no one else needs to see the evidence to change their mind."

Why do you need to know my name though? You incorrectly believe that successful concerting must = you are famous. You still refuse to contend that this is not a requirement, so it just shows your short sightedness.

You have the order completely backward. I clearly specified that I believe that the success of your app put your name out there, and that once someone has that name they will be able to link it back to you to confirm, possibly via your concerts.

Because I already provided the evidence and silenced my biggest critic. If that is not enough evidence for you, then I fear for your ability to reason.

If you keep "reasoning" like this, then klavieronin will no longer be your "biggest critic." In fact, I'd argue he never was, and that p_p was, but that's a very different argument that I don't want to have.

You instead put words in my mouth saying I claimed to be famous, yet you have ZERO evidence to show any quote at all where I ever said that. You can't side step this no matter how much you try.

"I never claimed that you were famous." "yeah instead you claimed I was famous."
And I'd like to point out that you still haven't quoted me saying that you were famous. Could it perhaps be that I never said that?

It is no doubt that there are functional illiterate people out there, I think you are demonstrating that very strongly here. Where is the evidence that I said I am "extraordinarily rich, unfathomably rich etc etc"?? It is not there. Why because I bought a house when I was in my early 20s with cash? Or that I sold out my concerts and made more money than other solo pianists who tried at the same venue? Your measurement of richness is ridiculous. I am not here to help you read things and interpret it correctly. You are reading what I write and interpret it in your skewed demented perspective and talking as if your postulation on it is the ultimate truth. It just demonstrates functional illiteracy, an inability to interpret a string of information in a coherent way.

By saying this, you've just confirmed that you are unfathomably wealthy. You don't think that your app "generat[ing] multi million dollars" and being a "multi million dollar success" makes you extraordinarily wealthy. You don't understand how wealthy you have to be to outright buy a home "in your early 20s". You don't even seem to understand how unfathomably wealthy you have to be to purchase a Super Bowl ad; you yourself said it best when you asked "do you know how expensive that is to advertise there?" And yet you don't understand that being able to do that at all means that you're in the top .01%-ish of people in terms of wealth at least. That is unfathomably wealthy by any definition except the definition of someone who is unfathomably wealthy.

How old are you? Did you know that the internet was no where near as much used 25 years ago? Can't you imagine that? Unless you are famous why would anyone want to do such things on the internet years later?

This is irrelevant. You have the proof. You have shown the ability to show the proof. Why can you not show the proof?

Well its obvious you skimmed and applied very little thought into what it actually meant. Based on all your assumptions from it. You refuse to contend that my most vigorous critic about my concerting was silenced when I posted the articles proving my "stories". You merely side step that bit of evidence because you cannot contend with it, it utterly dismantles your biases and you can't deal with it.

I already explained why that's not a valid argument earlier in this post.

Stop being ridiculous I am not going to divulge any of this kind of thing with you. It has nothing to do with relatives, this just shows your lack of understanding of the computer app business. You can always educate yourself on this and the multiple ways they can be funded.

Oh sorry I didn't know you were a "self-made" person who just happens to have extraordinarily wealthy relatives, as you yourself detailed. Feels like that happens a lot NGL.

[lostinidlewonder]

Now I look your name up to confirm, and listen to any videos of performances if they exist. And we're done here.

Again you are ignoring the fact that some 25 years ago the internet wasnt anywhere near like it was today. Perhaps you can't imagine that the world indeed was different beyond your own experience. So again your ask for who I am is utterly illogical. What if you look me up and there is nothing? That doesn't prove that I didn't do what I claimed, this is the crux of how illogical your train of thought is, its not proving anything at all.

Except we're not, because searching "Joe Bloggs" + "pianovision" yeilds only one result, which is this thread from 2005 started by a user named "pianist_joe_bloggs" that you yourself responded to:
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=7768.0
So I'm reasonably confident that that was a lie.

Except why dont you look at my some 8000 posts over almost 20 years all about piano education, about piano performance, is this just made up in my head and doesn't come from life experience? Do you realize Joe Bloggs is placeholder name, they are not usually considered real? Look that one up lol.

And I'm now going to go ahead and make a prediction that you're going to defend yourself here and claim that "well I've given you my name and you won't accept it so no reason to continue the conversation." I'll gladly be proven wrong here.[/font][

I have no need to defend anything at all. The fact is that you have shown what you would do with that information and it has been shown to you how irrelevant it is. It can't prove anything at all. You questioned about my concerting claims and went straight to, what is your name? I have now seen what you would do with the name and it has nothing to do with proving anything at all. This is just logical that it wouldn't have done anything.

font=courier]It does stay on-topic and I think that that is self-evident.

You are being illogical. The quote you commented on was about the business of selling concerts, you instead went to talking about my app, there is no connection, it is not on topic.

