Sorabji vs Microwave Background Radiation Hiss

[lostinidlewonder]

!!!

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.

It only responds to issues you brought up. Perhaps focus only on quotes you want to deal with then you will have less words. There is no evidence that this takes any amount of time that could be considered a "waste" so you will have to harvest the opinion but it has no relevance to my own personal time. Why should I seek help for "itchiness of digits" or "witterings" they are only responding to quotes you brought up. If you are not bothered to read them then you are only bothered to quote me and leave it as that, however I won't leave it as that and will always respond back, if you don't like it then don't quote me and try to replace what I write with your opinion.

[ahinton]

It only responds to issues you brought up. Perhaps focus only on quotes you want to deal with then you will have less words. There is no evidence that this takes any amount of time that could be considered a "waste" so you will have to harvest the opinion but it has no relevance to my own personal time. Why should I seek help for "itchiness of digits" or "witterings" they are only responding to quotes you brought up. If you are not bothered to read them then you are only bothered to quote me and leave it as that, however I won't leave it as that and will always respond back, if you don't like it then don't quote me and try to replace what I write with your opinion.

Be that as it may or may not, it remains a waste of time because all of those words are not being read. Whether you should seek help for either of things is a decision that only you can makeand I am not bothered one way or the other about that - indeed, I cannot be so. For the record, I neither like nor dislike any of it. What you respond to, when and with what is up to you alone; it makes no difference to me.

It has been noted (though I propose to neither for its veracity nor otherwise) that some of those who talk to themselves do so because they have no one else to whom to talk; whether or not this might have any pertinence here is not for me to decide, but I thought that I would mention it anyway.

[lostinidlewonder]

Be that as it may or may not, it remains a waste of time because all of those words are not being read.

Not "may" it "is" how I have described it, the length of posts respond to everything you bring up and if you think it is a waste then don't bring it up in the first place I guess. That is fine I don't expect you to read it nor anyone else. As a matter of debate it simply stands as being stated whether you decide to respond or not is up to you as too whether you decide to read it or not.

Whether you should seek help for either of things is a decision that only you can makeand I am not bothered one way or the other about that

If you are not bothered about it one way or the other I wonder why you bothered to bring it up in the first place? Surely telling  another member they have to seek help is nothing that you or I are qualified to suggest by simply reading words on a piano forum.

For the record, I neither like nor dislike any of it.

So you are saying your dont like or dislike you are a fence sitter when it comes to issues you think are "a total waste of time" or that the person who writes should seek help for "itchiness of digits" or "witterings"? That seems very peculiar indeed that you nether like or dislike the situation when you are using so many negative terms to describe it. Why you want to hide the fact that you dont like or dislike it is rather confusing but of course you are free to do so. I will ignore that and believe you dislike it due to the many negative words you used to describe it. Do you read things you like? I would hope so! Do you read things you dislike? By the looks of it and any other normal person, it is not something we aspire to do, reading things we dislike. So the fact that you said you will not read any of this highlights strongly a dislike.

What you respond to, when and with what is up to you alone; it makes no difference to me.

You think my responses are very long and a waste of time and something you wont read. However my contribution to the thread requires that you respond and quote my writing which you did quite sufficiently, it is not done on totally my own accord I am responding to everything you said and elaboring on issues you bring up when you quote me.

It has been noted (though I propose to neither for its veracity nor otherwise) that some of those who talk to themselves do so because they have no one else to whom to talk; whether or not this might have any pertinence here is not for me to decide, but I thought that I would mention it anyway.

Now you want to assume that I have no one to talk to thus write a lot on here? You can harvest that opinion however it is very far away from reality. No I am merely responding to everything that you quote, if you don't like it (or find it a waste of time and something you will not read) then you don't have to quote me and respond.

[ahinton]

I don't expect you to read it nor anyone else.

Says it all, really; you are prepared to type more than 2,000 words two successive posts without expectation that I or any other forum member will read what you have typed.

telling  another member they have to seek help is nothing that you or I are qualified to suggest by simply reading words on a piano forum.

My words were "whether you should seek help for either of things is a decision that only you can make"; which is clearly not the same as "telling  another member they have to seek help".

So you are saying your dont like or dislike you are a fence sitter when it comes to issues you think are "a total waste of time" or that the person who writes should seek help for "itchiness of digits" or "witterings"? That seems very peculiar indeed that you nether like or dislike the situation when you are using so many negative terms to describe it. Why you want to hide the fact that you dont like or dislike it is rather confusing but of course you are free to do so. I will ignore that and believe you dislike it due to the many negative words you used to describe it. Do you read things you like? I would hope so! Do you read things you dislike? By the looks of it and any other normal person, it is not something we aspire to do, reading things we dislike. So the fact that you said you will not read any of this highlights strongly a dislike.

See the above in respect of the seeking of help. Most of us probably read things that we like, things that we dislike and things about which we have no view one way or the other at some point; your assumption that declining to read something "highlights strongly a dislike" is misplaced, not least because cannot do so, since one cannot like or dislike something that one has not actually read.

You think my responses are very long and a waste of time and something you wont read. However my contribution to the thread requires that you respond and quote my writing which you did quite sufficiently, it is not done on totally my own accord I am responding to everything you said and elaboring on issues you bring up when you quote me.

I stated the number of words in two consecutive posts of yours; I made no specific mention of them being "very long". It would indeed seem reasonable to regard them as "a waste of time" if they were intended to be read by me, since I have not read them; however, your clarification above that you have no expectation that I or any other member will read what you write does appear to imply that writing it migt not necessarily be a waste of time for you, even though it almost certainly would be for anyone else, given the reasonable expectation that members post what they do on the assumption that at least some other members will read what they write. So - that clears this up; thank you for that.

Now you want to assume that I have no one to talk to thus write a lot on here?

What I actually wrote was that "it has been noted (though I propose to neither for its veracity nor otherwise) that some of those who talk to themselves do so because they have no one else to whom to talk" and I added that "whether or not this might have any pertinence here is not for me to decide"; once again, that is by no means tantamount to the expression of an assumption on my part that you "have no one to talk to" and "thus write a lot on here".

