Sorabji vs Microwave Background Radiation Hiss

[thalbergmad]

Sequentia Cyclica is bollocks.

END OF

[ahinton]

Sequentia Cyclica is bollocks.

END OF

So you don't like the end of it, even though you posted a copy of the final page of Alexander Abercrombie's typeset edition of its score? Ah, well; not my problem!

It's out there now and will circulate, as will the next few Sorabji recordings to be issued.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

It is out there and is circulating as a free download thanks.
At least i didnt pay for the absurd garbage.
Cant wait for the next bout of inane note spinning for the insane.

[ahinton]

It is out there and is circulating as a free download thanks.
At least i didnt pay for the absurd garbage.
Cant wait for the next bout of inane note spinning for the insane.

The CDs are also out there.

You don't have to wait; https://www.piano-classics.com/articles/s/sorabji-toccata-seconda-per-pianoforte/ .

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

There is a clip on youtube of that non composition.
Indistinguishable from the other piles of refuse.

[ahinton]

There is a clip on youtube of that non composition.

Indeed - and there's a whole lot more to come. You don't have to listen to it, though.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

It is out there and is circulating as a free download thanks.

Why mention this if you so obviosuly do not want to listen to it? You suggest that you have somewhat more interest in it than other evidence might lead us to believe.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I do not comment on that which i have not listened to.
I was buggered if I was going to pay for it so I downloaded it.
My opinion was based on the first 30 minutes as that was all I could cope with.
I need Schubert as an antidote.

[ahinton]

I do not comment on that which i have not listened to.

Wise man.

I downloaded it.

Why, though, if you were already prejudiced against the composer's music?

My opinion was based on the first 30 minutes as that was all I could cope with.

Fine. Better than just 2 or 3 minutes and at least you admit that it is you opinion rather than fact.

I need Schubert as an antidote.

Why not Schumann?(!)

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Old Hindu Proverb say "You cannot polish a turd".
Schumann is an improvement on Sorabji only in as much due to the brevity of his compostitions.

[ahinton]

Old Hindu Proverb say "You cannot polish a turd".
Schumann is an improvement on Sorabji only in as much due to the brevity of his compostitions.

I know that proverb, of course, although neither Sorabji nor Schumann were Hindus (nor was either of them Polish, for that matter). Moreover, though, you can't record a turd on a CD or stream one either, so the appositeness of your citation of said proverb here might be deemed questionable!

Just out of curiosity, though are there absolutely no Schumann works that you like? I know that some people who really don't go for Schumann make exceptions of works such as the Piano Quintet, Fantaisie and Études Symphoniques...

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

!!!

"In went old soldier", wittering incessantly (to himself) yet again...

One who tied you up and highlighted your errors making you unable to respond and whom has also noticed you added this later on because you wanted your last word, I know I know it's hard to resist the last word right?

I know that proverb, of course, although neither Sorabji nor Schumann were Hindus  (nor was either of them Polish, for that matter)

There is no logic behind this statement, why do they have to be Hindi or Polish for thal to be able to use that? Can you only ever use quotes about something when it is from the same country as that quote??? A wise Australian proverb "You're a six pack short of a carton mate!"

[ahinton]

One who tied you up

Wrong.

and highlighted your errors

Wrong.

making you unable to respond

Wrong.

and whom

Who.

has also noticed you added this later on

Added what?

because you wanted your last word

Wrong.

I know I know it's hard to resist the last word right?

Again, wrong. Full marks for consistency, though, even if not for recognising an anagram.

There is no logic behind this statement

...that you can or will perceive.

why do they have to be Hindi

Hindu.

or Polish for thal to be able to use that?

I had not suggested that they did but that does not detract from what I wrote; "Polish" was in any case not to be taken seriously...

A wise Australian proverb "You're a six pack short of a carton mate!"

You seem quite keen to quote proverbs irrespective of whether they possess any contextual relevance; your prerogative, naturellement.

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Who.
Wrong.
Again, wrong. Full marks for consistency, though, even if not for recognising an anagram.
...that you can or will perceive.

You are not marking anything nor the authority of what is right or wrong, and in this case you have no authority since what was proclaimed is irrefutable truth. Awww ahinton how come you respond so short it makes no sense it is just all your opinion backed up with NOTHING at all. Just because you say it is wrong doesn't make it so, it is just YOUR marginalized opinion which fails and has nothing to back it up with. I have already highlighted all your errors and proved it, you were unable to respond with anything convincing at all. You failed badly and then had to edit your post to include a snide remark just so you could feel better and get the last word, too bad I noticed it and now this carries on.

1) Ahinton butts into conversations but proclaims he doesn't and nags when others do (pot calling the kettle black attitude), proven with links
2) PUTTING IN MORE TIME INTO WORK = LESS ERRORS, proven by logic which ahinton doesn't understand and believed it is opinion.
3) Quoting someone and then writing underneath that quote means that you are writing in response to that person not anyone else which ahinton tried to make out.
4) NEW!!! Ahinton likes to edit his posts after some time goes by to include snide remarks. He ususally responses with !!!! when he has had enough of me but this time he did write the !!!! as usual but included:
"In went old soldier", wittering incessantly (to himself) yet again..."

later this was added. Irrefutable proof that ahinton likes to edit posts after some time to include snide remarks, this is so he can feel he gets the last word in. Unfortunately for him I notice these things.

Hindu.

Wrong

I had not suggested that they did but that does not detract from what I wrote; "Polish" was in any case not to be taken seriously...

You irrationally mentioned that they were not polish or hindi, no reason to mention it at all, an illogical detraction.

You seem quite keen to quote proverbs irrespective of whether they possess any contextual relevance; your prerogative, naturellement.

The Australian quote resembles your interactions on the threads on pianostreet quite well. How's that getting the last word in working for you ahinton? You want to edit more of your older posts and write in snide remarks? lol

[ahinton]

You are not marking anything nor the authority of what is right or wrong, and in this case you have no authority since what was proclaimed is irrefutable truth. Awww ahinton how come you respond so short it makes no sense it is just all your opinion backed up with NOTHING at all. Just because you say it is wrong doesn't make it so, it is just YOUR marginalized opinion which fails and has nothing to back it up with. I have already highlighted all your errors and proved it, you were unable to respond with anything convincing at all. You failed badly and then had to edit your post to include a snide remark just so you could feel better and get the last word, too bad I noticed it and now this carries on.