[/font]This thread has 2.4 million views. 10.000 of those views being by people who are at least a little bit skeptical of some part of your backstory is basically guaranteed.

Im sorry but you are being highly illogical. 2.4 million views in so many years. I assure you there are no where near that many visitors of 10+k people looking at any of these threads, youd see the view counts go up a huge amounnt compared to what we are seeing. So please improve your logic because what you are demonstrating is quite poor. Honestly this feels like a special olympics debate to me.

But fine, I'll lower it to multiple thousands. Happy now?

Why dont you limit it even further lol. Of the 50 people that might read it (and thats really being generous ), how many do you think would really read through a discussion I had with someone else that goes into great verbage? Look at yourself, did you read it all? No you didn't you admit you skimmed through it and then went ahead and demonstrated a lack of comprehension of what you actually read.

[/font]You keep saying that I said you were famous, but you've yet to quote me saying that you specifically are famous in earnest.

You said, I said I was famous, I am asking you to prove that which you can't because I never said such things.  You put the words in my mouth trying to make it look like I said I was famous. Then you asked me for my name carrying on with your illogical continuation. I can repeat this ad infinitum until you get it if you need.

The closest I've come is saying that your app is famous, which I feel like I've provided pretty substantial proof that you have essentially said that.[/font]

No one is talking about fame except you. You said I said I was famous, which you cannot prove with any quote from me saying such things, because I never said it.

Oh, so it's about being humble? Then PM it to me on this platform. At this point there is no excuse for you to not at least share actual proof in some capacity, though then again you keep thinking up another reason to not do it each time I explain why your previous reason doesn't work.[/font]"

No like I said I don't have to jump through any of your hoops. I have already proven myself to another user who was much more critical than yourself about my concerting. You should look at what he said about me and how I changed his mind after posting the evidence. You have not commented on what that actually means, you are equating it to zero and instead saying that I should show you personally. Well you don't have the right to ask for such things if I don't want to share it and it does not make your doubt about my concerting experience valid. I have proven that my experience is not a lie to someone else, that is enough. You can doubt as much as you like who cares, are you that important? lol I don't think you are anyone that is of any importance to me.

Some random guy saw a piece of my evidence and changed his mind, therefore no one else needs to see the evidence to change their mind

If you had read actually our debate you would have seen he's not just some random guy, we were engaged in an actual debate about issues about my concerting experience. After many words I eventually showed him the evidence and he accepted it. His debate style was commendable and with some logic even if I disagreed with it, which is partially a reason why I thought I might as well share it with him. This is all I have to do, this one time .I don't have to continually prove it to everyone that asks on here since I've sufficiently proven it to someone who didn't believe it but now does.

."[/font]You have the order completely backward.

Backwards? That makes zero sense.

I clearly specified that I believe that the success of your app put your name out there, and that once someone has that name they will be able to link it back to you to confirm, possibly via your concerts.[/font]If you keep "reasoning" like this, then klavieronin will no longer be your "biggest critic."

Klav actually could debate something in a logical manner, you are absolutely all over the place and illogical. You think you're the biggest critic? Unfortunately for you, you are demonstrating illogical thinking and an inability to weigh evidence of me changing someones mind by showing them actual articles of my concert from 25+ years ago.

In fact, I'd argue he never was, and that p_p was, but that's a very different argument that I don't want to have.

Sorry you don't just get to say something and then go, oh but i dont want to talk about it lol. PP is not interested to debate me about things like that lol. He actually has an ability to just give up and let it go, something quite commendable. So his very actions show hes not a biggest critic, the one who tries to form a logical argument against me is and klav has much more in that department. Again his arguments where logical even though we were at odds, yours however are all over the place.

You are unable to weigh the fact that I changed Klavs mind with evidence of my concert by posting a newspaper article. To you that means zero which is a BIIIIIG failure point in your ability to reason.

[/font] "I never claimed that you were famous." "yeah instead you claimed I was famous."

You are being illogical again. Look at your very first response to me about this concerting topic. You said I said I was famous, you put the words in my mouth trying to show that is what I said. However I  NEVER said such things and said to you, ok prove that I said such things there must be a quote. You still are unable to find anything of that.

And I'd like to point out that you still haven't quoted me saying that you were famous.

You said

you've tried to make it clear how rich and famous and talented and all that you are.

Here let me post what you said again:

you've tried to make it clear how rich and famous and talented and all that you are.

Oh and again here it is what you said

you've tried to make it clear how rich and famous and talented and all that you are.

one more time?

you've tried to make it clear how rich and famous and talented and all that you are.

OOpps here it is again, this is what you said I said

you've tried to make it clear how rich and famous and talented and all that you are.