[lostinidlewonder]

Says it all, really; you are prepared to type more than 2,000 words two successive posts without expectation that I or any other forum member will read what you have typed.

I post because I want to post not because I require people to read it, if you don't want to read it that is no problems for me, it still will not stop me from responding to everything that is quoted from me. I have no idea who is reading this or not and that isn't my concern.

My words were "whether you should seek help for either of things is a decision that only you can make"; which is clearly not the same as "telling  another member they have to seek help".

You are the only person bring up this "seek help", why you want to do such things I don't know, perhaps it is your way in trying to express your opinion that what I write requires that I should seek help, that's fine that you harvest this opinion even though it adds nothing to this thread or anything constructive at all.

See the above in respect of the seeking of help.

There is no need to repeat seeking of help, it has already been identified that this is only your opinion which adds nothing useful to this thread but express your opinion that I require someone to help me interact on the internet in a way that you consider more appropriate. Fortunately we are individuals here on the internet and there is no need to fit some kind of mould and certainly in this case not one of which you will approve of.

Most of us probably read things that we like, things that we dislike and things about which we have no view one way or the other at some point; your assumption that declining to read something "highlights strongly a dislike" is misplaced

If you want to be a masochist that is up to you, most people will not subject themselves to reading something they don't like unless it is something they MUST do eg: academic studies etc so nothing is misplaced at all proven by logic. You must be interested in what I write in some form since it is responding to quotes that you initially brought up unless you simply wish to quote me and have zero response back, you certainly cannot expect a response that you totally approve of since I am not you and write in my own manner. So if you don't like it you should realize it extenuates from responding to your own comments.

not least because cannot do so, since one cannot like or dislike something that one has not actually read.

If you liked it would you refuse to read it? Hardly. So you cannot like it. You have dislike for it because you refuse to read it. Why you want to be ambigious over this is a very humorous logical novelty albeit rather unusual. You can keep saying you neither like or dislike it but I will infer that you dislike it based on the way you have described my writing, that you think I require to find some help and that you refuse to read it, three pieces of evidence which infer that you dislike reading and none which show that you like it or are totally indifferent to it.

I stated the number of words in two consecutive posts of yours; I made no specific mention of them being "very long".

Why would you do a word count and post that result then? You again are being ambigious for no reason at all. You certainly believe that my posts are long based on my inferrence of your reactions.

It would indeed seem reasonable to regard them as "a waste of time" if they were intended to be read by me, since I have not read them;

That is totally of your own perspective however, the world is not seen through this singular manner, so if you don't want to read it that is up to you, I have said what I wanted to say when responding to your very quotes about me. We could say equally your nitpickings throughout the thread is a waste of time too yet you still do it, do you expect everyone reads all these nitpicks that you bring up? Why would they have more value to what I write?

your clarification above that you have no expectation that I or any other member will read what you write does appear to imply that writing it migt not necessarily be a waste of time for you, even though it almost certainly would be for anyone else, given the reasonable expectation that members post what they do on the assumption that at least some other members will read what they write. So - that clears this up; thank you for
that.

I am responding to everything that you are quoting, so you certianly must expect that someone is reading and responding to it. It is not like I have quoted you and then gone off about other issues, I discuss what you are quoting. So since you expect others should read what you write then you should not be surprised if there is a response that is simply logical, however if you do not like my response and choose not to read it that is a different matter on your behalf not mine, it doesn't bother me if you don't read it why should it? I don't expect people will read what I write however when they quote me I will respond since I assume that they have read something of what I wrote otherwise why would they quote and then respond?

What I actually wrote was that "it has been noted (though I propose to neither for its veracity nor otherwise) that some of those who talk to themselves do so because they have no one else to whom to talk" and I added that "whether or not this might have any pertinence here is not for me to decide"; once again, that is by no means tantamount to the expression of an assumption on my part that you "have no one to talk to" and "thus write a lot on here".

I don't know why you would want to bring it up if it has no relevance to my situation, you can make up situtations and imagine what kind of people I have to talk to or not, but that is totally in your own head, one wonders why you would want to bring it up at all? It is something that should remain in your own  head, sharing it only presents your own assumptions which are not constructive of anything at all. It is just as useless as your nitpicking throughout the thread as many responses of mine was dealing with those. If you find it not worth reading then it shows that your nitpicking indeed is not important at all for you.

[ahinton]

