Appropriate Use Policy

[[email protected]]

Readership,

Google Groups appropriate use policy stipulates that one will not:

1. defame, abuse, harass or threaten
2. post defamatory, obscene, or unlawful content
3. impersonate another person or entity

Ed Gin regularly violates all of the above mandates. This is
understandable because sociopaths do not consider themselves subject to
or confined by the dictates of rules, regulations or laws.

The unfortunate thing about an unmoderated newsgroup is that it is
unmoderated and this affords narcissistic cretins, like Ed Gin, a place
to reside as contaminating squatter who permanently infects the
newsgroup and persists in its pollution with worthless, inane bull****
posted with impunity in total disregard of the membership and in
callous contradiction of the intended focus of a particular group. The
fortunate thing about a moderated forum is the that it is moderated and
as such can be purged of obnoxious, degenerate vermin like Ed Gin as
well he knows from firsthand experience. Is it any wonder then that Ed
Gin hangs out in forums of the unmoderated variety?

Jim McNamara

[Jon Meinecke]

> wrote ...
> Readership,
>
> Google Groups appropriate use policy stipulates that one will not:
>

Yes, but most of the recent posts appear to come from a
newsfeeds.com subscriber and are not posted through Google.
However, newsfeeds.com has similar terms of use for its nntp
service.

Complain to . As a person impersonated
by one of their subscribers you have a good case. In Google
message view, click on Options,-- Show Original and cut and
paste the entire USENET message, headers and all, into an
email. Prepend with the nature of your complaint.

It remains to be seen if newsfeeds.com will live up to their terms
of use.

Jon Meinecke
net.subtle-apteryx

[[email protected]]

I must confess that in the past I Jim McNamara have posted lies with fake
e-mail addresses on USEnet, A.R.B.R and the HPVlist to name a few. I have
done so to entertain my nasty inner demons.

I Jim McNamara will always tell lies on the internet. My goal in life is
to seek revenge on Ed Gin and only Ed Gin. I am consumed with Ed Gin and
have nothing else to dwell upon except Ed Gin. I will never give up. The
reason is I Jim McNamara am pathetic and have nothing else to do in my
retirement years. I may as well fulfill my evil frustrated fantasies with
vicious internet attacks against Ed Gin none of which are true.

I Jim McNamara am a living example of what a frustrated old man can
become. Please forgive me A.R.B.R. for I am a foul and nasty beast and my
soul will be purged to the deepest bowels of hell when I die. God help me.

Jim McNamara

[[email protected]]

Ed Gin,

I said this before, but I can't seem to get through that thick skull of
yours. Unlike you, I don't lie about you. There is simply a
cornucopia of truth about you that provides me more than enough
ammunition, so as not to have to resort to lies. When I say something
in public, I am prepared to back up what I say with evidence and that
is specifically why you don't dare challenge what I have to say about
you. I don't know why you bother to say anything in public anymore.
You have no credibility and when challenged to produce evidence to
support your assertions, you don't because you can't. Instead, you
just change the subject. You shift gears and move on to spout off some
diversionary bull****. Don't think for a minute that the readership
isn't on to you by now. They are. So tell me lunatic, do you believe
for even an instant that anyone out here believes that actually write
this sort of crap about myself? You continue to mention Ed Dolan and
meds (you used to do that to me in previous flame wars). It appears
that you are the delusional one in need of meds. By the way, I now
know why you cut and paste so much, because your English is pathetic ..
atrocious ... abominable. Less time on the bike and more time in the
classroom would have done you a world of good, but a man's gotta do
what a man's gotta do. You value SPEED and MILES more that you do
literacy and trust me it shows, but that's OK. You're entitled to
your warped perspective. That's one of your endearing qualities. I
hate to see a grown man cry. Woops did I say you were a grown man? I
take it all back. Quit crying about being picked on, will you? You
asked for it ... you've earned it ... you deserve it, so who am I to
deprive you? What can I say? You are, of course, the hapless victim
here, because ... I'm just fond of squirrels!

Jim McNamara (the real one)

[nget]

While looking at the present state of ARBR I was remembering the answer
to a guestion I had asked a Cambodian.What do you think was the
rational behind the people who did such awful things in your country?He
told me if those dumb monkeys saw a sofisticated piece of machinery they
would smash it and then melt it down so that they would then be able to
forge the new metal into a pot to cook rice in.


--
nget

[Edward Dolan]

" > wrote in message
...
>I must confess that in the past I Jim McNamara have posted lies with fake
>e-mail addresses on USEnet, A.R.B.R and the HPVlist to name a few. I have
>done so to entertain my nasty inner demons.
>
> I Jim McNamara will always tell lies on the internet. My goal in life is
> to seek revenge on Ed Gin and only Ed Gin. I am consumed with Ed Gin and
> have nothing else to dwell upon except Ed Gin. I will never give up. The
> reason is I Jim McNamara am pathetic and have nothing else to do in my
> retirement years. I may as well fulfill my evil frustrated fantasies with
> vicious internet attacks against Ed Gin none of which are true.
>
> I Jim McNamara am a living example of what a frustrated old man can
> become. Please forgive me A.R.B.R. for I am a foul and nasty beast and my
> soul will be purged to the deepest bowels of hell when I die. God help me.
>
> Jim McNamara

More Ed Gin ****.

****ing adios!


Newsgroups are for idiots!

I'm outa here. Newsgroups are for idiots. I can count on the fingers of

one hand those of you who are intelligent. Skip always displays good

solid thinking with a sharp wit thrown in for good measure. Scott

(Freewheeling) is an intellectual and a good writer. Jim McNamara has

also proven to me that he is both intelligent and right on all the present

issues. The rest of you are idiots. I leave the lot of you to the likes of

Ed Gin, Tom Sherman, Jon Meinecke, Slugger, Disco Duck, Mark

Leuck, Peter Clinch, Guy Chapman, Perry Butler, etc.

I have yet to see a newsgroup that was not being ruined by idiots. If

you hang out in a newsgroup, you should have your head examined. It

is nothing but a waste of time and a form of insanity. I don't give a ****

about any of you (a few exceptions) and why I ever wasted a single

second on any of you is beyond belief. I must have been crazy.

Anyone with any brains who has something to say should be on a

moderated forum where assholes and **** heads (like Ed Gin) can be

excluded. That is all newsgroups are full of. It is only dumbbells,

cowards and crazies who do not want their messages to pass the

scrutiny of an editor. I leave you to yourselves. You are all a bunch of

crazy *******s who deserve one another. May you all **** one

another until kingdom come.

<Plonk> to the lot of you.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 7 Feb 2005 01:01:04 -0800, wrote in message
. com>:

>Google Groups appropriate use policy stipulates that one will not:
>1. defame, abuse, harass or threaten
>2. post defamatory, obscene, or unlawful content
>3. impersonate another person or entity

As noted elsewhere, Usenet is not Google Groups. Gin's still an
arsewipe though.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Edward Dolan]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On 7 Feb 2005 01:01:04 -0800, wrote in message
> . com>:
>
>>Google Groups appropriate use policy stipulates that one will not:
>>1. defame, abuse, harass or threaten
>>2. post defamatory, obscene, or unlawful content
>>3. impersonate another person or entity
>
> As noted elsewhere, Usenet is not Google Groups. Gin's still an
> arsewipe though.
>
> Guy

Bravo Guy!

Also, please note that I have never done any of those 3 things listed above.
I am merely contentious - and that is all I have ever been. I love to argue
but I require others that love to argue back.

Where is Tom Sherman on all of this - that is the question?

"All it takes for evil men to prevail is that good men do nothing." I cannot
remember where that quotation comes from anymore.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 17:15:00 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
wrote in message >:

>>>Google Groups appropriate use policy stipulates that one will not:
>>>1. defame, abuse, harass or threaten
>>>2. post defamatory, obscene, or unlawful content
>>>3. impersonate another person or entity

>> As noted elsewhere, Usenet is not Google Groups. Gin's still an
>> arsewipe though.

>Also, please note that I have never done any of those 3 things listed above.

Apart from 1 and 2.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Edward Dolan]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 17:15:00 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
> wrote in message >:
>
>>>>Google Groups appropriate use policy stipulates that one will not:
>>>>1. defame, abuse, harass or threaten
>>>>2. post defamatory, obscene, or unlawful content
>>>>3. impersonate another person or entity
>
>>> As noted elsewhere, Usenet is not Google Groups. Gin's still an
>>> arsewipe though.
>
>>Also, please note that I have never done any of those 3 things listed
>>above.
>
> Apart from 1 and 2.

Nonsense! Calling an idiot an idiot is just being truthful and helpful. I
have never defamed, harassed or threatened. I also have never been obscene
or unlawful in my messages. On the other hand, Guy Chapman has been forever
pig headed, ignorant and stupid. But that is what comes of living in the
Midlands of dowdy old England.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:44:45 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
wrote in message >:

>>>>>Google Groups appropriate use policy stipulates that one will not:
>>>>>1. defame, abuse, harass or threaten
>>>>>2. post defamatory, obscene, or unlawful content
>>>>>3. impersonate another person or entity

>>>> As noted elsewhere, Usenet is not Google Groups. Gin's still an
>>>> arsewipe though.

>>>Also, please note that I have never done any of those 3 things listed
>>>above.

>> Apart from 1 and 2.

>Nonsense! Calling an idiot an idiot is just being truthful and helpful. I
>have never defamed, harassed or threatened. I also have never been obscene
>or unlawful in my messages.

For differing values of truthful, helpful, defamation, harassment,
threats, obscenity and lawfulness.

>On the other hand, Guy Chapman has been forever
>pig headed, ignorant and stupid. But that is what comes of living in the
>Midlands of dowdy old England.

For differing values of pig-headed, ignorant and stupid, obviously -
or maybe you mean the standard Usenet definitions of those terms, i.e.
holding a different opinion from yours.

And I don't live in the Midlands, never have.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[[email protected]]

Edward Dolan wrote:

> Nonsense! Calling an idiot an idiot is just being truthful and
helpful.

I believe it should be "An idiot calling an idiot an idiot........."



>I have never defamed, harassed or threatened. I also have never been
obscene or unlawful in my messages.


Another lie by Ed Dolan!

You've "defamed," "harassed" AND "been obscene"!


Perry B

[Edward Dolan]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:44:45 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
> wrote in message >:
>
>>>>>>Google Groups appropriate use policy stipulates that one will not:
>>>>>>1. defame, abuse, harass or threaten
>>>>>>2. post defamatory, obscene, or unlawful content
>>>>>>3. impersonate another person or entity
>
>>>>> As noted elsewhere, Usenet is not Google Groups. Gin's still an
>>>>> arsewipe though.
>
>>>>Also, please note that I have never done any of those 3 things listed
>>>>above.
>
>>> Apart from 1 and 2.
>
>>Nonsense! Calling an idiot an idiot is just being truthful and helpful. I
>>have never defamed, harassed or threatened. I also have never been obscene
>>or unlawful in my messages.
>
> For differing values of truthful, helpful, defamation, harassment,
> threats, obscenity and lawfulness.

An incomplete sentence.

>>On the other hand, Guy Chapman has been forever
>>pig headed, ignorant and stupid. But that is what comes of living in the
>>Midlands of dowdy old England.
>
> For differing values of pig-headed, ignorant and stupid, obviously -
> or maybe you mean the standard Usenet definitions of those terms, i.e.
> holding a different opinion from yours.

Another incomplete sentence.

The fact remains that we could all easily be doing what Ed Gin does. But
only Ed Gin does what he does. Maybe you would like me to follow him. I
could get up to speed rather quickly as all you have to have is a certain
amount of time and stamina. No opinions are ever required.

> And I don't live in the Midlands, never have.

Near London then? I do vaguely recall arguing with someone awhile back about
the lack of bike trails in Cambridge. Was that you?

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> Nonsense! Calling an idiot an idiot is just being truthful and
> helpful.
>
> I believe it should be "An idiot calling an idiot an idiot........."
>
>
>
>>I have never defamed, harassed or threatened. I also have never been
> obscene or unlawful in my messages.
>
>
> Another lie by Ed Dolan!
>
> You've "defamed," "harassed" AND "been obscene"!

Prove it!

In addition, I believe anyone who is forever calling others liars is a form
of harassment and defamation. Perry Butler stands condemned out of his own
mouth.

And finally, just because I believe Perry Butler is a ****ing asshole is not
an obscenity. It is simply the truth. He needs to see himself as I see him.
That is where the helpful part comes in.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:05:53 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
wrote in message >:

>>>Nonsense! Calling an idiot an idiot is just being truthful and helpful. I
>>>have never defamed, harassed or threatened. I also have never been obscene
>>>or unlawful in my messages.

>> For differing values of truthful, helpful, defamation, harassment,
>> threats, obscenity and lawfulness.

>An incomplete sentence.

Not as far as I can tell (in either case).

>> And I don't live in the Midlands, never have.

>Near London then? I do vaguely recall arguing with someone awhile back about
>the lack of bike trails in Cambridge. Was that you?

Not that I recall. Neither is Cambridge in the Midlands (or near
London for that matter).

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Edward Dolan]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:05:53 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
> wrote in message >:
>
>>>>Nonsense! Calling an idiot an idiot is just being truthful and helpful.
>>>>I
>>>>have never defamed, harassed or threatened. I also have never been
>>>>obscene
>>>>or unlawful in my messages.
>
>>> For differing values of truthful, helpful, defamation, harassment,
>>> threats, obscenity and lawfulness.
>
>>An incomplete sentence.
>
> Not as far as I can tell (in either case).

Where the hell are the verbs? Damn it Guy, lay off the vino!

>>> And I don't live in the Midlands, never have.
>
>>Near London then? I do vaguely recall arguing with someone awhile back
>>about
>>the lack of bike trails in Cambridge. Was that you?
>
> Not that I recall. Neither is Cambridge in the Midlands (or near
> London for that matter).

Hells Bells! All of England is near London. We have counties here in the US
that are almost the size of England and many states that are larger. Try to
think BIG why don't you? We can't all be Lilliputians like Europeans.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:02:36 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
wrote in message >:

>>>> For differing values of truthful, helpful, defamation, harassment,
>>>> threats, obscenity and lawfulness.

>>>An incomplete sentence.

>> Not as far as I can tell (in either case).

>Where the hell are the verbs? Damn it Guy, lay off the vino!

Last I heard "to differ" was still a verb.

Nice example of the logical fallacy ad-hominem / style over substance,
though.

>> Not that I recall. Neither is Cambridge in the Midlands (or near
>> London for that matter).

>Hells Bells! All of England is near London. We have counties here in the US
>that are almost the size of England and many states that are larger. Try to
>think BIG why don't you? We can't all be Lilliputians like Europeans.

For differing values of near. Try getting from London to Cambridge
some time.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Edward Dolan]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:02:36 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
> wrote in message >:
>
>>>>> For differing values of truthful, helpful, defamation, harassment,
>>>>> threats, obscenity and lawfulness.
>
>>>>An incomplete sentence.
>
>>> Not as far as I can tell (in either case).
>
>>Where the hell are the verbs? Damn it Guy, lay off the vino!
>
> Last I heard "to differ" was still a verb.



One entry found for differ.

Main Entry: dif·fer
Pronunciation: 'di-f&r
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): dif·fered; dif·fer·ing /-f(&-)ri[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French
differer to postpone, be different, from Latin differre, from dis- + ferre
to carry -- more at BEAR
1 a : to be unlike or distinct in nature, form, or characteristics
<the law of one state differs from that of another> b : to change from time
to time or from one instance to another : VARY <the number of cookies in a
box may differ>
2 : to be of unlike or opposite opinion : DISAGREE <they differ on
religious matters>

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
I have never eno****ered "differing" used as a verb before the way you
used it. It is possible that you could be correct, but it does not look
right and it does not sound right. Differing seems like an adjective to me.
Any English professors of composition present?


I would have written your above statement quite differently.

> Nice example of the logical fallacy ad-hominem / style over substance,
> though.
>
>>> Not that I recall. Neither is Cambridge in the Midlands (or near
>>> London for that matter).
>
>>Hells Bells! All of England is near London. We have counties here in the
>>US
>>that are almost the size of England and many states that are larger. Try
>>to
>>think BIG why don't you? We can't all be Lilliputians like Europeans.
>
> For differing values of near. Try getting from London to Cambridge
> some time.

Nope, differing still doesn't look right or sound right. I am almost sure
you are not using the word correctly. I'll bet you can't find me a literary
example of it being used like how you used it.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:48:43 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
wrote in message >:

>> Last I heard "to differ" was still a verb.
> One entry found for differ.
> Function: intransitive verb

Thus: a verb. There was nothing wrong with the sentence as written.

>I would have written your above statement quite differently.

Quite possibly. You are never known to use one word where five will
do, after all.

>> For differing values of near. Try getting from London to Cambridge
>> some time.

>Nope, differing still doesn't look right or sound right. I am almost sure
>you are not using the word correctly. I'll bet you can't find me a literary
>example of it being used like how you used it.

I believe it appears in Terry Pratchett, but why should I need to?
Check out uk.rec.sheds some time.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[[email protected]]

Edward Dolan wrote:

> Prove it!

Today alone you have lied twice!

You obviously don't know what it means to lie! It's easy to see why
you live alone! Who wants to live with a liar!


> In addition, I believe anyone who is forever calling others liars is
a form
> of harassment and defamation. Perry Butler stands condemned out of
his own
> mouth.

