A Final Word About That Hunding Business
A.C. Douglas
@isp.studenten.net Herman van der Woude
> http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandfury/2008/03/a-final-word-ab.html
Well, you tried your theory here, and you've been proven wrong. It is
only the madman who says: "the whole world is mad, except me!"
Cheers!
--
Met vriendelijke groet
Herman van der Woude
A.C. Douglas
news:mn.7a977d83a...@isp.studenten.net...
> A.C. Douglas schreef op zaterdag, 15-3-2008, het volgende :
>> http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandfury/2008/03/a-final-word-ab.html
>
> Well, you tried your theory here, and you've been proven wrong. It is only
> the madman who says: "the whole world is mad, except me!"
Excuse me? Proven wrong? By whom, pray tell? No-one here did any such
thing, while I've provided solid and copious argument for my case, both on my
blog and here, and countered with solid argument every objection to that
case, both on my blog and here.
I don't insist that my view of the matter of the manner of Hunding's death is
the only correct view; merely the one that makes the most sense given the
evidence of the score, which evidence all but scuttles totally any claim that
Wotan intentionally, and with malice aforethought, struck Hunding dead with a
contemptuous wave of his hand. As I wrote in the above linked blog piece,
it's beyond my comprehension how a group of supposedly informed Wagnerians
could unanimously insist he did.
@isp.studenten.net Herman van der Woude
> "Herman van der Woude" <hvdwoud @ isp.studenten.net> wrote in message
> news:mn.7a977d83a...@isp.studenten.net...
>
>> A.C. Douglas schreef op zaterdag, 15-3-2008, het volgende :
>>> http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandfury/2008/03/a-final-word-ab.html
>>
>> Well, you tried your theory here, and you've been proven wrong. It is only
>> the madman who says: "the whole world is mad, except me!"
>
> Excuse me? Proven wrong? By whom, pray tell? No-one here did any such
> thing, while I've provided solid and copious argument for my case, both on my
> blog and here, and countered with solid argument every objection to that
> case, both on my blog and here.
No, you did not. It is what you /think/, that you did. Every, so-called
argument of yours was sufficiently countered. May I remeber you to one
of your 'finest' arguments, when you called someone an "idiot"?
> I don't insist that my view of the matter of the manner of Hunding's death is
> the only correct view;
O yes, you did, all the time! Just re-read that long thread you started
yourself, which was interesting in the beginning, that I do admit. But
as usual you made your starting point your hobby-horse, which you never
wanted to give up, eventually leading to this "idiot".
> merely the one that makes the most sense given the
> evidence of the score, which evidence all but scuttles totally any claim that
> Wotan intentionally, and with malice aforethought, struck Hunding dead with a
> contemptuous wave of his hand. As I wrote in the above linked blog piece,
> it's beyond my comprehension how a group of supposedly informed Wagnerians
> could unanimously insist he did.
Well, we all now know that you think in another way (to put it mildly),
but as you always keep repeating, "look at the score", and the score,
both in texts and in music just tells us that Hunding drops dead as
Wotan makes his contemptuous gesture with his hand.
Now let's make a little comparison to end this debate before it starts
all over again. There is a hunter in the field. He sees the duck and
shoulders his rifle. He pulls the trigger and the duck drops dead on
the ground. Afterwards they find a significant amount of lead in the
dead bird's body. What is /your/ conclusion to its death? You will say,
that Probably it had beeen shot at before and it was already suffering
of lead-poisoning. When it heard this last shot it was so frightened
that it got a heart-failure, which killed the bird.
The rest of the world will say that the hunter killed the bird with
this shot...
A.C. Douglas
> A.C. Douglas schreef op zaterdag, 15-3-2008, het volgende :
>> Excuse me? Proven wrong? By whom, pray tell? No-one here did any such
>> thing, while I've provided solid and copious argument for my case, both on
>> my
>> blog and here, and countered with solid argument every objection to that
>> case, both on my blog and here.
>
> No, you did not. It is what you /think/, that you did. Every, so-called
> argument of yours was sufficiently countered.
Don't be absurd. No-one here mounted any argument of substance countering
what I argued. That you imagine someone did gives me no hope whatsoever that
you could even follow my argument.
> May I remeber you to one of your 'finest' arguments, when you called
> someone an "idiot"?
And there it is. Just what I suggested in my above linked post. It's my
attitude that grates, not my ideas or my arguments.
The idiot whom I called an idiot I called an idiot NOT because of his
argument, but because he offered NO argument other than to say I was crazy,
and shouldn't waste the time of "intelligent people," as the idiot put it.
>> I don't insist that my view of the matter of the manner of Hunding's death
>> is
>> the only correct view...
>
> O yes, you did, all the time! Just re-read that long thread you started
> yourself, which was interesting in the beginning, that I do admit. But as
> usual you made your starting point your hobby-horse, which you never wanted
> to give up, eventually leading to this "idiot".
Why would I give up an argument when no-one offered any counter to that
argument that had any substance? What you're suggesting is that I give up
simply because everyone disagrees with me. That's perfectly, well, idiot.
>> ...merely the one that makes the most sense given the
>> evidence of the score, which evidence all but scuttles totally any claim
>> that
>> Wotan intentionally, and with malice aforethought, struck Hunding dead
>> with a
>> contemptuous wave of his hand. As I wrote in the above linked blog piece,
>> it's beyond my comprehension how a group of supposedly informed Wagnerians
>> could unanimously insist he did.
>
> Well, we all now know that you think in another way (to put it mildly), but
> as you always keep repeating, "look at the score", and the score, both in
> texts and in music just tells us that Hunding drops dead as Wotan makes his
> contemptuous gesture with his hand.
> Now let's make a little comparison to end this debate before it starts all
> over again. There is a hunter in the field. He sees the duck and shoulders
> his rifle. He pulls the trigger and the duck drops dead on the ground.
> Afterwards they find a significant amount of lead in the dead bird's body.
> What is /your/ conclusion to its death? You will say, that Probably it had
> beeen shot at before and it was already suffering of lead-poisoning. When
> it heard this last shot it was so frightened that it got a heart-failure,
> which killed the bird.
> The rest of the world will say that the hunter killed the bird with this
> shot...
Your above is total rubbish, and proof positive you didn't even begin to
comprehend my argument here, and probably didn't even read the full statement
of that argument on my three blog posts on this matter.
I suggest you first do some careful reading, and then, if you wish, come back
to offer your objections to what I wrote, not to what you imagine I wrote or
didn't write.
Richard Loeb
true - I sometimes save particularly funny or groteque postings to be read
aloud at my bi-weekly dinners and I should get an awful lot of laughs out of
this thread!!!! It is obvious to me that some posters here have WAY too
much free time and need to be doing something contructive not only to keep
their minds from wandering but also to keep themselves out of trouble in a
general sense best Richard
@isp.studenten.net Herman van der Woude
> "Herman van der Woude" <hvdwoud @ isp.studenten.net> wrote in message
> news:mn.7aca7d836...@isp.studenten.net...
>
>> A.C. Douglas schreef op zaterdag, 15-3-2008, het volgende :
>>> Excuse me? Proven wrong? By whom, pray tell? No-one here did any such
>>> thing, while I've provided solid and copious argument for my case, both on
>>> my
>>> blog and here, and countered with solid argument every objection to that
>>> case, both on my blog and here.
>>
>> No, you did not. It is what you /think/, that you did. Every, so-called
>> argument of yours was sufficiently countered.
>
> Don't be absurd. No-one here mounted any argument of substance countering
> what I argued. That you imagine someone did gives me no hope whatsoever that
> you could even follow my argument.
Here you go again: no argument!
>> May I remeber you to one of your 'finest' arguments, when you called
>> someone an "idiot"?
>
> And there it is. Just what I suggested in my above linked post. It's my
> attitude that grates, not my ideas or my arguments.
>
> The idiot whom I called an idiot I called an idiot NOT because of his
> argument, but because he offered NO argument other than to say I was crazy,
> and shouldn't waste the time of "intelligent people," as the idiot put it.
One of the first thing people do, who are just a tiny bit sophisticated
and realise that they did let themselves get a bit carried away, is to
apologise. It's no argument in this case, I know, it is however an
attitude, but not /your/ attitude as you will admit. And as the poster
in question wrote, it was not your first time.
>>> I don't insist that my view of the matter of the manner of Hunding's death
>>> is
>>> the only correct view...
>>
>> O yes, you did, all the time! Just re-read that long thread you started
>> yourself, which was interesting in the beginning, that I do admit. But as
>> usual you made your starting point your hobby-horse, which you never wanted
>> to give up, eventually leading to this "idiot".
>
> Why would I give up an argument when no-one offered any counter to that
> argument that had any substance?
Because you don't want to see any argument with substance, unless it is
your own!
> What you're suggesting is that I give up
> simply because everyone disagrees with me. That's perfectly, well, idiot.
No, it is not. It is just a matter of reconsidering things. It looks to
me however, that you are not capable to reconsidering anything you
utter. But I might be wrong, well *prove* me wrong!
Repeat: no argument!
> I suggest you first do some careful reading, and then, if you wish, come back
> to offer your objections to what I wrote, not to what you imagine I wrote or
> didn't write.
Repeat: no argument! And when you start suggesting anything at all, I
would suggest you to read the second phrase of my first contribution in
/this/ (still) little thread.
@isp.studenten.net Herman van der Woude
Thanks, I'm glad that I made somebody's day start merrily. It is only
after re-reading what I wrote, that I realise again, how horribly
'Dutch' my English is. Well, I hope, that I made myself clear and
understandable to all parties concerned.
Richard Loeb
than some of the perfectly articulated yet ultimately foolish postings here
Richard
@isp.studenten.net Herman van der Woude
Well, thanks!
Mike Scott Rohan
from "Richard Loeb" <loe...@comcast.net> contains these words:
{snip}
> >
> >
> That comparison would be really funny except that in this case it is
> all too
> true - I sometimes save particularly funny or groteque postings to be read
> aloud at my bi-weekly dinners and I should get an awful lot of laughs
> out of
> this thread!!!! It is obvious to me that some posters here have WAY too
> much free time and need to be doing something contructive not only to keep
> their minds from wandering but also to keep themselves out of trouble in a
> general sense best Richard
True. Having encouraged this a bit too much, I am now practising
self-denial and restraint. Doubly so, as one of my colleagues has just
written a bloody stupid and demonstrably wrong newspaper article on von
Karajan, and I do not want to tear him to ribbons in public for the sake
of peace on the mag.
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Scott Rohan
from Herman van der Woude <hvdwoud @ isp.studenten.net> contains these words:
{snip}
> Thanks, I'm glad that I made somebody's day start merrily. It is only
> after re-reading what I wrote, that I realise again, how horribly
> 'Dutch' my English is. Well, I hope, that I made myself clear and
> understandable to all parties concerned.
As a number of us have said before -- when our Dutch is that good, you
can apologise for your English! Which is actually about 98% natural and
idiomatic.
As to making yourself clear, you have, except where someone doesn't want
to hear.
Cheers,
Mike
@isp.studenten.net Herman van der Woude
Thanks, Mike!
@isp.studenten.net Herman van der Woude
This makes me just a tiny bit curious...
Richard Partridge
mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk, wrote the following:
I agree with that too.
Dick Partridge
@isp.studenten.net Herman van der Woude
Well, emm... thanks! (Blush, blush!)