Klarinet Archive - Posting 001210.txt from 2003/06
From: Jeremy A Schiffer <schiffer@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: [kl] The Stravinsky chord
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:32:56 -0400
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Anthony Wakefield wrote:
> From: "Erik Tkal" <bbtkal@-----.net>
> > Anonymity isn't such a bad thing, get over it.
> Yes it is, and don`t you tell me what to do! <You> get over it brother!
First of all, a disclaimer. I'm sending this message as one who is
completely unaffiliated with any of the parties who have been in this
argument, I mean, discussion, previously. I have no personal opinions of
the people here, since I've never met them in real life. I'm only
responding to what has been WRITTEN recently.
Now, Mr. NoName wasn't actually anonymous. He was using a valid return
email address. True, he did not put his name, but if you wanted to ask
him a question, all you had to do was pop off an email to him. Anonymity,
in the online world, is when someone doesn't have an email address, or a
name, attached to their posts. Like with those damned spammers who clog
our inboxes but provide no way for us to let them know we don't want to
receive their crap.
> >Why do you assume it's offensive to everyone just because it seems to
> bother you so much?
> I don`t assume. Everybody in their right minds would say "Who is this guy?"
> no matter what the content. The immediate replies were of this nature.
Some were, yes. But many people also came to his defense to point out that
you were misinterpreting the comment by Mr. NoName.
> took a turn for the worst when I wasn`t aloud to explain my point of view
> properly, which I did manage to do in fact. Idiots jumped on me.
Perhaps people jump on you because you like to throw around personal
insults without merit? Let us not forget, you essentially equated Mr.
NoName with a child-rapist (p[a]edophile) for his not wanting to provide
his actual identity, which was completely uncalled for.
> > Yes, you have your right to speak up on issues. And so does the original
> poster that started this thread. You made a sweeping generalisation and he
> simply stated that you cannot make such an assumption about how the rest of
> the members on this list might feel about Martin's CD. Yet you chose to
> attack the fact that he did not post his name. Were you trying to detract
> from his comment?
> No I wasn`t. This attack, your attack sounds very much like it is just for
> the sake of it. Lots of people have indeed expressed how they feel about the
> CD, so my "sweeping generalization" in your words was not so wildly
> It`s become a free for all now, with others of the trigger happy kind just
> taking silly pot shots, unable to counter my logic.
What logic, pray tell, is this? You misinterpreted someone's post, made ad
hominem attacks on the person's character, and have been rude to several
people who pointed these things out. The only logic I can see, is your
continual defense of your position, facts be damned.
> You don`t know or cannot
> understand any of the reasons for my reply, because you won`t try to
> understand what it was I saying - that is that there is indeed a "beneath
> the surface comradeship" in this list where assumptions are made rightly or
Perhaps for you, but not for everyone. As Mr. Pay (I think) said, he won't
criticize the work of other professionals on the list, and that's
understandable; there's enough competition already in the industry. But
Mr. NoName did not level any criticism upon anyone, so your claims about
'beneath the surface comradeship' are a non-sequitor in this context.
> On the table comradeship in a lot of cases also. But one of the
> first to jump on me was Mark himself, who says this list is not moderated(?)
The list is not moderated. A moderated list has a person, or people, who
review any submissions before they're posted for mass consumption. Mark
runs the list, but he does not give a thumbs up or thumbs down to what
people say. This is a simple point of fact, not an opinion.
> There has also been no criticism of Martin Powell`s CD at anytime in here.
And Mr. NoName alluded to this fact in his post; in fact, that was
central to his point. That there is no criticism, for reasons of tact or
otherwise, does not explicitly mean that everyone who has heard it liked
> Nothing but praise from all who received a copy. So it was, and is safe to
> make a comment like I did. There is nothing politically incorrect about what
> I did. There was nothing criminal; nothing silly; and certainly nothing
Are you saying that no one has a right to point out the logical flaw in
that thought, though?
> I am going to defend myself in here if it takes another 100 posts. I am
> being victimised in no uncertain terms, unjustifiably. I`m sorry if you wish
> to go back to lurking, but why not think about contributing instead? There
> is nothing obscene in here - once people get off my back.
You need to stop being so defensive. Look, Mr. Wakefield, you are a
valuable contributor to this list; I do not deny that, I don't think
anyone here will. But that doesn't mean that you're not being unreasonable
in this particular instance.
> Nor has "NoName" if
> he believes that my contribution over the last few days has entertained him
> more so than any one else.
> Doesn`t say much for Dan Leason`s, Tony Pay`s, even Martin`s own
> contributions over that last few years does it?
> Doesn`t say much for anyone`s come to that. What silly images you make of
> yourselves with nothing further to add but school boy one-liners.
Huh? I honestly do not understand what you're trying to say here.
Klarinet is supported by Woodwind.Org, http://www.woodwind.org/