I only call people liars who are liars!

I call you a liar because you are!

Just speaking the truth Ed, just speaking the truth!

Perry B

[Edward Dolan]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:48:43 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
> wrote in message >:
>
>>> Last I heard "to differ" was still a verb.
>> One entry found for differ.
>> Function: intransitive verb
>
> Thus: a verb. There was nothing wrong with the sentence as written.
>
>>I would have written your above statement quite differently.
>
> Quite possibly. You are never known to use one word where five will
> do, after all.
>
>>> For differing values of near. Try getting from London to Cambridge
>>> some time.
>
>>Nope, differing still doesn't look right or sound right. I am almost sure
>>you are not using the word correctly. I'll bet you can't find me a
>>literary
>>example of it being used like how you used it.
>
> I believe it appears in Terry Pratchett, but why should I need to?
> Check out uk.rec.sheds some time.

I am convinced you are using the word (intransitive verb) improperly. I have
read widely and I have never seen it used like how you used it. However, I
will do some research on this and get back to you. I have a very keen sense
of how words are to be used based on a life time of reading. Your usage,
even if correct, is rare and most likely obsolete to say the least.

What I would really like to get my hands on is the Oxford English Dictionary
(OED), but my local library does not have brains enough to keep a valuable
resource like that available. They think such a resource is only for
scholars, never realizing they have a genius like me living in their midst.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> Prove it!
>
> Today alone you have lied twice!
>
> You obviously don't know what it means to lie! It's easy to see why
> you live alone! Who wants to live with a liar!
>
>
>> In addition, I believe anyone who is forever calling others liars is
> a form
>> of harassment and defamation. Perry Butler stands condemned out of
> his own
>> mouth.
>
> I only call people liars who are liars!
>
> I call you a liar because you are!
>
> Just speaking the truth Ed, just speaking the truth!
>
> Perry B

Perry has spent too much time on computers and not enough time in libraries.
Words are slippery as hell. They can have multiple meanings and definitions
depending on the context in which they are used. However, I know this is
going right over his head. I need to remind myself to keep things simple for
Perry Butler so he can understand what is being said. Complexities and
difficulties are not for him.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:48:51 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
wrote in message >:

>> I believe it appears in Terry Pratchett, but why should I need to?
>> Check out uk.rec.sheds some time.

>I am convinced you are using the word (intransitive verb) improperly. I have
>read widely and I have never seen it used like how you used it. However, I
^^^^^^^^
>will do some research on this and get back to you.

How can you when you are out of here? Oh, wait, that was bull****,
wasn't it? Sorry, I forgot.

>I have a very keen sense
>of how words are to be used based on a life time of reading. Your usage,
^^^^^^^^^
>even if correct, is rare and most likely obsolete to say the least.

Obsolete or emergent or arcane or just British. Who cares. Grammar
flames are the last refuge of the loser, after all.

I maintain that the sentence was grammatically correct - and valid in
context.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Edward Dolan]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:48:51 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
> wrote in message >:
>
>>> I believe it appears in Terry Pratchett, but why should I need to?
>>> Check out uk.rec.sheds some time.
>
>>I am convinced you are using the word (intransitive verb) improperly. I
>>have
>>read widely and I have never seen it used like how you used it. However, I
> ^^^^^^^^
>>will do some research on this and get back to you.
>
> How can you when you are out of here? Oh, wait, that was bull****,
> wasn't it? Sorry, I forgot.

Remember what I said about opera stars and their dozen farewell concerts.

>>I have a very keen sense
>>of how words are to be used based on a life time of reading. Your usage,
> ^^^^^^^^^
>>even if correct, is rare and most likely obsolete to say the least.
>
> Obsolete or emergent or arcane or just British. Who cares. Grammar
> flames are the last refuge of the loser, after all.

No, you have used the language improperly, of that I am convinced. If you
were true blue English you would ascribe the utmost significance to this
matter. I can't think of anything that is more important, at least not at
the moment.

> I maintain that the sentence was grammatically correct - and valid in
> context.

And I disagree. We shall see who is right! It looked stupid and it sounded
stupid. It can't possibly be right. But I will admit those darn intransitive
verbs can be tricky.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:48:51 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
>> wrote in message >:
>>
>>>> I believe it appears in Terry Pratchett, but why should I need to?
>>>> Check out uk.rec.sheds some time.
>>
>>>I am convinced you are using the word (intransitive verb) improperly. I
>>>have
>>>read widely and I have never seen it used like how you used it. However,
>>>I
>> ^^^^^^^^
>>>will do some research on this and get back to you.
>>
>> How can you when you are out of here? Oh, wait, that was bull****,
>> wasn't it? Sorry, I forgot.
>
> Remember what I said about opera stars and their dozen farewell concerts.
>
>>>I have a very keen sense
>>>of how words are to be used based on a life time of reading. Your usage,
>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>>even if correct, is rare and most likely obsolete to say the least.
>>
>> Obsolete or emergent or arcane or just British. Who cares. Grammar
>> flames are the last refuge of the loser, after all.
>
> No, you have used the language improperly, of that I am convinced. If you
> were true blue English you would ascribe the utmost significance to this
> matter. I can't think of anything that is more important, at least not at
> the moment.
>
>> I maintain that the sentence was grammatically correct - and valid in
>> context.
>
> And I disagree. We shall see who is right! It looked stupid and it sounded
> stupid. It can't possibly be right. But I will admit those darn
> intransitive verbs can be tricky.

Guy Chapman originally wrote:

>> For differing values of truthful, helpful, defamation, harassment,
>> threats, obscenity and lawfulness.

Edward Dolan wrote:

>An incomplete sentence.

>Where the hell are (is) the verbs (verb)?

I have checked several dictionaries and there is no way your use of
"differing" makes any sense at all. Admittedly I would have to go the Oxford
English Dictionary to be positive about this. Unless you can find me a
"literary" usage of this word the way you used it, then you are clearly
wrong and I don't give a damn about what might be in the vernacular. It
looks stupid and it sounds stupid. Therefore, it can't be right. Case
closed!

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:18:45 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
wrote in message >:

>> How can you when you are out of here? Oh, wait, that was bull****,
>> wasn't it? Sorry, I forgot.

>Remember what I said about opera stars and their dozen farewell concerts.

Ed, you are without question far more Oprah than opera.

>>>even if correct, is rare and most likely obsolete to say the least.

>> Obsolete or emergent or arcane or just British. Who cares. Grammar
>> flames are the last refuge of the loser, after all.

>No, you have used the language improperly, of that I am convinced. If you
>were true blue English you would ascribe the utmost significance to this
>matter. I can't think of anything that is more important, at least not at
>the moment.

So potter along to an English newsgroup such as the quintessentially
English uk.rec.sheds, where anything Leftpondian is eschewed and even
the words Senapr and Treznal must be ROTed to save the delicate
sensibilities - here you will find the phrase and its minor variants
sufficiently common that they are often abbreviated to FSVO (for some
values of), FCVO (for certain values of) etc.

Now provide an authority which states that I cannot use the phrase in
that way. No, on second thoughts, don't bother. It's irrelevant - a
grammar flame is a tacit acknowledgement that you have lost the
argument, and I am happy to accept it as such.

>And I disagree. We shall see who is right! It looked stupid and it sounded
>stupid. It can't possibly be right. But I will admit those darn intransitive
>verbs can be tricky.

But not as tricky as intransigent Septics.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 06:04:53 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
wrote in message >:

>I have checked several dictionaries and there is no way your use of
>"differing" makes any sense at all. Admittedly I would have to go the Oxford
>English Dictionary to be positive about this. Unless you can find me a
>"literary" usage of this word the way you used it, then you are clearly
>wrong and I don't give a damn about what might be in the vernacular. It
>looks stupid and it sounds stupid. Therefore, it can't be right. Case
>closed!

So you say. But I am disinclined to take your word for it - after
all, you made a couple of childish grammatical errors in your grammar
flame, so clearly you are not the authority you believe yourself to
be.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Edward Dolan]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 06:04:53 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
> wrote in message >:
>
>>I have checked several dictionaries and there is no way your use of
>>"differing" makes any sense at all. Admittedly I would have to go the
>>Oxford
>>English Dictionary to be positive about this. Unless you can find me a
>>"literary" usage of this word the way you used it, then you are clearly
>>wrong and I don't give a damn about what might be in the vernacular. It
>>looks stupid and it sounds stupid. Therefore, it can't be right. Case
>>closed!
>
> So you say. But I am disinclined to take your word for it - after
> all, you made a couple of childish grammatical errors in your grammar
> flame, so clearly you are not the authority you believe yourself to
> be.

I do not believe I have ever made a grammatical error in my life. That is
because I am perfect. I do make lots of typos but that is because I can't
type worth a darn. I have always considered the ability to type to be an
appropriate activity for my inferiors. I spend my time thinking and writing,
not typing.

A dictionary would illustrate your use of the word as it is not common.
Since I do not see it illustrated, I conclude that it is just flat out
wrong.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:18:45 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
> wrote in message >:
>
>>> How can you when you are out of here? Oh, wait, that was bull****,
>>> wasn't it? Sorry, I forgot.
>
>>Remember what I said about opera stars and their dozen farewell concerts.
>
> Ed, you are without question far more Oprah than opera.

I spent every Saturday afternoon of my youth listening to the Met Opera
broadcasts on the radio. Man, those Wagner operas were really long. Some of
them would start at 12:30 and not be over until 5:00. How did you spend your
Saturday afternoons when you were a youth?

>>>>even if correct, is rare and most likely obsolete to say the least.
>
>>> Obsolete or emergent or arcane or just British. Who cares. Grammar
>>> flames are the last refuge of the loser, after all.
>
>>No, you have used the language improperly, of that I am convinced. If you
>>were true blue English you would ascribe the utmost significance to this
>>matter. I can't think of anything that is more important, at least not at
>>the moment.
>
> So potter along to an English newsgroup such as the quintessentially
> English uk.rec.sheds, where anything Leftpondian is eschewed and even
> the words Senapr and Treznal must be ROTed to save the delicate
> sensibilities - here you will find the phrase and its minor variants
> sufficiently common that they are often abbreviated to FSVO (for some
> values of), FCVO (for certain values of) etc.

If it is not in a standard dictionary and it's use illustrated, then it
should not be used. The standard for all English usage is what an educated
person would be expected to know, not something that can be drudged up from
an obscure source.

> Now provide an authority which states that I cannot use the phrase in
> that way. No, on second thoughts, don't bother. It's irrelevant - a
> grammar flame is a tacit acknowledgement that you have lost the
> argument, and I am happy to accept it as such.

What argument? We are discussing the use of "differing" used as a verb.

I go by whether or not something looks and sounds right to me. That is
because I have an unfailing sense of what is correct. If it doesn't pass MY
test, then it is wrong.

You need to find and show me a use of the word as you used it in a literary
text of some standing in order to convince me otherwise. Maybe something
from Charles Dickens or Anthony Trollope?

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:36:22 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
wrote in message >:

>> So you say. But I am disinclined to take your word for it - after
>> all, you made a couple of childish grammatical errors in your grammar
>> flame, so clearly you are not the authority you believe yourself to
>> be.

>I do not believe I have ever made a grammatical error in my life.

Message ID > "like how" instead
of "as" and "life time" instead of lifetime.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Peter Clinch]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Message ID > "like how" instead
> of "as" and "life time" instead of lifetime.

Guy, there just isn't any point hurrying to hang someone when they are
doing /such/ a comprehensive job of feeding out the perfect length of
rope for themselves, checking the knot will slide, making sure the
gallows is robust and the trap door has very well oiled hinges...

Ed's cluelessness speaks for itself, there's really nothing to be gained
by pointing it out. Next you'll be telling us the Big News that the
Earth isn't flat...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Edward Dolan]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:36:22 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
> wrote in message >:
>
>>> So you say. But I am disinclined to take your word for it - after
>>> all, you made a couple of childish grammatical errors in your grammar
>>> flame, so clearly you are not the authority you believe yourself to
>>> be.
>
>>I do not believe I have ever made a grammatical error in my life.
>
> Message ID > "like how" instead
> of "as" and "life time" instead of lifetime.

Nonsense, I was most likely just using a vernacular expression. Also, as
regards your second example, if in doubt whether to combine words or to
separate them, always separate them. You can never go wrong doing that.
Elementary my dear Watson.

However, if I wanted to pick apart your posts I could have a field day. That
is because you are not perfect like me.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"Peter Clinch" > wrote in message
...
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> Message ID > "like how" instead
>> of "as" and "life time" instead of lifetime.
>
> Guy, there just isn't any point hurrying to hang someone when they are
> doing /such/ a comprehensive job of feeding out the perfect length of rope
> for themselves, checking the knot will slide, making sure the gallows is
> robust and the trap door has very well oiled hinges...

Why not put a period at the end of your sentence instead of trailing off
with three dots? What kind of punctuation is that?

> Ed's cluelessness speaks for itself, there's really nothing to be gained
> by pointing it out. Next you'll be telling us the Big News that the Earth
> isn't flat...

Again no period at the end of the sentence. What an idiot!

The English ceased being the experts in the language a long time ago. No one
in dowdy old England is capable of writing like the Victorians anymore. It
is a lost art. Not only has England's former power emigrated to the New
World, but so has it's former culture.

America is now the center of the universe in every respect. Even Minnesota
is a beehive of culture compared to that backwater known as England. Peter
Clinch and Guy Chapman are now only little brothers to us Americans not only
in power but also in culture. But anyone with any brains knows that power
and culture always go together in the long run.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:58:28 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
wrote in message >:

>> Ed, you are without question far more Oprah than opera.

>I spent every Saturday afternoon of my youth listening to the Met Opera
>broadcasts on the radio. Man, those Wagner operas were really long. Some of
>them would start at 12:30 and not be over until 5:00. How did you spend your
>Saturday afternoons when you were a youth?

Depends on what you mean by youth. Over the years I spent Saturday
afternoons reading, model making, playing games, riding my bike,
helping out at classical concerts and music festivals, helping in the
local cathedral and showing prospective parents round my
thousand-year-old school.

These days I'm more likely to be at home with the kids and listening
to the Met opera broadcast on BBC Radio 3...

>> So potter along to an English newsgroup such as the quintessentially
>> English uk.rec.sheds, where anything Leftpondian is eschewed and even
>> the words Senapr and Treznal must be ROTed to save the delicate
>> sensibilities - here you will find the phrase and its minor variants
>> sufficiently common that they are often abbreviated to FSVO (for some
>> values of), FCVO (for certain values of) etc.

>If it is not in a standard dictionary and it's use illustrated, then it
>should not be used.

According to this definition no new usage would ever be permitted, no
usage would be tolerated unless and until it had been cited in the
dictionary. That is the wrong way round. In practice the dictionary
follows usage, and changes over time; examples in the dictionary are
often taken from what were at the time new or emergent usage. If this
were not so we would all still be using English as Dr Johnson did.

How about this: "There was me, that is Alex, and my three droogs, that
is Pete, Georgie, and Dim, Dim being really Dim, and we sat in the
Korova Milkbar making up our rassoodocks what to do with the evening,
a flip dark chill winter ******* though dry. The Korova Milkbar was a
milk-plus mesto, and you may, O my brothers, have forgotten what these
mestos were like, things changing so skorry these days and everybody
very quick to forget, newspapers not being read much neither. Well,
what they sold there was milk plus something else. They had no license
for selling liquor, but there was no law yet against prodding some of
the new veshches which they used to put into the old moloko, so you
could peet it with vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom or one or two
other veshches which would give you a nice quick horrorshow fifteen
minutes admiring Bog And All His Holy Angels And Saints in your left
shoe with lights bursting all over your mozg. Or you could peet milk
with knives in it, as we used to say, and this would sharpen you up
and make you ready for a bit of dirty twenty-to-one, and that was what
we were peeting this evening I'm starting off the story with."

That is from a writer commonly cited as a master of the written
language, author of many books set as part of the English literature
syllabus (and this one of was filmed by Stanley Kubrick). In the full
OED (the big one seen only at major libraries) there are examples of
usage cited from his books but never, to my knowledge, seen elsewhere.
The conclusion, and one to which he freely admitted, is that he made
it up as he went along - only he called it extending the boundaries.
An American might call it "pushing the envelope" - a usage which only
appeared in the OED very recently, having been absorbed from aviation
slang (it was used by my father back in the 60s and 70s, and in those
days anybody outside the industry would look blankly at him if he used
it).

>The standard for all English usage is what an educated
>person would be expected to know, not something that can be drudged up from
>an obscure source.

And, speaking as an educated person (and having passed public exams in
English language and literature to boot), I know I am right. So there
you go: the Dolan standard of proof.

>> Now provide an authority which states that I cannot use the phrase in
>> that way. No, on second thoughts, don't bother. It's irrelevant - a
>> grammar flame is a tacit acknowledgement that you have lost the
>> argument, and I am happy to accept it as such.

>What argument? We are discussing the use of "differing" used as a verb.

No, Ed, we were discussing your hypocrisy in calling Ed Gin on abuse
and obscenity despite your own use of these, as the record shows.
Your grammar flame was a distraction, and one of your more common
ones. And, as it turns out, you were wrong.

>I go by whether or not something looks and sounds right to me. That is
>because I have an unfailing sense of what is correct. If it doesn't pass MY
>test, then it is wrong.