1) Ahinton butts into conversations but proclaims he doesn't and nags when others do (pot calling the kettle black attitude), proven with links
2) PUTTING IN MORE TIME INTO WORK = LESS ERRORS, proven by logic which ahinton doesn't understand and believed it is opinion.
3) Quoting someone and then writing underneath that quote means that you are writing in response to that person not anyone else which ahinton tried to make out.
4) NEW!!! Ahinton likes to edit his posts after some time goes by to include snide remarks. He ususally responses with !!!! when he has had enough of me but this time he did write the !!!! as usual but included:
"In went old soldier", wittering incessantly (to himself) yet again..."

later this was added. Irrefutable proof that ahinton likes to edit posts after some time to include snide remarks, this is so he can feel he gets the last word in. Unfortunately for him I notice these things.
Wrong
You irrationally mentioned that they were not polish or hindi, no reason to mention it at all, an illogical detraction.
The Australian quote resembles your interactions on the threads on pianostreet quite well. How's that getting the last word in working for you ahinton? You want to edit more of your older posts and write in snide remarks? lol

!!!

Too much time on hands; too little idea how to spend it.

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

Too much time on hands; too little idea how to spend it.

It neither takes much time nor having too little of an idea how to spend time to respond here.

[ahinton]

It neither takes much time nor having too little of an idea how to spend time to respond here.

Be that as it may or may not, it does nevertheless take amounts of time that are wholly disproportionate to the value of the contents; not my problem, though, as it's not my time...

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

Be that as it may or may not

No "may not's" only "may" since I am reporting a personal experience in the matter and not something subjective or opinion.

it does nevertheless take amounts of time that are wholly disproportionate to the value of the contents; not my problem, though, as it's not my time...

Again you are overestimating the time it takes me to respond it is neither disproportoinate to the value of the content or a matter which really requires your assessment.

[ahinton]

No "may not's" only "may" since I am reporting a personal experience in the matter and not something subjective or opinion.

"Be that as it may" is fine by me.

Again you are overestimating the time it takes me to respond it is neither disproportoinate to the value of the content or a matter which really requires your assessment.

I have not estimated the amount of time that you take posting as you sometimes do; as your typing speed is known to you but not to me, I am unqualified to make such estimates. My observation therefore related to the value of what you sometimes post in proportion to the amount of time that even a fast typist would take to type it; I would have thought that to be abundantly clear but, as it seems not to have been so, it should be now.

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

I have not estimated the amount of time that you take posting as you sometimes do; as your typing speed is known to you but not to me, I am unqualified to make such estimates. My observation therefore related to the value of what you sometimes post in proportion to the amount of time that even a fast typist would take to type it; I would have thought that to be abundantly clear but, as it seems not to have been so, it should be now.

Your previous statement:

"it does nevertheless take amounts of time that are wholly disproportionate to the value of the contents;..."

Shows some sort of measurement for you to make such a statement and that measurement must have provoked you to suggest that the time is wholly disproportionate to the value of the contents, these are all clear indicators that you are making some kind of measurement albeit rather opionative and in truth inaccurate.

[ahinton]

Your previous statement:

"it does nevertheless take amounts of time that are wholly disproportionate to the value of the contents;..."

Shows some sort of measurement for you to make such a statement and that measurement must have provoked you to suggest that the time is wholly disproportionate to the value of the contents, these are all clear indicators that you are making some kind of measurement albeit rather opionative and in truth inaccurate.

As I stated before, I made no measurement of your typing speed per se but I agree that I made a measurement in comparative terms by setting the time you take alongside the extent to which it was worth taking it - no more, no less. Yes, it is of course an opinion (and, in the absence of reliable data as to your typing speed, it can be neither more nor less than that), so the obvious interpretation of it is therefore predicated upon the extent to which the content of certain of your longer posts could be seen to justify whatever time you spent in typing them.

I am not necessarily expecting you to agree, but that is not the point.

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

As I stated before, I made no measurement of your typing speed per se but I agree that I made a measurement in comparative terms by setting the time you take alongside the extent to which it was worth taking it - no more, no less.

No one but yourself is talking about my typing speed so you are creating an argument all yourself and talking to yourself about it. You have made a guess at a measurement which I confirmed was incorrect because it doesn't take me much time at all to respond, not to such an extent that it wastes any noticeable amount of time.

Yes, it is of course an opinion (and, in the absence of reliable data as to your typing speed, it can be neither more nor less than that),

Again no one but yourself is talking about typing speed, all I was suggesting is that your comment that:"it does nevertheless take amounts of time that are wholly disproportionate to the value of the contents;..." is invalid since it takes no amount of time of mine that could be considered disproportionate to the value of the contents. So your opinion is refuted because the experience is my own to know completely not yourself and thus I can proclaim your error due to my personal experience not guess work. 

so the obvious interpretation of it is therefore predicated upon the extent to which the content of certain of your longer posts could be seen to justify whatever time you spent in typing them.

They explain everything I want to so that is justification enough just as you respond to these threads, do I question the justification of your responses? Is that even something that needs to be done? Seem rather irrelevant yet you want to bring it up.

I am not necessarily expecting you to agree, but that is not the point.

Much of your other responses are besides the main point anyway where it was noted you like to edit your responses later down on the track because you can't resist to get in the last word in . Which actually wasn't the main argument which was PUTTING MORE TIME INTO WORK = LESS ERRORS. But sure keep on the issues that are on point right?

[ahinton]

No one but yourself is talking about my typing speed so you are creating an argument all yourself and talking to yourself about it. You have made a guess at a measurement which I confirmed was incorrect because it doesn't take me much time at all to respond, not to such an extent that it wastes any noticeable amount of time.
Again no one but yourself is talking about typing speed, all I was suggesting is that your comment that:"it does nevertheless take amounts of time that are wholly disproportionate to the value of the contents;..." is invalid since it takes no amount of time of mine that could be considered disproportionate to the value of the contents. So your opinion is refuted because the experience is my own to know completely not yourself and thus I can proclaim your error due to my personal experience not guess work. 
They explain everything I want to so that is justification enough just as you respond to these threads, do I question the justification of your responses? Is that even something that needs to be done? Seem rather irrelevant yet you want to bring it up.
Much of your other responses are besides the main point anyway where it was noted you like to edit your responses later down on the track because you can't resist to get in the last word in . Which actually wasn't the main argument which was PUTTING MORE TIME INTO WORK = LESS ERRORS. But sure keep on the issues that are on point right?

