Klarinet Archive - Posting 000132.txt from 2003/07

From: "Anthony Wakefield" <tony-w@-----.uk>
Subj: Re: [kl] Anons
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 05:52:10 -0400

From: "Tony Pay"
Subject: RE: [kl] Anons
> Hi Jennifer, really nice to see you back.
> I want to reformulate what you said.
> I think that the opinions/statements of no matter who, aren't
> particularly interesting. Even very eminent people sometimes have
> strange opinions, and make strange statements.
> On the other hand, the *arguments* they may make, as opposed to their
> statements or opinions, stand independently of their source.

Tony W. says:
I believe that all three are linked intellectually, and do not stand
independently from each other. If they are separated into individual
components then this is not how everyday normal living and thinking is
conducted. I`m a "normal" guy who tries to stay on the ground with my
thinking. My thinking never does reach a higher plane in my normal day`s
routine, for example answering klarinet mail ( I`m not sure that it`s able
to anyway :<) ) Hence, I think it`s possible that you Tony, and one or two
others may be trying to elevate this argument to a position where the mind
has to enter into such an advanced state of logical analysis, this in itself
makes it not particularly interesting for <what it`s worth>. It is, is it
not, (CD reviewing) everyday stuff?

> > Other than establishing a record of reliability for "NoName", I don't
> > see why it is necessary to give a name. Heck, it seems "NoName" could
> > serve just fine as a pseudonym.

> Actually, he always had a name: 'NoName'. (Hence my joke about the
> alien called 'Anon' who did better when she spelt it backwards, and
> became 'Nona'.)

T.W.
Now here is my everyday thinking: NoName has not got a "name" which we can
all associate with. In everyday life/thinking, the term NoName is to me, no
more than an <in the face> challenge, especially if, and is disregarding of
how the recipient may react if the mail received may be of a critical
nature.

> The thing about NoName's post was that his *argument* was unimpeachable.
> (Sorry, Tony.)

T.W.
I can understand this, but I repeat what I have written re <in the face>.
My reply may not have been clearly explanatory, but my objection to
the mail was receiving criticism from someone who was not willing, for any
reason, to identify himself. It was a double blow. I have never received
anything before, anonymously, in 60 years, with the exception of spam, and
so I treated NoName`s mail in a similar manner. I reckon I will still have
to, if the gentleman continues to call himself "NoName" - I`m really sorry
for this. I believe it to be offensive, however much others may disagree.
There are many more less virulent names. NoName could have chosen to avoid
conflict with a little prior thought. He said himself (or someone) that he
hadn`t done much, if any posting before, and he enters into klarinet in
quite an unthoughtful manner. The argument for "protection" notwithstanding,
and whether or not I myself may have skeleton`s in my own cupboard, I have
no problem with using my real name. I`m proud to use it.

> But, I suggest that what Tony objected to wasn't NoName's argument that
> Tony was claiming too much for Martin's disc.
> Clearly, NoName was right in that, because Tony *was* claiming too much.

T.W.
No. I would only be claiming too much had klarinet received some negative
reviews about the CD. It didn`t. I have monitored the posts over the last
two years. What I said, was not a dogmatically expressed, and overly
self-confident remark, but a considered collective view of what posters had
positively said about the CD. Don`t forget that this is still everyday life
and thinking, not some deep philosophical misjudgement.
I made the same remark again when I mentioned the Malcolm Arnold
Divertimento, and no-one
pulled me up for it. Yes, this was deliberately putting my toe into the
waters again. So I believe that with much sincere respect to a fine musician
and thinker, the remaining explanations below to be superfluous. I only want
to remain an "everyday" thinker. I really do have to get into my day now. My
original compromise of a few days ago is still not resolved. But thank you
indeed to Tony for trying to consider this dilemma in a so charmingly
genteel and thoughtful manner. You have my respect.
Best,
Tony Wakefield
P.S. However this may be or not be resolved, I wish for a Good day today to
all the U.S. citizens.

> Tony's original post claimed, in passing, complete accord on the
> excellence of Martin's disc on the part of everyone who'd heard it. H
> couldn't possibly have known that that was so.
> So, what Tony Wakefield objected to about NoName's post *wasn't NoName's
> argument*. Tony's objection was rather to what he saw as the
> *implication* of NoName's argument -- what he saw as NoName's *opinion*.
> To recapitulate:
> The argument as advanced by NoName: Tony was claiming too much for
> Martin's disc.
> The implication as drawn by Tony: NoName's opinion is 'I claimed too
> much'; that's equivalent to 'according to him there is less to claim';
> that's equivalent to 'according to him the disc isn't so good'.
> *Then* the seeming anonymity of NoName, plus the lack of argument as to
> *why* the disc might not be so good, takes hold. It becomes merely
> 'NoName's opinion is that the disc isn't so good', unsubstantiated by
> either authority or argument.
> So the way to think about it is, that it all came about because Tony
> thought NoName's *argument* was an *opinion*.
> But it wasn't.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is supported by Woodwind.Org, http://www.woodwind.org/