Re: Goodbye Doug!
pmfan57
Jack Zucker wrote:
> Hello, group-think.
>
> Now that he's gone can we get back to discussing polytone vs. clarus
> and heritage vs. sadowsky ?
Or how good Barney Kessel's comping on My Name is Julie is.
Or how Allan Holdsworth and Scotty Anderson are both better than any of
the guys we talk about.
Or (insert other controversial non-gearhead topic here).
.......
let the flame wars begin.
steinbergerstyler
Gerry
Why are you starting a subject on the topic of Doug?
> Hello, group-think.
Maybe it's a shocker, but yes, we generally probably do think the same
way about a lot of things. This can be said for most communities if we
need to generalize. I'm not sure we do need to generalize, though.
If noting Doug as disruptive and given to personal attack is evidence
of "group think", isn't it curious that all but a handful of said
nothing.. Aren't the ones who give tacit support the "group thinkers"?
Maybe I can't parse these sweeping generalzations as well as I use to.
> Now that he's gone can we get back to discussing polytone vs. clarus
> and heritage vs. sadowsky ?
We never stopped. Nor will we with or without Doug.
--
What a day this has been, what a rare mood I'm in.
oasysco
Jack Zucker wrote:
> Hello, group-think.
>
> and heritage vs. sadowsky ?
Personally, I think George Benson rules. By not identifying the guitar
GB plays are you impllying that Benson is no good??? <g>
Greg
Pat Smith
Joey Goldstein
--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/joeygoldstein
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
Chickenhead
"Jack Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote in message
news:1158181561....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Chickenhead
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:eea3mg$jq8$1...@news.datemas.de...
Pt
Jack Zucker wrote:
> Hello, group-think.
>
> Now that he's gone can we get back to discussing polytone vs. clarus
> and heritage vs. sadowsky ?
Solid state amps and hollow body guitars.
Yuck! :-)
Pt
Joey Goldstein
> agreed. We should be courting these guys not kicking them out
>
I'd rather hang out with Buddy Rich.
oasysco
I know your post is tongue-in-cheek with discussion of music being more
important than discusing the tools of the trade. But doesn't Doug drop
in and out as his schedule and ability to bear/give stress changes?
You have a point about driving folks out, though. So, just to soothe
everybody's nerves, I'll start a thread on the Epiphone Joe Pass model
and we can discuss new pickups, tuners, strings, etc :)-
Greg
Morey Richman
> Jack A. Zucker wrote:
>> agreed. We should be courting these guys not kicking them out
>>
>
> I'd rather hang out with Buddy Rich.
>
Not at this point you don't - although he still probably keeps better time
than a lot of drummers I played with.
Chickenhead
"Morey Richman" <moreyr...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ct2Og.537777$iF6.186960@pd7tw2no...
bob r
at j...@jackzucker.com wrote on 9/13/06 5:06 PM:
> Hello, group-think.
If Doug decides to leave, that's Doug-think, not group-think. If he decides
to come back, that's Doug-think too. He's done both before, as have many
others.
>
> Now that he's gone can we get back to discussing polytone vs. clarus
> and heritage vs. sadowsky ?
>
We can talk about anything we want to, just like always. Anybody got
something interesting about music in mind? I hope so, because I'm way past
losing interest in all this circular argument and name-calling
personality-driven bullshit.
--
Bob Russell
Web - http://www.bobrussellguitar.com
CDs - http://www.cdbaby.com/all/bobrussell
Soundclick - http://www.soundclick.com/bobrussell
bob r
j...@jackzucker.com wrote on 9/13/06 10:45 PM:
> "bob r" <Someo...@whatever.com> wrote in message
> news:C12E331E.525AF%Someo...@whatever.com...
>> in article 1158181561....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, Jack
>> Zucker
>> at j...@jackzucker.com wrote on 9/13/06 5:06 PM:
>>
>>> Hello, group-think.
>>
>> If Doug decides to leave, that's Doug-think, not group-think.
>
> Think what you want. He (along with Henry Johnson and others) have been
> chased out.
>
> It's not a coincidence that the "heavies" rarely make appearances around
> here. Most often, they're not given the respect they are due based on the
> work they have done. I know a few guys who's agents have told them that this
> group is too volatile and that it's not in their best interest to post.
>
> Just look at the Doug Wamble query and all the negativity heaped on Doug
> when HE DIDN'T EVEN REPLY TO THE THREAD.
>
> That's not group-think?
>
>
I repeat: if Doug decides to leave, that's Doug-think. Nobody "chased him
out". He left. Henry Johnson didn't get "chased out" either; he left. Each
of these guys had quite a few people fawning over them; they also had some
people who did not agree with various things they said. They decided it was
not worth hanging around because they would have to endure disagreement from
people whose opinions they deemed unworthy for one reason or another.
David J. Littleboy
"Jack A. Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote:
>
> It's not a coincidence that the "heavies" rarely make appearances around
> here. Most often, they're not given the respect they are due based on the
> work they have done. I know a few guys who's agents have told them that
> this group is too volatile and that it's not in their best interest to
> post.
Funny thing, though. Jimmy Bruno gets lots of respect here.
I don't think it's the group, I think it's the personality of the person
involved.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Tone
Jack A. Zucker wrote:
> "bob r" <Someo...@whatever.com> wrote in message
> news:C12E331E.525AF%Someo...@whatever.com...
> > Zucker
> > at j...@jackzucker.com wrote on 9/13/06 5:06 PM:
> >
> >> Hello, group-think.
> >
> > If Doug decides to leave, that's Doug-think, not group-think.
>
> chased out.
>
> here. Most often, they're not given the respect they are due based on the
> work they have done. I know a few guys who's agents have told them that this
> group is too volatile and that it's not in their best interest to post.
>
> when HE DIDN'T EVEN REPLY TO THE THREAD.
>
> That's not group-think?
I don't really know what you mean by group think in this case.
Everybody here is thinking the same? A couple people bashing Doug, a
couple defending him, the rest arguing in circles about absolutes... or
something. It looked like a typical everybody *not* thinking the same
way kinda thread/melee to me.
And FWIW it looked like Doug checked out well before that recent thread
even started cuz he was so pissed off at Tom Brown that he couldn't
stand it. Maybe you have inside info but he doesn't strike me as the
type to be chased off. Pissed off is different than chased off.
Joey Goldstein
All I can say Jack is that have I have a lot less respect for you than I
used to.
Kissing Doug's ass all the time when he's being an absolute douche bag,
especially in his thing with Tom.
What the hell do you get out of it, and is it really worth it?
I wasn't around for the Henry Johnson stuff you mention, or I missed it.
So I can't comment on that.
But Doug Wamble is, I'm sure, a totally different situation.
I think Doug's pretty damn brilliant. And I've only heard a few 20
second clips on the Web. (I won't buy one of him CDs because he bothers
me that much.)
He's also found a niche within the jazz world that's pretty much all his
own and he carries it at a very high standard.
I too would love to actually see him talk about music here.
I've learned stuff even from the stupid arguments I've been in with him.
He's forced me to look at some things in new ways for me.
But there is *always* a price with this guy, and it's too damn high.
Good riddance.
Kid Kool
Jack A. Zucker wrote:
> agreed. We should be courting these guys not kicking them out
Why? What has Wamble ever contributed apart from sneers? He presents
common knowledge as some deep arcana to which only he is privy. He
should ben courted? And Jack, the fact that I object to a ill-mannered,
sneering, know-all jerk - regardless of the famous names he can drop -
does not make me guilty of group think.
Kid Kool
David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> Funny thing, though. Jimmy Bruno gets lots of respect here.
Strange, that. Jimmy's a nice guy, as is Tony D and a number of others,
and they all get treated respectfully. And Wamble doesn't. Can't think
why ...
>
> I don't think it's the group, I think it's the personality of the person
Gasp!
Joey Goldstein
It's not that Doug isn't treated with respect. He is treated with respect.
It's that there are far too many of us for which has open disrespect.
Doug: "No one else on this group even remotely
disgusts me as you do, Tom."
In other words, a good number of us here "disgust" him.
Well, I've never been disgusted by anyone here, except Doug.
paul
comparison. henry posted a few times, doug has been posting (and
getting into extensive flame wars) for more than 10 years on
rec.music.bluenote and also on here. I would bet henry's reasons for
not participating and doug's are completely different. furthermore I
will bet anyone here even money doug will post to this newsgroup again
in the next 10 years. anyone interested in taking the other side? :)
--paul
Henry Moon
drastic!
Henry
amost
Todd Lainhart
Jack A. Zucker wrote:
> agreed. We should be courting these guys not kicking them out
>
Disagree. The occasional insights were overridden by his sociopathic
Usenet style. He really is unhinged. I'm sorry that he pushed Joey
over the edge, but I happen to agree with everything he said.
I often found myself thinking how blessed the guy was (played with
Marian McPartland for God's sake), and yet how self-centered and nasty
he was.
Having Jimmy Bruno pop-up here occasionally is a blessing. A monster
and a gentleman. Doug could learn boatloads from the guy (we all can).
-- Todd
Todd Lainhart
Joey Goldstein wrote:
> Jack A. Zucker wrote:
> > agreed. We should be courting these guys not kicking them out
> >
>
> I'd rather hang out with Buddy Rich.
>
Buddy has forwarded all calls to Paul Anka.
Formerly Sideways
Jack A. Zucker wrote:
> > I would bet henry's reasons for
> > not participating and doug's are completely different.
>
I've said it before - I'll say it again: Henry left because he was
incredibly thin-skinned. He took offense to some remarks that he
didn't seem to understand. Showed a complete lack of regard for the
opinion of others. Don't believe me? Search the group for the
infamous exchange.
I still don't really get it, except that it's clear that Henry picked
up his marbles and went home. He ain't any heavier than Bruno,
Lippincott, Jones, Moore, and Russell, so he doesn't even get a pass on
that account.
Doug will be back. I don't pretend to understand what his deal with
Tom Brown is, but Doug, unlike Henry and a few others, can dish it out
and he can take it - which is why I find him kind of interesting and
amusing and value many of his contributions.
As for this notion that we should "court the heavies:" if that means we
should kiss the ass of every gifted player no matter how thin-skinned
or mean-spirited they are....*that's* group-think in my book.
thom_j.
> Did he go somewhere?
to the potty, I think? curious tee'...
tom walls
j...@jackzucker.com says...
> Hello, group-think.
>
> Now that he's gone can we get back to discussing polytone vs. clarus
> and heritage vs. sadowsky ?
>
>
Do I regret stating my opinion or defending myself? Not one bit. Get a
grip. You're acting like a real weenie.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
Gerry
> agreed. We should be courting these guys not kicking them out
Right we should be acting civil to them when they are not acting civil
to us. After all, they are gods and we are lackeys.
You're getting throught to me, Mr. Beal.
--
What a day this has been, what a rare mood I'm in.
Gerry
Group THINKER!
Gerry
> And FWIW it looked like Doug checked out well before that recent thread
> even started cuz he was so pissed off at Tom Brown that he couldn't
> stand it.
I think he checks out periodically when he has embarrassed himself with
indefensible behaviour.
Gerry
> Did he go somewhere?
Yes. But wherever he is, he's reading every single post in this thread.
pmfan57
pmfan57 wrote:
> Jack Zucker wrote:
> > Hello, group-think.
> >
> > Now that he's gone can we get back to discussing polytone vs. clarus
> > and heritage vs. sadowsky ?
>
>
> Or how Allan Holdsworth and Scotty Anderson are both better than any of
> the guys we talk about.
>
> Or (insert other controversial non-gearhead topic here).
>
> .......
>
> let the flame wars begin.
Jack's original post no longer appears on google. It makes it look
like I started this!
Tone
Gerry wrote:
> On 2006-09-13 20:07:35 -0700, "Tone" <a.ko...@computer.org> said:
>
> > And FWIW it looked like Doug checked out well before that recent thread
> > even started cuz he was so pissed off at Tom Brown that he couldn't
> > stand it.
>
> I think he checks out periodically when he has embarrassed himself with
> indefensible behaviour.
Could be, but there have been occassions in real life where I got so
pissed off that I had to just leave the premises - take a walk,
something! Or end up in a cop car. Anyhow he sounded really pissed off
to me, although I skipped out on some of it. A thread going on for 20
posts between only 2 people its rarely worth the read, in my experience.
oasysco
Jack Zucker wrote:
> tom walls wrote:
>
> > Do I regret stating my opinion or defending myself? Not one bit. Get a
> > grip. You're acting like a real weenie.
>
I agree... my weenie is very personal, too.
>
> Whew...
kagejs
then this one:
> All I can say Jack is that have I have a lot less respect for you than I
> used to.
But Doug's the only one that engages in personal attacks and is
disrespectful.
Josh
Greger Hoel
How exactly is stating that you respect someone less a personal
attack? Isn't it possible to say you respect someone less without
"attacking" them?
Greger Hoel
wrote:
>tom walls wrote:
>
>> Do I regret stating my opinion or defending myself? Not one bit. Get a
>> grip. You're acting like a real weenie.
>
>Wow...Now the personal attacks begin.
>
>Whew...
You resent personal attacks against you, but you still blame Tom Brown
for speaking up against Wamble? What an amazingly unabashed display of
double standards, my man.
St. John Smythe
> Think what you want. He (along with Henry Johnson and others) have been
> chased out.
"Chased out" sounds a lot like "made to leave," and that's just not
possible. Could you be chased out? I think not.
--
St. John
To restore a sense of reality, I think Walt Disney should have a
Hardluckland.
-Jack Paar
RickH
Men in groups will often strut like peacocks, on the softball field, or
in a bar, it's human nature of the competitiveness of males in general.
The coolest heavies are those that have no better than thou attitude
and help amateurs, (amateur meaning fellow lovers of the art), gladly
and without a "big head". Like I've seen so many heavies do here, like
Jimmy Bruno taking on an amateurs question recently, very cool, and Jaz
and others. I think there are still more people here who will respect
and appreciate a heavy than get into the peacock thing. And I'm not
saying anyone had a big head, just saying that many amateurs assume a
heavy will not talk to the unwashed masses, but they do, and usenet
facilitates that exchange nicely on everyones schedule.
Jack what would be a way to get more well known players to pop in once
in a while?
Jack A. Zucker wrote:
> agreed. We should be courting these guys not kicking them out
>
> --
> http://www.sheetsofsound.net
> http://www.online-discussion.com/sheetsofsound
> http://www.myspace.com/jackzucker
>
> "Chickenhead" <kurtWITHOUTTHES...@hoNOtmSPAMailTHANKS.com>
> wrote in message news:F-mdnb2DPZNAApXY...@comcast.com...
> > No. If that is in fact the case it is most certainly not good riddance.
> >
> >
> > "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> > news:eea3mg$jq8$1...@news.datemas.de...
> >> Good riddance.
Kid Kool
Jack Zucker wrote:
> tom walls wrote:
>
> > grip. You're acting like a real weenie.
>
>
> Whew...
I think that being falsely accused of 'group think' is a gratuitous
slur, and a completely uncalled for personal attack. Stop playing the
self-righteous victim.
Joey Goldstein
>
>> All I can say Jack is that have I have a lot less respect for you than I
>> used to.
>
> internet.
>
> Talk about respect. Other than this reply, I've said nothing personal about
> anyone but now I'm getting bashed.
>
> Unbelievable.
Yeah, well it was hard for me to say, and I've held back from saying it
for a while now. But it needed to be said. Sorry.
The day I see you making sure Doug knows it when he's being an ass I'll
take it back. But all you do is stick up for the guy. And you're still
doing it.
Joey Goldstein
> As for this notion that we should "court the heavies:" if that means we
> should kiss the ass of every gifted player no matter how thin-skinned
> or mean-spirited they are....*that's* group-think in my book.
>
Ta da!
Chickenhead
JB is not only big-hearted , but has some sort of paranormal instinct that
tunes into people and gives them the exact thing that they need to help them
out as a musician. Even back when he reamed out RB, Richard came back the
better for it. And JB made sure we all knew that he met RB in person, and
that RB was good guy and a gentleman.
Doug's a great player and musician, and he has some very important things to
say, but we've all got a long way to go, including Doug, to meet the Bruno
standard.
"Kid Kool" <kidk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158207001.9...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>
>> Funny thing, though. Jimmy Bruno gets lots of respect here.
>
> Strange, that. Jimmy's a nice guy, as is Tony D and a number of others,
> and they all get treated respectfully. And Wamble doesn't. Can't think
> why ...
>
>
>>
>> I don't think it's the group, I think it's the personality of the person
>
> Gasp!
>
Joey Goldstein
The difference is that Doug does it when it's uncalled for, at the drop
of a hat. With guys like Doug you have to earn their respect.
I respect everyone until till they do something that causes me to lose it.
dwilliams
attacked here? I know it was many years ago. He handled it with class,
as I recall, bending over backwards to let people know he doesn't put
himself above anyone else. His interest seems to be just in
communicating with other guys who love jazz guitar. That's what most of
us do here, I guess. I mention this because I find it interesting that
somebody who was once bashed here now sets a standard. Maybe that's a
pretty good commentary on this group, as well as on Jimmy B.
Dave Williams
Gerry
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>> Yeah, well it was hard for me to say, and I've held back from saying it
>> for a while now. But it needed to be said. Sorry.
>>
>> The day I see you making sure Doug knows it when he's being an ass I'll
>> take it back. But all you do is stick up for the guy. And you're still
>> doing it.
>
> Kind of like how I've stuck up for you when occasionally you take some
> heat?
We sure do get some wires crossed. No, Jack, like you DON'T stickup
for Joey when he's being a prick, nor me. Nor when we don't stick up
for you when you're being a prick. Anybody can be a prick. ALL of us,
sooner are later, get upset over something, and then either we are
combative and insulting or we are not.
I'd like to think that by BEING pricks we learn how NOT to be pricks.
But not unless we get an ass-kicking for inappropriate behavior.
It was a nice thing to recommend Joey's book. It's always nice when we
are being supportive of one another. And when Joey was taking heat,
and you thought it inappropriate, you called him out. That's not the
same thing as stumping for unqualified "respect" for people who are
unrepetent about being anti-social. Can't you honestly see the
difference?
> I think that's what friends do. If you actually read what I've written
> in the Doug related postings, I never took sides on any issues. I
> merely pointed out that Doug deserves some respect.
Right. And he did NOT deserve respect when he was being a prick. He
*deserved* and should have been accorded disrespect for insulting
participants, refusing to operate on good faith in discussion,
blatantly lying about participants and so forth. Don't you think that's
the time to punish somebody? Rather than punish the entire group for
"group think"?
> However, I do think it's unfair for guys to jump all over his shit on
> threads down the road that he has not even posted in!
Like this one? Again, why did you start this discussion?
> I try not to take sides in silly chest beating and huffing and puffing
> issues.
No, you START them by huffing and puffing about how we've all been
naughty by disrepecting somebody who should be disrespected.
> I've maintained from the very beginning that players such as
> Henry Johnson, Richard Bornman, Doug Wamble and other players who have
> been publicly castigated in these forums should be respected for what
> they've accomplished and that their opinions bare the weight of their
> experience.
I think they are. But when somebody is a prick, that's not the time
you trot out the grammy.
> Whether they are right or wrong on every issue is not what
> I have debated. Just that they deserve respect.
Again, and finally, *humans* whether the play the guitar or not, NEED
to be disrespected when they are acting like fools and arrogant pricks.
They NEED that just like a child needs to be taught the rules of life.
To coddle them at this point is to do them a grave disservice.
Morey Richman
> Kissing Doug's ass all the time when he's being an absolute douche bag,
> especially in his thing with Tom.
I don't think anybody really kisses Doug's ass - there are some, myself
included, that can look past his admittedly abusive asshole behaviour
sometimes because I think his experience, ideas, conviction and dedication
to the music is something that's worth a lot in a group that is overrun with
pretty homogenous ideas in the grand scheme of things - Joey, you say
yourself that you've learned stuff from Doug and he's made you look at
things in new ways - for a guy like yourself with as much overall command of
the idiom as you have, that should be a valuable resource to you - of
course, if you don't think it's worth the odd trainwreck (reading Tom Brown
exchanges as an example) why can't you just ignore it and take what you deem
worthwhile? You've shown your own feistyness here over the years too, as has
RB, Jack and others and to me, you guys are what makes this whole group
worthwhile - otherwise we'd be inundated with even more posts about why
Thomastics are so great and what the best archtop for under $1000 is.
Gerry
> sssssssssssssttttttttttttttttttttopppppppppppppppppppppp!!!!
>
> lets discuss music !
Disingenuous: you started this discussion to castigate the group. If
you want to discuss music, start a topic without a musical topic.
Joey Goldstein
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>> Yeah, well it was hard for me to say, and I've held back from saying it
>> for a while now. But it needed to be said. Sorry.
>>
>> The day I see you making sure Doug knows it when he's being an ass I'll
>> take it back. But all you do is stick up for the guy. And you're still
>> doing it.
>
> heat?
Right.
> I think that's what friends do.
They should only do it when it's the right thing to do.
When your friend is being an ass you should tell him that too.
> If you actually read what I've written
> in the Doug related postings, I never took sides on any issues.
Well you should have.
Not calling him out on the way he was treating Tom Brown is the same
thing as treating Tom Brown that way yourself.
Do *you* think Tom Brown is some sort of a rabid racist?
Because that's what you're saying in your silent complicity with Doug
and by not calling him on it.
> I
> merely pointed out that Doug deserves some respect.
I've always respected his musical abilities (except that one time, in my
mock review, and that was just to make a point). And I've always
respected his musical opinions. But that doesn't mean I have to agree
with them.
And as soon as you disagree with that guy he doesn't just lose some
respect for you, he loses all of it. And he makes sure that you and
everybody else in the world knows it.
And obviously Jack, I still still have lots of respect for you. Just
less than I used to.
> He's a big boy and
> can take care of himself. Just ask Wynton.
Makes you wonder if everybody in Wynton's circle talks that way and
behaves that way. When Wynton did a clinic at Mohawk College a few years
ago he was absolutely easy to be around.
> However, I do think it's unfair for guys to jump all over his shit on
> threads down the road that he has not even posted in!
Totally unfair. But deserved. And I don't care.
> I try not to take sides in silly chest beating and huffing and puffing
> issues. I've maintained from the very beginning that players such as
> Henry Johnson, Richard Bornman, Doug Wamble and other players who have
> been publicly castigated in these forums should be respected for what
> they've accomplished and that their opinions bare the weight of their
> experience.
Doug on usenet is a whole different animal than RB or HJ.
> Whether they are right or wrong on every issue is not what
> I have debated. Just that they deserve respect.
And sometimes they don't deserve respect.
moma...@gmu.edu
service got canceled--is some kind of tragedy seems odd to me. The idea
that, as another post says "the real musicians" are gone is odd too.
First off, there are lots of real musicians here, and they range from
part time giggers like myself to local pros like Steve Heberman or Tim
Berens (both fantastic players) or guys with some kind of national
reputation. I'm not all that interested in the idea that because Wamble
knows Marsalis, he's worth more. And at the same time, I think Wamble's
a great artist and a first rate musician. So what? This is a community
of people who love jazz guitar--a minority community of oddballs,
statistically speaking--and Wamble has no audience outside of people
like us. It's a community, not some temple where wisdom rains down or a
bunch of paparrazzi waiting for Tom Cruise to speak. Have some self
respect, people!
Doug was great to have around but he was often obnoxious, being a great
jazz musician doesn't make you a great usenet poster or a great human
being or require that you be the Buddha. Why is that a surprise? I hope
he sticks around in the same way that I hope more people come to love
the music that people on this list love.
Joey Goldstein
>> Kissing Doug's ass all the time when he's being an absolute douche bag,
>> especially in his thing with Tom.
>
> I don't think anybody really kisses Doug's ass - there are some, myself
> included, that can look past his admittedly abusive asshole behaviour
> sometimes because I think his experience, ideas, conviction and dedication
> to the music is something that's worth a lot in a group that is overrun with
> pretty homogenous ideas in the grand scheme of things - Joey, you say
> yourself that you've learned stuff from Doug and he's made you look at
> things in new ways - for a guy like yourself with as much overall command of
> the idiom as you have, that should be a valuable resource to you - of
> course, if you don't think it's worth the odd trainwreck (reading Tom Brown
> exchanges as an example) why can't you just ignore it and take what you deem
> worthwhile?
I ignored it for about a year and a half. But to be fair, Doug, except
in his earlier tirade against Tom Brown, was being pretty civil here
within that period. This last time though was too much.
Maybe it's me. Did Tom Brown's comments really seem all that malevolent
to anybody here except Doug?
Like I said earlier, I think that any white guys talking about race in
America are going to come out as being racist to one degree or another
no matter how hard they try not to be.
But there certainly wasn't anything that I saw in Tom's discourse about
the origins of jazz that warranted the kinds of venomous personal smear
tactics against Tom that Doug launched into.
Every time Doug quoted Tom's comments they were taken out of context and
their meaning stretched to completely unwarranted extremes.
As soon as I see Tom say something that smacks of real racism, either
against Blacks or Jews or whoever I'll pounce on him myself. Now I can't
even read Tom's posts anymore without trying to look between the lines
for some hint of the evil that Doug sees in there. *That's*
"disgusting". Tom's not like a buddy of mine either. But I've always
gotten a kick out of his sense of humour. And even though he's not
making a living as a guitar player he appears to know what he's talking
about when he talks about the guitar.
> You've shown your own feistyness here over the years too, as has
> RB, Jack and others and to me, you guys are what makes this whole group
> worthwhile - otherwise we'd be inundated with even more posts about why
> Thomastics are so great and what the best archtop for under $1000 is.
>
>
Richard Maxwell
years. I remember when Doug Wamble showed up the first time and then
left, the 2nd time and then left, etc. I was recently suprised to see
him active on the group again.
The old threads and the new threads remind me of a quote from one of my
favorite Pat Martino LPs. I made it into a poster and it sits on my
wall with a drawing of Pat Martino above it. Here is the poem:
************************************************************************
True music, like all true art,
is an experience to be shared, not judged.
for praise cannot make it better,
as blame cannot make it worse.
Its creation swells and ebbs;
it evolves and yet is always the same.
It envelops all that it touches,
and it caresses the minds of its listeners
as it does the minds of the performers.
Richard Maxwell
richard...@yahoo.com
http://www.myspace.com/richardmaxwell
timhelmen
> Maybe it's me. Did Tom Brown's comments really seem all that malevolent
> to anybody here except Doug?
OK, coming out of lurk mode again, I'll bite:
My take on Tom Brown's comments (I'm thinking in the context of the
"blacks invented jazz" discussion) is this: the concept of "race" in
American culture is more complex than a simple black/white dichotomy.
There's obviously a lot more detail that comes into play. But, at the
core, that seemed to be the main point.
And no, I don't see anything racist about that simple arguement. In
fact, it's really hard to see why that point ought to be so
contentious.
Certainly one could use that as a jpretext for actually racist thought,
but I didn't see that from TB. He was accused of it, but I didn't see
it anywhere in what he actually was writing here on this group.
And, to make sure I'm clear, I don't see how observing the complexity
of the American concept of race in any way equates to devaluing the
contributions of African-Americans.
So, from one who has read a lot (too much) if this on the group, the
racism of which TB has been accused is not at all supported by anything
TB has posted here.
Joey Goldstein
Well that was my take on it as well.
Matt
the sort of train wreck that I need to see.
I mean it!
Tone wrote:
> A thread going on for 20
> posts between only 2 people its rarely worth the read, in my experience.
icarusi
news:HqGdnRAXEcfo3ZTY...@adelphia.com...
>> used to.
>
> internet.
>
> Talk about respect. Other than this reply, I've said nothing personal
> about anyone but now I'm getting bashed.
You guys doing a Rodney Dangerfield double act or something? If this was
kindergarden you all should play nice or you don't get your turn in the sand
pit.
icarusi
--
remove the 00 to reply
Greger Hoel
wrote:
>
>Greger Hoel wrote:
>
>> You resent personal attacks against you, but you still blame Tom Brown
>> for speaking up against Wamble? What an amazingly unabashed display of
>> double standards, my man.
>
>Exactly where did I blame Tom for anything?
Are you shitting me? If not him, then who the hell do you blame? Who
else if not those who spoke up against him? You clearly state that we
should be courting the pros who dignifies us with their presence, you
start this sarcastically titled thread with the "group-think" phrase
and on multiple occasions you say that the pros are being chased off
from here, yet you don't blame anyone for it? Gimme a break. If you
don't blame anyone for Doug's leaving, your posts don't make any sense
whatsoever. If you don't blame anyone, can you please explain what
you're trying to say here, 'cuz I sure don't get it.
In this Wamble clusterfuck, Tom's taken far more off topic personal
smear from Doug than you could ever handle, and only retaliated by
calling him on his lies and doing some harmless teasing. You've never
spoken up against Doug's false anti racist bullshit, yet you start
sulking like a baby when somebody says you're acting like a weenie.
You've proven here that it's not the principle of argumentum ad
hominem that you're against, only that it's occasionally directed at
you and the big names. Repugnant.
Pt
Jack A. Zucker wrote:
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:eeaj1v$utv$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
> > All I can say Jack is that have I have a lot less respect for you than I
> > used to.
>
> Wow Joey...After all I've done pushing your book to folks all over the
> internet.
>
> Talk about respect. Other than this reply, I've said nothing personal about
> anyone but now I'm getting bashed.
>
Jack.
I remember the days when you and I used to get bashed on a daily basis.
Hell!
You can take it.
Me too.
Pt
Pt
St. John Smythe wrote:
> Jack A. Zucker wrote:
> > Think what you want. He (along with Henry Johnson and others) have been
> > chased out.
>
> "Chased out" sounds a lot like "made to leave," and that's just not
> possible. Could you be chased out? I think not.
>
> --
> St. John
> To restore a sense of reality, I think Walt Disney should have a
> Hardluckland.
> -Jack Paar
Dougie ain't no dummy.
He has done this in the past and profited from it.
He is the talk of the town....or at least RMMGJ.
Soon people will be swarming to buy his new CD.
When he returns everyone will love him....Except for Tom and Joey.
Pt
JP
Thank Pat.
"Richard Maxwell" <richard...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158259157.9...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Greger Hoel
wrote:
>Greger Hoel wrote:
>> On 14 Sep 2006 11:22:04 -0700, "Jack Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com>
>> You've proven here that it's not the principle of argumentum ad
>> hominem that you're against, only that it's occasionally directed at
>> you and the big names. Repugnant.
>
>You win. I'm evil incarnate.
Not at all. Practicing double standards in plain sight is disgusting
to most people and I'd bet you'd be way better off if you at least
didn't show yours. Don't you think so too?
Do you really look at this like a battle or a sport, with winners or
losers, BTW? The way I see it, we're all losers here, with the entire
group tilting over Usenet's inability to convey full, social
communication. If people were aware that whatever they think or say
while writing their posts, the only thing the reader can relate to is
the actual text, and that whatever they read out of somebody else's
post, they're very likely not getting the entire point the poster is
trying to articulate, we wouldn't have this problem.
>Now go practice your guitar.
I wish I had the stamina and drive to practice as much as you do.
Chickenhead
about Tom Brown.
My suspicions that Tom Brown was really Doug writing pseudononymously are
now officially refuted. Rats. Now THAT would have been kewl!
"Jack Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote in message
news:1158181561....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hello, group-think.
>
> Now that he's gone can we get back to discussing polytone vs. clarus
> and heritage vs. sadowsky ?
>
Henry Moon
> to be disrespected when they are acting like fools and arrogant pricks.
> They NEED that just like a child needs to be taught the rules of life.
> To coddle them at this point is to do them a grave disservice.
Nothing to do with Doug or Jack. Or Giant Steps:~)
I don't know nor care who made what good or bad point.
My post has everything to do with SEGREGATION OF THOUGHT!
If someone behaves badly, but if they make a solid point, why can't
most people segregate the solid point from the bad behavior?
You said "..... NEED to be disrespected when they are acting like
fools and arrogant pricks."
I agree, Gerry. We should NOT reward or tolerate bad behavior.
*But, validating a solid point is not the same thing as sanctioning bad
behavior.*
This is an all too prevalent mind set these days and way beneath some
of the good thinkers on this group for sure.
If I'm wrong on this, show me.
Henry
JP
> I respect everyone until till they do something that causes me to lose it.
>
>
And that is how i believe it should be too.
And if someone does something to diminish that respect...i think the best
thing to do if you can..is just ignore.
We all could critisise everyone about this and that..time feel,
content..concepts..musicality..but for what gain?
On a public forum?
JP
Gerry
>> Again, and finally, *humans* whether the play the guitar or not, NEED
>> to be disrespected when they are acting like fools and arrogant pricks.
>> They NEED that just like a child needs to be taught the rules of life.
>> To coddle them at this point is to do them a grave disservice.
>
> Nothing to do with Doug or Jack. Or Giant Steps:~)
> I don't know nor care who made what good or bad point.
> My post has everything to do with SEGREGATION OF THOUGHT!
>
> If someone behaves badly, but if they make a solid point, why can't
> most people segregate the solid point from the bad behavior?
Look you dipshit, here's what a moron like you can seem to
understand... [insert valid point here]. Maybe you think a reasonable
person should edit out all the bile and simply acknowledge the valid
point.
Curiouisly, it doesn't work like that. We remain humans first, and
then lackey editors for people with no communication skills a distant
second.
> You said "..... NEED to be disrespected when they are acting like
> fools and arrogant pricks."
>
> I agree, Gerry. We should NOT reward or tolerate bad behavior.
> *But, validating a solid point is not the same thing as sanctioning bad
> behavior.*
You'll have to explain the distinction. If the "solid point" comes with
a poke in the eye, the solid point is disregarded. Sorry, but
education spends a good deal of energy on how best to CONVEY
information, so that others can absorb it. Speaking in dead languages
or delivering information with personal insults makes it incumbent for
me to dig through the shit looking for something valuable. That's
asking too much.
I've heard repeated nons-specific references to the wonderful trove of
purported information that Wamble has. I say he has none. I
understand he has a recording contract. I understand that he tells us
he did some kind of "work", which he makes vague references to the
specifics of. Anymore, after a few years of this, I don't believe he
has any information to share. Sure he has opinons, Kessel doesn't
swing, somebody somewhere plays "hip lines" when they should be melding
with the rhythm section. Stop the presses; that's not shared
information.
> This is an all too prevalent mind set these days and way beneath some
> of the good thinkers on this group for sure.
The errant mind set, if I'm following your thinking, is that someone
can enter a social environment, act unsociably, but somewhere somehow
hint at "valuable information" and this should offset their anti-social
behavior. Am I following?
What kind of important information is it that one can proffer that
would offset anti-social behavior? What kind of information starts
with a "look asshole" and ends with a "if that's okay in your part of
the Ozarks" and gets washed clean?
> If I'm wrong on this, show me.
Sean
What IS the best archtop for under $1000?
--
Always be sincere, but never be serious.
Allan Watts
Joey Goldstein
If you're after an ES-175-ish sound see if you can find a Samick HF-650
on eBay. You'll have to change the neck pickup though, and maybe the bridge.
The Epi ES-175 copy I had for a while was OK but I like the sound of the
Samick more.
Gerry
>> You've shown your own feistyness here over the years too, as has RB,
>> Jack and others and to me, you guys are what makes this whole group
>> worthwhile - otherwise we'd be inundated with even more posts about why
>> Thomastics are so great and what the best archtop for under $1000 is.
>
> What IS the best archtop for under $1000?
Epiphone Emperor Regent. Now back to the more pressing matters of
discussing our discussion of all things Doug.
By the way, I'm having the T-shirts printed now:
Doug Rools!
But You Useless Amateurs are too Stupid to Understand it!
I'll be taking orders next week--but not from you idiots.
Henry Moon
seem to
understand... [insert valid point here]."
Dipshit?!?! Why did you call me a dipshit? I assaulted no-one. Just
presented an idea that you or anyone else may disagree with. I sure did
misjudge you.
I wanted to express an idea and exchange ideas, not to defend Wamble or
anyone in the entire universe. No Sir, you are not following me at
all. You must be angry at something or someone else.
I've followed your posts enough to know that I thought you were a
thinking man. That's why I wanted your view. Not a pool hall pissing
contest.
" The errant mind set, if I'm following your thinking, is that someone
> can enter a social environment, act unsociably, but somewhere somehow
> hint at "valuable information" and this should offset their anti-social
> behavior. Am I following?
The errant mindset referred to in my first post is one that cannot
separate the message from the messenger.
"What kind of information starts
> with a "look asshole" and ends with a "if that's okay in your part of
> the Ozarks"
Maybe someone said that to you. it wasn't me. Or, God forbid, were you
saying that to me?
You re-read my post when you are clear headed. You must see that I did
not get personal....and you did. Why? I don't know. Just who in the
hell do you think you are?
You must be down to your last argument.
Again, Gerry- unless you are just having a bad day--
I can't think of another thing I want to hear you say.
If you insist on getting personal, bring it on.
Otherwise, you leave me alone.
Did you understand that.
Michael Henry Martin
tom walls
castl...@ev1.net says...
>
> You said to me, "Look you dipshit, here's what a moron like you can
> seem to
> understand... [insert valid point here]."
>
> Dipshit?!?! Why did you call me a dipshit? I assaulted no-one. Just
> presented an idea that you or anyone else may disagree with. I sure did
> misjudge you.
>
>
Calm down Henry, Gerry was just demonstrating that it's difficult, if
not impossible, to seperate the message from the delivery. You'll notice
that he only applied this device to the first paragraph. I'd say that he
made his point.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
tom walls
>
> The Epi ES-175 copy I had for a while was OK but I like the sound of the
> Samick more.
>
>
>
pups, too.
bob r
at castl...@ev1.net wrote on 9/15/06 2:53 AM:
> Dipshit?!?! Why did you call me a dipshit? I assaulted no-one. Just
> presented an idea that you or anyone else may disagree with. I sure did
> misjudge you.
Henry, I really don't think he was calling you a dipshit. Gerry was trying
to say that when a person uses insults and name-calling in the process of
making an otherwise valid point, it's very hard to get past their methods
and focus on whatever the point was. I don't blame you for being upset,
though - I had to read his post a couple of times to be sure of his intent.
--
Bob Russell
Web - http://www.bobrussellguitar.com
CDs - http://www.cdbaby.com/all/bobrussell
Soundclick - http://www.soundclick.com/bobrussell
Henry Moon
> not impossible, to seperate the message from the delivery. You'll notice
> that he only applied this device to the first paragraph. I'd say that he
> made his point.
> --
> Tom Walls
> the guy at the Temple of Zeus
Thanks Tom.
But I'd say he missed the point. I propose that, altho difficult, it's
a worthy goal to try and learn from someone's info.....even if that
info comes from a jerk.
Segregation of thought. Worthy.
And I am ..(in whatever paragraph)..a "dipshit"...or a "moron"... to
NO-ONE unless
1. I had it coming.
2. they are good friends of mine.
3. or we are kiddin around
Gerry qualifies for none of the above!
.
But I am grateful to you for even involving yourself for a good
purpose.
Thanks again, Tom.
Henry
Des Higgins
"tom walls" <tw...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f745f26f...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
> In article <eede5d$fge$2...@news.datemas.de>, nos...@nowhere.net says...
>>
>> The Epi ES-175 copy I had for a while was OK but I like the sound of the
>> Samick more.
>>
>>
>>
> Still delighted with my Epi ES175. $500 brand new. I'm okay with the
> pups, too.
I am lusting after one.
Sadly I cannot buy direct from us or it would be cheap with current exchange
rate.
I can get one delivered to Ireland for around 600? (includes VAT tax).
If I buy one and I am not happy, can I be rude to you on the newsgroup?
Des
Henry Moon
trying
> to say that when a person uses insults and name-calling in the process of
> making an otherwise valid point, it's very hard to get past their methods
> and focus on whatever the point was. I don't blame you for being upset,
> though - I had to read his post a couple of times to be sure of his intent.
> --
> Bob Russell
> Web - http://www.bobrussellguitar.com
> CDs - http://www.cdbaby.com/all/bobrussell
> Soundclick - http://www.soundclick.com/bobrussell
Thank You, Bob.
Henry
Todd Lainhart
Henry Moon wrote:
> You said to me, "Look you dipshit, here's what a moron like you can
> seem to
> understand... [insert valid point here]."
>
> Dipshit?!?! Why did you call me a dipshit? I assaulted no-one. Just
> presented an idea that you or anyone else may disagree with. I sure did
> misjudge you.
>
I understood immediately what he was trying to say and how he was
presenting it - it was "[insert valid point here]" that is the clue
that this wasn't directed to you or anyone in general, but was making
the point that bile mixed with valid points is still insulting.
Pretty effective argument.
tom walls
dazzh...@hotmail.com says...
Oh, abolutely. In fact, it's groupthink!
tom walls
castl...@ev1.net says...
myself in the foot.
Sean
> You said to me, "Look you dipshit, here's what a moron like you can
> seem to
> understand... [insert valid point here]."
>
> Dipshit?!?! Why did you call me a dipshit? I assaulted no-one. Just
> presented an idea that you or anyone else may disagree with. I sure did
> misjudge you.
>
> I wanted to express an idea and exchange ideas, not to defend Wamble or
> anyone in the entire universe. No Sir, you are not following me at
> all. You must be angry at something or someone else.
> I've followed your posts enough to know that I thought you were a
> thinking man. That's why I wanted your view. Not a pool hall pissing
> contest.
You might want to start by reading some Jonathan Swift.
RickH
If we would all just learn to use these text "emoticons" more none of
this would happen. :') Whats the emoticon for sarcasm?
tom walls
pass...@windcrestsoftware.com says...
>
> > Always ready to stick my nose in, Henry! I also specialize in shooting
> > myself in the foot.
> > --
> > Tom Walls
> > the guy at the Temple of Zeus
>
> If we would all just learn to use these text "emoticons" more none of
> this would happen. :') Whats the emoticon for sarcasm?
>
>
>
Gerry
> You said to me, "Look you dipshit, here's what a moron like you can
> seem to understand... [insert valid point here]."
>
> Dipshit?!?! Why did you call me a dipshit? I assaulted no-one. Just
> presented an idea that you or anyone else may disagree with. I sure did
> misjudge you.
Sorry I missed this response. I don't think your a dipshit, I think
you're a very pleasant fellow and enjoy your company, I was trying to
make a point.
> I wanted to express an idea and exchange ideas, not to defend Wamble or
> anyone in the entire universe. No Sir, you are not following me at
> all. You must be angry at something or someone else.
> I've followed your posts enough to know that I thought you were a
> thinking man. That's why I wanted your view. Not a pool hall pissing
> contest.
Apparently you were not capable of stripping my insults (even though
they were said in jest to make a point), from my idea. And that was,
that people can't strip personal insults ouf of discussions and just
leave the "good part".
> The errant mindset referred to in my first post is one that cannot
> separate the message from the messenger.
What we think of the messenger is not important unless the messenger
makes US the subject of the discussion. Then, as these discussion
usually disintegrate we are discussing nothing BUT the messengers.
That's what happens if you mix insults with "valid points". You begin
discussing one another. Just as you will do next.
> "What kind of information starts
>> with a "look asshole" and ends with a "if that's okay in your part of
>> the Ozarks"
> Maybe someone said that to you. it wasn't me. Or, God forbid, were you
> saying that to me?
That's a tone of condescension. Which is feels like an insult even
though it may not be.
> You re-read my post when you are clear headed. You must see that I did
> not get personal....and you did. Why? I don't know. Just who in the
> hell do you think you are?
> You must be down to your last argument.
> Again, Gerry- unless you are just having a bad day--
> I can't think of another thing I want to hear you say.
See how quickly we begin discussing one another?
> If you insist on getting personal, bring it on.
> Otherwise, you leave me alone.
> Did you understand that.
Sorry your feelings were hurt, I was trying to makea point and
apparently made it better that I imagined.
When others call each other liars and racissts, it makes the episode
above like swatting flies. That's why Wamble is a stone in the shoe of
rmmgj. It is most certainly NOT my responsibility to cull out the
"good points" from his droppings.
Gerry
> But I'd say he missed the point. I propose that, altho difficult, it's
> a worthy goal to try and learn from someone's info.....even if that
> info comes from a jerk.
> Segregation of thought. Worthy.
I heard and understood and disagree. I think allowing a jerk a "pass"
on his behavior in order to find a "valid point"--well what if there
isn't a point you consider valid. Is it only THEN that we have done a
disservice by not teaching them manners?
> And I am ..(in whatever paragraph)..a "dipshit"...or a "moron"... to
> NO-ONE unless
> 1. I had it coming.
> 2. they are good friends of mine.
> 3. or we are kiddin around
>
> Gerry qualifies for none of the above!
Again, and finally, I insults were there as an illustration. I think
your insults are directly intended though, right? Well that's how it
works: somebody (else) calls sombody (else) a liar and a racists.
Exactly what is the good point you might, as an example, find in that
discussion? None whatever.
Gerry
belches out his insults, purportedly with some unnamed utility. (I've
followed his scat for years and never found one valuable piece of
information he has bestowed.) Then we fight among our selves. He is a
social desease.
Since his unconcionable behavior in his "no white person was involved
with the invention of jazz" argument I kill filed him and will never
ever let his ass out of the cage without a public apology at least to
Tom Brown. I see shards of his posts only when quoted.
I'm back to using my old newsreader which an only kill topics with
difficulty. I will do the difficult task each and every time somebody
starts another "We Love Doug" topic like Goodbye, Doug, and "Doug and
Tom" and I suppose I'll have to kill others when his bile becomes it's
flagship.
Whether you think a grave injustice has befallen our poor lad, or you
think him only one measure up from a psychotic: every second you spend
yammering about him is a waste of your day.
See you in the "uncool" topics...
Roger Houston
"Gerry" <some...@sunny.calif> wrote in message
news:2006091508252511272-somewhere@sunnycalif...
> It is most certainly NOT my responsibility to cull out the "good points"
> from his droppings.
This metaphor conjures up a most unappetizing picture in a dung beetle-ish
sort of a way.
Kid Kool
thread. Do I win vauable prizes?