I apply the same test. What you say feels wrong to me, therefore it
is wrong. And in this case I have the Google archive to help:

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?selm=55gmsc%248a2%40samba.rahul.net&output=gplain

The first use in the Google archive of the phrase "for differing
values of" used in exactly the way I used it, back in November 1996.

>You need to find and show me a use of the word as you used it in a literary
>text of some standing in order to convince me otherwise. Maybe something
>from Charles Dickens or Anthony Trollope?

Why stop there?

"Whilom, as olde stories tellen us,
Ther was a duc that highte Theseus;
Of Atthenes he was lord and governour,
And in his tyme swich a conquerour,
That gretter was ther noon under the sonne.
Ful many a riche contree hadde he wonne,
What with his wysdom and his chivalrie;
He conquered al the regne of Femenye,
That whilom was ycleped Scithia,
And weddede the queene Ypolita,
And broghte hir hoom with hym in his contree,
With muchel glorie and greet solempnytee,
And eek hir yonge suster Emelye.
And thus with victorie and with melodye
Lete I this noble duc to Atthenes ryde,
And al his hoost, in armes hym bisyde."

So there you have English as it really should be used, from one of the
greatest writers who ever lived - still read and studied over six
hundred years after his death.

Or should we stick with Elizabethan English, as codified by Johnson in
the original OED?

"A victorie is twice it selfe, when the atchieuer
brings home full numbers: I finde heere, that Don Peter
hath bestowed much honor on a yong Florentine, called
Claudio"

"Much deseru'd on his part, and equally remembred
by Don Pedro, he hath borne himselfe beyond the
promise of his age, doing in the figure of a Lambe, the
feats of a Lion, he hath indeede better bettred expectation,
then you must expect of me to tell you how"

The aptly titled "Much adoe about Nothing", as accurate a description
of your complaint here as could be wished for. I find it amusing that
Eng. Lit students will often argue the toss regarding spelling and
grammar while cheerfully accepting the primacy in the canon of English
literature of a man who could not even spell his own name
consistently.

A 1950 text on correct grammar and usage would read (does read - I
have one) as hopelessly archaic now. Punctuation in particular has
changed almost beyond recognition. The books of Waugh read as well
and as wittily as ever, but if you study the punctuation and
word-order you see that it is not in line with modern usage, and if
you concentrate too hard on the language it grates in places and ruins
your enjoyment of the story. Who is right? Grammar is a largely
arbitrary construct, and is far less immutable than you might like to
think. I have no doubt that the freshest of modern texts will seem
archaic to my children when they reach adulthood.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 06:08:38 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
wrote in message >:

>Why not put a period at the end of your sentence instead of trailing off
>with three dots? What kind of punctuation is that?

I suggest you buy yourself a book on punctuation published some time
in the last quarter century.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 05:43:18 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
wrote in message >:

>>>I do not believe I have ever made a grammatical error in my life.

>> Message ID > "like how" instead
>> of "as" and "life time" instead of lifetime.

>Nonsense, I was most likely just using a vernacular expression.

Hoist by your own petard.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Edward Dolan]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:58:28 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
> wrote in message >:
>
>>> Ed, you are without question far more Oprah than opera.
>
>>I spent every Saturday afternoon of my youth listening to the Met Opera
>>broadcasts on the radio. Man, those Wagner operas were really long. Some
>>of
>>them would start at 12:30 and not be over until 5:00. How did you spend
>>your
>>Saturday afternoons when you were a youth?
>
> Depends on what you mean by youth. Over the years I spent Saturday
> afternoons reading, model making, playing games, riding my bike,
> helping out at classical concerts and music festivals, helping in the
> local cathedral and showing prospective parents round my
> thousand-year-old school.

Just as I thought - a busy body in perpetual motion. You were not focused
like I was.

> These days I'm more likely to be at home with the kids and listening
> to the Met opera broadcast on BBC Radio 3...

That is well and good.

>>> So potter along to an English newsgroup such as the quintessentially
>>> English uk.rec.sheds, where anything Leftpondian is eschewed and even
>>> the words Senapr and Treznal must be ROTed to save the delicate
>>> sensibilities - here you will find the phrase and its minor variants
>>> sufficiently common that they are often abbreviated to FSVO (for some
>>> values of), FCVO (for certain values of) etc.
>
>>If it is not in a standard dictionary and it's use illustrated, then it
>>should not be used.
>
> According to this definition no new usage would ever be permitted, no
> usage would be tolerated unless and until it had been cited in the
> dictionary. That is the wrong way round. In practice the dictionary
> follows usage, and changes over time; examples in the dictionary are
> often taken from what were at the time new or emergent usage. If this
> were not so we would all still be using English as Dr Johnson did.

Granted, but that does not mean we are free to invent the language as we
please. Language changes around the edges only slowly over time, but the
basic sturcture and root words do not change much if at all. A verb like to
differ will stay the same forever.

> How about this: "There was me, that is Alex, and my three droogs, that
> is Pete, Georgie, and Dim, Dim being really Dim, and we sat in the
> Korova Milkbar making up our rassoodocks what to do with the evening,
> a flip dark chill winter ******* though dry. The Korova Milkbar was a
> milk-plus mesto, and you may, O my brothers, have forgotten what these
> mestos were like, things changing so skorry these days and everybody
> very quick to forget, newspapers not being read much neither. Well,
> what they sold there was milk plus something else. They had no license
> for selling liquor, but there was no law yet against prodding some of
> the new veshches which they used to put into the old moloko, so you
> could peet it with vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom or one or two
> other veshches which would give you a nice quick horrorshow fifteen
> minutes admiring Bog And All His Holy Angels And Saints in your left
> shoe with lights bursting all over your mozg. Or you could peet milk
> with knives in it, as we used to say, and this would sharpen you up
> and make you ready for a bit of dirty twenty-to-one, and that was what
> we were peeting this evening I'm starting off the story with."
>
> That is from a writer commonly cited as a master of the written
> language, author of many books set as part of the English literature
> syllabus (and this one of was filmed by Stanley Kubrick). In the full
> OED (the big one seen only at major libraries) there are examples of
> usage cited from his books but never, to my knowledge, seen elsewhere.
> The conclusion, and one to which he freely admitted, is that he made
> it up as he went along - only he called it extending the boundaries.
> An American might call it "pushing the envelope" - a usage which only
> appeared in the OED very recently, having been absorbed from aviation
> slang (it was used by my father back in the 60s and 70s, and in those
> days anybody outside the industry would look blankly at him if he used
> it).

All of the above is hogwash and is not good English at all. It is the
English of the working class and/or jargon which is never acceptable. I am
only concerned with literary English, i.e., the English of the upper classes
as it is spoken and written today.

>>The standard for all English usage is what an educated
>>person would be expected to know, not something that can be drudged up
>>from
>>an obscure source.
>
> And, speaking as an educated person (and having passed public exams in
> English language and literature to boot), I know I am right. So there
> you go: the Dolan standard of proof.

And I know you are wrong. The way you used "differing" was wrong. It did not
make sense as a sentence. Why don't you run it past an English professor and
see what he says about it.

>>> Now provide an authority which states that I cannot use the phrase in
>>> that way. No, on second thoughts, don't bother. It's irrelevant - a
>>> grammar flame is a tacit acknowledgement that you have lost the
>>> argument, and I am happy to accept it as such.
>
>>What argument? We are discussing the use of "differing" used as a verb.
>
> No, Ed, we were discussing your hypocrisy in calling Ed Gin on abuse
> and obscenity despite your own use of these, as the record shows.
> Your grammar flame was a distraction, and one of your more common
> ones. And, as it turns out, you were wrong.

I only retaliated against Ed Gin for parroting my words and forging my name
to his posts. There is definitely something wrong with the way your brain
works. Like Tom Sherman, you equate that which cannot be equated. Ed Gin did
what no one else on this group has ever done in my two years experience
here. He is little better than a liar and a thief.

>>I go by whether or not something looks and sounds right to me. That is
>>because I have an unfailing sense of what is correct. If it doesn't pass
>>MY
>>test, then it is wrong.
>
> I apply the same test. What you say feels wrong to me, therefore it
> is wrong. And in this case I have the Google archive to help:
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?selm=55gmsc%248a2%40samba.rahul.net&output=gplain
>
> The first use in the Google archive of the phrase "for differing
> values of" used in exactly the way I used it, back in November 1996.

I think the use of the entire phrase makes all the difference. What you did
is not the same thing at all. Find me something in Charles Dickens why don't
you instead of these pitiful attempts which reek of desperation.

>>You need to find and show me a use of the word as you used it in a
>>literary
>>text of some standing in order to convince me otherwise. Maybe something
>>from Charles Dickens or Anthony Trollope?
>
> Why stop there?
>
> "Whilom, as olde stories tellen us,
> Ther was a duc that highte Theseus;
> Of Atthenes he was lord and governour,
> And in his tyme swich a conquerour,
> That gretter was ther noon under the sonne.
> Ful many a riche contree hadde he wonne,
> What with his wysdom and his chivalrie;
> He conquered al the regne of Femenye,
> That whilom was ycleped Scithia,
> And weddede the queene Ypolita,
> And broghte hir hoom with hym in his contree,
> With muchel glorie and greet solempnytee,
> And eek hir yonge suster Emelye.
> And thus with victorie and with melodye
> Lete I this noble duc to Atthenes ryde,
> And al his hoost, in armes hym bisyde."
>
> So there you have English as it really should be used, from one of the
> greatest writers who ever lived - still read and studied over six
> hundred years after his death.

Where is the "differing"?

> Or should we stick with Elizabethan English, as codified by Johnson in
> the original OED?
>
> "A victorie is twice it selfe, when the atchieuer
> brings home full numbers: I finde heere, that Don Peter
> hath bestowed much honor on a yong Florentine, called
> Claudio"
>
> "Much deseru'd on his part, and equally remembred
> by Don Pedro, he hath borne himselfe beyond the
> promise of his age, doing in the figure of a Lambe, the
> feats of a Lion, he hath indeede better bettred expectation,
> then you must expect of me to tell you how"

Where is the "differing"?

> The aptly titled "Much adoe about Nothing", as accurate a description
> of your complaint here as could be wished for. I find it amusing that
> Eng. Lit students will often argue the toss regarding spelling and
> grammar while cheerfully accepting the primacy in the canon of English
> literature of a man who could not even spell his own name
> consistently.
>
> A 1950 text on correct grammar and usage would read (does read - I
> have one) as hopelessly archaic now. Punctuation in particular has
> changed almost beyond recognition. The books of Waugh read as well
> and as wittily as ever, but if you study the punctuation and
> word-order you see that it is not in line with modern usage, and if
> you concentrate too hard on the language it grates in places and ruins
> your enjoyment of the story. Who is right? Grammar is a largely
> arbitrary construct, and is far less immutable than you might like to
> think. I have no doubt that the freshest of modern texts will seem
> archaic to my children when they reach adulthood.

That is all true but is beside the point.

We are only concerned here with present day grammar and usage. You have
gotten completely sidetracked on issues which have nothing to do with your
incorrect usage of "differing."

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

[Tom Sherman]

Peter Clinch wrote:

> ... Next you'll be telling us the Big News that the Earth isn't flat...

What!?

Next you will be telling us a five ounce bird could not carry a one
pound coconut.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

[nget]

How can anyone take me serious? I'm just a fat ass poster at BROL and a dip**** poster on A.R.B.R.

nget

[nget]

nget Wrote:
> How can anyone take me serious? I'm just a fat ass poster at BROL and a
> dip**** poster on A.R.B.R.
>
> nget
Just a monkey wipe without a sense of humor.


--
nget

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 07:15:02 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
wrote in message >:

>> Depends on what you mean by youth. Over the years I spent Saturday
>> afternoons reading, model making, playing games, riding my bike,
>> helping out at classical concerts and music festivals, helping in the
>> local cathedral and showing prospective parents round my
>> thousand-year-old school.

>Just as I thought - a busy body in perpetual motion. You were not focused
>like I was.

For differing values of focus, obviously. While you were listening to
the opera on the radio, I was meeting the musicians and listening to
music live. I have shaken hands with Menuhin, sung with Sarah Walker,
heard premieres of new organ works, met Peter Hurford, Thomas Trotter,
Kevin Bowyer, Gillian Weir, John Williams (the guitarist), Evelyn
Glennie, ensembles including the Academy of Ancient Music and Musica
Antiqua Koln - and sung works by Fauré, Mozart, Berlioz, Handel,
Vaughan Williams and Brahms in St Albans Cathedral. Not all
classical, either - I have met Humphrey Lyttleton, the jazz trumpeter,
Richard Stilgoe (who co-wrote the libretto for Lloyd-Webber's Phantom
of the Opera), bought beer for Jake Thackeray, danced to the Fairer
Sax, drunk with the cast of dozens of provincial productions of light
and comic operas. Although I've been to plenty of rock concerts and
ruined my hearing listening to Deep Purple, I have been listening to
and performing in classical music for most of the last 25 years.

Funny, though - a few hours ago I was sitting on the steps of the
Radcliffe Camera, debating which of Oxford's museums to visit. It
struck me then that the fountain source of all wisdom - the home of
the Oxford University Press - was but a few hundred yards away. Why
had I gone to Oxford, I hear you ask? Why, to visit Blackwell's Music
Shop, of course, where as a family we spent over $200 on sheet music.
Easily done - music is expensive (which is why I use CPDL so much).

>> According to this definition no new usage would ever be permitted, no
>> usage would be tolerated unless and until it had been cited in the
>> dictionary. That is the wrong way round. In practice the dictionary
>> follows usage, and changes over time; examples in the dictionary are
>> often taken from what were at the time new or emergent usage. If this
>> were not so we would all still be using English as Dr Johnson did.

>Granted, but that does not mean we are free to invent the language as we
>please.

Actually, yes, it means precisely that. Language is what we decide it
is. You and I may not like the antipodean quisitive ending or "he was
like, and I was like..." but we are not the final arbiters.

And actually I was not even inventing it. Not only is it a usage in
albeit uncommon currency, being restricted mainly to those of a
colourful turn of phrase (and certain scientific and mathematical
contexts), it is entirely consistent with the primary definition of
"differing", i.e. dissimilar or unlike in nature.

>Language changes around the edges only slowly over time, but the
>basic sturcture and root words do not change much if at all. A verb like to
>differ will stay the same forever.

And the usage "for differing values of" has been current for nearly a
decade on Usenet and I'm sure longer than that elsewhere. It is, to
coin a phrase, a colloquialism.

[ snip the first para of A Clockwork Orange ]

>All of the above is hogwash and is not good English at all. It is the
>English of the working class and/or jargon which is never acceptable. I am
>only concerned with literary English, i.e., the English of the upper classes
>as it is spoken and written today.

It is the English of Anthony Burgess, from a literary masterpiece the
like of which your feeble imagination (or mine) could never produce.

>> speaking as an educated person (and having passed public exams in
>> English language and literature to boot), I know I am right. So there
>> you go: the Dolan standard of proof.

>And I know you are wrong. The way you used "differing" was wrong. It did not
>make sense as a sentence. Why don't you run it past an English professor and
>see what he says about it.

So you say. And yet you have no proof beyond bluster and arm-waving.
I have shown that the usage is at least ten years old, you have posted
a grammatically questionable grammar flame. Who to believe? The man
who says he is out of here then argues the toss, starting an endless
grammar waffle to distract from his own hypocrisy? I think not.

>>>What argument? We are discussing the use of "differing" used as a verb.

>> No, Ed, we were discussing your hypocrisy in calling Ed Gin on abuse
>> and obscenity despite your own use of these, as the record shows.
>> Your grammar flame was a distraction, and one of your more common
>> ones. And, as it turns out, you were wrong.

>I only retaliated against Ed Gin for parroting my words and forging my name
>to his posts. There is definitely something wrong with the way your brain
>works. Like Tom Sherman, you equate that which cannot be equated. Ed Gin did
>what no one else on this group has ever done in my two years experience
>here. He is little better than a liar and a thief.

Logical fallacy: ad-hominem. Diagnosis: no evidence is offered, only
denigration.

To return to the subject, you said that you never use abuse and
obscenity - that was untrue. You use both. And I venture to suggest
that at least as many people have left the group due to interminable
off-topic political threads than have been driven off by the easily
filtered Gin.

>> The first use in the Google archive of the phrase "for differing
>> values of" used in exactly the way I used it, back in November 1996.

>I think the use of the entire phrase makes all the difference. What you did
>is not the same thing at all. Find me something in Charles Dickens why don't
>you instead of these pitiful attempts which reek of desperation.

Find me the phrase "like how you used it" in Dickens. Or indeed in
any writing which was not dinged for poor grammar by a grade-school
English teacher.

[snip Chaucer]

>Where is the "differing"?

See that over there in the far distance? That's the plot, that is.
You lost it a while back. I'll wait here while you go and get it.
Everyone else realises that usage has changed since Chaucer's day,
since Shakespeare's day, even since Graham Green's day.

>> A 1950 text on correct grammar and usage would read (does read - I
>> have one) as hopelessly archaic now.

>That is all true but is beside the point.