Why don't you prove it lol. Find a single quote where I said i was famous lol. It's just not there. I also never said I was rich or talented either. Please post where I said this. Oh dear you can't find it?

Could it perhaps be that I never said that?

You said:

you've tried to make it clear how rich and famous and talented and all that you are.

[/font]By saying this, you've just confirmed that you are unfathomably wealthy. You don't think that your app "generat[ing] multi million dollars" and being a "multi million dollar success" makes you extraordinarily wealthy. You don't understand how wealthy you have to be to outright buy a home "in your early 20s".

None of this makes me wealthy or even unfathomably wealthy. You are playing your misguided logic to this and thinking its true, well thats up to you, but its not reality.

You don't even seem to understand how unfathomably wealthy you have to be to purchase a Super Bowl ad; you yourself said it best when you asked "do you know how expensive that is to advertise there?"

Quote a single instance where i said i paid for that. You need to learn to read, im sorry im not here to help you read. It was paid for by Meta which is a trillion  dollar company, that is now unfathomably wealthy. Go back and read properly because you're not demonstrating good reading skills.

And yet you don't understand that being able to do that at all means that you're in the top .01%-ish of people in terms of wealth at least.

Yet you don't understand it wasn't done by an individual, you better read properly before commenting because your responses are just illogical and misguided. You are not demonstrating an ability to read appropriately.

This is irrelevant. You have the proof. You have shown the ability to show the proof. Why can you not show the proof?

Because I dont need to show it to you, ive already done so and there is evidence I changed the mind of someone who also didn't believe it. Once they saw the article they accepted it graciously. You are not demonstrating any ability to weigh that as evidence, you are merely saying its zero which makes your reasoning ability tend towards zero too!

[/font] I already explained why that's not a valid argument earlier in this post.

You quoted me about you skimming the information and not comprehending. It is very relevant because it demonstrates why your comments here are without any substance and totally illogical.

Oh sorry I didn't know you were a "self-made" person who just happens to have extraordinarily wealthy relatives, as you yourself detailed. Feels like that happens a lot NGL.

I invited you to educate yourself as to how funding for startups are done, I am not going to do it for you here, you can easily look it up. It has nothing to do with relatives or me personally having the money lol.

[j_tour]

I'm glad I know what some of those actually mean, otherwise I'd have believed it entirely.

Those aren't the right definitions?

Damn.  I've been doing it wrong.

[perfect_pitch]

You have to love the British sense of humour...

[j_tour]

You have to love the British sense of humour...

Must one?

[perfect_pitch]

Yes... YOU MUST DAMNIT. It's the LAW.

If Keir Starmer finds out you don't, then he'll abduct you and force you into one of those detention camps where you'll be subjected to...

...oh wait - that's Trump and his idiotic citizenship laws.

Never mind...

[lostinidlewonder]

If someone searches your real name, why wouldn't your app that was #2 on the Meta store at one point come up? That's the thing that's illogical to me. You also clearly didn't read what I wrote. I said: "and listen to any videos of performances if they exist." I would consider that a lucky bonus, rather than a requirement for proof.

There are plenty of recordings of me playing on pianostreet. You've been quite passively aggressive in this entire exchange so I'm not going to give you anything. Trying to swap around what you want is wasting time and doesn't do your position any better. I've proven my concert experience already to one critic here and they changed their mind, so use that as evidence. The fact you are constantly wanting to know my name is dumb and quite frankly rude, and you pretending to be curious to want to listen to this and that is garbage, you have a thin veil of polite curiosity hinding a passive aggressive temperament. My name easily can be discovered but because of your attitude I'm not going to help you there.

This has nothing to do with our present argument. And for the record, I don't doubt that you're a skilled pianist and teacher in the slightest.[/font]

It has everything to do with it, I said Joe Bloggs for the sake of seeing what you wanted to do with my name and it revealed exactly the irrational way you would use it. Since you opened this entire conversation with a critical perspective and lies about what I said. If you are going to look up that name on pianostreet and post links to make assumptions why not look at my actual user name that I am using here and come to assumptions? Totally everything to do with it!

Don't know, don't care. Moving on.

Ah yes you dont care about things which you cannot answer lol.

See my response to your first paragraph

Your response is meaningless, you are merely shifting the goal posts. First you said you want to know my name because you claimed I said I was famous and my concerting success was based on that. Now you say, oh I just want to listen to some of your recordings. Stop being so obviously dense. You have no argument, you have no sincere wish to actually know anything about me, it is all behind a flimsy veil of curiosity, initiated with lies about me and doubt about my concerting success 25+ years ago which I already proved was true to another user in this thread who doubted it.

.[/font]The quote I commented on was this: "I know the business of selling concerts, that's is key, you also need a good product which I did have. Was "the product" not your app?