!!!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

One might think to question what place is merited by references to microwave radiation hiss on a thread devoted to "Repertoire" when clearly the two phenomena are diametrically different and, for that matter, what place it has anywhere on a forum devoted principally to the piano, its music and performances - but then in order to do that one would presumably have first to take the thread topic seriously...

Ah, well...

Moving on - the recording concerned (Sequentia Cyclica, played by Jonathan Powell, for the benefit of anyone who's not read the entire thread) seems to be doing well in terms of reviews and, as far as I can tell, sales; The Sorabji Archive has been delighted to receive many enthusiastic, complimentary and congratulatory responses to it release, not to mention requests for Alexander Abercrombie's magnificently typeset score of the piece.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Thanks for the latest plug.

[ahinton]

Thanks for the latest plug.

You're very welcome, not least because you personally initiated this thread a part of which purported to be on the subject of that work (for which plug I ought perhaps to thank you)!

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

oh ahinton you tell other members they don't understand sarcasm when it is posted here but it's ok when you pretend not to notice it? lol Please don't now go ahead saying you never do such things, I have a number of quotes ready to post.

[ahinton]

oh ahinton you tell other members they don't understand sarcasm when it is posted here but it's ok when you pretend not to notice it? lol Please don't now go ahead saying you never do such things, I have a number of quotes ready to post.

I will tell other members what I wish to tell them, if anything but not guided by you, thank you.

Post whatever you wish; not my problem.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Michel Roux Jr., the distinguished British two-Michelin-starred chef at London's famous restaurant Le Gavroche, once said to a young budding chef, "there is a place for a microwave; in a corner, out of sight".

Says it all, really...

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

I will tell other members what I wish to tell them, if anything but not guided by you, thank you.

Where in my last post did I try to guide you how to respond to others, you are mistaken that I did any such thing. I simply highlighted that you ignored the sarcasm but at the same time in other instances you tell people they need to learn about sarcasm if they pretend to ignore it just like you do. One standard for yourself, one for others? Or do you assume that they really don't understand sarcasm when they ignore it and thus need to be directed to the sarcasm but in your instance you have the ability to understand sarcasm very well and have appropriate skill to ignore it?

Yo ahinton, thal was using sarcasm btw when mentioning the plug.

Post whatever you wish; not my problem.

No one said it is your problem, I said if you deny what I said I will post several links which prove exactly what I am writing about. Since you didn't lie and deny there is no need to post it.

[ahinton]

Where in my last post did I try to guide you how to respond to others, you are mistaken that I did any such thing. I simply highlighted that you ignored the sarcasm but at the same time in other instances you tell people they need to learn about sarcasm if they pretend to ignore it just like you do.

"People"? Really?

One standard for yourself, one for others?

No, but which "others"?

Or do you assume that they really don't understand sarcasm when they ignore it and thus need to be directed to the sarcasm but in your instance you have the ability to understand sarcasm very well and have appropriate skill to ignore it?

All wrong and, once again, who are "they"?

Yo ahinton, thal was using sarcasm btw when mentioning the plug.

What that was perfectly obvious, I'm not obliged to run with it!

No one said it is your problem

I know. I merely point out that it isn't.

Too much time on your hands yet again. Again, not my problem (as it's not my time).

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

"People"? Really?

I'm sure users here are people. It is peculiar you want to question a single word within two sentences, that is an unusual display of comprehension.

No, but which "others"?

Well for instance myself when you wrote a sarcastic remark over a sentence I wrote, I write appreciation for your sarcastic appreciation purposefully ignoring your use of sarcasm and then you told me to look up the meaning of sarcasm.

All wrong and, once again, who are "they"?

They = other users on this forum pianostreet on the internet, here on earth, solar system, milky way. What I wrote might be all wrong maybe in the ahinton opinion which is not very strong in this case as it must go up against clear facts. It is not all wrong because there are examples of you here on pianostreet which demonstrate what I am writing. Would you like some links to prove it, I have already mentioned your use of sarcasm against me and then you directing me towards the sarcastic tone once I purposefully ignored it? That you call people up on their purposeful ignorance of sarcasm choosing to a solution that they have "missed it" but you yourself like to practice ignoring sarcastic remarks like with thal's last response, so it seems strange you ignore the clear fact that they are doing just the same as yourself and are not missing anything at all.

What that was perfectly obvious, I'm not obliged to run with it!

Yes it is obviously sarcastic and you notice how no one (like you have done to others) called you up on you ignoring the sarcasm something you like to do to others when you are sarcastic toward them. I decided to play the role that you usually do to others when sarcasm is ignored.

I know. I merely point out that it isn't.

So you are just talking to yourself.

Too much time on your hands yet again. Again, not my problem (as it's not my time).

You persist in this "too much time on your hands" opinion which surely you remember was already discussed in this thread, perhaps you feel that if you restate your opinion it makes it stronger or a truth, unfortunately it just remains your opinion backed up with no evidence since it would require you to personally know my time management which clearly you do not. Again, there is no evidence that it takes an amount of time for me to respond here that is any amount of "too much time". No one says it is your problem so it is illogical for you to mention that unless you feel that others are trying to make it your problems which you shouldn't now think is a reality because I cannot see anyone making it your problem.

[ahinton]

I'm sure users here are people. It is peculiar you want to question a single word within two sentences, that is an unusual display of comprehension.

Of course they are; on that, at least, we can agree. It was the plurality that I called into question - no more, no less.

Well for instance myself when you wrote a sarcastic remark over a sentence I wrote, I write appreciation for your sarcastic appreciation purposefully ignoring your use of sarcasm and then you told me to look up the meaning of sarcasm.
They = other users on this forum pianostreet on the internet, here on earth, solar system, milky way. What I wrote might be all wrong maybe in the ahinton opinion which is not very strong in this case as it must go up against clear facts. It is not all wrong because there are examples of you here on pianostreet which demonstrate what I am writing. Would you like some links to prove it, I have already mentioned your use of sarcasm against me and then you directing me towards the sarcastic tone once I purposefully ignored it? That you call people up on their purposeful ignorance of sarcasm choosing to a solution that they have "missed it" but you yourself like to practice ignoring sarcastic remarks like with thal's last response, so it seems strange you ignore the clear fact that they are doing just the same as yourself and are not missing anything at all.
Yes it is obviously sarcastic and you notice how no one (like you have done to others) called you up on you ignoring the sarcasm something you like to do to others when you are sarcastic toward them. I decided to play the role that you usually do to others when sarcasm is ignored.