No, it is entirely pertinent. You are saying that a usage with which
you are unfamiliar is incorrect, solely because you are not familiar
with it. Earlier you used a phrase which is downright ungrammatical
and defended it as "a colloquialism". At least my colloquialism is
literate. The fact that the precise usage is not shown in a
dictionary could mean one of a number of things: it could be that the
compilers view it as consistent with existing definitions of the word
(as I do); it could be that they have not yet caught up with it; it
could be reasons of space; it could be that you are not looking in a
new enough or extensive enough dictionary; it could be geographically
localised. Of these the most likely is the first: that, being
consistent with the definition of differing as dissimilar or unlike in
nature, the compilers see no need to use an example which adds nothing
to the body of knowledge save in the mind of one determined to see
things as they are not. Which is a long way round the point that
nobody else seems to have a problem with it.

>We are only concerned here with present day grammar and usage. You have
>gotten completely sidetracked on issues which have nothing to do with your
>incorrect usage of "differing."

We are concerned with usage and how it develops over time. As I have
demonstrated, text from great authors is seriously at variance with
modern usage. Clearly your grammar, too, ossified - seemingly at
around the time TV went to colour, a retrograde step if ever there was
one.

Actually not even that: we are concerned with your hypocrisy and your
use of a hypocritically ungrammatical grammar flame to try to deflect
attention from it.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Edward Dolan]

I Ed Dolan of A.R.B.R. am full of Nonsense!
I Ed Dolan am an idiot who is never truthful or helpful.
I Ed Dolan of A.R.B.R. defame, harassed and threaten with every
newsgroup post I make. I also am very obscene, pig headed, ignorant,
stupid and unlawful in all my messages on USEnet.

But that is what comes of living when one becomes a old
puttz like me into his seventies who takes many meds daily.
I pray that I die soon so the world and A.R.B.R. will be a better place.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Biggest Waste of Mankind - Minnesota

[G. Morgan]

Subject: Re: Appropriate Use Policy
Newsgroup: alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
=> Just zis Guy, you know? <= wrote:

>From: "Just zis Guy, you know?" >


FROM:
http://news.individual.net/rules.html

Rules for Usage

Users of the newsserver are expected to follow this set of rules.
Disregarding the rules may cause termination of access privileges without
further notice.

* Sender Address
The e-mail addresses given in "From:", "Reply-To:", and "Sender:" should
be your own and should be valid (= should not bounce because of invalidity).
Using addresses and name space of other people without their permission is
prohibited.

-------------------------------------

You do NOT have permission to use a US government owned email address in your
message headers. Please remove it.

-------------------------------------


--

-Graham

Remove the snails to email

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:29:09 -0600, G. Morgan
> wrote in message
>:

>You do NOT have permission to use a US government owned email address in your
>message headers. Please remove it.

The reply-to address is valid and owned by me (and regularly used), so
the only people who will use the From address are spammers. All I am
doing is short-circuiting the process by having them send their ****
direct to where it belongs. I'm sure if they have a
problem with that they will let me know. Ditto the nice people at
Berlin Free University - it's not like they will have trouble tracing
me, what with my reply-to being valid and my website being in my .sig,
after all.


Now here are the headers from your message:

Path: uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: G. Morgan >
Newsgroups: alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Subject: Re: Appropriate Use Policy
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:29:09 -0600
Lines: 35
Message-ID: >
References: >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net
V+nSIvqTf/Mxmc8B84TN7gP/gDWPQ0XzXtN3a5yo/JTaJX52Pr
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
Xref: uni-berlin.de alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent:149088


I note that your headers show you to be in violation of the AUP (it
makes no exception for munging) so you might want to clean up your act
before shopping me to the admins.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Edward Dolan]

"nget" > wrote in message
...
> How can anyone take me serious? I'm just a fat ass poster at BROL and a
> dip**** poster on A.R.B.R.
>
> nget

More Ed Gin ****.

[Edward Dolan]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
...
>I Ed Dolan of A.R.B.R. am full of Nonsense!
> I Ed Dolan am an idiot who is never truthful or helpful.
> I Ed Dolan of A.R.B.R. defame, harassed and threaten with every
> newsgroup post I make. I also am very obscene, pig headed, ignorant,
> stupid and unlawful in all my messages on USEnet.
>
> But that is what comes of living when one becomes a old
> puttz like me into his seventies who takes many meds daily.
> I pray that I die soon so the world and A.R.B.R. will be a better place.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Biggest Waste of Mankind - Minnesota

More Ed Gin ****.

[[email protected]]

I Jim McNamara do not get nearly enough attention. Look at me JimmyMac
acting like a total **** for brains moron ... aren't I a wonderful asshole
with a diversionary life. At least the pretentious Ed Dolan kisses my ass.

My advice to all USEnet readers is to killfile me JimmyMac.
The methodology to purge newsgroups of those nuisances
like me Jim McNamara and Ed "old puttz" Dolan will work.
I Jim McNamara will love for all you to do just that. No need
for a criminal like me Jim McNamara to continue to post my crap.
Hell I'm too much of a chicken **** to deal with people in lif
so I keep attacking like a pussy behind my keyboard.

I Jim McNamara will now refer to Ed Dolan and myself as big
nuisances. We are the consummate, quintessential nuisances. Like I
said in the past ... I Jim McNamara am a vandal, a late night
linseed oil criminal, unscrupulous, slimy and a bottom feeding
troll ... an oozing festering, canker of all Internet forums.

Jim McNamara

[Edward Dolan]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 07:15:02 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
> wrote in message >:
>
>>> Depends on what you mean by youth. Over the years I spent Saturday
>>> afternoons reading, model making, playing games, riding my bike,
>>> helping out at classical concerts and music festivals, helping in the
>>> local cathedral and showing prospective parents round my
>>> thousand-year-old school.
>
>>Just as I thought - a busy body in perpetual motion. You were not focused
>>like I was.
>
> For differing values of focus, obviously. While you were listening to
> the opera on the radio, I was meeting the musicians and listening to
> music live.

Again, you have not used the verb "differing" correctly if you intended to
write a complete sentence. You have written a dependent phrase. It is not a
complete sentence. I am amazed that you cannot clearly see this.

I have never liked to listen to music live. The audience is a constant
source of distraction. I am with Glenn Gould on this issue. Since the advent
of recording there is never any reason to listen to music live anymore.

I have shaken hands with Menuhin, sung with Sarah Walker,
> heard premieres of new organ works, met Peter Hurford, Thomas Trotter,
> Kevin Bowyer, Gillian Weir, John Williams (the guitarist), Evelyn
> Glennie, ensembles including the Academy of Ancient Music and Musica
> Antiqua Koln - and sung works by Fauré, Mozart, Berlioz, Handel,
> Vaughan Williams and Brahms in St Albans Cathedral. Not all
> classical, either - I have met Humphrey Lyttleton, the jazz trumpeter,
> Richard Stilgoe (who co-wrote the libretto for Lloyd-Webber's Phantom
> of the Opera), bought beer for Jake Thackeray, danced to the Fairer
> Sax, drunk with the cast of dozens of provincial productions of light
> and comic operas. Although I've been to plenty of rock concerts and
> ruined my hearing listening to Deep Purple, I have been listening to
> and performing in classical music for most of the last 25 years.

I do not understand lovers of classical music who go slumming with pop
music, no matter how briefly. There is only one kind of music and that is
good music and it is all of it classical and no other.

> Funny, though - a few hours ago I was sitting on the steps of the
> Radcliffe Camera, debating which of Oxford's museums to visit. It
> struck me then that the fountain source of all wisdom - the home of
> the Oxford University Press - was but a few hundred yards away. Why
> had I gone to Oxford, I hear you ask? Why, to visit Blackwell's Music
> Shop, of course, where as a family we spent over $200 on sheet music.
> Easily done - music is expensive (which is why I use CPDL so much).

I can't play music, but I am an excellent listener and I can immediately
discern good music from bad music. Now you know why I especially love
Beethoven.

>>> According to this definition no new usage would ever be permitted, no
>>> usage would be tolerated unless and until it had been cited in the
>>> dictionary. That is the wrong way round. In practice the dictionary
>>> follows usage, and changes over time; examples in the dictionary are
>>> often taken from what were at the time new or emergent usage. If this
>>> were not so we would all still be using English as Dr Johnson did.
>
>>Granted, but that does not mean we are free to invent the language as we
>>please.
>
> Actually, yes, it means precisely that. Language is what we decide it
> is. You and I may not like the antipodean quisitive ending or "he was
> like, and I was like..." but we are not the final arbiters.

We may not be the final arbiters, but we can engage in holding actions while
we live. I very much admire the French for trying to hang on to their
language against all the English that is forever creeping into it.

> And actually I was not even inventing it. Not only is it a usage in
> albeit uncommon currency, being restricted mainly to those of a
> colourful turn of phrase (and certain scientific and mathematical
> contexts), it is entirely consistent with the primary definition of
> "differing", i.e. dissimilar or unlike in nature.

We are not arguing about the definition of differing, but only to the way
you used it.

>>Language changes around the edges only slowly over time, but the
>>basic sturcture and root words do not change much if at all. A verb like
>>to
>>differ will stay the same forever.
>
> And the usage "for differing values of" has been current for nearly a
> decade on Usenet and I'm sure longer than that elsewhere. It is, to
> coin a phrase, a colloquialism.

You used "differing" by itself, standing alone. You did not say "for
differing values of" or incorporate it in any other phrase. That makes all
the difference.

> [ snip the first para of A Clockwork Orange ]
>
>>All of the above is hogwash and is not good English at all. It is the
>>English of the working class and/or jargon which is never acceptable. I am
>>only concerned with literary English, i.e., the English of the upper
>>classes
>>as it is spoken and written today.
>
> It is the English of Anthony Burgess, from a literary masterpiece the
> like of which your feeble imagination (or mine) could never produce.

Anthony Burgess is own of the biggest jackasses who has ever lived. He wrote
absolutely nothing that will stand the test of time. He loved to slum with
the working class and criminals. He is the kind of writer I love to hate.

>>> speaking as an educated person (and having passed public exams in
>>> English language and literature to boot), I know I am right. So there
>>> you go: the Dolan standard of proof.
>
>>And I know you are wrong. The way you used "differing" was wrong. It did
>>not
>>make sense as a sentence. Why don't you run it past an English professor
>>and
>>see what he says about it.
>
> So you say. And yet you have no proof beyond bluster and arm-waving.
> I have shown that the usage is at least ten years old, you have posted
> a grammatically questionable grammar flame. Who to believe? The man
> who says he is out of here then argues the toss, starting an endless
> grammar waffle to distract from his own hypocrisy? I think not.

You have not shown and you will never show that how you used it is correct.
Maybe you could examine the Bible and see if you can find "differing" there.

>>>>What argument? We are discussing the use of "differing" used as a verb.
>
>>> No, Ed, we were discussing your hypocrisy in calling Ed Gin on abuse
>>> and obscenity despite your own use of these, as the record shows.
>>> Your grammar flame was a distraction, and one of your more common
>>> ones. And, as it turns out, you were wrong.
>
>>I only retaliated against Ed Gin for parroting my words and forging my
>>name
>>to his posts. There is definitely something wrong with the way your brain
>>works. Like Tom Sherman, you equate that which cannot be equated. Ed Gin
>>did
>>what no one else on this group has ever done in my two years experience
>>here. He is little better than a liar and a thief.
>
> Logical fallacy: ad-hominem. Diagnosis: no evidence is offered, only
> denigration.

One ad hominem deserves another. Your brain does not work right.

> To return to the subject, you said that you never use abuse and
> obscenity - that was untrue. You use both. And I venture to suggest
> that at least as many people have left the group due to interminable
> off-topic political threads than have been driven off by the easily
> filtered Gin.

Calling someone an idiot, an asshole and a ****ed-up moron is not an abuse
or an obscenity. It is nothing but the truth if I am doing. It is only an
abuse and an obscenity if someone else is doing it. I am surprised you do
not know this.

>>> The first use in the Google archive of the phrase "for differing
>>> values of" used in exactly the way I used it, back in November 1996.
>>
>>I think the use of the entire phrase makes all the difference. What you
>>did
>>is not the same thing at all. Find me something in Charles Dickens why
>>don't
>>you instead of these pitiful attempts which reek of desperation.
>
> Find me the phrase "like how you used it" in Dickens. Or indeed in
> any writing which was not dinged for poor grammar by a grade-school
> English teacher.

Don't change the subject. We are discussing your incorrect usage, not mine.
My usage, even if incorrect, is understandable. Yours wasn't.

> [snip Chaucer]
>
>>Where is the "differing"?
>
> See that over there in the far distance? That's the plot, that is.
> You lost it a while back. I'll wait here while you go and get it.
> Everyone else realises that usage has changed since Chaucer's day,
> since Shakespeare's day, even since Graham Green's day.

Usage has changed, but you still used "differing" incorrectly.

>>> A 1950 text on correct grammar and usage would read (does read - I
>>> have one) as hopelessly archaic now.
>
>>That is all true but is beside the point.
>
> No, it is entirely pertinent. You are saying that a usage with which
> you are unfamiliar is incorrect, solely because you are not familiar
> with it. Earlier you used a phrase which is downright ungrammatical
> and defended it as "a colloquialism". At least my colloquialism is
> literate. The fact that the precise usage is not shown in a
> dictionary could mean one of a number of things: it could be that the
> compilers view it as consistent with existing definitions of the word
> (as I do); it could be that they have not yet caught up with it; it
> could be reasons of space; it could be that you are not looking in a
> new enough or extensive enough dictionary; it could be geographically
> localised. Of these the most likely is the first: that, being
> consistent with the definition of differing as dissimilar or unlike in
> nature, the compilers see no need to use an example which adds nothing
> to the body of knowledge save in the mind of one determined to see
> things as they are not. Which is a long way round the point that
> nobody else seems to have a problem with it.

Believe me, if I have problem with it, then hundreds of millions of others
will also have a problem with it. NO dictionary has anything to say at all
about how you used the word.

>>We are only concerned here with present day grammar and usage. You have
>>gotten completely sidetracked on issues which have nothing to do with your
>>incorrect usage of "differing."
>
> We are concerned with usage and how it develops over time. As I have
> demonstrated, text from great authors is seriously at variance with
> modern usage. Clearly your grammar, too, ossified - seemingly at
> around the time TV went to colour, a retrograde step if ever there was
> one.

I am maintaining that there is no justification in present day usage for how
you used the word. If you can find me something then I stand corrected. But
I know you never will.

> Actually not even that: we are concerned with your hypocrisy and your
> use of a hypocritically ungrammatical grammar flame to try to deflect
> attention from it.

Who is flaming? I am merely pointing out that you do not know how to write
complete sentences. Your use of the intransitive verb "differing" made
nonsense out of your sentence. It was not complete.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

PS. By the way, what Guy and I are doing with this thread is the very best
thing that Usenet is capable of. We are having a discussion about a
disagreement and we are ranging widely in our debate. Compare what Guy and I
are doing with what Ed Gin is doing and you will see what Usenet could be as
opposed to what it mostly is.

[Edward Dolan]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I Ed Dolan of A.R.B.R. am full of Nonsense!
>> I Ed Dolan am an idiot who is never truthful or helpful.
>> I Ed Dolan of A.R.B.R. defame, harassed and threaten with every
>> newsgroup post I make. I also am very obscene, pig headed, ignorant,
>> stupid and unlawful in all my messages on USEnet.
>>
>> But that is what comes of living when one becomes a old
>> puttz like me into his seventies who takes many meds daily.
>> I pray that I die soon so the world and A.R.B.R. will be a better place.

More Ed Gin ****.

[Edward Dolan]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
...
>I Ed Dolan of A.R.B.R. am full of Nonsense!
> I Ed Dolan am an idiot who is never truthful or helpful.
> I Ed Dolan of A.R.B.R. defame, harassed and threaten with every
> newsgroup post I make. I also am very obscene, pig headed, ignorant,
> stupid and unlawful in all my messages on USEnet.
>
> But that is what comes of living when one becomes a old
> puttz like me into his seventies who takes many meds daily.
> I pray that I die soon so the world and A.R.B.R. will be a better place.

More Ed Gin ****.

[Edward Dolan]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "nget" > wrote in message
> ...
>> How can anyone take me serious? I'm just a fat ass poster at BROL and a
>> dip**** poster on A.R.B.R.

More Ed Gin ****.

[Edward Dolan]

> wrote in message ...
>I Jim McNamara do not get nearly enough attention. Look at me JimmyMac
> acting like a total **** for brains moron ... aren't I a wonderful asshole
> with a diversionary life. At least the pretentious Ed Dolan kisses my ass.
>
> My advice to all USEnet readers is to killfile me JimmyMac.
> The methodology to purge newsgroups of those nuisances
> like me Jim McNamara and Ed "old puttz" Dolan will work.
> I Jim McNamara will love for all you to do just that. No need
> for a criminal like me Jim McNamara to continue to post my crap.
> Hell I'm too much of a chicken **** to deal with people in lif
> so I keep attacking like a pussy behind my keyboard.
>
> I Jim McNamara will now refer to Ed Dolan and myself as big
> nuisances. We are the consummate, quintessential nuisances. Like I
> said in the past ... I Jim McNamara am a vandal, a late night
> linseed oil criminal, unscrupulous, slimy and a bottom feeding
> troll ... an oozing festering, canker of all Internet forums.

More Ed Gin ****.

[Fred]

More of the smae Ed Dolan crap.

Fred

"Edward Dolan" > wrote:
>

[nget]

Fred Wrote:
> More of the smae Ed Dolan crap.
>
> Fred
>
> "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> >
I think Fred might be drinking.