The entire quote was about my concerting experience nothing to do with my app, you are continuing to talk about the app when the entire quote was about concerting. You claimed I said I was famous and that is why my concerts did so well, in fact I tried to educate you that you do not need fame to be a successful concert artist, this totally has gone over your head and you still purposefully ignore it.

.[/font]
As of when I'm writing this, this thread has an average view count of about 550 views per day. Considering that your original argument lasted from July 8th to July 12th, which is five days. That means that there was probably about 2700 people who saw that argument.

I'm sorry but your maths is ridiculous. So you think people just read the thread once and every single view is an individual person? Do you think they all read exactly the same thing? Do you realize that there was a bot which read this thread like 100k times to try and push the view count to 1million in a day for some reason? Do you realize that there are plenty of AI's reading through forum information that are not human? No you don't obviously.
 

.[/font]
 Maybe more, maybe less. So yeah not 10000 as I initially said, but still multiple thousands. Certainly not 50 at most.[/font]I said, word for word:

Sorry you just don't have any understanding how many people actually read the threads. Have a look at the pianostreet information, it can show the current visitors and users logged on. Pretty easy to determine what that means in terms of view counts.

.[/font]
"liiw, over the last few pages you've tried to make it clear how rich and famous and talented and all that"
"and all that" implying that that whole list was to some extent sarcastic (though I thought "rich" would be sarcastic though that is very clearly not the case). In hindsight I 100% could have phrased that more clearly, that's one me. But at the same time, if you'd pointed that out where I claimed you claimed that you were famous in your first reply to me then that probably would have spared us this entire argument.[/font]

You are still being illogical. I have shown exactly where you started this conversation with me on lies and misinterpretations about me, you continually refused to clear it up and admit a mistake. So your entire foundation is build on mistakes, misinterpretation and insincere questioning to me. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that I already changed the mind of someone who didnt' believe my achievements in the concerting realm again puts you are a severe disadvantage and makes your attempt to put question to my concerting success look very insincere and flawed.

.[/font]To me, Klavieronin is just some random guy because I know nothing about him. He could be your alt for all I know (and before you claim that I claimed that he's your alt, I obviously don't actually think he is). And if you think that one person changing their mind is enough proof that something is true, then maybe you're the one who has an "[in]ability to reason."

So by your logic every single person here is a random. No sorry you are being illogical. He is not a random person he in fact has posted here for many years and in a logical style mostly, unlike yourself. Changing his mind means a great deal since he was the only one to try and logically debate the truth about my concerting success which I satisfied with proof. The fact that I changed his mind about it all means a lot, you are equating that to zero which doesn't say much about your reasoning ability.

.[/font]
If some Nazi manages to convince one random person that Hitler was good and then refuseso explain how he convinced that person, the person changing their mind is not proof that Hitler was good.

What kind of association is that?? You are doing yourself no favors trying to say things like that. You are simply trying to shift goalposts and have something that satisfies YOU personally. Well im sorry you just don't get your way all the time, your behaviour is acting like someone extremely spoiled and who is used to getting their way. If you cannot see that it means quite a lot to change the mind of a someone who was very critical about the truth of my concerting success by posting evidence of my concerting media, then thats on you not me.

.[/font]
Also, Klavieronin literally stated "I can't really read it I'll just have to trust that it supports your claims." And then you deleted the picture. That proves essentially nothing

You could read exactly what was there. You are selectively reading what he said, he said it looks genuine and real and was good enough for him to take back everything. It was good enough for him not to require anyone else to judge it either, why are you selectively ignoring those comments? The fact you admit here that it means nothing shows your absolute inability to weigh evidence.

.[/font]You have provided no evidence to the contrary.

Again this just proves your inability to weigh the evidence. The image I removed in one instance changed someones mind, you say that means nothing because you are in your selective reading bias mode, this is too obvious for everyone to see.

Regardless of whether or not doubting you is justified from your perspective, doubting you is entirely justified from mine up until you provide actual evidence.

So i have to post my articles over and over again every time someone unimportant on pianostreet doubts me? Lol, you are hilarious. I have posted it once and it caused a strong impact on someone who was critical about my concerting success totally changing their stance and withdrawing all criticism against me. You say that means ZERO, well im sorry you can't just say things like that without looking like someone with absolutely ridiculous bias. The fact you are behaving like this makes me 100% not going to share anything with you, you are insincere, you have gone about this all entirely the wrong way, so it is your own failure.

[/font]Don't care because I doubt that there's more than a small handful of people on this forum or even on this planet that are important to you.

If you were someone of importance then I would happily share all my history of my past concerting success. But you are merely, in your words, "random" stranger on a piano forum asking for personal information about me. You do have to realize you really are a nobody to me so why would I care about really doing anything for you? I already have proven that I have gone the extra mile to prove my situation to a previous critic who doubted my concerting success, I ended up posting evidence of my concerting success and it was enough for them to totally withdraw their criticism against me. If you are unable to understand what that means then thats a failure in your ability to reason, no one elses problem but yours.

