Right. Of course. Your are wise beyond you years, oh sagely one. And I am but a dottering old man, who's feeble brain has been poisened by the treacherous fumes of the mighty megalopolis over which my lofty tower presides...<br><br>Where was it now. Why, in my confused state, I've forgotten where it is. Or what I do there. Wait, I think I remember something about 3 things a man can do in life... Oh no! It's fading again. I'm... so... tired... <br><br><br><br>Ivan, If you consider my remarks predictable, anyone here could have written your defensive little tirade a month before you said it. And yes, I already have thought about what I "really wanted to say" — before I said it. You still don't see the narrowness in what you said. Perhaps your own ego blocked your view...<br><br>*turns walker around and shuffles back to rest home where men of his "age and experience" belong.*<br><br>

So, why didn't you then?<br><br>

because i am different.?<br>point is.. however clever and mature and level headed you may be.. and i do not doubt that.. so are we.. or did you forget that?<br>you are just a little too judgemental of others..<br><br>this should be in he computer victimology thread.<br><br>It is so easy to denigrate somebody else when all you have in front of you is a screen and a keyboard. <br>I am positive that face to face, we would all have much different conversations.<br><br>"Today is a gift, that's why its called the present."<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by TreeBeard on 01/20/04 07:23 AM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>It is so easy to denigrate somebody else when all you have in front of you is a screen and a keyboard. <br>I am positive that face to face, we would all have much different conversations.<p><hr></blockquote><p> Perhaps. But real or virtual, I prefer to call 'em as I see 'em. And having said that, let me add that you calling anyone else "judgmental of others" is a glaring case of the pot and the tea-kettle. However, in the context of many of these threads, "judgementalism" is a quick and easy indictment to throw at anyone who's opinion or position differs from your own. You have to admit, you do a pretty good job of denegrating others when it suits your fancy.<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>You still don't see the narrowness in what you said. Perhaps your own ego blocked your view...<p><hr></blockquote><p>on another note, not necessarily related to our conversation, but rather speaking generally, i don't like it when people question the opponents credibility in the debate rather than questioning the topic of the debate itself. i know that it's a an accepted method in a debate, especially when one lacks arguments about the topic, but I think it gets us nowhere. it's easy to say your arguments do not matter because you're an idiot.<br><br><pre>PMG5/1.8Ghz/1GBRAM, PBG3/400Mhz/768MBRAM, AirportX</pre><p>

"I think we agree in principle, but you can't set that "canned" clock back to 1940! "<br><br>Yes, I am. But we tend to forgot the crap from back then. You named only a few good artists. But we all forget the bad ones. Let's go back to the 1980's - Can you remember the hit song by "Candi and the Backbeat" (yes, a real "artist"). Probably not, because it was garbage.<br><br>The other thing is that the music business caters to younger people. As we get older, we like less and less of the popular stuff. When we say something is crap that our kids like, and the same thing happened when we were kids.<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> as the thread got longer my opinion shaped and that's what public debate is for isn't it? it doesn't mean that i suck, does it? <p><hr></blockquote><p>No, in fact, you just did something that's hard for most people. A lot of people (myself included) get really stubborn in debate and refuse to budge from their original position. This is bad. Debates are supposed to open people's mind and get people to really discuss the matter at hand... but instead most people take it personally and get too caught up in trying to *win* the debate.<br><br>-Matt<br><br>

This thread is awesome. I nominate it for the 2004 Threadies. Don't forget it next year when it comes time to cast your vote.<br><br>===================<br><br>S3V3N<br>Washington, DC USA

Damn. We should have aired it in December in a little-known BBS in Iowa.<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>You named only a few good artists. But we all forget the bad ones. Let's go back to the 1980's - Can you remember the hit song by "Candi and the Backbeat" (yes, a real "artist"). Probably not, because it was garbage.<p><hr></blockquote><p>True, but now I'd say a HUGE percentage, maybe the majority, of popular recorded music is created with these canned tricks. I'm talking about the actual production methods of what is considered to be "good" music. You're talking about bad artists. In the old days, there just weren't many canned tricks for producing the actual music. We're talking about things like loops here, which makes it relevant to the currend discussion about GarageBand; not just about shabby product. There are some highly skilled people using loops, and some of it sounds pretty good. But it's still canned. They didn't have musicians in front of them; they dragged a few sound files over to a track, lined them up with measure numbers, and hit "record." <br><br>Shooshie<br><br><br><br>[color:green]Pictures and things</font color=green>