--
nget

[Edward Dolan]

"Fred" > wrote in message
...
> More of the smae Ed Dolan crap.
>
> Fred

More Ed Gin ****.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 21:43:13 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
wrote in message >:

>>>Just as I thought - a busy body in perpetual motion. You were not focused
>>>like I was.

>> For differing values of focus, obviously. While you were listening to
>> the opera on the radio, I was meeting the musicians and listening to
>> music live.

>Again, you have not used the verb "differing" correctly if you intended to
>write a complete sentence. You have written a dependent phrase. It is not a
>complete sentence. I am amazed that you cannot clearly see this.

I refer the hon. gentleman to my earlier answers.

>I have never liked to listen to music live. The audience is a constant
>source of distraction. I am with Glenn Gould on this issue. Since the advent
>of recording there is never any reason to listen to music live anymore.

Then you are this: an idiot. A live concert is a completely different
experience from listening to a recording. I will never forget the
experience of hearing Spem In Alium sung by a choir dispersed around
the nave of a great cathedral, hearing the sound moving around as it
went through the forty separate parts; or the absolutely spellbinding
concert by John Williams - him, his guitar, no amplifiers, no
electronics, over a thousand people in the audience and every one of
us felt as if we and he were the only ones there. Gould was very
interested in the mathematical precision of Bach, but there is more
than one way to interpret Bach - and anyway Gould usually played the
wrong instrument, since to play Bach as JS intended you have to stick
with the harpsichord.

>>I have shaken hands with Menuhin, sung with Sarah Walker,
>> heard premieres of new organ works, met Peter Hurford, Thomas Trotter,
>> Kevin Bowyer, Gillian Weir, John Williams (the guitarist), Evelyn
>> Glennie, ensembles including the Academy of Ancient Music and Musica
>> Antiqua Koln - and sung works by Fauré, Mozart, Berlioz, Handel,
>> Vaughan Williams and Brahms in St Albans Cathedral. Not all
>> classical, either - I have met Humphrey Lyttleton, the jazz trumpeter,
>> Richard Stilgoe (who co-wrote the libretto for Lloyd-Webber's Phantom
>> of the Opera), bought beer for Jake Thackeray, danced to the Fairer
>> Sax, drunk with the cast of dozens of provincial productions of light
>> and comic operas. Although I've been to plenty of rock concerts and
>> ruined my hearing listening to Deep Purple, I have been listening to
>> and performing in classical music for most of the last 25 years.

>I do not understand lovers of classical music who go slumming with pop
>music, no matter how briefly. There is only one kind of music and that is
>good music and it is all of it classical and no other.

There is bad classical music and good popular music. Failure to
appreciate that indicates narrowness of mind. Where do you put
Gershwin? Copland? What of Wynton Marsalis or Benny Goodman, both
accomplished classical and jazz performers? How about Howard Goodall
who has composed in multiple genres?

>I can't play music, but I am an excellent listener and I can immediately
>discern good music from bad music. Now you know why I especially love
>Beethoven.

No, you can discern music you like from music you don't like. As
Bertrand Russell said, "The whole problem with the world is that fools
and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so
full of doubts."

Some of Beethoven has a soaring brilliance, other bits are actually
rather banal. I prefer Bach, Palestrina or Tallis to Beethoven any
day. I dislike quite a lot of Stravinsky and most of Schönberg, some
of John Adams I can quite happily leave but other bits I think are
amazing, most of Respighi I love with a passion but there are
occasional pieces or passages which leave me completely cold. There
are some bits of Vaughan Williams and Britten which I can't abide -
the recordings of Peter Pears singing Britten's songs are regarded
with almost religious reverence by some, but I find them completely
unlistenable - and other pieces which utterly transport me. The first
time I heard the Tallis fantasia was in a half-darkened cathedral, one
of the great orchestras (I think it was the Royal Philharmonic)
rehearsing and getting the recording balance right for the BBC sound
engineers. An imperfect performance but absolutely full of emotion, a
fabulous experience.

>>>that does not mean we are free to invent the language as we please.
>> Actually, yes, it means precisely that.

>We may not be the final arbiters, but we can engage in holding actions while
>we live. I very much admire the French for trying to hang on to their
>language against all the English that is forever creeping into it.

The Adademie Francaise is a Luddite organisation. When you have to
legislate to prevent people from using words which are in common
currency, in favour of made-up words which mean the same thing, then
your language is moribund. L'ordinateur, FFS! Most of the French
people I know would call it a PC and be done with it!

>We are not arguing about the definition of differing, but only to the way
>you used it.

As stated: my usage is supported by the primary definition of the
word, and is used by others in exactly the ame way.

>> And the usage "for differing values of" has been current for nearly a
>> decade on Usenet and I'm sure longer than that elsewhere. It is, to
>> coin a phrase, a colloquialism.

>You used "differing" by itself, standing alone. You did not say "for
>differing values of" or incorporate it in any other phrase. That makes all
>the difference.

The original message, ID ,
shows that you are wrong.

>Anthony Burgess is own of the biggest jackasses who has ever lived. He wrote
>absolutely nothing that will stand the test of time. He loved to slum with
>the working class and criminals. He is the kind of writer I love to hate.

So you say. Are his books still selling? Why, yes! What a surprise.
Clockwork Orange is acclaimed as a masterpiece. And as to slumming -
we know that Eric Arthur Blair was given to slumming, resulting in his
pioneering dystopian novels.

>> you have no proof beyond bluster and arm-waving.
>> I have shown that the usage is at least ten years old, you have posted
>> a grammatically questionable grammar flame.

>You have not shown and you will never show that how you used it is correct.
>Maybe you could examine the Bible and see if you can find "differing" there.

Maybe you should examine the bible and find "like how you did" there.

>> Logical fallacy: ad-hominem. Diagnosis: no evidence is offered, only
>> denigration.

>One ad hominem deserves another. Your brain does not work right.

Another grammatically questionable sentence. Two actually because an
ad-hominem is an unfounded personal attack, whereas I was pointing out
an error of fact, in that you said you did not use abuse or obscenity
when it is a matter of record that you do use both.

Please cite where in Dickens, Shakespeare or the Bible (Authorised
Version of course) the phrase "(x) does not work right" is used. I
suppose Dickens might have put such words in the mouth of one of his
characters as evidence of his poverty of education, but I don't recall
it.

>Calling someone an idiot, an asshole and a ****ed-up moron is not an abuse
>or an obscenity. It is nothing but the truth if I am doing.

For differing values of truth.

>> See that over there in the far distance? That's the plot, that is.
>> You lost it a while back. I'll wait here while you go and get it.
>> Everyone else realises that usage has changed since Chaucer's day,
>> since Shakespeare's day, even since Graham Green's day.

>Usage has changed, but you still used "differing" incorrectly.

According to you, but I have some company in that. And it turns out
that actually you've misremembered the usage anyway. And your own
grammar is suspect.

>Believe me, if I have problem with it, then hundreds of millions of others
>will also have a problem with it. NO dictionary has anything to say at all
>about how you used the word.

It doesn't need to, it's included under the primary definition of
differing. And I have yet to see any evidence that anybody other than
you objects to the usage - it has been around for a decade and I can't
see any evidence of prior challenges. Given your own grammatical
errors it looks very much as if you are the one who is wrong.

>I am maintaining that there is no justification in present day usage for how
>you used the word. If you can find me something then I stand corrected. But
>I know you never will.

As previously stated, (a) it is covered by the primary definition of
differing, (b) there are recorded uses of that exact phrase in the
Google archive going back nearly a decade and (c) it is in any case an
attempt on your part to deflect attention from your own hypocrisy.

>> Actually not even that: we are concerned with your hypocrisy and your
>> use of a hypocritically ungrammatical grammar flame to try to deflect
>> attention from it.

>Who is flaming? I am merely pointing out that you do not know how to write
>complete sentences. Your use of the intransitive verb "differing" made
>nonsense out of your sentence. It was not complete.

And in doing so you committed two schoolboy grammatical errors which
you then defended as "colloquialisms" despite taking issue with my
colloquialism. You are hoist by your own petard. And that's hoist in
the Shakespearean sense of the word.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Edward Dolan]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 21:43:13 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
> wrote in message >:
[...]
>>I have never liked to listen to music live. The audience is a constant
>>source of distraction. I am with Glenn Gould on this issue. Since the
>>advent
>>of recording there is never any reason to listen to music live anymore.
>
> Then you are this: an idiot. A live concert is a completely different
> experience from listening to a recording. I will never forget the
> experience of hearing Spem In Alium sung by a choir dispersed around
> the nave of a great cathedral, hearing the sound moving around as it
> went through the forty separate parts; or the absolutely spellbinding
> concert by John Williams - him, his guitar, no amplifiers, no
> electronics, over a thousand people in the audience and every one of
> us felt as if we and he were the only ones there. Gould was very
> interested in the mathematical precision of Bach, but there is more
> than one way to interpret Bach - and anyway Gould usually played the
> wrong instrument, since to play Bach as JS intended you have to stick
> with the harpsichord.'

The harpsichord is a klangy instrument and everything sounds muddy on it.
The same goes for organs. The piano is much better, even for Bach.

By and large I am not into the sensual aspects of music. I only listen to
music on an abstract intellectual level. Therefore, studio recordings suit
me best.

>>>I have shaken hands with Menuhin, sung with Sarah Walker,
>>> heard premieres of new organ works, met Peter Hurford, Thomas Trotter,
>>> Kevin Bowyer, Gillian Weir, John Williams (the guitarist), Evelyn
>>> Glennie, ensembles including the Academy of Ancient Music and Musica
>>> Antiqua Koln - and sung works by Fauré, Mozart, Berlioz, Handel,
>>> Vaughan Williams and Brahms in St Albans Cathedral. Not all
>>> classical, either - I have met Humphrey Lyttleton, the jazz trumpeter,
>>> Richard Stilgoe (who co-wrote the libretto for Lloyd-Webber's Phantom
>>> of the Opera), bought beer for Jake Thackeray, danced to the Fairer
>>> Sax, drunk with the cast of dozens of provincial productions of light
>>> and comic operas. Although I've been to plenty of rock concerts and
>>> ruined my hearing listening to Deep Purple, I have been listening to
>>> and performing in classical music for most of the last 25 years.
>
>>I do not understand lovers of classical music who go slumming with pop
>>music, no matter how briefly. There is only one kind of music and that is
>>good music and it is all of it classical and no other.
>
> There is bad classical music and good popular music. Failure to
> appreciate that indicates narrowness of mind. Where do you put
> Gershwin? Copland? What of Wynton Marsalis or Benny Goodman, both
> accomplished classical and jazz performers? How about Howard Goodall
> who has composed in multiple genres?

All of the above composers and musicians you cite are strictly second rate.
I sure do agree with you though about bad classical music. That is the kind
of music I hate the most. Bad popular music is not nearly so bad no matter
how bad it is. By the way, all jazz is an abomination.

>>I can't play music, but I am an excellent listener and I can immediately
>>discern good music from bad music. Now you know why I especially love
>>Beethoven.
>
> No, you can discern music you like from music you don't like. As
> Bertrand Russell said, "The whole problem with the world is that fools
> and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so
> full of doubts."

There are only two kinds of music, good and bad. What utimately determines
which is which is the judgment of our betters. We all of us know what we
like, but that does not mean it is any good. We have to defer to our betters
to finally find the best music. The reason classical music is so good is
that it was the music of the European aristocracy. The reason popular music
is so bad is that it is the music of the masses.

> Some of Beethoven has a soaring brilliance, other bits are actually
> rather banal. I prefer Bach, Palestrina or Tallis to Beethoven any
> day.

All early music is alien and foreign to our ears. Even Bach is a tremendous
bore by and large. Anyone who claims to like Renaissance music is displaying
nothing but an affectation in my view.

I dislike quite a lot of Stravinsky and most of Schönberg, some
> of John Adams I can quite happily leave but other bits I think are
> amazing, most of Respighi I love with a passion but there are
> occasional pieces or passages which leave me completely cold. There
> are some bits of Vaughan Williams and Britten which I can't abide -
> the recordings of Peter Pears singing Britten's songs are regarded
> with almost religious reverence by some, but I find them completely
> unlistenable - and other pieces which utterly transport me. The first
> time I heard the Tallis fantasia was in a half-darkened cathedral, one
> of the great orchestras (I think it was the Royal Philharmonic)
> rehearsing and getting the recording balance right for the BBC sound
> engineers. An imperfect performance but absolutely full of emotion, a
> fabulous experience.

I do not like any English music except for some pieces by Elgar. I do know
that the English have a great love for music, but they cannot compose it.
When it comes to music I am a German. What transpired in the 19th century in
central Europe was the flowering of Western music. We shall never see it's
like again. It was a miracle. Just to say the names of those great German
composers is awe inspiring. The Russians were also a miracle, but they
mainly followed the German example.

>>>>that does not mean we are free to invent the language as we please.
>>> Actually, yes, it means precisely that.
>
>>We may not be the final arbiters, but we can engage in holding actions
>>while
>>we live. I very much admire the French for trying to hang on to their
>>language against all the English that is forever creeping into it.
>
> The Adademie Francaise is a Luddite organisation. When you have to
> legislate to prevent people from using words which are in common
> currency, in favour of made-up words which mean the same thing, then
> your language is moribund. L'ordinateur, FFS! Most of the French
> people I know would call it a PC and be done with it!

No, I like purity and tradition in language and I do not like to see it
constantly changing. Most changes are just stupid. But again, I am only
concerned with the written language, not the spoken language.

>>We are not arguing about the definition of differing, but only to the way
>>you used it.
>
> As stated: my usage is supported by the primary definition of the
> word, and is used by others in exactly the ame way.

Still, I would very much like to see an illustration of it being used like
how (or as) you used it.

>>> And the usage "for differing values of" has been current for nearly a
>>> decade on Usenet and I'm sure longer than that elsewhere. It is, to
>>> coin a phrase, a colloquialism.
>
>>You used "differing" by itself, standing alone. You did not say "for
>>differing values of" or incorporate it in any other phrase. That makes
>>all
>>the difference.
>
> The original message, ID ,
> shows that you are wrong.

That link takes me nowhere.

>>Anthony Burgess is one of the biggest jackasses who has ever lived. He
>>wrote
>>absolutely nothing that will stand the test of time. He loved to slum with
>>the working class and criminals. He is the kind of writer I love to hate.
>
> So you say. Are his books still selling? Why, yes! What a surprise.
> Clockwork Orange is acclaimed as a masterpiece. And as to slumming -
> we know that Eric Arthur Blair was given to slumming, resulting in his
> pioneering dystopian novels.

All of the above are second rate. Orwell was first rate. Can't you tell the
difference.

>>> you have no proof beyond bluster and arm-waving.
>>> I have shown that the usage is at least ten years old, you have posted
>>> a grammatically questionable grammar flame.
>
>>You have not shown and you will never show that how you used it is
>>correct.
>>Maybe you could examine the Bible and see if you can find "differing"
>>there.
>
> Maybe you should examine the bible and find "like how you did" there.
>
>>> Logical fallacy: ad-hominem. Diagnosis: no evidence is offered, only
>>> denigration.
>
>>One ad hominem deserves another. Your brain does not work right.
>
> Another grammatically questionable sentence. Two actually because an
> ad-hominem is an unfounded personal attack, whereas I was pointing out
> an error of fact, in that you said you did not use abuse or obscenity
> when it is a matter of record that you do use both.
>
> Please cite where in Dickens, Shakespeare or the Bible (Authorised
> Version of course) the phrase "(x) does not work right" is used. I
> suppose Dickens might have put such words in the mouth of one of his
> characters as evidence of his poverty of education, but I don't recall
> it.

I am writing complete sentences. That is all we are talking about.

>>Calling someone an idiot, an asshole and a ****ed-up moron is not an abuse
>>or an obscenity. It is nothing but the truth if I am doing.
>
> For differing values of truth.

Again, it is a dependent clause. It is not a complete sentence. It will not
stand on it's own.

>>> See that over there in the far distance? That's the plot, that is.
>>> You lost it a while back. I'll wait here while you go and get it.
>>> Everyone else realises that usage has changed since Chaucer's day,
>>> since Shakespeare's day, even since Graham Green's day.
>
>>Usage has changed, but you still used "differing" incorrectly.
>
> According to you, but I have some company in that. And it turns out
> that actually you've misremembered the usage anyway. And your own
> grammar is suspect.

Now neither one of us knows what we are talking about. Misremember is
awkward and a stupid word, don't you think?

>>Believe me, if I have problem with it, then hundreds of millions of
>>others
>>will also have a problem with it. NO dictionary has anything to say at all
>>about how you used the word.
>
> It doesn't need to, it's included under the primary definition of
> differing. And I have yet to see any evidence that anybody other than
> you objects to the usage - it has been around for a decade and I can't
> see any evidence of prior challenges. Given your own grammatical
> errors it looks very much as if you are the one who is wrong.

But still you can't find me an example can you. Find me an example and give
it in full.

>>I am maintaining that there is no justification in present day usage for
>>how
>>you used the word. If you can find me something then I stand corrected.
>>But
>>I know you never will.
>
> As previously stated, (a) it is covered by the primary definition of
> differing, (b) there are recorded uses of that exact phrase in the
> Google archive going back nearly a decade and (c) it is in any case an
> attempt on your part to deflect attention from your own hypocrisy.