[/font]To simplify (because I'm too lazy to get the exact quotes and you'll probably ignore them anyway), you said my logic was A then B, when it was actually B then A.

The fact you admit you are "lazy" means you have no interested. I will repeat, this makes zero sense. You are just pulling stuff out of a hat and trying to make argument, it wont work for you sorry.

[/font]If you actually read what I wrote

That is hilarious coming from someone like you who demonstrates you are not reading what was written correctly. I have pointed that out numerous times throughout.

, you would know that I explcitly said that I am not your biggest critic currently: "If you keep 'reasoning' like this, then klavieronin will no longer be your 'biggest critic.' That's future tense, not present tense

Amount of writing doesnt prove who is the biggest critic, you have extremely little logical basis with your arguments compared to klav who actually is many times more logical than yourself in his arguments. You are all over the place even bringing Nazis into the mix lol or claiming 10k people read this thread lol.

.[/font]Then what the fxck do you think "wealthy" is??? If you ask some random person if they think that someone who fully owned their first home in their early 20s would qualify as "wealthy," nine times out ten they'd say yes. And if you asked someone if they thought that someone who made millions of dollars off of an app they made qualified as "wealthy," they would say yes at 95 times out of 100 easily, probably more.

You have a very narrow view of what wealth is. I am not going to go into details on this because it is indeed private and what I share is what I want to share. Do you realize business reinvests its money into itself and that you can generate money but you don't just pocket it all, that is a sure way to have a business that collapses and fails fast. You also realize that businesses which are successful are not just run by one person?

Quote a single instance where you said you didn't pay for that.

This is where your illogical mind is being proven the clearest and your inability to read appropriately. You managed to read about the superbowl but ignored everything else about it, you just fixated on a single thing and make your own conclusions about it despite the clear as day information being there to educate you, this is the definition of poor skim reading or indeed functional illiteracy.

Do you think Meta would do media on all their apps? They actually did a specific video on the product which I showed you. I can show you more videos, here is one which cost multiple millions to create and showcases pianovision, it also played during the superbowl, do you know how expensive that is to advertise there?

Where in this do I say I paid for anything? It clearly states Meta did it all. Have a read of this carefully because I know you have troubles with comprehension, this is not an insult this is just an observation based on how you are conducting yourself here. Now notice how utterly mistaken you are and now apply that to everything else you are writing here, you need to learn to read and comprehend more clearly, that can come with practice but instead you have it in your mind what you believe and cannot use what you read to correct your misunderstandings. That is an important realization to make, you can be wrong, reading correctly can help you get out of that, its up to you.

And no shot you didn't pay meta to do that. Do you think anyone is going to believe that Mark Zuckerberg just did that out of the goodness of his heart?

This is utterly illogical. I'm sorry but I'm not here to educate you, you are making ridiculous assumptions without any information to back it up, it is just thoughts in your head that come from purely yourself. What are people supposed to do with that? It is literally like trying to tell a mental patient that their fantasy is not true.

[/font]Here's the part I was responding to, which is contained in the same paragraph:
"You refuse to contend that my most vigorous critic about my concerting was silenced when I posted the articles proving my "stories". You merely side step that bit of evidence because you cannot contend with it, it utterly dismantles your biases and you can't deal with it."
I had refuted that argument earlier in the post, which should be something we can agree on regardless of the fact that you seem to think that my extremely sensible refutation is "illogical."

Lol you are being very funny. Still you refuse to admit that changing the mind of someone on here who doubted my concerting success in a MUCH more effective manner than what you are demonstrating, means something. They wouldn't budge based on the strong circumstantial evidence I showed them which pushed towards the fact that everything I said is true. It wasn't until I posted an article proving my concerting success that they admitted it was good enough and retracted everything they said about it. You say it means Zero but that really puts your reasoning ability close to zero lol.

Remind me how people like Elon Musk and Bill Gates and the like got their start? Was it not from receiving copious amounts of money or privilege or both from their parents?

I am not a multi billionaire. I invited you to research into how start ups fund themselves, you still refuse to look it up and instead rely on thoughts in your own head. It might be difficult for you to look things up and read and learn, im sorry if thats the case. But you are going to be in perpetual ignorance until you do that.




The Definitive List of Gasplamey's Logical Errors:

Category 1: Foundational & Factual Errors
1. The Foundational Error: Arguing from a false premise. His entire challenge is based on the idea that lostinidlewonder's name is a secret that must be revealed. Given that the name is publicly associated with his work, the entire basis of his argument is factually incorrect from the start. One only has to google "PianoVision Team members" to get the answer.