What a load of lostinidlewonderment!

So you are just talking to yourself.

No, it is you who are doing that; I've noticed it, but that's about all.

You persist in this "too much time on your hands" opinion which surely you remember was already discussed in this thread, perhaps you feel that if you restate your opinion it makes it stronger or a truth, unfortunately it just remains your opinion backed up with no evidence since it would require you to personally know my time management which clearly you do not. Again, there is no evidence that it takes an amount of time for me to respond here that is any amount of "too much time". No one says it is your problem so it is illogical for you to mention that unless you feel that others are trying to make it your problems which you shouldn't now think is a reality because I cannot see anyone making it your problem.

By "too much time" in this intance I mean any time at all. It's nothing to do with your time management skills, typing speed or any other considerations; I merely measure the value of the contents of what you post against however much or little time that you spent on posting.

Simples.

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

Blue wall of text, quite artistic.

Of course they are; on that, at least, we can agree. It was the plurality that I called into question - no more, no less.

Well I can name in the last weeks myself and perfect_pitch (in the "Sorabji Free Zone" thread) as two users who you suggest sarcasm goes over our heads when we purposefully ignore sarcasm that is used. So there is the plural question solved for you no more or less.

What a load of lostinidlewonderment!

The term you are using is not something in the English dictionary so I guess you are the only one who can understand its meaning and intention which strongly correlates to talking to oneself since only you understand what you mean.

No, it is you who are doing that; I;ve noticed it, but that;s about all.

I have not suggest to tell you anything is "your problem" however you seem to want to bring it up as if it was suggested that it is your problem. Quite an inaccurate opinion.

By "too much time" in this intance I mean any time at all.

So you think there should be no time at all spent here. Why do you respond then? It seems you have no problem using "too much time" to respond.

It's nothing to do with you rtime management skills, typing speed or any other considerations; I merely measure the value of the contants of what you post against however much or little time that you spent on posting.

You keep bring up typing speed and it was only ever you who brought it up. What is "the value of the contants", however much time I use is unknown to you and any guess of it being "too much time" is simply your unfounded opinion and adds nothing.

Bset,

Alistair

Not quite right.

[ahinton]

Blue wall of text, quite artistic.
Well I can name in the last weeks myself and perfect_pitch (in the "Sorabji Free Zone" thread) as two users who you suggest sarcasm goes over our heads when we purposefully ignore sarcasm that is used. So there is the plural question solved for you no more or less.
The term you are using is not something in the English dictionary so I guess you are the only one who can understand its meaning and intention which strongly correlates to talking to oneself since only you understand what you mean.
I have not suggest to tell you anything is "your problem" however you seem to want to bring it up as if it was suggested that it is your problem. Quite an inaccurate opinion.
So you think there should be no time at all spent here. Why do you respond then? It seems you have no problem using "too much time" to respond.
You keep bring up typing speed and it was only ever you who brought it up. What is "the value of the contants", however much time I use is unknown to you and any guess of it being "too much time" is simply your unfounded opinion and adds nothing.
Not quite right.

At least you afford a small amount of occasional amusement with your pseudo-defensively empty witterings, however momentarily!

Ah, well...

To return to the thread topic (FWIW), one could say that Sorabji's music is never intended to be in the background and it never hisses but at least it does radiate, so one out of three's not bad...

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

At least you afford a small amount of occasional amusement with your pseudo-defensively empty witterings, however momentarily!

All your opinion and guess work about how I function and what you are reading. You asked the irrelevant questions and it was answered, I merely had a simple point but you decided to focus in on issues which were not the crux of the matter, something that you like to do if we look at the history of posts.

To return to the thread topic (FWIW), one could say that Sorabji's music is never intended to be in the background and it never hisses but at least it does radiate, so one out of three's not bad...

It seems rather unintelligent to continue comparison between the two or take it serious enough to continually comment about.

[ahinton]

All your opinion and guess work about how I function and what you are reading. You asked the irrelevant questions and it was answered, I merely had a simple point but you decided to focus in on issues which were not the crux of the matter, something that you like to do if we look at the history of posts.

There is no such guesswork and I have no interest in how you finction; that's up to you. Once again, I have no idea who "we" might be but haver no interest in it either.

It seems rather unintelligent to continue comparison between the two or take it serious enough to continually comment about.

If my remark to which this purports to be a response is indicative of the comparison being taken seriously, I would be very surprised indeed!

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

There is no such guesswork and I have no interest in how you finction;

I also don’t care what you think about my writing unless you have something constructive to say or a question that is relevant to what I am writing about, noting your isolated opinion that what I write is amusing is irrelevant to everyone but yourself.

Once again, I have no idea who "we" might be but haver no interest in it either.

Highly unusual that you claim to not understand this use of “we”. Even more unusual that even though you have no interest about it you still require to mention it. In any case we could be any user on pianostreet.

If my remark to which this purports to be a response is indicative of the comparison being taken seriously, I would be very surprised indeed!

You need to read what I wrote more carefully “serious enough to respond” is all I’m mentioning any exaggerated definition of this is all of your own workings. However you are free to keep on about background radiation vs sorabji even though it’s a rather empty endeavour.

[ahinton]

I also don’t care what you think about my writing

I am not asking you to do so.

noting your isolated opinion that what I write is amusing is irrelevant to everyone but yourself.

You are in no position to assume that it is isolated or who might be amused by it just because no one else has expressed opinions on either.

Highly unusual that you claim to not understand this use of “we”. Even more unusual that even though you have no interest about it you still require to mention it. In any case we could be any user on pianostreet.

Er, no; "any user" is singular whereas "we" is, as you know, the first person plural and would be reasonably interpreted as referring to at least two others.

You need to read what I wrote more carefully “serious enough to respond” is all I’m mentioning any exaggerated definition of this is all of your own workings.

Since that is not a sentence, its meaning (if any) is accordingly unclear.

However you are free to keep on about background radiation vs sorabji even though it’s a rather empty endeavour.

I have no wish to do that, my most recent intentionally facetious remark being an "isolated" one on the subject at this stage.

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

I am not asking you to do so.

And yet you decided it was important enough to mention that you didn't care, I thought I would also say I don't care and it is intended that I am not asking you to do so also, doesn't seem to be something worth mentioning but oh well you decided to.

You are in no position to assume that it is isolated or who might be amused by it just because no one else has expressed opinions on either.