I am not interested in anything connected with Google. Find me a respectable
example or shut up.

>>> Actually not even that: we are concerned with your hypocrisy and your
>>> use of a hypocritically ungrammatical grammar flame to try to deflect
>>> attention from it.
>
>>Who is flaming? I am merely pointing out that you do not know how to write
>>complete sentences. Your use of the intransitive verb "differing" made
>>nonsense out of your sentence. It was not complete.
>
> And in doing so you committed two schoolboy grammatical errors which
> you then defended as "colloquialisms" despite taking issue with my
> colloquialism. You are hoist by your own petard. And that's hoist in
> the Shakespearean sense of the word.

Colloquialism or no colloquialism, I write complete sentences. You don't.
That is the difference.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 06:28:39 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
wrote in message >:

>The harpsichord is a klangy instrument and everything sounds muddy on it.
>The same goes for organs. The piano is much better, even for Bach.

Get with the programme, Ed. If you want to hear Bach as Bach heard it
himself then a harpsichord or an organ is the instrument of choice.
There are still organs in use which date back to Bach's time and I
believe he may actually have played the Neufeld Arp-Schnitger organ.

Even CPE Bach wrote for the square piano, not the modern concert
instrument.

If you're going to bang on about the impurities introduced by a live
audience, at least be consistent about it!

>By and large I am not into the sensual aspects of music. I only listen to
>music on an abstract intellectual level. Therefore, studio recordings suit
>me best.

And thereby you are missing most of what the music is about.

>> There is bad classical music and good popular music. Failure to
>> appreciate that indicates narrowness of mind. Where do you put
>> Gershwin? Copland? What of Wynton Marsalis or Benny Goodman, both
>> accomplished classical and jazz performers? How about Howard Goodall
>> who has composed in multiple genres?

>All of the above composers and musicians you cite are strictly second rate.

You think you could do better than Gershwin? Or play the trumpet
better than Wynton Marsalis? Come to think of it, who exactly do you
think plays the trumpet better then Wynton Marsalis?

>I sure do agree with you though about bad classical music. That is the kind
>of music I hate the most. Bad popular music is not nearly so bad no matter
>how bad it is. By the way, all jazz is an abomination.

You are a Nugganite? No wonder.

>>>I can't play music, but I am an excellent listener and I can immediately
>>>discern good music from bad music. Now you know why I especially love
>>>Beethoven.

>> No, you can discern music you like from music you don't like. As
>> Bertrand Russell said, "The whole problem with the world is that fools
>> and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so
>> full of doubts."

>There are only two kinds of music, good and bad. What utimately determines
>which is which is the judgment of our betters. We all of us know what we
>like, but that does not mean it is any good. We have to defer to our betters
>to finally find the best music. The reason classical music is so good is
>that it was the music of the European aristocracy. The reason popular music
>is so bad is that it is the music of the masses.

For differing values of betters. I know that my betters might agree
on the merit of one piece I like and disagree sharply on another.
Look at Sir Colin Davis - he champions the music of Tippett, much of
which I dislike, but considers that Tchaikovsky and Mahler are
overplayed and finds that other composers who he used to play, like
Maxwell-Davies, no longer speak to him.

And I dispute the view that classical music was the music of the
aristocracy. Many of the classical composers were fantastically
popular in their day. Look at the Strausses, for example. Or are you
taking classical in the strictly musicological sense of Haydn,
Cherubini, Mozart and Beethoven? Of whom Beethoven is not accounted
the greatest, being considered somewhat behind Haydn and Mozart? If
so, what of Leopold Mozart who wrote many fine pieces for horn, or
Monteverdi, Buxtehude, Pachelbel (who wrote far more than the vastly
overplayed Canon in D), Corelli, Purcell, Couperin, Vivaldi, Telemann
(probably the most prolific composer in history), Bach, Scarlatti,
Handel, Gluck, Bach's children?

I am certainly not going to subscribe to the view that good classical
music began with Vivaldi and ended with Verdi. I don't even say that
Stockhausen might not one day write something I can enjoy - or my
taste might extend to encompass what he has written. My children love
to play the music of John Barry and John Williams - who is to say they
are wrong?

>> Some of Beethoven has a soaring brilliance, other bits are actually
>> rather banal. I prefer Bach, Palestrina or Tallis to Beethoven any
>> day.

>All early music is alien and foreign to our ears. Even Bach is a tremendous
>bore by and large. Anyone who claims to like Renaissance music is displaying
>nothing but an affectation in my view.

You reject Tallis? Palestrina? Byrd? Gabrieli? Gibbons? You are
more of a Philistine than I had imagined! Tallis' music has been
played for nearly half a millennium - I think we can safely say it has
stood the test of time. Have you not heard the Lamentations of
Jeremiah? Or Spem in alium? You inhabit a world every bit as sad and
restricted as those who refuse to stray outside particular genres of
popular music. In what way is a man who rejects Tallis and Bach
better than a man who rejects Beethoven in favour of Willie Nelson?

I would not want to be without the music of Palestrina any more than
I'd want to be without that of Brubeck. The loss of Satchmo in my
collection would be as keenly felt as that of Satie or Fauré.

>I do not like any English music except for some pieces by Elgar. I do know
>that the English have a great love for music, but they cannot compose it.
>When it comes to music I am a German.

So you find yourself torn in respect of Handel and CPE Bach, who
thought that the musical scene in London was more vibrant than that of
their native Germany? Or Mozart, whose formative years were spent
touring Europe, who wrote his first symphonies in London, and who
famously travelled to Rome and was profoundly impressed by the music
of Gregorio Allegri, to the extent that he committed it to memory.

>What transpired in the 19th century in
>central Europe was the flowering of Western music. We shall never see it's
>like again. It was a miracle. Just to say the names of those great German
>composers is awe inspiring. The Russians were also a miracle, but they
>mainly followed the German example.

But the Germans followed the Italians and the Italians followed the
French who followed the English - and later the English and Italians
in turn followed the Germans. Felix Mendelssohn was influenced by
Javanese gamelan orchestras and Scottish folk song. Mozart was hugely
influenced by Johann Christian Bach (the "London Bach"), who
introduced him to the potential of the piano as an instrument. Of
course, if you never listen to the music of other periods and other
regions then you will never hear the influences and see the leitmotifs
develop across the years and throughout Europe.

>> The Adademie Francaise is a Luddite organisation. When you have to
>> legislate to prevent people from using words which are in common
>> currency, in favour of made-up words which mean the same thing, then
>> your language is moribund. L'ordinateur, FFS! Most of the French
>> people I know would call it a PC and be done with it!

>No, I like purity and tradition in language and I do not like to see it
>constantly changing. Most changes are just stupid. But again, I am only
>concerned with the written language, not the spoken language.

Language develops over time because society changes. You are stuck in
the past.

>> As stated: my usage is supported by the primary definition of the
>> word, and is used by others in exactly the ame way.

>Still, I would very much like to see an illustration of it being used like
>how (or as) you used it.

If I find an example then I'll be sure to let you know. I bet there's
one in Adams or Pratchett, two masters of the colourful use of
English.

>> The original message, ID ,
>> shows that you are wrong.

>That link takes me nowhere.

It's not a link it's a message ID. You put it into the search bar on
Google Groups or look for it with the Search feature of your
newsreader.

>>>Anthony Burgess is one of the biggest jackasses who has ever lived. He
>>>wrote
>>>absolutely nothing that will stand the test of time. He loved to slum with
>>>the working class and criminals. He is the kind of writer I love to hate.

>> So you say. Are his books still selling? Why, yes! What a surprise.
>> Clockwork Orange is acclaimed as a masterpiece. And as to slumming -
>> we know that Eric Arthur Blair was given to slumming, resulting in his
>> pioneering dystopian novels.

>All of the above are second rate. Orwell was first rate. Can't you tell the
>difference.

Objectively? How? What is the formula for genius? Is Orwell better
than Huxley? Huxley better than Asimov? Asimov better than Dick?
They are all different. All I know is which ones I prefer to read -
and even that is not infallible, Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep
is better than most of Asimov's books although I generally prefer
Asimov to Dick by a substantial margin.

Douglas Adams came up with a completely new style of writing - phrases
like "impossibly huge yellow somethings which hung in the air in
exactly the way bricks don't" - incredible! The language has been in
use for over a thousand years, written down for hundreds of years, and
someone can come up with a completely new and distinctive usage,
readily identifiable as his own, after all that time! Just like
music. All the notes have been used before, but not necessarily in
the same order.

>> Another grammatically questionable sentence. Two actually because an
>> ad-hominem is an unfounded personal attack, whereas I was pointing out
>> an error of fact, in that you said you did not use abuse or obscenity
>> when it is a matter of record that you do use both.

>I am writing complete sentences. That is all we are talking about.

Not as such, no., You are talking about it as an attempt to distract
attention away from your having been caught out; you are also now
trying to redefine the scope of the argument to allow you to get away
with grammatically questionable colloquialisms but exclude my use of
colloquialisms which you have decided, on apparently arbitrary
grounds, are grammatically questionable. Since you are making the
assertion, it is your place to provide the proof. And absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence.

>>>Calling someone an idiot, an asshole and a ****ed-up moron is not an abuse
>>>or an obscenity. It is nothing but the truth if I am doing.

>> For differing values of truth.

>Again, it is a dependent clause. It is not a complete sentence. It will not
>stand on it's own.

And is anyone in any doubt whatsoever as to its meaning? I think not.
That is, after all, the only objective test for linguistic usage: does
it convey its meaning clearly and unambiguously.

>>>Usage has changed, but you still used "differing" incorrectly.

>> According to you, but I have some company in that. And it turns out
>> that actually you've misremembered the usage anyway. And your own
>> grammar is suspect.

>Now neither one of us knows what we are talking about. Misremember is
>awkward and a stupid word, don't you think?

It is precisely the correct word in context. One of the things I like
about English is the immense vocabulary which can convey so many
shades of meaning.

>>>Believe me, if I have problem with it, then hundreds of millions of
>>>others
>>>will also have a problem with it. NO dictionary has anything to say at all
>>>about how you used the word.

>> It doesn't need to, it's included under the primary definition of
>> differing. And I have yet to see any evidence that anybody other than
>> you objects to the usage - it has been around for a decade and I can't
>> see any evidence of prior challenges. Given your own grammatical
>> errors it looks very much as if you are the one who is wrong.

>But still you can't find me an example can you. Find me an example and give
>it in full.

Since you are the one making the assertion, it's up to you to provide
the proof. And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>> As previously stated, (a) it is covered by the primary definition of
>> differing, (b) there are recorded uses of that exact phrase in the
>> Google archive going back nearly a decade and (c) it is in any case an
>> attempt on your part to deflect attention from your own hypocrisy.

>I am not interested in anything connected with Google. Find me a respectable
>example or shut up.

Welcome to the real world, Ed, where the proponent of an argument has
to prove his case. Your example of the "burden of proof" logical
fallacy is entertaining but ultimately still fallacious. The
existence of others who share the same usage is an indication that you
have some work to do here.

>> And in doing so you committed two schoolboy grammatical errors which
>> you then defended as "colloquialisms" despite taking issue with my
>> colloquialism. You are hoist by your own petard. And that's hoist in
>> the Shakespearean sense of the word.

>Colloquialism or no colloquialism, I write complete sentences. You don't.
>That is the difference.

I am not about to take on trust assertions regarding my grammar from
one whose own grammar is very evidently not above reproach. You need
to supply evidence to support your case.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Peter Clinch]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Get with the programme, Ed. If you want to hear Bach as Bach heard it
> himself then a harpsichord or an organ is the instrument of choice.

Period instrumentation is not better, it is different. If you wish to
hear Bach's B Minor Mass as Bach heard it then you'll never hear it, as
it was never known to have been performed, or even if it was /meant/ to
be performed, in his lifetime. Most productions and recordings use
forces that would be different from those that /would/ have been used
had it ever been performed, as well as different instrumentation.

Ed doesn't like the harpsichord so (a) it doesn't make any sense to
listen to it, no matter what the historical perspective, but having said
that there is (b), if he thinks they're all "klangy" (sic, is there such
a word, shirley he wouldn't use invented words!) and muddy sounding then
he clearly doesn't have very good ears, and/or has crap recordings
and/or comedy sound reproduction equipment.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[nget]

Peter Clinch Wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> > Get with the programme, Ed. If you want to hear Bach as Bach heard
> it
> > himself then a harpsichord or an organ is the instrument of choice.
>
> Period instrumentation is not better, it is different. If you wish to
> hear Bach's B Minor Mass as Bach heard it then you'll never hear it,
> as
> it was never known to have been performed, or even if it was /meant/
> to
> be performed, in his lifetime. Most productions and recordings use
> forces that would be different from those that /would/ have been used
> had it ever been performed, as well as different instrumentation.
>
> Ed doesn't like the harpsichord so (a) it doesn't make any sense to
> listen to it, no matter what the historical perspective, but having
> said
> that there is (b), if he thinks they're all "klangy" (sic, is there
> such
> a word, shirley he wouldn't use invented words!) and muddy sounding
> then
> he clearly doesn't have very good ears, and/or has crap recordings
> and/or comedy sound reproduction equipment.
>
> Pete.
> --
> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Personally I rather enjoy reading what the Englishmen have to say.It is
not so much what they say but rather how they say it.


--
nget

[skip]

"nget" > wrote in message
...
>
> Peter Clinch Wrote:
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>
>> > Get with the programme, Ed. If you want to hear Bach as Bach heard
>> it
>> > himself then a harpsichord or an organ is the instrument of choice.
>>
>> Period instrumentation is not better, it is different. If you wish to
>> hear Bach's B Minor Mass as Bach heard it then you'll never hear it,
>> as
>> it was never known to have been performed, or even if it was /meant/
>> to
>> be performed, in his lifetime. Most productions and recordings use
>> forces that would be different from those that /would/ have been used
>> had it ever been performed, as well as different instrumentation.
>>
>> Ed doesn't like the harpsichord so (a) it doesn't make any sense to
>> listen to it, no matter what the historical perspective, but having
>> said
>> that there is (b), if he thinks they're all "klangy" (sic, is there
>> such
>> a word, shirley he wouldn't use invented words!) and muddy sounding
>> then
>> he clearly doesn't have very good ears, and/or has crap recordings
>> and/or comedy sound reproduction equipment.
>>
>> Pete.
>> --
>> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
>> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
>> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
>> net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
> Personally I rather enjoy reading what the Englishmen have to say.It is
> not so much what they say but rather how they say it.
>
>
> --
> nget
>

Yes. Flamewars come an go on arbr, but none so well expressed as this one.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:44:26 +0000, Peter Clinch
> wrote in message
>:

>Period instrumentation is not better, it is different.

One of the local music shops has a cartoon with three blokes in
surgical garb clutching saws and other instruments, a big wooden
barrel (presumably of ether) and a rather nervous looking patient.
The caption is "We're the London Consort of Surgeons, and we perform
authentic operations using period instruments."

Well it made me laugh anyway :-)

>If you wish to
>hear Bach's B Minor Mass as Bach heard it then you'll never hear it, as
>it was never known to have been performed, or even if it was /meant/ to
>be performed, in his lifetime. Most productions and recordings use
>forces that would be different from those that /would/ have been used
>had it ever been performed, as well as different instrumentation.

Indeed. And modern instruments keep their pitch better ;-) But there
is something to be said for at least listening to a piece on the
instrument for which it was composed - we can only dream what Bach
would have made of a modern concert grand.

I've just been listening to a Sinfonia da Caccia for four horns and
strings by Leopold Mozart, played on natural horns. It's a radically
different sound from that which you'd get on a valve horn. Better?
Hard to say. I'm not sure if modern shotguns sound any better
either...

>Ed doesn't like the harpsichord so (a) it doesn't make any sense to
>listen to it, no matter what the historical perspective, but having said
>that there is (b), if he thinks they're all "klangy" (sic, is there such
>a word, shirley he wouldn't use invented words!) and muddy sounding then
>he clearly doesn't have very good ears, and/or has crap recordings
>and/or comedy sound reproduction equipment.

Too true. Did I mention I met Trevor Pinnock a couple of times? The
harpsichord is a marvellous instrument to listen to, but a bugger to
keep in tune.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Edward Dolan]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 06:28:39 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
> wrote in message >:
>
>>The harpsichord is a klangy instrument and everything sounds muddy on it.
>>The same goes for organs. The piano is much better, even for Bach.
>
> Get with the programme, Ed. If you want to hear Bach as Bach heard it
> himself then a harpsichord or an organ is the instrument of choice.
> There are still organs in use which date back to Bach's time and I
> believe he may actually have played the Neufeld Arp-Schnitger organ.

The only organ music I have ever liked are very small organs which have a
purity of tone. It may be however that great organs do have to be heard live
in a great cathedral.

> Even CPE Bach wrote for the square piano, not the modern concert
> instrument.

The early pianos are just fine with me. But I have never liked the
harpsichord. The sound is very antique and always somewhat muddy. All
harpsichord music sounds much better on the piano.

> If you're going to bang on about the impurities introduced by a live
> audience, at least be consistent about it!
>
>>By and large I am not into the sensual aspects of music. I only listen to
>>music on an abstract intellectual level. Therefore, studio recordings suit
>>me best.
>
> And thereby you are missing most of what the music is about.