2. The Initial Straw Man ("Famous"): He began the debate by falsely claiming lostinidlewonder called himself "famous," a misrepresentation he was forced to walk back later.

3. The Major Factual Misreading (Super Bowl Ad): He completely misunderstood how platform marketing works and wrongly accused lostinidlewonder of personally funding a multi-million dollar ad, demonstrating a critical failure to comprehend the provided text.

4. The Failure of Contextual Knowledge ("Joe Bloggs"): He naively took a common placeholder name literally and tried to "debunk" it, demonstrating a lack of general knowledge that severely damaged his credibility as a serious critic.


Category 2: Fallacious Argumentation Tactics
5. Hasty Generalization (The View Count): He used a raw forum view count to make an unprovable claim about a consensus of "thousands" of skeptics, an appeal to a silent majority with no evidence.

6. Shifting the Burden of Proof:
Quote: "Quote a single instance where you said you didn't pay for that [Super Bowl ad]." (Reply #18929)
The Error: After his own positive claim (that lost did pay) was refuted, he illogically demanded lostinidlewonder prove the negative. The burden was on gasplamey to support his own assertion.

7. Moving the Goalposts:
Quote: "'and all that' implying that that whole list was to some extent sarcastic..." (Reply #18929)
The Error: Instead of cleanly retracting his initial "famous" accusation, he tried to retroactively change its meaning to "sarcastic" to avoid admitting a clear mistake.

8. Cherry Picking / Selective Reading: He selectively quoted the one weakness in klavieronin's retraction ("I can't read it") while completely ignoring the socially and contextually relevant parts (the apology, calling the article "genuine," ending the debate unilaterally).

9. Poisoning the Well / Reductio ad Hitlerum:
Quote: "If some Nazi manages to convince one random person that Hitler was good..." (Reply #18929)
The Error: A grossly inflammatory analogy used to taint his opponent's argument by associating it with a morally repulsive ideology. This is a sign of a debater who has abandoned reason.

10. False Analogy:
Quote: "Remind me how people like Elon Musk and Bill Gates and the like got their start?" (Reply #18929)
The Error: Comparing lostinidlewonder's situation to that of world-famous multi-billionaires is a deliberately misleading analogy designed to imply his success is unearned.

11. Red Herring / Ignoratio Elenchi:
Lostinidlewonder's Quote: "...you also need a good product which I did have." (Contextually about his concerts).
Gasplamey's Quote: "Was 'the product' not your app?" (Reply #18929)
The Error: Gasplamey knowingly misinterprets the word "product" to derail the conversation from concert promotion and bring it back to the app, a subject he feels more comfortable with.

12. Ad Hominem (Attacking Personal Background):
Quote: "...a 'self-made' person who just happens to have extraordinarily wealthy relatives..." (Reply #18929)
The Error: A direct attack on his opponent's character and upbringing, used to imply his achievements are invalid. This is irrelevant to the factual claims being debated.


Category 3: Flaws in Reasoning and Debate Conduct
13. Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to the People): By repeatedly referencing a supposed mass of skeptical readers, he implies his position is correct simply because many people might hold it, which has no bearing on its logical validity.

14. Straw Man #2 (Re-framing the Klavieronin Event):
Quote: "'Some random guy saw a piece of my evidence and changed his mind, therefore no one else needs to see the evidence to change their mind.'" (Reply #18927)
The Error: He misrepresents lostinidlewonder's nuanced argument (that convincing a powerful, dedicated critic is significant) by oversimplifying it to convincing a "random guy," making it easier to attack.

15. Dismissal of Evidence via Feigned Ignorance:
Quote: "To me, Klavieronin is just some random guy because I know nothing about him." (Reply #18929)
The Error: He claims that because he is ignorant of the context and history of the forum, that context is logically irrelevant. A debater cannot invalidate evidence simply by refusing to acknowledge its context.


Final Count: 15 Distinct Errors.
This comprehensive list makes it undeniable. Gasplamey's debate strategy was not one of sound, consistent logic. It was a chaotic mix of factual errors, misinterpretations, and a heavy reliance on logical fallacies.

[j_tour]

Are you going to bark all day, little doggies?

Or are you doing to bite?

[essence]

Do people posting on this thread realise how much it drives people away from piano street? I come here for intelligent discussions about music, not teenage squabbles.

[lostinidlewonder]

Welcome to the internet. PS has been in decline for many years and has always had squabbles.

[essence]

Seems to me nobody is moderating and closing these rubbish threads

[dizzyfingers]

Seems to me nobody is moderating and closing these rubbish threads

I wish there was an option to block certain threads.
I mostly ignore these (last .. wins)  but my complaint is that they fill up the Recent Posts list, which is where I go to see what's active.
Yesterday the entire 12 slots were filled with Last Post Wins

We really need to badger the admins to enable post blocking until they provide it !!!