Well then please ahinton gather your troops who hold the same opinion as yourself about my writing, so far all we have is yourself. Show us who also is amused by my writings in the manner you are and also please direct how this is relevant to the post. I am in a strong position to infer that it is only your own solitary opinion.

Er, no; "any user" is singular whereas "we" is, as you know, the first person plural and would be reasonably interpreted as referring to at least two others.

How on earth can "any user on pianostreet" be singular when the word "any" has this definition: to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or how many. No ahinton you are disagreeing with far too much and it has become obvious your careless attempt simply to disagree just for the sake of it. It is rather illogical for you to even attempt to debate this but I will happily respond over and over again as you require.

Since that is not a sentence, its meaning (if any) is accordingly unclear.

It is not unclear at all, I said if the thread comparing sorabji to radiation hiss is irrational and not very intelligent and I fail to see anything that would provoke someone to be "serious enough to continually comment about" as you do, and we can see some bump posts of your carrying on about this unintelligent juxtapositioning. You are taking my use of the word "serious" and trying to apply it to some intense description which is orphaned from my original use of the word which claimed the seriousness to relate to the need to respond.

I have no wish to do that, my most recent intentionally facetious remark being an "isolated" one on the subject at this stage.

You still persist to continue the thread so it was a decision that you made, for what reason that is totally up to yourself, but I would be surprised if anyone thought comparing Sorabji to Radiation hiss deserves any amount of response, you however seem to think it does and again that is up to you but it doesn't look like it will reap anything important at all. 

[ahinton]

And yet you decided it was important enough to mention that you didn't care

How important is that, really?...

I thought I would also say I don't care and it is intended that I am not asking you to do so also, doesn't seem to be something worth mentioning but oh well you decided to.

Say whatever it pleases you to say.

Well then please ahinton gather your troops who hold the same opinion as yourself about my writing, so far all we have is yourself

Why? I have no "troops" in any case. I find some of what you write amusing because it borders on the absurd and abrusdly unnecessary; whether anyone else might feel the same way (especially about posts that you seek to direct at me) is really neither here nor there.

Show us who also is amused by my writings in the manner you are and also please direct how this is relevant to the post.

See above.

I am in a strong position to infer that it is only your own solitary opinion.

You might imagine so but that oes not make it so any more than it lends it any importance.

How on earth can "any user on pianostreet" be singular when the word "any" has this definition: to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or how many.

"Any user on pianostreet" is singular because the word "user" is singular; had you written "any / all / the majority of (take your pick) users on pianostreet, that would have been different, even though you are unqualified to spek for the membership as a while. That;s how, since you ask.

No ahinton you are disagreeing with far too much and it is become obvious your carelsss attempt simply to disagree just for the sake of it. It is rather illogical for you to even attempt to debate this but I will happily respond over and over again as you require.

For the record, I do not "require" you to do anything at all.

It is not unclear at all, I said if the thread comparing sorabji to radiation hiss is irrational and not very intelligent and I fail to see anything that would provoke someone to be "serious enough to continually comment about" as you do, and we can see some bump posts of your carrying on about this unintelligent juxtapositioning. 
You still persist to continue the thread with useless remarks, for what reason that is totally up to yourself, but I would be surprised if anyone thought comparing Sorabji to Radiation hiss deserves any amount of response, you however seem to think it does and again that is up to you but it doesn't look like it will reap anything important at all.

Not at all, I have made only one recent response to "Sorabji vs Microwave Background Radiation Hiss" and, as I mentioned, is was intentionally facetious and seeks and requires no further discussion.

The usefulness or otherwise of each of my remarks is for each individual reader thereof to decide (or not); that said, I have agreed and continue to agree with you that "the thread comparing Sorabji to radiation hiss is irrational and not very intelligent" but, since I did not initiate it, your response to and evaluation of it is a matter for the member who did, if for anyone at all.

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

How important is that, really?...

It isn't but you decided to mention it. All I was discussing in my most recent return to this thread, was about SARCASM and how you tell people that it goes over their head or that they should look up the meaning on it if they purposefully ignore sarcasm used against them, but you (as in the example from thals last response) will ignore the sarcasm just the same. So I thought I would tell you to notice the sarcasm which you said is obvious, so I wonder why for you it is obvious but for others they need to look up the definition or that it "goes over their heads".

Also another main point of recent: Where in my post did I try to guide you how to respond to others, you are mistaken that I did any such thing. I simply highlighted that you ignored the sarcasm but at the same time in other instances you tell people they need to learn about sarcasm if they pretend to ignore it just like you do. One standard for yourself, one for others? Or do you assume that they really don't understand sarcasm when they ignore it and thus need to be directed to the sarcasm but in your instance you have the ability to understand sarcasm very well and have appropriate skill to ignore it?

And lets go further back to main points you decided to tangent away from:
1) Ahinton butts into conversations but proclaims he doesn't and nags when others do (pot calling the kettle black attitude), proven with links
2) PUTTING IN MORE TIME INTO WORK = LESS ERRORS, proven by logic which ahinton doesn't understand and believed it is opinion.
3) Quoting someone and then writing underneath that quote means that you are writing in response to that person not anyone else which ahinton tried to make out.
4) Ahinton likes to edit his posts after some time goes by to include snide remarks. He ususally responses with !!!! when he has had enough of me but this time he did write

Say whatever it pleases you to say.

I will and have always done so, you decided to bring it up so please say whatever pleases you to say but be ready for a response from me if I am pleased to do so.

Why? I have no "troops" in any case.

Troops is used for you to demonstrate those who hold the same isolated opinion that you have about my writing here in this thread. Since you claim that your opinion is not only held by yourself as I claimed that you have an isolated personal opinion that only you yourself hold, you claim I am wrong without even showing who else thinks the same as yourself.

I find some of what you write amusing because it borders on the absurd and abrusdly unnecessary

It merely responds to what you are writing about. What I write about is actually quite simple but you choose to tangent all over the place with irrelevant issues. So I respond only to what you write. Perhaps if you focused on my main points and not nitpick on irrelevant issues you will have a better interaction, but you choose to go off into your little nitpicks so I respond to each one every single time.

whether anyone else might feel the same way (especially about posts that you seek to direct at me) is really neither here nor there.

Then you need to reasses your statement " You are in no position to assume that it is isolated or who might be amused by it just because no one else has expressed opinions on either." because I am indeed in a position since if we look for who harvests this isolated marginalized opinion about my writing that you have we cannot find one other person. So I am in a strong position to infer exactly what I did and you have made a mistake to neglect this.