I like to listen to MIDI files that I can get off the Internet. I think that
just about says it all. Who needs Heifetz?

>>> There is bad classical music and good popular music. Failure to
>>> appreciate that indicates narrowness of mind. Where do you put
>>> Gershwin? Copland? What of Wynton Marsalis or Benny Goodman, both
>>> accomplished classical and jazz performers? How about Howard Goodall
>>> who has composed in multiple genres?
>
>>All of the above composers and musicians you cite are strictly second
>>rate.
>
> You think you could do better than Gershwin? Or play the trumpet
> better than Wynton Marsalis? Come to think of it, who exactly do you
> think plays the trumpet better then Wynton Marsalis?

I could not do better than anyone when it comes to composing music. But we
need to keep our composers straight. Beethoven was great. Copland and
Gershwin were 5th rate and both of them would agree with me about this.Try
to keep things in perspective.

>>I sure do agree with you though about bad classical music. That is the
>>kind
>>of music I hate the most. Bad popular music is not nearly so bad no matter
>>how bad it is. By the way, all jazz is an abomination.
>
> You are a Nugganite? No wonder.

The important thing to remember is that all jazz is an abomination.

>>>>I can't play music, but I am an excellent listener and I can immediately
>>>>discern good music from bad music. Now you know why I especially love
>>>>Beethoven.
>
>>> No, you can discern music you like from music you don't like. As
>>> Bertrand Russell said, "The whole problem with the world is that fools
>>> and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so
>>> full of doubts."
>
>>There are only two kinds of music, good and bad. What utimately determines
>>which is which is the judgment of our betters. We all of us know what we
>>like, but that does not mean it is any good. We have to defer to our
>>betters
>>to finally find the best music. The reason classical music is so good is
>>that it was the music of the European aristocracy. The reason popular
>>music
>>is so bad is that it is the music of the masses.
>
> For differing values of betters. I know that my betters might agree
> on the merit of one piece I like and disagree sharply on another.
> Look at Sir Colin Davis - he champions the music of Tippett, much of
> which I dislike, but considers that Tchaikovsky and Mahler are
> overplayed and finds that other composers who he used to play, like
> Maxwell-Davies, no longer speak to him.

There will always be a consensus sooner or later on every composer and every
piece of music. You cannot go by what any contemporary conductor might think
about music. It is a generational thing. You really have to read what the
musical scholars think in works like Grove, not what performing musicians
think.

For the longest period of time I did not like the music of Mahler, but I
knew that was not the consensus. I finally came to really like the music of
Mahler. I was wrong and the consensus was right. I still do not like the
music of Bruckner, but I am willing to entertain the notion that I could be
wrong like I used to be about Mahler.

> And I dispute the view that classical music was the music of the
> aristocracy. Many of the classical composers were fantastically
> popular in their day. Look at the Strausses, for example. Or are you
> taking classical in the strictly musicological sense of Haydn,
> Cherubini, Mozart and Beethoven? Of whom Beethoven is not accounted
> the greatest, being considered somewhat behind Haydn and Mozart? If
> so, what of Leopold Mozart who wrote many fine pieces for horn, or
> Monteverdi, Buxtehude, Pachelbel (who wrote far more than the vastly
> overplayed Canon in D), Corelli, Purcell, Couperin, Vivaldi, Telemann
> (probably the most prolific composer in history), Bach, Scarlatti,
> Handel, Gluck, Bach's children?

Yes, music became bourgeois gradually, but it never forsook it's
aristocratic roots. Classical music was eventually written for the concert
hall and opera house and not for the aristocratic salon, but even so it was
always the music of the upper classes. Even to this day that is true. The
toiling masses have no use for classical music. They do not understand it
and they do not like it. I am sure that is as true in the UK as it is in the
US.

> I am certainly not going to subscribe to the view that good classical
> music began with Vivaldi and ended with Verdi. I don't even say that
> Stockhausen might not one day write something I can enjoy - or my
> taste might extend to encompass what he has written. My children love
> to play the music of John Barry and John Williams - who is to say they
> are wrong?

Actually, good classical music began with Haydn, not Vivaldi. Vivaldi and
most of the baroque composers wrote muzak, not music. It is sewing machine
music, meant to accompany, not to be listened to. Musicians like this kind
of music because it is easy to play. No one really likes to listen to it
however.

>>> Some of Beethoven has a soaring brilliance, other bits are actually
>>> rather banal. I prefer Bach, Palestrina or Tallis to Beethoven any
>>> day.

I cannot let the Beethoven remark pass and I should have taken you up on it
before. A composer is not to be necessarily judged by his total works, but
rather by his masterpieces. Some composers were better editors of their own
work than others. Brahms for instance was a very severe editor of what he
wrote and the consequence is that we do not have any really bad music by
Brahms. Other composers just wrote helter-skelter. But even the scraps from
Beethoven are interesting. A great composer like Beethoven must be judged by
his major works and that is true of Mozart and all other composers too. Not
all composers had the all around intelligence of a Brahms to edit
themselves.

Anyone who prefers Bach, Palestrina and Tallis to Beethoven is not up to
speed at all. To argue about Beethoven's place in music marks you as an
ignoramus. The only way around it is to argue that you have an idiosyncratic
taste in music and that you are the exception and not the rule.

>>All early music is alien and foreign to our ears. Even Bach is a
>>tremendous
>>bore by and large. Anyone who claims to like Renaissance music is
>>displaying
>>nothing but an affectation in my view.
>
> You reject Tallis? Palestrina? Byrd? Gabrieli? Gibbons? You are
> more of a Philistine than I had imagined! Tallis' music has been
> played for nearly half a millennium - I think we can safely say it has
> stood the test of time. Have you not heard the Lamentations of
> Jeremiah? Or Spem in alium? You inhabit a world every bit as sad and
> restricted as those who refuse to stray outside particular genres of
> popular music. In what way is a man who rejects Tallis and Bach
> better than a man who rejects Beethoven in favour of Willie Nelson?

Music began with Haydn and it ended with the Russians (Prokofiev, Stravinsky
and Shostakovich) and the Scandinavians (Neilsen and Sibelius). Damn,
Sibelius never did get around to composing that 8th Symphony which I was
waiting for all of my life.

All that music that was composed for the Church in earlier times is
incredibly boring. I assure you, no one really listens to it. It is Church
music and that is all it ever was. That is what ruins most of Bach's music
too. He was too God saturated. Haydn and Mozart is where music begins.

> I would not want to be without the music of Palestrina any more than
> I'd want to be without that of Brubeck. The loss of Satchmo in my
> collection would be as keenly felt as that of Satie or Fauré.

I believe I have already said you are not as focused as me. You are an
eclectic, which to me indicates a scatter brain.

>>I do not like any English music except for some pieces by Elgar. I do know
>>that the English have a great love for music, but they cannot compose it.
>>When it comes to music I am a German.
>
> So you find yourself torn in respect of Handel and CPE Bach, who
> thought that the musical scene in London was more vibrant than that of
> their native Germany? Or Mozart, whose formative years were spent
> touring Europe, who wrote his first symphonies in London, and who
> famously travelled to Rome and was profoundly impressed by the music
> of Gregorio Allegri, to the extent that he committed it to memory.

Handel and CPE were both German composers par excellence. They were no more
English than I am. I have already stated that the English are great music
lovers, but they have never produced a great composer (Purcell being a
possible borderline exception). England has always imported it's music from
abroad, same as America.

>>What transpired in the 19th century in
>>central Europe was the flowering of Western music. We shall never see it's
>>like again. It was a miracle. Just to say the names of those great German
>>composers is awe inspiring. The Russians were also a miracle, but they
>>mainly followed the German example.
>
> But the Germans followed the Italians and the Italians followed the
> French who followed the English - and later the English and Italians
> in turn followed the Germans. Felix Mendelssohn was influenced by
> Javanese gamelan orchestras and Scottish folk song. Mozart was hugely
> influenced by Johann Christian Bach (the "London Bach"), who
> introduced him to the potential of the piano as an instrument. Of
> course, if you never listen to the music of other periods and other
> regions then you will never hear the influences and see the leitmotifs
> develop across the years and throughout Europe.

Influences only count for so much. In the end it is the native genius of the
composer that counts, not the influences.

I have decided to let the language thing drop as I am presently engaged with
an idiot by the name of Ed Gin on other threads. But writers are judged the
same way that composers of music are judged. Do they stand the test of time.
However, the written word does not have the permanency of music in the
consciousness of men. Writers will fade over time no matter how well they
have written. Music seems to be immune from this factor. Concert audiences
of today like the same old music that I liked when I was growing up. An
interesting observation don't you think?

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"Peter Clinch" > wrote in message
...
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> Get with the programme, Ed. If you want to hear Bach as Bach heard it
>> himself then a harpsichord or an organ is the instrument of choice.
>
> Period instrumentation is not better, it is different. If you wish to
> hear Bach's B Minor Mass as Bach heard it then you'll never hear it, as it
> was never known to have been performed, or even if it was /meant/ to be
> performed, in his lifetime. Most productions and recordings use forces
> that would be different from those that /would/ have been used had it ever
> been performed, as well as different instrumentation.

Peter is right about period instrument recordings not being correct.

> Ed doesn't like the harpsichord so (a) it doesn't make any sense to listen
> to it, no matter what the historical perspective, but having said that
> there is (b), if he thinks they're all "klangy" (sic, is there such a
> word, shirley he wouldn't use invented words!) and muddy sounding then he
> clearly doesn't have very good ears, and/or has crap recordings and/or
> comedy sound reproduction equipment.

How about clangy instead of klangy? But yes, I do invent words from time to
time.

I have many dozens of recordings of the harpsichord and the clavichord too.
But it is an antique sound. I mostly do not like one note melding into
another note. Organ recordings are almost unlistenable, unless it is a very
small organ. My sound equipment is first rate I assure you and so are my
ears. Most of my recordings are budget LPs that I used to buy for a couple
of dollars. The damn CDs are just way too expensive. The last time I looked
they wanted almost $20. for a single classical CD.

Bach sounds better on the piano than he ever did on the harpsichord, now or
in the past. Why do you think Glenn Gould played Bach on the piano.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

[skip]

"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Clinch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>
>>> Get with the programme, Ed. If you want to hear Bach as Bach heard it
>>> himself then a harpsichord or an organ is the instrument of choice.
>>
>> Period instrumentation is not better, it is different. If you wish to
>> hear Bach's B Minor Mass as Bach heard it then you'll never hear it, as
>> it was never known to have been performed, or even if it was /meant/ to
>> be performed, in his lifetime. Most productions and recordings use
>> forces that would be different from those that /would/ have been used had
>> it ever been performed, as well as different instrumentation.
>
> Peter is right about period instrument recordings not being correct.
>
>> Ed doesn't like the harpsichord so (a) it doesn't make any sense to
>> listen to it, no matter what the historical perspective, but having said
>> that there is (b), if he thinks they're all "klangy" (sic, is there such
>> a word, shirley he wouldn't use invented words!) and muddy sounding then
>> he clearly doesn't have very good ears, and/or has crap recordings and/or
>> comedy sound reproduction equipment.
>
> How about clangy instead of klangy? But yes, I do invent words from time
> to time.
>
> I have many dozens of recordings of the harpsichord and the clavichord
> too. But it is an antique sound. I mostly do not like one note melding
> into another note. Organ recordings are almost unlistenable, unless it is
> a very small organ. My sound equipment is first rate I assure you and so
> are my ears. Most of my recordings are budget LPs that I used to buy for a
> couple of dollars. The damn CDs are just way too expensive. The last time
> I looked they wanted almost $20. for a single classical CD.
>
> Bach sounds better on the piano than he ever did on the harpsichord, now
> or in the past. Why do you think Glenn Gould played Bach on the piano.
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>
>

Relatively speaking I don't know diddly squat (I do know Bo Diddly though)
about opera or classical music. But I mostly enjoy Mozart and also Chopin's
piano pieces. How come you guys never mention them? Are they chopped
liver?

By the way Ed, my library has a large CD collection, many of which have been
ripped to my computer. Check out you local library why don't you.

It's nice to be a pleasant bike ride away from a good library. CD's are
much easier to deal with on the bike than the 33 1/3 rpm records were. Has
anyone else been riding bikes that long?

skip

[[email protected]]

Edward Dolan wrote:

> Perry has spent too much time on computers and not enough time in
libraries.

Look at this website. It's easy to realize who spends "too much time
on computers." You're right in that I do not spend much time bragging
about my time in libraries. I just read books, be with friends, other
endeavors.........

It's not too late to crawl out of your closet and get a life!


> Words are slippery as hell.

Life-long liars are "slippery as hell" too!



>They can have multiple meanings and definitions
> depending on the context in which they are used.

Life-long liars use "multiple meanings and definitions" in their
denial! That is why you are alone!



> However, I know this is
> going right over his head. I need to remind myself to keep things
simple for
> Perry Butler so he can understand what is being said.

You have to keep things simple because that is the way you think!



> Complexities and
> difficulties are not for him.

I find you neither complex nor difficult. Just thick!

You just don't get the fact that Ed Gin (or whoever?) was going after
you, and you fell for it hook, line, and sinker.


Perry B

[Peter Clinch]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Too true. Did I mention I met Trevor Pinnock a couple of times? The
> harpsichord is a marvellous instrument to listen to, but a bugger to
> keep in tune.

Easier than a Mellotron though... ("Tuning Mellotrons doesn't"- Robert
Fripp).

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:59:27 +0000, Peter Clinch
> wrote in message
>:

>> Too true. Did I mention I met Trevor Pinnock a couple of times? The
>> harpsichord is a marvellous instrument to listen to, but a bugger to
>> keep in tune.

>Easier than a Mellotron though... ("Tuning Mellotrons doesn't"- Robert
>Fripp).

I can well believe it. Somewhere on Radio 3's Listen Again there
should be an interview with Bob Moog broadcast on Sunday evening, if
you're interested.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Just zis Guy, you know?:
> Get with the programme, Ed. If you want to hear Bach as Bach heard it
> himself then a harpsichord or an organ is the instrument of choice.

It's a complex issue, I know, but Bach's approval of the fortepianos he
tried, and his description of keyboard pieces as just that - pieces for
keyboard - give a fair amount of leeway for what is right and proper for
performances of Bach's keyboard works. I was persuaded of some of the
merits of Bach on the piano by Glenn Gould's two publicly released
recordings of the Goldberg Variations; if you haven't heard Murray
Perahia's recording of the same piece, you're missing a most
extraordinary treat.

<Devil's advocate> But all this begs the question, why on earth should we
want to hear Bach as Bach heard it? Historical accuracy in performance
is not an aesthetic virtue; I'd submit it has nothing to do with
aesthetics at all (as witness so many scratchily worthy recordings by
e.g. Heinrich Goebel and his Cologne bunch). Research may illuminate all
sorts of details of score or performance; but that doesn't mean that the
one-to-a-part performances by Rifkin, say, or Jeggsie's sewing-machine
tempi, are intrinsically *better* - in any sense other than drily
historical - than Karajan's big-band approach. </Devil's advocate>


Wildly OT, I know, but does anybody know of a newsgroup for recumbent
bikes & trikes?


--
Mark, UK.

"Sir, Sunday morning, although recurring at regular and well
foreseen intervals, always seems to take this railway by
surprise."

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 20:29:01 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
wrote in message >:

>Peter is right about period instrument recordings not being correct.

For differing values of "right" and "correct".

>How about clangy instead of klangy? But yes, I do invent words from time to
>time.

Ah, so it's OK to invent a word but not OK to use a word in a way that
Dolan thinks is wrong. How very heptaglemious for you. I find your
approach positively excrubrigational.

>I have many dozens of recordings of the harpsichord and the clavichord too.
>But it is an antique sound. I mostly do not like one note melding into
>another note. Organ recordings are almost unlistenable, unless it is a very
>small organ. My sound equipment is first rate I assure you and so are my
>ears. Most of my recordings are budget LPs that I used to buy for a couple
>of dollars. The damn CDs are just way too expensive. The last time I looked
>they wanted almost $20. for a single classical CD.

Wrong on so many counts it is hard to know where to start. Budget CDs
can be had for under $10, and that includes reissues of some of the
great recordings (I paid under £5 for du Pré's recording of the Elgar
cello concerto and of the 300+ CDs in my collection I don't think more
than a quarter are full price, and most of those were gifts); budget
LPs have notoriously poor sound recording quality, if you want high
quality sound you need something like Telarc or a full-price Deutsche
Grammophon recording; the organ is rightly known as the king of
instruments, and if you think it sounds bad then you have bad sound
equipment or bad recordings - there are a lot - I recommend the Decca
recordings of the complete Bach organ works by Peter Hurford; if your
sound equipment and ears cannot detect the poor quality of an ancient
budget LP then there is something Not Right, my old piano tuner could
identify the make of piano when I played a CD on my setup (Mission
Cyrus amp and Tannoy DC2000 speakers).

>Bach sounds better on the piano than he ever did on the harpsichord, now or
>in the past. Why do you think Glenn Gould played Bach on the piano.