[essence]

Exactly
 My issue too. You cant ignore the rubbish it gets in the way.

[lostinidlewonder]

200+ post silver members who pay nothing to use website demand so much?

[lostinidlewonder]

Let's get back to winning, enough complaining

[dizzyfingers]

The Definitive List of ***'s Logical Errors:

Category 1: Foundational & Factual Errors
1. The Foundational Error: Arguing from a false premise. His entire challenge is based on the idea that lostinidlewonder's name is a secret that must be revealed. Given that the name is publicly associated with his work, the entire basis of his argument is factually incorrect from the start. One only has to google "PianoVision Team members" to get the answer.

2. The Initial Straw Man ("Famous"): He began the debate by falsely claiming lostinidlewonder called himself "famous," a misrepresentation he was forced to walk back later.

3. The Major Factual Misreading (Super Bowl Ad): He completely misunderstood how platform marketing works and wrongly accused lostinidlewonder of personally funding a multi-million dollar ad, demonstrating a critical failure to comprehend the provided text.

4. The Failure of Contextual Knowledge ("Joe Bloggs"): He naively took a common placeholder name literally and tried to "debunk" it, demonstrating a lack of general knowledge that severely damaged his credibility as a serious critic.


Category 2: Fallacious Argumentation Tactics
5. Hasty Generalization (The View Count): He used a raw forum view count to make an unprovable claim about a consensus of "thousands" of skeptics, an appeal to a silent majority with no evidence.

6. Shifting the Burden of Proof:
Quote: "Quote a single instance where you said you didn't pay for that [Super Bowl ad]." (Reply #18929)
The Error: After his own positive claim (that lost did pay) was refuted, he illogically demanded lostinidlewonder prove the negative. The burden was on gasplamey to support his own assertion.

7. Moving the Goalposts:
Quote: "'and all that' implying that that whole list was to some extent sarcastic..." (Reply #18929)
The Error: Instead of cleanly retracting his initial "famous" accusation, he tried to retroactively change its meaning to "sarcastic" to avoid admitting a clear mistake.

8. Cherry Picking / Selective Reading: He selectively quoted the one weakness in klavieronin's retraction ("I can't read it") while completely ignoring the socially and contextually relevant parts (the apology, calling the article "genuine," ending the debate unilaterally).

9. Poisoning the Well / Reductio ad Hitlerum:
Quote: "If some Nazi manages to convince one random person that Hitler was good..." (Reply #18929)
The Error: A grossly inflammatory analogy used to taint his opponent's argument by associating it with a morally repulsive ideology. This is a sign of a debater who has abandoned reason.

10. False Analogy:
Quote: "Remind me how people like Elon Musk and Bill Gates and the like got their start?" (Reply #18929)
The Error: Comparing lostinidlewonder's situation to that of world-famous multi-billionaires is a deliberately misleading analogy designed to imply his success is unearned.

11. Red Herring / Ignoratio Elenchi:
Lostinidlewonder's Quote: "...you also need a good product which I did have." (Contextually about his concerts).
Gasplamey's Quote: "Was 'the product' not your app?" (Reply #18929)
The Error: Gasplamey knowingly misinterprets the word "product" to derail the conversation from concert promotion and bring it back to the app, a subject he feels more comfortable with.

12. Ad Hominem (Attacking Personal Background):
Quote: "...a 'self-made' person who just happens to have extraordinarily wealthy relatives..." (Reply #18929)
The Error: A direct attack on his opponent's character and upbringing, used to imply his achievements are invalid. This is irrelevant to the factual claims being debated.


Category 3: Flaws in Reasoning and Debate Conduct
13. Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to the People): By repeatedly referencing a supposed mass of skeptical readers, he implies his position is correct simply because many people might hold it, which has no bearing on its logical validity.

14. Straw Man #2 (Re-framing the Klavieronin Event):
Quote: "'Some random guy saw a piece of my evidence and changed his mind, therefore no one else needs to see the evidence to change their mind.'" (Reply #18927)
The Error: He misrepresents lostinidlewonder's nuanced argument (that convincing a powerful, dedicated critic is significant) by oversimplifying it to convincing a "random guy," making it easier to attack.

15. Dismissal of Evidence via Feigned Ignorance:
Quote: "To me, Klavieronin is just some random guy because I know nothing about him." (Reply #18929)
The Error: He claims that because he is ignorant of the context and history of the forum, that context is logically irrelevant. A debater cannot invalidate evidence simply by refusing to acknowledge its context.


Final Count: 15 Distinct Errors.
This comprehensive list makes it undeniable. Gasplamey's debate strategy was not one of sound, consistent logic. It was a chaotic mix of factual errors, misinterpretations, and a heavy reliance on logical fallacies.