See above.

Repetition which was responded to, see above.

You might imagine so but that oes not make it so any more than it lends it any importance.

YOu have a tendency to try and belittle what people say, here you say "YOU MIGHT IMAGINE" but this is not correct because the situation is I MIGHT INFER which is much stronger, so take your IMAGINE degregation away since I have proven it is void of any truth. See above responses.

"Any user on pianostreet" is singular because the word "user" is singular

What is ANY then? You are totally ignoring the word ANY, why are you doing such things? Oh yes because you like to disagree over nothing at all I have seen this pattern in you time and time again on pianostreet. Any user may imply one or many people, take many "any" and you have more than one, go ahead try it! lol

had you written "any / all / the majority of (take your pick) users on pianostreet, that would have been different, even though you are unqualified to spek for the membership as a while.

Irrational and illogical. You are nitpicking a small issue which has NOTHING to do with the main point. Are you unable to focus on the main points? In a debate you would be laughed out of the room for your tangents and focusing on issues which have nothing to do with the main points.

For the record, I do not "require" you to do anything at all.

I dont seek the need for you to "require" me to do anything at all, unusual that you want to mention such a thing, nothing i said even implies that I would.

Not at all, I have made only one recent response to "Sorabji vs Microwave Background Radiation Hiss" and, as I mentioned, is was intentionally facetious and seeks and requires no further discussion.

One far too many annd you have also though it serious enough to redirect back to the OPs question while quoting with me [see your response: To return to the thread topic (FWIW)], which highlights that you take this post serious enough to respond. That is my only point and it is proven by your "bumping" of this useless thread.

The usefulness or otherwise of each of my remarks is for each individual reader thereof to decide (or not);

The amount of people who would would think comparing Sorabji with Radition Hiss is anything to be useful at all would be extremly small. We are with an extremely high probably the only people discussing it. I am not discussing it at all since there are more interesting matters I saw in this thread especially the remarks you make which I enjoy debating over and over again no matter how much you like to tangent discussions away from the main points.

that said, Ihave agreed and continue to agree with you that "the thread comparing Sorabji to radiation hiss is irrational and not very intelligent"

I wonder why if you find it not very intelligent that you go out of your way to actually bump the post.

your response to and evaluation of it is a matter for the member who did, if for anyone at all.

He hasn't written much in this thread by comparison to yourself and me, so we are taking the thread far more serious than he is since we are responding. You are taking it even more serious by bumping the post when no one asked you to.

[brogers70]

The real question for a poll is whether you'd rather listen to Hinton and LiIW read their posts back and forth at each other, or to the Microwave Background Hiss. I'd definitely go for the Microwave Hiss.

[lostinidlewonder]

Has our little quoting dance got to you yet brogers70? ehhehe

[ahinton]

It isn't but you decided to mention it

Because it was necessary to do so but I did not seek to invest it with any greater importance than it merits.

All I was discussing in my most recent return to this thread, was about SARCASM and how you tell people that it goes over their head or that they should look up the meaning on it if they purposefully ignore sarcasm used against them

Which "people"? You seem to be confusing pluralities with singularities and not for the first time.

I thought I would tell you to notice the sarcasm which you said is obvious, so I wonder why for you it is obvious but for others they need to look up the definition or that it "goes over their heads".

Here you go again; "others" - plural - which "others"?

Also another main point of recent: Where in my post did I try to guide you how to respond to others, you are mistaken that I did any such thing.

Read your own post and go figure.

I simply highlighted that you ignored the sarcasm

You don't know what I did or did not ignore.

but at the same time in other instances you tell people they need to learn about sarcasm if they pretend to ignore it just like you do. One standard for yourself, one for others?

Again, "people", "others". Plural.

And lets go further back to main points

Again, "let[']s" - i.e. "let us"; plural again. I don't think that anyone besides you is seeking to "go further back" on anything.

I will and have always done so, you decided to bring it up so please say whatever pleases you to say but be ready for a response from me if I am pleased to do so.

I am indeed ready for that but this alone does not confer upon any such response the warrant of a reply.

Troops is used for you to demonstrate those who hold the same isolated opinion that you have about my writing here in this thread. Since you claim that your opinion is not only held by yourself as I claimed that you have an isolated personal opinion that only you yourself hold, you claim I am wrong without even showing who else thinks the same as yourself.

Missing the point as usual. I claimed nothing of the kind; I merely pointed out an opinion and it is of no consequnce whether "others" might or might not share it because it was not referring to anyone else.

It merely responds to what you are writing about. What I write about is actually quite simple but you choose to tangent all over the place with irrelevant issues. So I respond only to what you write. Perhaps if you focused on my main points and not nitpick on irrelevant issues you will have a better interaction, but you choose to go off into your little nitpicks so I respond to each one every single time.

When you make some points worth making on a thread topic, I might focus thereon.

Then you need to reasses your statement " You are in no position to assume that it is isolated or who might be amused by it just because no one else has expressed opinions on either." because I am indeed in a position since if we look for who harvests this isolated marginalized opinion about my writing that you have we cannot find one other person. So I am in a strong position to infer exactly what I did and you have made a mistake to neglect this.

As I stated, an opinion does not have to be expressed for it to be held; if you think differently, that's up to you.

YOu have a tendency to try and belittle what people say

"People" again! And even were that to be correct, why need that concern you?

here you say "YOU MIGHT IMAGINE" but this is not correct because the situation is I MIGHT INFER which is much stronger, so take your IMAGINE degregation away since I have proven it is void of any truth. See above responses.

Not only have you proven nothing of the kind (not least because it isn't the case) but also the two are not mutually exclusive, i.e. you can infer something that you imagine.

What is ANY then? You are totally ignoring the word ANY, why are you doing such things? Oh yes because you like to disagree over nothing at all I have seen this pattern in you time and time again on pianostreet. Any user may imply one or many people, take many "any" and you have more than one, go ahead try it! lol

"Any user" was your phrase; "user" is singular, so that phrase means "any one user".

Irrational and illogical. You are nitpicking a small issue which has NOTHING to do with the main point. Are you unable to focus on the main points? In a debate you would be laughed out of the room for your tangents and focusing on issues which have nothing to do with the main points.

As I have mentioned before, when you have some main points that are germane to a discussion to the thread topic (and I confer no obligation upon you to have any, especially since you have "inferred" that you do not consider it to have credibility, with which I agree), I might focus on them; until and unless you have such, I would certainly not grace a debate of what you write with "others".