Because he was obsessed with a certain kind of sound. I do not think
that Glen Gould is the final arbiter of how Bach should sound, and I
don't share the quasi-religious reverence in which his recordings are
held. Perahia's recordings are also excellent, and there are others.
To say that Gould is "better" than Landowska is to be completely
arbitrary. And is Gould (1955) "better" than Gould (1981)? Or is the
1959 Salzburg recording best? Whatever, there is no possible doubt
that the work was intended to be played on a two-manual harpsichord,
and until you've heard a decent recording of it on that instrument you
can't really say whether the piano version (or indeed Wendy Carlos' or
Jacques Loussier's) is "better", "worse" or just different. De
gustibus non est disputandum, after all.

The other day I listened back to back to the rondo from Mozart's Eb
horn concerto no. 4 played by Dennis Brain, Barry Tuckwell and Peter
Damm. Three very different performances, and any judgment of which is
best is entirely subjective.


Ed, you have painted us a picture of yourself as a man with narrow
tastes and no tolerance. Come to think of it I don't think that added
much to the body of human knowledge.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:47:08 -0600, "skip" >
wrote in message >:

>Relatively speaking I don't know diddly squat (I do know Bo Diddly though)
>about opera or classical music. But I mostly enjoy Mozart and also Chopin's
>piano pieces. How come you guys never mention them? Are they chopped
>liver?

I think you'll find that I mentioned Mozart once or twice (and even
his father Leopold in at least one post). I don't think Ed likes
Chopin - too modern. God knows what he makes of Khachaturian.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Dave Larrington]

Edward Dolan wrote:

> The only organ music I have ever liked are very small organs which
> have a purity of tone. It may be however that great organs do have to
> be heard live in a great cathedral.

One of the minimal number of classical wossnames in my collection is
Saint-Saen's Symphony No. 3 on which, if I remember correctly, the Orchestre
Symphonique de Montréal were in a studio in Canada while Peter Hurford was
playing the organ parts in Chartres cathedral. It sounds perfectly splendid
to my untutored ears, especially when one bangs it up a bit.

(returns to the Eagles Of Death Metal)

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 20:08:18 -0600, "Edward Dolan" >
wrote in message >:

>> Get with the programme, Ed. If you want to hear Bach as Bach heard it
>> himself then a harpsichord or an organ is the instrument of choice.
>> There are still organs in use which date back to Bach's time and I
>> believe he may actually have played the Neufeld Arp-Schnitger organ.

>The only organ music I have ever liked are very small organs which have a
>purity of tone. It may be however that great organs do have to be heard live
>in a great cathedral.

You need to get out more. There is a world of difference between the
sound of a modern tracker action and one of those hideous old
electro-pneumatic jobs from the seventies. Or indeed a classic Father
Willis or Arp-Schnitger. No two organs are exactly the same, after
all.

>> Even CPE Bach wrote for the square piano, not the modern concert
>> instrument.

>The early pianos are just fine with me. But I have never liked the
>harpsichord. The sound is very antique and always somewhat muddy. All
>harpsichord music sounds much better on the piano.

Well, you've explained that elsewhere. If you are listening to
ancient budget LPs just about anything is going to sound muddy. Even
a budget CD is going to be better - the Naxos disc by Chen Pi-hsien is
very enjoyable.

>>>By and large I am not into the sensual aspects of music. I only listen to
>>>music on an abstract intellectual level. Therefore, studio recordings suit
>>>me best.

>> And thereby you are missing most of what the music is about.

>I like to listen to MIDI files that I can get off the Internet. I think that
>just about says it all. Who needs Heifetz?

You are like a gardener who prefers to look at pictures of flowers
than go out and see the real thing, or an ornithologist who prefers to
see birds in pictures rather than in the wild.

>> You think you could do better than Gershwin? Or play the trumpet
>> better than Wynton Marsalis? Come to think of it, who exactly do you
>> think plays the trumpet better then Wynton Marsalis?

>I could not do better than anyone when it comes to composing music. But we
>need to keep our composers straight. Beethoven was great. Copland and
>Gershwin were 5th rate and both of them would agree with me about this.Try
>to keep things in perspective.

I think the missing perspective is at your end. You have said that
you only like one kind of music - that necessarily makes you a poor
judge of other kinds.

>The important thing to remember is that all jazz is an abomination.

So is planting root vegetables in land previously used for legumes.
Nuggan is like that.

>There will always be a consensus sooner or later on every composer and every
>piece of music. You cannot go by what any contemporary conductor might think
>about music. It is a generational thing. You really have to read what the
>musical scholars think in works like Grove, not what performing musicians
>think.

Even if Grove were the sole arbiter - which it is not - your own
argument falls flat, because Grove has this to say of Tallis (who you
dismissed out of hand solely because he predates the European
renaissance): "much of his later work is among the finest in Europe,
ranging from the artless perfection of his short anthems to the
restrained pathos of the Lamentations." And Palestrina, who also
fails your "a8th Century German" test gets the following ringing
endorsement: "The nobility and restraint of his most expressive works
established the almost legendary reverence that has long surrounded
his name and helped set him up as the classic model of Renaissance
polyphony."

>For the longest period of time I did not like the music of Mahler, but I
>knew that was not the consensus. I finally came to really like the music of
>Mahler. I was wrong and the consensus was right. I still do not like the
>music of Bruckner, but I am willing to entertain the notion that I could be
>wrong like I used to be about Mahler.

Just so. And you could also be wrong about the music of everybody
from Leonin to Adams.

>Yes, music became bourgeois gradually, but it never forsook it's
>aristocratic roots. Classical music was eventually written for the concert
>hall and opera house and not for the aristocratic salon, but even so it was
>always the music of the upper classes. Even to this day that is true. The
>toiling masses have no use for classical music. They do not understand it
>and they do not like it. I am sure that is as true in the UK as it is in the
>US.

The largest source of classical music these days is Hollywood,
populist to the nth degree. And to be honest I would rather listen to
John Willams (the composer) or Morricone than to Scriabin any day, the
opinions of musicologists notwithstanding. I find Einaudi unutterably
banal, though.

>Actually, good classical music began with Haydn, not Vivaldi. Vivaldi and
>most of the baroque composers wrote muzak, not music. It is sewing machine
>music, meant to accompany, not to be listened to. Musicians like this kind
>of music because it is easy to play. No one really likes to listen to it
>however.

The classical period began with Haydn (more or less) but good
classical music undoubtedly did not. You like JS Bach - he was born
half a century before Haydn. Monteverdi was dead and buried before
Johann Sebastian was born, Buxtehude was born in 1637, a century
before Haydn, and Bach walked more than 200 miles to study under him.

>>>> Some of Beethoven has a soaring brilliance, other bits are actually
>>>> rather banal. I prefer Bach, Palestrina or Tallis to Beethoven any
>>>> day.

>I cannot let the Beethoven remark pass and I should have taken you up on it
>before. A composer is not to be necessarily judged by his total works, but
>rather by his masterpieces. Some composers were better editors of their own
>work than others.

And your point is? To say that Beethoven is better than Composer X is
to apply a purely subjective judgment. Which piece by Beethoven?
Better than which piece by Composer X? For what definition of better?
And who's to say which piece of Beethoven is better than which other
piece? Remember that his fifth symphony was laughed off the first
time it was performed - and several bits of even his great works
require an understanding ear.

>Anyone who prefers Bach, Palestrina and Tallis to Beethoven is not up to
>speed at all. To argue about Beethoven's place in music marks you as an
>ignoramus. The only way around it is to argue that you have an idiosyncratic
>taste in music and that you are the exception and not the rule.

Straw man. I have never said that Bach, Tallis or Palestrina were
better than Beethoven, merely that Beethoven is not in some undefined
way "greater" than them. If I had to choose I would probably name
Johann Sebastian Bach the greatest composer in history mainly because
he invented the even temperament which made the classical period
possible - without Bach and the Well-Tempered Clavier there could be
no Beethoven. And I enjoy the fantastic precision and economy of
Bach's music, not a note is wasted. But that is a purely subjective
judgment and I am quite happy to admit it.

>> You reject Tallis? Palestrina? Byrd? Gabrieli? Gibbons? You are
>> more of a Philistine than I had imagined!

>Music began with Haydn and it ended with the Russians (Prokofiev, Stravinsky
>and Shostakovich) and the Scandinavians (Neilsen and Sibelius). Damn,
>Sibelius never did get around to composing that 8th Symphony which I was
>waiting for all of my life.

Your tastes are narrow. Music began well before Dufay (I think the
earliest in my collection) and is still going on now. How can you
like Mozart and not like Brubeck's Take Five? In what way, precisely,
are Schubert lieder better than Orbison's Pretty Woman?

Where in your list are Smetana, Fauré and Dvorák? What of Respighi?
Bartók? Kodály? Martinu? Ligeti? Chances are you have never heard
their music because you could not get it on budget price LPs a
quarter-century ago.

>All that music that was composed for the Church in earlier times is
>incredibly boring. I assure you, no one really listens to it. It is Church
>music and that is all it ever was. That is what ruins most of Bach's music
>too. He was too God saturated. Haydn and Mozart is where music begins.

As previously stated, Tallis is still regularly performed after half a
millennium. And you should listen to Vaughan Williams' Tallis
fantasia or his Five Variants on Dives and Lazarus some time. You
dismiss English music (though not the music composed in London by JC
Bach or Mozart, I guess) but have you ever heard the Elgar cello
concerto? Even without the unbearable poignancy of Jacqueline du
Pré's final recording it is by any definition a masterpiece.

>> I would not want to be without the music of Palestrina any more than
>> I'd want to be without that of Brubeck. The loss of Satchmo in my
>> collection would be as keenly felt as that of Satie or Fauré.

>I believe I have already said you are not as focused as me. You are an
>eclectic, which to me indicates a scatter brain.

For differing values of focus. In my case I focus on the music rather
than the label.

>Handel and CPE were both German composers par excellence. They were no more
>English than I am.

Handel would have differed. He was fiercely proud of his adopted
nationality. It is said that on one occasion he was accused of being
German; his rejoinder was that he was more English than his accuser
because he was English by choice, rather than by mere accident of
birth. Do you think that the classical piano repertoire would have
developed as it did without the influence of the London scene, which
Handel and Johann Christian sought out and embraced? I don't. Those
Broadwood square pianos live on in the music of Mozart for sure.

>I have already stated that the English are great music
>lovers, but they have never produced a great composer (Purcell being a
>possible borderline exception). England has always imported it's music from
>abroad, same as America.

Tallis, Gibbons, Byrd, Purcell, Handel, JC Bach, Vaughan Williams,
Elgar, Britten and Holst were all English by birth or by choice.
Chopin, Mendelssohn and Mozart all composed important works in England
(or Scotland). But if any one country has a claim to be the heart of
classical music then it must surely be Italy.

>Influences only count for so much. In the end it is the native genius of the
>composer that counts, not the influences.

By what definition of genius, though? If genius is defined as the
ability to make music in a way that has never been done before, or
which touches people in a particular way, or which stands the test of
time, then I defy you to pin that down to any single period of
history. As noted elsewhere, without Bach there would be no Mozart,
without Mozart no Mendelssohn or Chopin.

>I have decided to let the language thing drop

Very wise, having lost that particular argument on a number of levels.

>writers are judged the
>same way that composers of music are judged. Do they stand the test of time.
>However, the written word does not have the permanency of music in the
>consciousness of men. Writers will fade over time no matter how well they
>have written.

Which is why nobody has ever heard of Bede (a benefactor of my old
school), Milton, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Marvell, Dickens...

Keep digging :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:26:14 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
> wrote in message
>:

>One of the minimal number of classical wossnames in my collection is
>Saint-Saen's Symphony No. 3 on which, if I remember correctly, the Orchestre
>Symphonique de Montréal were in a studio in Canada while Peter Hurford was
>playing the organ parts in Chartres cathedral.

I have that too :-)

Peter Hurford is a very nice man, not at all the "behold the Great
Artist" type. As mentioned elsewhere, his Decca recording of the
collected Bach organ works is some of my favourite music.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Peter Clinch]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

>>Easier than a Mellotron though... ("Tuning Mellotrons doesn't"- Robert
>>Fripp).

> I can well believe it.

The problem was that the electric motors used to run the tapes would
slow down the more keys you pushed, so the more notes in a chord the
flatter it would be. So depending on how you'd play it, I guess you'd
aim for a natural tuning that would be right with the modal number of
keys used in any given chord you might play in a piece... Good game!

Mellotrons don't sound anything like the instruments they were meant to
sound like, but they do sound rather wonderful on their own terms anyway.

> Somewhere on Radio 3's Listen Again there
> should be an interview with Bob Moog broadcast on Sunday evening, if
> you're interested.

Might dig that out, thanks for the tip.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Peter Clinch]

Mark McNeill wrote:

> Wildly OT, I know, but does anybody know of a newsgroup for recumbent
> bikes & trikes?

There is one around here, that can be uncovered with a suitable "mark as
read" filter. Signal to noise becomes /actually tangible/ if you put
the word "Dolan" in it.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Peter Clinch:
> > Wildly OT, I know, but does anybody know of a newsgroup for recumbent
> > bikes & trikes?
>
> There is one around here, that can be uncovered with a suitable "mark as
> read" filter. Signal to noise becomes /actually tangible/ if you put
> the word "Dolan" in it.

Oh, he's already in the bozo bin, along with a couple of others.

I used to lurk here a long while ago, when I was thinking of going bent.
Now that I am, and have been for over a year, I thought I'd come back,
though I don't expect to contribute much.


--
Mark, UK.

"For men become civilized, not in proportion to their
willingness to believe, but in their readiness to doubt."

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:15:34 -0000, Mark McNeill
> wrote in message
>:

>> Get with the programme, Ed. If you want to hear Bach as Bach heard it
>> himself then a harpsichord or an organ is the instrument of choice.

>It's a complex issue, I know, but Bach's approval of the fortepianos he
>tried, and his description of keyboard pieces as just that - pieces for
>keyboard - give a fair amount of leeway for what is right and proper for
>performances of Bach's keyboard works. I was persuaded of some of the
>merits of Bach on the piano by Glenn Gould's two publicly released
>recordings of the Goldberg Variations; if you haven't heard Murray
>Perahia's recording of the same piece, you're missing a most
>extraordinary treat.

I think I said elsewhere, I prefer the Perahia recording to the Gould,
although I couldn't say why. Possibly Perahia is more lyrical, I
don't know.

><Devil's advocate> But all this begs the question, why on earth should we
>want to hear Bach as Bach heard it?

That was a response to Ed's assertion that live music is less pure
than studio recordings. I have no particular preference either way -
well, maybe a slight preference in that I actually like the sound of
the harpsichord, but I like piano music as well. Listen to Goldberg
(played on the piano) back to back with Chopin and Ed's assertions
regarding the unimportance of influences are shown up for the
falsehood they truly are.

>Historical accuracy in performance
>is not an aesthetic virtue; I'd submit it has nothing to do with
>aesthetics at all (as witness so many scratchily worthy recordings by
>e.g. Heinrich Goebel and his Cologne bunch). Research may illuminate all
>sorts of details of score or performance; but that doesn't mean that the
>one-to-a-part performances by Rifkin, say, or Jeggsie's sewing-machine
>tempi, are intrinsically *better* - in any sense other than drily
>historical - than Karajan's big-band approach. </Devil's advocate>

I think you might be arguing with the wrong person here - Ed is the
one saying that some versions of the classics are intrinsically more
worthy than others. I have several different versions of a number of
pieces, each interpreted slightly differently. I like the scholarly
approach of the Academy of Ancient Music, and I like the balls-out
Karajan style too.

>Wildly OT, I know, but does anybody know of a newsgroup for recumbent
>bikes & trikes?

I think there might be one at rec.music.classical but ICBW :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Just zis Guy, you know?:

> I think I said elsewhere, I prefer the Perahia recording to the Gould,
> although I couldn't say why. Possibly Perahia is more lyrical, I
> don't know.

IMO Perahia's tempi are all pretty much perfect. ISTR he said he
approached the variations as dances. I have a real love/hate thing with
Gould: he had an incredible technique, married to mannerisms which can
(again, of course, IMO) illuminate a piece marvellously (the Partitas,
the Goldbergs), or be utterly maddening (some of the 48, the English
Suites, the French Suites, the Italian Concerto, his Haydn, his
Mozart...).


> I think you might be arguing with the wrong person here

Indeed, and TBH I wasn't arguing at all - apart from the devil's advocate
thing, your post just reminded me of arguments I used to have re the
Historically-Informed-Performance/big-band controversy. There are
aspects of the HIP movement I love, and I think their recordings should
form an important part of any collection; but obv., it doesn't follow
that a HI performance is necessarily closer to The Truth than non-HI.
But you know that. :-)


--
Mark, UK.

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple,
neat, and wrong."

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:49:12 -0000, Mark McNeill
> wrote in message
>:

>it doesn't follow
>that a HI performance is necessarily closer to The Truth than non-HI.

All performances should be historically informed - what the performers
choose to do with that information is what makes music fun :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Tom Sherman]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> ...
> The other day I listened back to back to the rondo from Mozart's Eb
> horn concerto no. 4 played by Dennis Brain, Barry Tuckwell and Peter
> Damm. Three very different performances, and any judgment of which is
> best is entirely subjective....

As a Chicago partisan, I insist you add Clevenger to the list!

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

[Tom Sherman]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> All performances should be historically informed - what the performers
> choose to do with that information is what makes music fun :-)

E.g. Handel-Beecham Messiah. ;) Has anyone ever sung "Why do the
nations" better than Giorgio Tozzi [1]?

[1] Another Chicagoan.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth