Klarinet Archive - Posting 000055.txt from 2005/03

From: "Jools Wingate" <detourintothemacabre@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Expectations for professionals
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 07:17:38 -0500

I have to agree with cjarrett here - couldn't you email privately or
something... my inbox is in a perpetual sate of 'bantering expectations for
professonals' entertaining as it may be, could you buys pipe down a little.
best
Jools
>From: <cjarrett1@-----.com>
>Reply-To: klarinet@-----.org
>To: <klarinet@-----.org>
>Subject: Re: [kl] Expectations for professionals
>Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 23:58:49 -0600
>
>Who really cares? What a waste of time and energy.
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Flavel" <tom@-----.net>
>To: <klarinet@-----.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 11:17 PM
>Subject: Re: [kl] Expectations for professionals
>
>
>>On 01/03/2005 22:21:56, Tony Pay wrote:
>>>On 1 Mar, Tom Flavel <tom@-----.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 01/03/2005 15:01:59, Tony Pay wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > On 1 Mar, "Vann Joe Turner" <medpen@-----.net> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > Tony, if I'd written the gobbledegook that you did for the > > >
>>>Cambridge
>>> > > > Companion, I'd be ashamed.
>>> > >
>>> > > Care to say why?
>>> >
>>> > I think part of his point involves that you skip that which you are
>>> > unable to exert superiority over, and head for the few specific >
>>>comments
>>> > you can make use of, by argumentum ad hominem or otherwise.
>>>
>>>OK, I understand that that's what you make of the sum total of my posts.
>>>Argumentum ad hominem as a default, and then otherwise.
>>
>>Quite the contary: from what I see (and I read with enjoyment, even if
>>I'm not particularly vocal), the majority of your comments are
>>well-founded. I'm saying that it's a shame the personal attacks sneak in
>>amongst them, since they undermine that foundation.
>>
>>
>>> > I assume this behaviour is an attempt to make all of his (or
>>>whoever's)
>>> > points appear ill-founded because of one unrelated comment.
>>>
>>>I just wanted to focus on a comment that I might be able to answer.
>>>
>>>I cannot defend myself against the charge that I don't have a clue how
>>>the
>>>human heart works, or the charge that I played a performance that he
>>>found
>>>deficient. In fact have to say that -- of course -- I found that
>>>performance
>>>deficient myself.
>>
>>Nor could I :)
>>
>>
>>>Instead, I ask: what is 'gobbledegook' in what I wrote in the Cambridge
>>>Companion?
>>>
>>>We might even have a productive discussion.
>>
>>That's an excellent aim!
>>
>>--
>>Tom
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org
>

It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org