I dont seek the need for you to "require" me to do anything at all, unusual that you want to mention such a thing, nothing i said even implies that I would.
One far too many which highlights that you take this post serious enough to respond. That is my only point and it is proven by your "bumping" of this useless thread.

Ah, so your only point is the ueslessness of the thread!

The amount of people who would would think comparing Sorabji with Radition Hiss is anything to be useful at all would be extremly small. We are with an extremely high probably the only people discussing it. I am not discussing it at all since there are more interesting matters I saw in this thread especially the remarks you make which I enjoy debating over and over again no matter how much you like to tangent discussions away from the main points.

Oh, dear; plural again! "Main points" - when you've just stated that you have only one here.

I wonder why if you find it not very intelligent that you go out of your way to actually bump the post.

Most of the thread is not about the topic, as a cursory glance through it would clearly reveal.

He hasn't written much in this thread by comparison to yourself and me, so we are taking the thread far more serious than he is since we are responding. You are taking it even more serious by bumping the post when no one asked you to.

No. For one thing, no one has "asked" anyone to contribute any posts to this thread and, for another, as I already stated, much of what's being written here is not about that topic in any case.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

The real question for a poll is whether you'd rather listen to Hinton and LiIW read their posts back and forth at each other, or to the Microwave Background Hiss. I'd definitely go for the Microwave Hiss.

Frankly, I think that I would, too, although I'm not sure that I'd want to stay the entire course!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Has our little quoting dance got to you yet brogers70? ehhehe

Is that what it is? No wonder that it's arguably at least as useless as you and I each find the thread topic itself, since dance is pretty much a closed book to me...

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

Because it was necessary to do so but I did not seek to invest it with any greater importance than it merits.

Err this makes no sense if we look back at the last comments in this thread you asked "How important is that, really?..." So I mentioned that it wasn't but how you say it was necessary to do so lol, you have totally lost track of what you are trying to argue.

Which "people"? You seem to be confusing pluralities with singularities and not for the first time.

I have already answered who you played your sarcasm comments with, perfect_pitch in the "Sorabji Free Zone" and myself in this thread when you use sarcasm over your appreciation for my writing. I have already answered it and you again seem to be confused. That's ok I will repeat it over and over for you as required.

Here you go again; "others" - plural - which "others"?

I already defined what "others" meant and proved that it includes more than just one person (something you are trying to suggest unsuccessfully since all this has nothing to do with opinion) so continued to use the term, unless you want me to define what others mean every single time I use it though that is uncessary and clumsy. If you choose not to read what the definition is that I have clarified then I will repeat it again as much as required.

Read your own post and go figure.

Irrational response which assumes that I hold the same opinion as yourself which I do not. So go figure yourself, you like to correct people all the time, that plays a large role in your function here on pianostreet lol. I will continually call you up on it and respond.

You don't know what I did or did not ignore.

Err, it's very easy to notice that you ignored the sarcasm, look at thals last response in this thread, are you saying that we cannot tell that you ignored the sarcasm??? LOL show us proof in your respond to him that you made it so difficult to tell that you ignored it! You absolutely cannot so you have trapped yourself, in your desire to constantly disagree with me you have trapped yourself since your very words prove you wrong. We just have to read your response to thals last comment in this thread to show that you DID IGNORE the sarcasm. So I will call you up on your ignorance as you do with eveyrone else that does it, for example what you have done with Perfect_pitch and myself when it comes to sarcasm.

Again, "people", "others". Plural.

Irrelevant nitpicking, this has not confused the statement which I wrote: "I thought I would tell you to notice the sarcasm which you said is obvious, so I wonder why for you it is obvious but for others they need to look up the definition or that it "goes over their heads"."
It is certainly plural, myself and perfect_pitch. So you are making yourself look ignorant and a liar by saying there is not more than one person you do this to.

Again, "let[']s" - i.e. "let us"; plural again. I don't think that anyone besides you is seeking
to "go further back" on anything.

Should I go back and point out all your spelling mistakes and inaccuracies too? You make yourself look dumb by doing such activities since you are nitpicking on something which is not the main concern, you totally avoid the main concern which is obvious to me and rather amusing. You didn't quote all the main points I put up because you know you prefer your tangents, it requires much less thought lol.

I am indeed ready for that but this alone does not confer upon any such response the warrant of a reply.

If I am pleased to repond I will, it seems unnecceary to even bring it up, though you chose to bring it up, I agree it doesn't warrant any reply but you brought it up so it was your choice lol.

Missing the point as usual. I claimed nothing of the kind; I merely pointed out an opinion and it is of no consequnce whether "others" might or might not share it because it was not referring to anyone else.

Lol @ missing the point, why did you ignore the points in my last post which i clearly numbered for you? Oh you prefer to nitpick I see, thats ok I will respond to all your nitpicks quite happily. you said "Why? I have no "troops" in any case." so I clarified what I meant by troops and thus if you say you have none then that meant you had no one which shared your opinion that what I write is amusing in your special way that you described i.e. "At least you afford a small amount of occasional amusement with your pseudo-defensively empty witterings, however momentarily!" No troops by your side on that one, still waiting for you to produce one since you said my comment that this is your own isolated opinion was unwarrented for, an outcast opinion of your own.

When you make some points worth making on a thread topic, I might focus thereon.

Ah that makes sense why your response degrade to nitpicking and tangents all over the place ignoring the main points of a poster even if they list out the points neatly for you. Maybe you should not respond if you do not want to focus lol. It is your erroneous OPINION that there are no points on this thread, the points have been clearly listed out

As I stated, an opinion does not have to be expressed for it to be held; if you think differently, that's up to you.

It isn't an opinion though because we can infer that not one other person has written
"At least you afford a small amount of occasional amusement with your pseudo-defensively empty witterings, however momentarily!" Not one other person has written this about my writing or agree with you on that. So it is not an opnion when I say it is an isolated opinion that only yourself holds, it is a very strong observation based on the evidence of what others have also written. You can say someone MIGHT harvest the same but that is a weak observation since you will need to actually find that person, my observation that it is only yourself writing about it holding true because no where else on the internet or on pianostreet can we find anyone harvesting the same opinion about my writing. I also know all the responses I have recieved over the years and no one writes ""At least you afford a small amount of occasional amusement with your pseudo-defensively empty witterings, however momentarily!" no one at all.

"People" again! And even were that to be correct, why need that concern you?

It has already been defined what people represents, go back and read, if you refuse that is your choice but then this explains your exclaimation!!! lol. It concerns me because I hate arrogant people who do such things, I will call them up on it and debate them. You say I IMAGINE something but indeed I INFERRED it, I can give many more examples, when I said something IS when relating to something I wrote you tried to correct and say replace it with MAY, you do this kind of thing all the time I have noticed it over the years. You put down peoples writing by trying to make it look inaccurate or mistaken, that is not a very nice way to interract with others unless really it is something that needs correction. However you have a tendency to denegrate what people say when it is not even called for and when the evidence clearly shows that your attempt to do such things doesn't even hold up!

Not only have you proven nothing of the kind (not least because it isn't the case) but also the two are not mutually exclusive, i.e. you can infer something that you imagine.

If i IMAGINE an answer vs INFER an answer, infer is much stronger, imagine can come from anywhere it is less specific. This was a clear example of you trying to denegrade what someone writes, it was a clear inferrence I made nothing to do with imagining.

"Any user" was your phrase; "user" is singular, so that phrase means "any one user".

I didn't write "any ONE user" I wrote "any user" which can mean one or plural, it has flexibility, if you refuse to yeild to that that is your own pigheaded attitude and it is not my responsibility to help you there. In any case what I wrote is not confused at all, your nitpicking does not clarify anything at all and does not progress the discussion. Why would you want to nitpick and not focus on the main points? Oh yes it is your disagreement mode that has been turned on, unfortunately it is much better to disagree with main points and show your prowess there, nitpicking really is a monkey game, not much intelligence required, but if that is the simplistic realm you wish to play in that is up to you.

As I have mentioned before, when you have some main points that are germane to a discussion to the thread topic (and I confer no obligation upon you to have any, especially since you have "inferred" that you do not consider it to have credibility, with which I agree), I might focus on them; until and unless you have such, I would certainly not grace a debate of what you write with "others".

The main points of my interaction in this thread have been clearly laid out. Let me paste it again for you:
1) Ahinton butts into conversations but proclaims he doesn't and nags when others do (pot calling the kettle black attitude), proven with links
2) PUTTING IN MORE TIME INTO WORK = LESS ERRORS, proven by logic which ahinton doesn't understand and believed it is opinion.
3) Quoting someone and then writing underneath that quote means that you are writing in response to that person not anyone else which ahinton tried to make out.
4) Ahinton likes to edit his posts after some time goes by to include snide remarks. He ususally responses with !!!! when he has had enough of me but this time he did write
5)Where in my post did I try to guide you how to respond to others, you are mistaken that I did any such thing.
6) Ahinton ignores sarcasm but at the same time in other instances tells people they need to learn about sarcasm or that the sarcasm went over their heads if they also pretend to ignore it.

Please feel free to focus on these 6 main points and not your nitpicking I know its hard to resist when you can only pick on irrelevant information, it is much easier of course but tangents from the main points.

Ah, so your only point is the ueslessness of the thread!

It is not my only point at all that is your opinion which crumbles instantly if one notices the list of points I have put up. Yes it is a useless thread, notice how I didn't correct your spelling error???It is useless yet you also feel the need to respond, the point about Sorabji and Background radition hiss is useless, our interaction goes into totally different ideas, that was only because you tangented my initial simple idea "MORE TIME IN WORK = LESS ERRORS" from that you tangented, argued, nitpicked all over the place, I happily responded so that is what you get, perhaps if you focus on my main point and not argue about irrelevant issues our interaction would be much more brief? Though if you choose to tangent I will happily respond to it all.

Oh, dear; plural again! "Main points" - when you've just sta

Oh dear nitpicking about something that does not confuse the information.
I wrote:
"The amount of people who would would think comparing Sorabji with Radition Hiss is anything to be useful at all would be extremly small. We are with an extremely high probably the only people discussing it. I am not discussing it at all since there are more interesting matters I saw in this thread especially the remarks you make which I enjoy debating over and over again no matter how much you like to tangent discussions away from the main points"

You choose not to respond to this and merely go off into your mad world and complain about plurals. Not a very intelligent response but of course you are free to do such things.

Most of the thread is not about the topic, as a cursory glance through it would clearly reveal.

This does not answer what I asked: "I wonder why if you find it not very intelligent that you go out of your way to actually bump the post." You actually took it serious enough to bump this thread with https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=66025.msg697182#msg697182 2 days after the last post in the thread  was made which was from yourself as well.
This response from you is trying to stay on the topic of the OP and I have already stated that this thread is not to be taken serious yet you feel it important enough to bump with relevance to the OP. This all stems from the fact that you refused to accept that my word "serious" was appropriate to use as you began to nitpick about here: https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=66025.msg697396#msg697396
Ahinton wrote: If my remark to which this purports to be a response is indicative of the comparison being taken seriously, I would be very surprised indeed!
So please stay on topic of your quotes, we are debating the word "serious" in this section of the thread, go back and track what the particular quotes extend from otherwise your responses become more and more tangented away from the main point. 

No. For one thing, no one has "asked" anyone to contribute any posts to this thread and, for another, as I already stated, much of what's being written here is not about that topic in any case.

No?? I said thal has not contributed to this thread as much as you and myself, are you denying that with your NO response? lol. Again this is you in disagreement over issues which are very clear and obvious, no opinion required, clear evidence shown. Your "no" response is void in respose to the fact that Thal has not contributed as much as you and I in this thread. This chain of quotes has nothing to do with staying on topic, it has all to do with the word "serious". Please stay on topic ahinton, you are tangenting too much, however if you like to tangent and nitpick please carry on, I will respond to each one.

[lostinidlewonder]

Is that what it is? No wonder that it's arguably at least as useless as you and I each find the thread topic itself, since dance is pretty much a closed book to me...

It is a colourful description of what it looks like lol Yes a useless thread however which is serious enough to require response from you (more so since you bump the thread with posts related to the OP) and me

[ahinton]

It is a colourful description of what it looks like lol Yes a useless thread however which is serious enough to require response from you (more so since you bump the thread with posts related to the OP) and me

!!!

2,150 words, no less, between your past two posts and every one of them a utter waste of time (not that I've been bothered to read them).

Go waste as much of your time as you choose, of course. Whether you seek help for the itchiness of your digits or the witterings to which it gives rise is likewise up to you.

Thank you.