Total Members Voted: 21
Voting closed: January 08, 2020, 12:08:48 PM
Sequentia Cyclica is bollocks.END OF
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.
There is a clip on youtube of that non composition.
It is out there and is circulating as a free download thanks.
I do not comment on that which i have not listened to.
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.
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.
!!!"In went old soldier", wittering incessantly (to himself) yet again...
I know that proverb, of course, although neither Sorabji nor Schumann were Hindus (nor was either of them Polish, for that matter)
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?
There is no logic behind this statement
why do they have to be Hindi
or Polish for thal to be able to use that?
A wise Australian proverb "You're a six pack short of a carton mate!"
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.
Hindu.
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 seem quite keen to quote proverbs irrespective of whether they possess any contextual relevance; your prerogative, naturellement.
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 links2) 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. WrongYou 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.
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...
No "may not's" only "may" since I am reporting a personal experience in the matter and not something subjective or opinion.
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.
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.
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?
Thanks for the latest plug.
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.
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.
No one said it is your problem
"People"? Really?
No, but which "others"?
All wrong and, once again, who are "they"?
What that was perfectly obvious, I'm not obliged to run with it!
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).
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.
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.
So you are just talking to yourself.
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.
Of course they are; on that, at least, we can agree. It was the plurality that I called into question - no more, no less.
What a load of lostinidlewonderment!
No, it is you who are doing that; I;ve noticed it, but that;s about all.
By "too much time" in this intance I mean any time at all.
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.
Bset,Alistair
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!
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...
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.
It seems rather unintelligent to continue comparison between the two or take it serious enough to continually comment about.
There is no such guesswork and I have no interest in how you finction;
Once again, I have no idea who "we" might be but haver no interest in it either.
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!
I also don’t care what you think about my writing
noting your isolated opinion that what I write is amusing is irrelevant to everyone but yourself.
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.
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.
I am not asking you to do so.
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.
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.
Since that is not a sentence, its meaning (if any) is accordingly unclear.
I have no wish to do that, my most recent intentionally facetious remark being an "isolated" one on the subject at this stage.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
How important is that, really?...
Say whatever it pleases you to say.
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.
See above.
You might imagine so but that oes not make it so any more than it lends it any importance.
"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.
For the record, I do not "require" you to do anything 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, Ihave agreed and continue to agree with you that "the thread comparing Sorabji to radiation hiss is irrational and not very intelligent"
your response to and evaluation of it is a matter for the member who did, if for anyone at all.
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
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?
And lets go further back to main points
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I wonder why if you find it not very intelligent that you go out of your way to actually bump the post.
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.
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.
Has our little quoting dance got to you yet brogers70? ehhehe
Because it was necessary to do so but I did not seek to invest it with any greater importance than it merits.
Which "people"? You seem to be confusing pluralities with singularities and not for the first time.
Here you go again; "others" - plural - which "others"?
Read your own post and go figure.
You don't know what I did or did not ignore.
Again, "people", "others". Plural.
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 am indeed ready for that but this alone does not confer upon any such response the warrant of a reply.
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.
When you make some points worth making on a thread topic, I might focus thereon.
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.
"People" again! And even were that to be correct, why need that concern you?
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.
"Any user" was your phrase; "user" is singular, so that phrase means "any one user".
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".
Ah, so your only point is the ueslessness of the thread!
Oh, dear; plural again! "Main points" - when you've just sta
Most of the thread is not about the topic, as a cursory glance through it would clearly reveal.
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.
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
Poll
Topic: Sorabji vs Microwave Background Radiation Hiss 