I post because I want to post not because I require people to read it, if you don't want to read it that is no problems for me, it still will not stop me from responding to everything that is quoted from me. I have no idea who is reading this or not and that isn't my concern.
You are the only person bring up this "seek help", why you want to do such things I don't know, perhaps it is your way in trying to express your opinion that what I write requires that I should seek help, that's fine that you harvest this opinion even though it adds nothing to this thread or anything constructive at all.
There is no need to repeat seeking of help, it has already been identified that this is only your opinion which adds nothing useful to this thread but express your opinion that I require someone to help me interact on the internet in a way that you consider more appropriate. Fortunately we are individuals here on the internet and there is no need to fit some kind of mould and certainly in this case not one of which you will approve of.
If you want to be a masochist that is up to you, most people will not subject themselves to reading something they don't like unless it is something they MUST do eg: academic studies etc so nothing is misplaced at all proven by logic. You must be interested in what I write in some form since it is responding to quotes that you initially brought up unless you simply wish to quote me and have zero response back, you certainly cannot expect a response that you totally approve of since I are not you write in my own invidual manner. So if you don't like it you should realize it extenuates from responding to your own comments.
If you liked it would you refuse to read it? Hardly. So you cannot like it. You have dislike for it because you refuse to read it. Why you want to be ambigious over this is a very humorous logical novelty albeit rather unusual. You can keep saying you neither like or dislike it but I will infer that you dislike it based on the way you have described my writing, that you think I require to find some help and that you refuse to read it, three pieces of evidence which infer that you dislike reading and none which show that you like it or are totally indifferent to it.
Why would you do a word count and post that result then? You again are being ambigious for no reason at all. You certainly believe that my posts are long based on my inferrence of your reactions.
That is totally of your own perspective however, the world is not seen through this singular manner, so if you don't want to read it that is up to you, I have said what I wanted to say when responding to your very quotes about me. We could say equally your nitpickings throughout the thread is a waste of time too yet you still do it, do you expect everyone reads all these nitpicks that you bring up? Why would they have more value to what I write?
I am responding to everything that you are quoting, so you certianly must expect that someone is reading and responding to it. It is not like I have quoted you and then gone off about other issues, I discuss what you are quoting. So since you expect others should read what you write then you should not be surprised if there is a response that is simply logical, however if you do not like my response and choose not to read it that is a different matter on your behalf not mine, it doesn't bother me if you don't read it why should it? I don't expect people will read what I write however when they quote me I will respond since I assume that they have read something of what I wrote otherwise why would they quote and then respond?
I don't know why you would want to bring it up if it has no relevance to my situation, you can make up situtations and imagine what kind of people I have to talk to or not, but that is totally in your own head, one wonders why you would want to bring it up at all? It is something that should remain in your own  head, sharing it only presents your own assumptions which are not constructive of anything at all. It is just as useless as your nitpicking throughout the thread as many responses of mine was dealing with those. If you find it not worth reading then it shows that your nitpicking indeed is not important at all for you.

!!!

[lostinidlewonder]

!!!

? ? ?

[ahinton]

? ? ?

Self-explanatory; there are times when only laughing will do.

[lostinidlewonder]

Self-explanatory; there are times when only laughing will do.

Ah so you intend ! to equate to laughing, that's one interpretation of what ! can emphasise, it can be self explainatory but it has multiple meanings.

[ahinton]

Ah so you intend ! to equate to laughing, that's one interpretation of what ! can emphasise, it can be self explainatory but it has multiple meanings.

It's up to you to take your pick if so you choose; that said, I am fairly confident that you'd pick the correct one...

[lostinidlewonder]

It's up to you to take your pick if so you choose; that said, I am fairly confident that you'd pick the correct one...

There's no need to pick nor seek any self explainatory solution since you already write it was meant to mean laugh. The question still would remain however as to what kind of laugh are you intending and what you are exactly laughing about. It seems that "laugh" is not an accurate description since that too can be interpreted in many ways, most obviously to me if you intend it to be a laugh (which I doubt anyone would be able to find through self explaination since ! ! ! looks more like a post connected to shouting rather than laughing) it is a laugh that you are using to try and elevate yourself above the argument which is odd since it all responds back to whatever you initially quoted which would infer that you prefer I not respond to you when you quote me.

In the game of chess ! expresses an excellent move, !! an incredible move, I don't think I've seen !!! but that would be something out of this world good!!! lol

[ahinton]

There's no need to pick nor seek any self explainatory solution since you already write it was meant to mean laugh.

You wrote that "it can be self explainatory[sic] but it has multiple meanings, hence the reference to taking your pick.

The question still would remain however as to what kind of laugh are you intending

As I wrote - take your pick.

and what you are exactly laughing about

Your post; I would have thought that to be obvious if nothing else!

It seems that "laugh" is not an accurate description since that too can be interpreted in many ways, most obviously to me if you intend it to be a laugh (which I doubt anyone would be able to find through self explaination since ! ! ! looks more like a post connected to shouting rather than laughing) it is a laugh that you are using to try and elevate yourself above the argument which is odd since it all responds back to whatever you initially quoted which would infer that you prefer I not respond to you when you quote me.

What brand of illogicality brings you to so confused and convoluted a non-conclusion is unknown, but also of no consequence, to me; you seem to be making a lot out of very little, albeit by no means for the first time.

In the game of chess ! expresses an excellent move, !! an incredible move, I don't think I've seen !!! but that would be something out of this world good!!! lol

That's as may or may not be but I can at least assure you that, in the present context, "!!!" does not refer to chess moves.

[lostinidlewonder]

You wrote that "it can be self explainatory[sic] but it has multiple meanings, hence the reference to taking your pick.

I wrote that because you suggested it, there is no need to highlight the spelling error, another nitpick, you also didn't close your quotation mark so you failed. There is no need to go that path (practicing self explanatory observation) however because you said it was meant to be laughing, what kind of laughing or what you are exactly laughing about no one knows since you did not define it at all and no one would have known it meant laughing if you didn't say so. So I guess you can have your private laugh but one would wonder why you want to share that if you don't want to explain it.

As I wrote - take your pick.

No you wrote that one can take their pick what the ! means, you never mentioned that we also can take the pick as to what you are laughing about.

Your post; I would have thought that to be obvious if nothing else!

But what exactly in the contents are you laughing at? No one knows but yourself so one would wonder why you want to share that you are laughing with an ambigious  ! ! ! response which most people would interpret as a shouting type response.

What brand of illogicality brings you to so confused and convoluted a non-conclusion is unknown, but also of no consequence, to me; you seem to be making a lot out of very little, albeit by no means for the first time.

The fact that you are unable to contend with it has nothing to do with it being illogical at all you have not quoted anything from me in that paragraph and proven that it is illogical at all So again it is merely your opinion supported with nothing at all.
Here it is again for you:
1) It seems that "laugh" is not an accurate description (of ! ! ! ) in this case.
2) the word laugh in not an accurate description  it can be interpreted in many ways.
3) I doubt anyone would be able to find through self explanation that a response of ! ! ! would mean laughing, most would connect it to shouting certainly not laughing as you make it out to be.
4)I can infer that if you intend ! ! ! to be a laugh you are using to try and elevate yourself above the argument
5) It is odd that you want to remove yourself from the discussion with a useless reply of ! ! ! which means nothing intelligent at all.
6) All that I wrote before your ! ! ! response replies to all that you initially quoted therefore it would infer that you prefer I not respond to you when you quote me based on your reaction of ! ! !.

That's as may or may not be but I can at least assure you that, in the present context, "!!!" does not refer to chess moves.

I was just practicing the "self explanatory" interpretation you suggested when reading ! ! !, you can see that it means so many things that no one really could understand what you really meant.

[ahinton]

I wrote that because you suggested it, there is no need to highlight the spelling error, another nitpick, you also didn't close your quotation mark so you failed. There is no need to go that path (practicing self explanatory observation) however because you said it was meant to be laughing, what kind of laughing or what you are exactly laughing about no one knows since you did not define it at all and no one would have known it meant laughing if you didn't say so. So I guess you can have your private laugh but one would wonder why you want to share that if you don't want to explain it.
No you wrote that one can take their pick what the ! means, you never mentioned that we also can take the pick as to what you are laughing about.
But what exactly in the contents are you laughing at? No one knows but yourself so one would wonder why you want to share that you are laughing with an ambigious  ! ! ! response which most people would interpret as a shouting type response.
The fact that you are unable to contend with it has nothing to do with it being illogical at all you have not quoted anything from me in that paragraph and proven that it is illogical at all So again it is merely your opinion supported with nothing at all.
Here it is again for you:
1) It seems that "laugh" is not an accurate description (of ! ! ! ) in this case.
2) the word laugh in not an accurate description  it can be interpreted in many ways.
3) I doubt anyone would be able to find through self explanation that a response of ! ! ! would mean laughing, most would connect it to shouting certainly not laughing as you make it out to be.
4)I can infer that if you intend ! ! ! to be a laugh you are using to try and elevate yourself above the argument
5) It is odd that you want to remove yourself from the discussion with a useless reply of ! ! ! which means nothing intelligent at all.
6) All that I wrote before your ! ! ! response replies to all that you initially quoted therefore it would infer that you prefer I not respond to you when you quote me based on your reaction of ! ! !.

I was just practicing the "self explanatory" interpretation you suggested when reading ! ! !, you can see that it means so many things that no one really could understand what you really meant.

!!! encore...

[lostinidlewonder]

!!! encore...

? ? ? I can if you insist on an encore.

[ahinton]

? ? ? I can if you insist on an encore.

You can what? The encore was obviously mine...

[lostinidlewonder]

You can what? The encore was obviously mine...

I can continue responding as you have encored a quote. You quoted my response to you and wrote encore. This is not obviously directed at yourself as you make it out to be however now that you have clarified it in your last post it is now obviously belonging to you because you have said so. Your initial post "!!! encore...." cannot be obviously interpreted to belong to you and certainly would be interpreted to regard what you had quoted.

[ahinton]

I can continue responding as you have encored a quote. You quoted my response to you and wrote encore. This is not obviously directed at yourself as you make it out to be however now that you have clarified it in your last post it is now obviously belonging to you because you have said so. Your initial post "!!! encore...." cannot be obviously interpreted to belong to you and certainly would be interpreted to regard what you had quoted.

Dear me! "Encore" was mentioned because I have responded with "!!!" previously; that should be obvious!

[lostinidlewonder]

Dear me! "Encore" was mentioned because I have responded with "!!!" previously; that should be obvious!

It is obvious you have repeated the use of !!! but it is not obvious at all that encore is in regard to your use of !!! but rather what you quoted which is by far much more informative and would attract the attention of the use of the word encore much more than mere punctuation. The use of several periods at the end of your response also suggests strongly that there is a waiting for something to occur and thus your use of encore would again tend away to be directed at !!! which was already done and completed but instead what you quoted and a waiting emphasised with the several periods that there is a response which will follow the detail given in the previous response and of which was of a quality that inspired an encore response. Of course it is highly probably that in this instance I would have to be ignoring sarcasm ^_^

Encore is not an accurate word to use if you meant to suggest that you are repeating your use of the same unconstructive ! ! ! laughing response (if we are to take your interpretation of what it means to be a laugh which was by far not obvious without you having had clarified that interpretation), a laugh which is used to avoid yourself responding back to the answers which were given in responses to your replies to quotes from me.

So it seems you want to just call something illogical without even contending with what was written and also with what was clarified for you furthermore since your repeated use of ! ! ! shows that. However if you quote me and then give your opinion about it you should expect a response to that opinion of yours and your use of ! ! ! merely shows you want to say what you want and have the last word on the issue

[ahinton]

It is obvious you have repeated the use of !!! but it is not obvious at all that encore is in regard to your use of !!! but rather what you quoted which is by far much more informative and would attract the attention of the use of the word encore much more than mere punctuation. The use of several periods at the end of your response also suggests strongly that there is a waiting for something to occur and thus your use of encore would again tend away to be directed at !!! which was already done and completed but instead what you quoted and a waiting emphasised with the several periods that there is a response which will follow the detail given in the previous response and of which was of a quality that inspired an encore response. Of course it is highly probably that in this instance I would have to be ignoring sarcasm ^_^

Encore is not an accurate word to use if you meant to suggest that you are repeating your use of the same unconstructive ! ! ! laughing response (if we are to take your interpretation of what it means to be a laugh which was by far not obvious without you having had clarified that interpretation), a laugh which is used to avoid yourself responding back to the answers which were given in responses to your replies to quotes from me.

So it seems you want to just call something illogical without even contending with what was written and also with what was clarified for you furthermore since your repeated use of ! ! ! shows that. However if you quote me and then give your opinion about it you should expect a response to that opinion of yours and your use of ! ! ! merely shows you want to say what you want and have the last word on the issue

.

[lostinidlewonder]

.

Point!

[ahinton]

Point!

Indeed so; I hope that you understand its purpose...

[lostinidlewonder]

Indeed so; I hope that you understand its purpose...

If you think the point is in your favor then it certainly can also mean with that same failed logic that you have given me a point as in a +1 in score, so I'm winning! You can also be echoing a Malya type response which would be welcomed since your other corrective type responses are easy to debate. If you think my exclaimation of "point" it is in your favor as if you have a relevant point to the discussion you are by far very mistaken and have come to an illogical conclusion, however you are free to believe that if it makes you feel better however I have clarified that my response certainly didn't suggest you had a valid point since there is no intelligent point that could be understood from your single dot.

[ahinton]

so I'm winning!

Well, whoopty-doo! So you're playing a game (with yourself). Thank you for the clarification. Wrong thread, peut-être?...

[lostinidlewonder]

Well, whoopty-doo! So you're playing a game (with yourself). Thank you for the clarification. Wrong thread, peut-être?...

It was only following your incorrect logic that the point (.) was a point (of interest, of information, etc) that you have, where obviously there is no point to your response. So there is no "playing a game" that you are incorrectly suggesting at all merely a following on with the poor logic that you initially interpreted my comment "point" to be something that highlights that you have provided something that requires consideration or "understanding" as you put it. Your response with the point means nothing at all, at least to observers, but you might have some meaning that only you know, just like with your ! equating to laughter.  Yes wrong thread for you certainly "du boh baht lah".

[ahinton]

It was only following your incorrect logic that the point (.) was a point (of interest, of information, etc) that you have, where obviously there is no point to your response. So there is no "playing a game" that you are incorrectly suggesting at all merely a following on with the poor logic that you initially interpreted my comment "point" to be something that highlights that you have provided something that requires consideration or "understanding" as you put it. Your response with the point means nothing at all, at least to observers, but you might have some meaning that only you know, just like with your ! equating to laughter.  Yes wrong thread for you certainly "du boh baht lah".

No - wrong thread for you if you seek to be "winning" something; there is another thread for that, of which I know you to be aware.

[lostinidlewonder]

No

You haven't specified what "no" is supposed to be negating. You suggested your mere use of a point was something that required understanding of its purpose however there is no purpose to be obviously found, if I were to give it purpose I could suggest it means many things as I demonstrated, however that is an illogical path to take which I already mentioned because the isolated use of a period means nothing specific at all.

if you seek to be "winning" something; there is another thread for that

However your if statement believes erronerously that I seek such things, as was already clarified it is a mere follow on to a purposeful illogical interpretation of your period in a fashion that you initiated with the suggestion that your use of a period required understanding of its purpose. Again we cannot tell what you suggest a period to mean since you even suggest that your use of ! means laughing, something that would be very difficult conclude without you telling them, so in this case too your period is undefined. In any case it does not contend anything clear at all.

[ahinton]

You haven't specified what "no" is supposed to be negating.

I have done precisely that; read the remainder of the post, from which it is perfectly clear. The remainder of your post is being left unread.

[lostinidlewonder]

I have done precisely that; read the remainder of the post, from which it is perfectly clear.

No is still unspecified because I mentioned a number of issues of the same matter (seeking to win) you relate your no to in my post you are you illogically suggesting you replied to with no.

1) You suggested that my sole interpretation was that this is a game however I repeated a clarification that I had already made that it was only following your incorrect logic that the point (.) was a point (of interest, of information, etc) that you have, where obviously there is no intelligent point to your response.

2)There is no "playing a game" that you are incorrectly suggesting merely a following on with the poor logic that you initially interpreted my comment "point" to be something that highlights that you actually have given a point that requires consideration.

3)Your response with the point means nothing at all, you might have some meaning that only you know, just like with your ! equating to laughter.

Replying No to all of these makes no sense since it is clarifying a situation and highlighting what has been already written down.

The remainder of your post is being left unread.

Which explains why your response is illogical. Also what "remainder" you are suggesting is unknown because you haven't demonstrated by your response what you have actually read.

[ahinton]

No is still unspecified because I mentioned a number of issues of the same matter (seeking to win) you relate your no to in my post you are you illogically suggesting you replied to with no.

What's "illogical" about that? Nothing, so don't bother to answer.

1) You suggested that my sole interpretation was that this is a game however I repeated a clarification that I had already made that it was only following your incorrect logic that the point (.) was a point (of interest, of information, etc) that you have, where obviously there is no intelligent point to your response.

You mentioned winning; if not a game of your own devising, then what?

2)There is no "playing a game" that you are incorrectly suggesting merely a following on with the poor logic that you initially interpreted my comment "point" to be something that highlights that you actually have given a point that requires consideration.

Nonsense!

3)Your response with the point means nothing at all, you might have some meaning that only you know, just like with your ! equating to laughter.

More nonsense. It might mean nothing to you, but that's just too bad.

Replying No to all of these makes no sense since it is clarifying a situation and highlighting what has been already written down.
Which explains why your response is illogical. Also what "remainder" you are suggesting is unknown because you haven't specificed what you have actually read.

It might make no sense to you but, again, that;s just too bad.

It "explains" nothing. The "remainder" to which I refer is, quite simply as implied, namely the remainder of the post. If you can't understand that, I cannot help you.

[lostinidlewonder]

What's "illogical" about that? Nothing, so don't bother to answer.

Nothing in your mind because you failed to read what I wrote. Nowhere did I write anything that relates to what you wrote after the no remark, it is something of your own creation not mine. Please prove anywhere where I suggested that I was seeking to win anything at all? I clarified several times now that it was merely following your poor logic that my comment point! to your abstract response (.) meant anything at all, you said it required some understanding to determine is purpose but it is void of anything requiring understanding nor does it serve any purpose due to its lack of information.

You mentioned winning; if not a game of your own devising, then what?

It was merely following the poor logic that your single point response meant anything at all, you suggested it was something that required understanding to find its purpose even though you have not defined what that purpose is meant to be, so I gave an illogical conclusion to what it could mean, thus winning a game came up because points and game are a closely connected.

Nonsense!

In your opinion, you have not suggested what you find nonesense:

1) There is no "playing a game" that you are incorrectly suggesting, you can see after your NO response you suggest that I am trying to play a game but you have misred my mention of game was merely following your irrational logic that the point was something that could be read into.

2) I gave a way in which it could be interpreted following your poor logic suggesting "point" to be something that highlights a game rather than you actually have given a point that requires consideration.

More nonsense. It might mean nothing to you, but that's just too bad.

So you feel that your point response has an important meaning that people should be able to determine? That is unusual, I also am unable to idenfity what you mean since you have given unusual meanings to your punctuation type responses, your ! was meant to mean laughter which you thought was obvious but it was proven that it required you to first suggest it because it would not be a natural conclusion.

It might make no sense to you but, again, that;s just too bad.

Too bad for your understanding of what I wrote. What came after your No comment is not related to anything I wrote at all, suggesting that I seek to be "winning" something is not understanding the reason why that example was given, it was following your poor logic that your response (.) which I responded to with point! meant anything at all. You merely are misinterpreting a word that I used to describe your action and chose to disagree irrationally for no reason at all.

It "explains" nothing.

You admiting you didn't read what I wrote explains a lot, what you wrote after your No response has no relationship to what I wrote, it is misinterpreting why I suggested a game and misinterpreting the response of point! which related to your empty response of (.) that means nothing at all.

The "remainder" to which I refer is, quite simply as implied, namely the remainder of the post. If you can't understand that, I cannot help you.

It is unknown what you even read in the first place since your response after No has no relationship to anything I wrote.

[ahinton]

Nothing in your mind because you failed to read what I wrote.

I did not. I simply chose not to read it.

No where did I write anything that relates to what you wrote after the no remark, it is something of your own creation not mine. Please prove anywhere where I suggested that I was seeking to win anything at all?

Your post this morning at 01.36 in which you wrote "If you think the point is in your favor then it certainly can also mean with that same failed logic that you have given me a point as in a +1 in score, so I'm winning!"; you would seem to have a short memory.

If you think the point is in your favor then it certainly can also mean with that same failed logic that you have given me a point as in a +1 in score, so I'm winning!

You're referring to "winning" again, habing just asked where you did so previously. For the record, I don not think that the point is either in my favour oar against it.

I clarified several times now that it was merely following your poor logic that my comment point! to your abstract response (.) meant anything at all, you said it required some understanding to determine is purpose but it is void of anything requiring understanding nor does it serve any purpose due to its lack of information.
It was merely following the poor logic that your single point response meant anything at all, you suggested it was something that required understanding to find its purpose even though you have not defined what that purpose is meant to be, so I gave an illogical conclusion to what it could mean, thus winning a game came up because points and game are a closely connected.

What a load of wittering about nothing!

In your opinion, you have not suggested what you find nonesense:

It's nothing to do with my "opinion", not least as I did not express one; I was very clear about what is nonsense, namely what you wrote.

1) There is no "playing a game" that you are incorrectly suggesting, you can see after your NO response you suggest that I am trying to play a game but you have misred my mention of game was merely following your irrational logic that the point was something that could be read into.

If no game, then what is it that you believe yourself to be winning?

2) I gave a way in which it could be interpreted following your poor logic suggesting "point" to be something that highlights a game rather than you actually have given a point that requires consideration.
So you feel that your point response has an important meaning that people should be able to determine? That is unusual, I also am unable to idenfity what you mean since you have given unusual meanings to your punctuation type responses, your ! was meant to mean laughter which you thought was obvious but it was proven that it required you to first suggest it because it would not be a natural conclusion.

"People" again! Nothing that I wrote here was addressed other than to you.

Too bad for your understanding of what I wrote. What came after your No comment is not related to anything I wrote at all, suggesting that I seek to be "winning" something is not understanding the reason why that example was given, it was following your poor logic that your response (.) which I responded to with point! meant anything at all. You merely are misinterpreting a word that I used to describe your action and chose to disagree irrationally for no reason at all.

I've dealt with this "winning" stuff above.

You admiting you didn't read what I wrote explains a lot

It explains one thing only - that I chose not to read it.

what you wrote after your No response has no relationship to what I wrote, it is misinterpreting why I suggested a game and misinterpreting the response of point! which related to your empty response of (.) that means nothing at all.

The "game" issue is likewise dealt with above, in the context of your references to "winning".

It is unknown what you even read in the first place since your response after No has no relationship to anything I wrote.

"Unknown" by whom?

[lostinidlewonder]

I did not. I simply chose not to read it.

You chose not to read and you failed to read, same meaning in terms that both result in a reaction that causes you not to read, your response "I did not" and following up with an attempt to suggest there is a mutually exclusive relationship between the word I used and the words you chose to describe your action is an unnecessary disagreement for no reason. That you failed to read what I wrote also shows why your no response is illogical because it doesn't respond to anything I wrote and you are merely talking to yourself.

Your post this morning at 01.36 in which you wrote "If you think the point is in your favor then it certainly can also mean with that same failed logic that you have given me a point as in a +1 in score, so I'm winning!"; you would seem to have a short memory.

But you then take it further and misinterpret it suggesting IF I SEEK TO WIN, but there is no seeking at all, the reason why it was brought up was to show an example of an illogical conclusion, the sort you gave when you suggested your point response required consideration to determine its meaning.

"can also mean with that same failed logic that you have given me a point as in a +1 in score, so I'm winning!"

You're referring to "winning" again, habing just asked where you did so previously. For the record, I don not think that the point is either in my favour oar against it.

Again this demonstrates that you fail to understand that it was only given as an ILLOGICAL example the type which you gave when you suggested your (.) response which I remarked point! required any amount of consideration to determine its meaning. It has no meaning at all.

What a load of wittering about nothing!

And here is the reason why you cannot understand that my example of winning a game was merely following your illogical suggestion that your response (.) had a meaning that could be determined with some consideration, it means nothing at all. It has nothing to do with me Seeking to win at all.

It's nothing to do with my "opinion", not least as I did not express one; I was very clear about what is nonsense, namely what you wrote.

It is still your opinion that you find it nonesense or do you believe that just because you think someothing is nonesense that everyone else in this world has to believe the same? It is your opinion nothing more. You suggested that these two points where nonesense however you still have not explained why, so it simply remains your opinion without any reason you are willing to share.

1) There is no "playing a game" that you are incorrectly suggesting, you can see after your NO response you suggest that I am trying to play a game but you have misred my mention of game was merely following your irrational logic that the point was something that could be read into.

2) I gave a way in which it could be interpreted following your poor logic suggesting "point" to be something that highlights a game rather than you actually have given a point that requires consideration.

If no game, then what is it that you believe yourself to be winning?

You are carrying on with the erroneous suggestion that I am seeking to win something where it has already been shown that this is your misinterpretation of what I have written. Winnig a game was merely following the irrational logic you wanted to use to interpret your (.) response since I responded with point! to which you said it had some meaning that required consideratio to be understood where really it means nothing at all.

"People" again! Nothing that I wrote here was addressed other than to you.

Yes certainly people, do you think that no other person is reading this thread? How are they to understand what you respond with? Your nitpicking on the word people here is irrational illogical and merely follows your pattern of disagreeing.

I've dealt with this "winning" stuff above.

And here you again neglect to read what explains the use of winning and how it was merely following your poor logic that your (.) response was something that required consideration to understand.

It explains one thing only - that I chose not to read it.

It explains why you have misinterpreted my choice of suggesting point! refers to a game since I have clarified quite a few times now that it merely is following your poor logic that your (.) response required consideration to determine its meaning.

The "game" issue is likewise dealt with above, in the context of your references to "winning".

However unfortunately the way you tried to "deal" with it is incorrect since you have misinterpreted the nature of the information and make it look like I am SEEKING to win.

"Unknown" by whom?

I wrote: It is unknown what you even read in the first place since your response after No has no relationship to anything I wrote.
How are you confused? You wrote NO, and then responded with something that had nothing to do with what I wrote. So how can anyone tell what you actually read if everything you responded with doesn't demonstrate what you actually read?

[ahinton]

You chose not to read and you failed to read, same meaning in terms that both result in a reaction that causes you not to read, your response "I did not" and following up with an attempt to suggest there is a mutually exclusive relationship between the word I used and the words you chose to describe your action is an unnecessary disagreement for no reason. That you failed to read what I wrote also shows why your no response is illogical because it doesn't respond to anything I wrote and you are merely talking to yourself.
But you then take it further and misinterpret it suggesting IF I SEEK TO WIN, but there is no seeking at all, the reason why it was brought up was to show an example of an illogical conclusion, the sort you gave when you suggested your point response required consideration to determine its meaning.

"can also mean with that same failed logic that you have given me a point as in a +1 in score, so I'm winning!"
Again this demonstrates that you fail to understand that it was only given as an ILLOGICAL example the type which you gave when you suggested your (.) response which I remarked point! required any amount of consideration to determine its meaning. It has no meaning at all.
And here is the reason why you cannot understand that my example of winning a game was merely following your illogical suggestion that your response (.) had a meaning that could be determined with some consideration, it means nothing at all. It has nothing to do with me Seeking to win at all.
It is still your opinion that you find it nonesense or do you believe that just because you think someothing is nonesense that everyone else in this world has to believe the same? It is your opinion nothing more. You suggested that these two points where nonesense however you still have not explained why, so it simply remains your opinion without any reason you are willing to share.

1) There is no "playing a game" that you are incorrectly suggesting, you can see after your NO response you suggest that I am trying to play a game but you have misred my mention of game was merely following your irrational logic that the point was something that could be read into.

2) I gave a way in which it could be interpreted following your poor logic suggesting "point" to be something that highlights a game rather than you actually have given a point that requires consideration.
You are carrying on with the erroneous suggestion that I am seeking to win something where it has already been shown that this is your misinterpretation of what I have written. Winnig a game was merely following the irrational logic you wanted to use to interpret your (.) response since I responded with point! to which you said it had some meaning that required consideratio to be understood where really it means nothing at all.
Yes certainly people, do you think that no other person is reading this thread? How are they to understand what you respond with? Your nitpicking on the word people here is irrational illogical and merely follows your pattern of disagreeing.
And here you again neglect to read what explains the use of winning and how it was merely following your poor logic that your (.) response was something that required consideration to understand.
It explains why you have misinterpreted my choice of suggesting point! refers to a game since I have clarified quite a few times now that it merely is following your poor logic that your (.) response required consideration to determine its meaning.
However unfortunately the way you tried to "deal" with it is incorrect since you have misinterpreted the nature of the information and make it look like I am SEEKING to win.
I wrote: It is unknown what you even read in the first place since your response after No has no relationship to anything I wrote.
How are you confused? You wrote NO, and then responded with something that had nothing to do with what I wrote. So how can anyone tell what you actually read if everything you responded with doesn't demonstrate what you actually read?

There appears to be no end to the sheer amount of pointless verbiage of which you're capable of spouting forth. As it has nothing to do with the thread topic which you and I agree is pretty much a waste of time in any case, you might have been better to start a new thread for all of this stuff (although you would of course have been far better still not to have typed it at all).

By your own admission, you do not care who reads what you type, from which it can be assumed that you would be content if no one read it.

If what you have typed in this thread (and I cannot speak for what you have typed in any others) is the product of being lost in idle wonder, it is as short on idleness as it is on useful purpose and the only wonder is mine as to why you do it (but that's your prerogative just as much as it is mine not to be bothered to read most of it).

Clearly, this kind of directionless verbosity is what floats your boat but, in my view, it is high time that it instead capsized it.

I must away to send out Sorabji CDs, scores, literary writings and information to those who are requesting them and I have plenty of other work to do in addition (not least in terms of my own music), so you may now consider this non-discussion closed and would be wise not to expect further responses from me.

If your evidently avowed desire to "win"  despite the absence of any competition and of anyone to "lose" nevertheless precludes your fingers from typing out yet more of this simply in order to try to have the last word, by all means go ahead, but you will be typing to yourself (as indeed you have done for most of this thread).

[lostinidlewonder]

There appears to be no end to the sheer amount of pointless verbiage of which you're capable of spouting forth.

It only responds to issues that you decided bring up through your quoting of my text.

As it has nothing to do with the thread topic which you and I agree is pretty much a waste of time in any case, you might have been better to start a new thread for all of this stuff (although you would of course have been far better still not to have typed it at all).

I am only replying to the comments that you write as you quote my responses, so if you think it is a waste of time then the comments of your own to which my posts are responding to are also a waste of time by your perspective.

By your own admission, you do not care who reads what you type, from which it can be assumed that you would be content if no one read it.

I don't care if people read it or not why should I? Why should I write with the purpose that I hope people read it? What benefit does that thinking do in this case? I write because I am responding to your remarks which include quotes from me. I have no control what people do with what I write after I write it so the matter of caring is not even a factor since it isn't something I control.

If what you have typed in this thread (and I cannot speak for what you have typed in any others) is the product of being lost in idle wonder, it is as short on idleness as it is on useful purpose and the only wonder is mine as to why you do it (but that's your prerogative just as much as it is mine not to be bothered to read most of it).

Your If/Then suggestion fails due to the fact that is responding to your own comments about my quotes. If you don't want to contend with what I have responded with that is not my concern I have no control over what you do. But you should expect response once you quote someone and write what you want to write about those quotes. If you don't want responses and want to have control over that then you don't need to write anything at all in the thread otherwise you shouldn't expect that there will be no response.   

Clearly, this kind of directionless verbosity is what floats your boat but, in my view, it is high time that it instead capsized it.

You have no proof that it is directionless since it follow the content of which you decided to bring up in the first place. You have chosen not to read by your own admission so you cannot say it is directionless because you don't even know what was written and clarifed.

I must away to send out Sorabji CDs, scores, literary writings and information to those who are requesting them and I have plenty of other work to do in addition (not least in terms of my own music), so you may now consider this non-discussion closed and would be wise not to expect further responses from me.

I have no expectations so there is no need for wisdom to expect anything or nothing at all. You are not obliged to respond back to me I have never suggested that you should have to, you have all the control to do whatever you wish. I can't see how it is a non-discussion since we both were quoting each other and responding, an ineffective discussion one which tangents a lot and deals with a lot of nitpick is more accurate.

If your evidently avowed desire to "win" 

There is absolutely nothing in this thread that can prove that I desired to win anything at all. It has already been clarified quite a few times what winning meant to mean and it had nothing to do with a desire to win at all.

despite the absence of any competition

Exactly how can one win anything? You made up the situation and argued it correct but it isn't anything that I was discussing.

and of anyone to "lose" nevertheless precludes your fingers from typing out yet more of this simply in order to try to have the last word, by all means go ahead, but you will be typing to yourself (as indeed you have done for most of this thread).

And your responses of punctuation is not akin to having the last word? In any case there is nothing to win or lose since there is no game or competition. You have no idea who reads these threads and neither do I, so I cannot assume it will be only me that ever reads this.

[bmn3]

Yeah, sorry to say it Alistair, but technically there's almost no difference between the above YouTube audio... and a trio of monkeys bashing the sh*t out of a piano.

That was HORRIFYING!!!

The reason why it sounds like sh*t is because the recording in the video has crappy quality compared to the studio recording.

[bmn3]

Anyways, this thread is so interesting. Cracks me up

[ahinton]

Anyways, this thread is so interesting. Cracks me up

It surely cracks itself up, mostly...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Last Word Hinty strikes again.

[ahinton]

Last Word Hinty strikes again.

No, I'm not on strike. Nor do I anticipate having, nor do I need to have, the last word.

For the record, though, Jonathan Powell's CDs are receiving rave reviews...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Plug number 4578

[ahinton]

Plug number 4578

Is that all? Time for more, then! I hadn't realised that you were counting, though...

...oh and, while we're about it, do you recall who initiated this thread?...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I did, but not for plugs.

[ahinton]

I did, but not for plugs.

Sure, but mere mention is a plug; there being no such thing as bad publicity, the great Oscar Wilde's pertinent observation is worth recalling here, namely

"The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

The idea that no publicity can do harm is clearly not open to question."

So thanks, Thal; it was a bizarre idea as far as it went but did draw attention to this recording!

Best,

Alistair

[brogers70]

As no particular fan of Sorabji I'd say (1) the recording was more interesting than I thought it would be and (2) I probably would not have listened to it except that I wanted to see what all the hullabaloo in this thread was all about and therefore (3) thalbergmad is indeed providing publicity for Sorabji in a way that got him (Sorabji) at least one more listener.

[ahinton]

As no particular fan of Sorabji I'd say (1) the recording was more interesting than I thought it would be and (2) I probably would not have listened to it except that I wanted to see what all the hullabaloo in this thread was all about and therefore (3) thalbergmad is indeed providing publicity for Sorabji in a way that got him (Sorabji) at least one more listener.

That's gratifying to hear - and due thanks to Thal for spiking curiosity!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I should be on commission for selling this crap.

[ahinton]

I should be on commission for selling this crap.

No, you shouldn't.

For one thing, it is not crap.

For another, you are not selling it, you are merely publicising it (which is nevertheless valuable and appreciated); others are selling it - Brilliant Classics' distributors in various countries as well as ourselves.

For yet another, if you feel about it as you do, why in any case would you expect to do anything in its favour that might at least in theory merit recognition in some form?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Brilliant Classics plug

[ahinton]

Brilliant Classics plug

To you, is a mention always by definition a plug? In any event, what's wrong with such a mention?

Brilliant Classics is the parent company of Piano Classics which has released these two Sorabji recordings but also many other piano CDs of which some would surely be of interest to you? (check out their catalogue of 130 releases - of which only three are of Sorabji's work - at https://www.piano-classics.com/ ).

Best,

Alistair