I will say I admire this display of keen intellect and thorough knowledge of logic.
I just wonder if it could be put to better use than "this".
There are plenty of debates going on about important matters in the world ... they could use some skilled logical analysis.

[lostinidlewonder]

I will say I admire this display of keen intellect and thorough knowledge of logic.
I just wonder if it could be put to better use than "this".
There are plenty of debates going on about important matters in the world ... they could use some skilled logical analysis.

AI are wonderful tools!

[essence]

Let's get back to winning, enough complaining

There are useful threads on PS but I don't like having to wade through a constant stream of brown stuff to get there.

Ten out of 12 recent post are garbage which give a very poor impression.

it is not a way to grow membership.

With a growing membership there are opportunities for revenue - but not if PS is full of unprofessional and childish stuff.

BTW, talking about logic, my goto is Thouless 'Straight and Crooked Thinking'.

[lostinidlewonder]

Probably would be a good idea to be able to stop "Anything but piano" from coming up on users recent posts if they want it. But I mean come on, this section of the forum was created for a reason, I think its a little far to say its garbage, lowers professionalism etc etc.

[essence]

Probably would be a good idea to be able to stop "Anything but piano" from coming up on users recent posts if they want it. But I mean come on, this section of the forum was created for a reason, I think its a little far to say its garbage, lowers professionalism etc etc.

Many things have unintended consequences. Yes, it is garbage and embarrassing - I would tell off my grandchildren if i found they were participating. Yes, good idea to block these from list of recent posts, but probably requires too much effort to implement.

Much more of this and i will go somewhere else.

thud.

Sound of toys being thrown out of pram.

There are forum rules, and these need to be enforced and possibly tightened. Do moderators even exist?.

[essence]

Honestly Ive been on PS for like 20 years and its moderation is excellent. It's much better than the "nanny" boards full of moderators who lock threads left right and centre and censor. Freedom of speech is important for variety, I would have left PS long ago if they moderated like PW.

No it isn't. I went up a few recent posts here and reported several to the moderators. Personal attacks, non-family friendly, changing words to avoid the censor, sexual connotations.

look at the forum rules.

I wouldn't bother if there weren't some posts which are interesting or useful, or if some pianists were not in need of help or advice.

[lostinidlewonder]

In your world everyone must treat conversations like a dinner party conversation with politeness and never disagreeing? Come on. I'm on the receiving end of insults, being called a liar etc etc a lot on here over the years, it is just the nature of what happens when you interact with people over and over again, it's quite a natural reaction on the internet. I agree swearing shouldn't be allowed, but if they censor themselves why not. Arguments and debates are a natural part of any online interaction, just show me one place which doesn't have it.

[j_tour]

Honestly Ive been on PS for like 20 years and its moderation is excellent. It's much better than the "nanny" boards full of moderators who lock threads left right and centre and censor.

Or put another way, if Nils had a problem with this one thread, he'd have shut it down or done a Stalinesque purge.

Even accomplished, erudite musicians and composers for keyboard instruments occasionally enjoy a little down time from what can be the intense concentration it requires to perform and teach music.

I conclude there is no problem.  Or PEBCAK.

Anyway, it's all p_p's fault.  I blame him.

[essence]

your arguments violate most of the principles of thouless 'straight and crooked thinking'.

the posts are not family-oriented, the post use adjusted words to avoid censors, the posts involve sexual innuendo, the posts involve personal attacks, shall I go on?

I have no problem with adult arguments which show respect, but when the majority of posts are childish playground insults, it rather destroys the purpose of the board. Doesn't want to make adults want to be any part of it.

In short, stop complaining, behave yourselves.

[perfect_pitch]

Or put another way, if Nils had a problem with this one thread, he'd have shut it down or done a Stalinesque purge.

Even accomplished, erudite musicians and composers for keyboard instruments occasionally enjoy a little down time from what can be the intense concentration it requires to perform and teach music.

I conclude there is no problem.  Or PEBCAK.

Anyway, it's all p_p's fault.  I blame him.

You can blame me all you want, doesn't make it true though. I didn't start the thread...

[lostinidlewonder]

your arguments violate most of the principles of thouless 'straight and crooked thinking'.

the posts are not family-oriented, the post use adjusted words to avoid censors, the posts involve sexual innuendo, the posts involve personal attacks, shall I go on?

I have no problem with adult arguments which show respect, but when the majority of posts are childish playground insults, it rather destroys the purpose of the board. Doesn't want to make adults want to be any part of it.

In short, stop complaining, behave yourselves.

What playground insults are there, you should post examples. Lots of demands from someone who has been here very a relatively short time. Who's complaining the most here? Pot calling kettle black by the looks of it.. Ironically you're complaining on this thread saying no adult wants to be a part of it, yet here you are multi posting on it.