OT - Reading and Evolution
rich...@gmail.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/magazine/03Braille-t.html?ref=magazine
on blindness, and on the rapid disappearance of Braille in favor or
various language based strategies (eg, computer generated voices),
which now means that one ot ten blind people are currently learning
Braille.
The article is fascinating in a number of ways - how soceity thinks of
blindness, how Braille was developed, and in general how literacy is
changing as a concept. I think it is worth reading for any of those
interests.
It is also, of course, highly interesting (although it doesn't address
the issue) to think about it in terms of reading music, a very complex
system of notation which requires a high level of abstraction.
One interesting issue emerges, although the article doesn't focus on
it. That is, the idea of reading and the theory of natural selection
in evolution. Obviously, for those who can't read, I don't question
evolution, but I am never comfortable or convinced on the theory of
natural selection, and believe it to be no more than a theory which
has some areas of accuracy, but is also drastically overextended.
The fact is that reading is only 6,000 or so years old. (Just as a
side light, the alphabet as such was only imported into Ancient Greece
at some point between 700 and 100 BCE, largely, it is thought, to
organize the Homeric Odes, which until then had been entirely oral;
what is fascinating is that although the Greeks seemed to think about
almost everything, you cannot find, at least now, a single reference
in any Greek commentary to the importation of the alphabet, and the
difference it would have made to society.)
We also know that the mere process of reading seems to make for
certain structural changes in the brain; in other words, when you take
illiterate people, even as adults, and teach them to read, there are
observable changes in brain structure (and remember that the brain
loses much, but not all, of its plasticity fairly early on in
development).
What is largely unknown at this point (as far as I know) is how
different alphabets (some of which are very odd to our eyes - have you
ever seen Georgian? (the country, not the peanut farmer)) and even the
symbols used by Chinese, for example, might make a difference in the
brain, much less is there, or can there ever be, any knowledge of how
the brain might be developed diffferently by 'reading', if, instead of
analyzing and aggregating individual letters into words, we were
living in Egypt or Central or South America two to four thousand years
ago, and using pictographs or glyphs or quipa to read.
Again, in reading music (which developed as a written system in the
West, ignoring tablature and so on, less than a thousand years ago),
is the brain change the same or different, and are different parts of
the brain utilized? (except if you are a violist).
Is 'reading' music even the same as 'reading' words, and if so, is it
more like reading an alphabet, a series of symbols, or something else
entirely?
I don't see how natural selection can account for this complicated
skill at all. I don't know of a single scientist who would think that
there could be evolutionary change within such a short time, virtually
across humanity. Yet, I think if alien scientists (let's say, people
from California), landed on the planet without knowledge of our
history and culture, but armed with the Theory of Natural Selection,
they would probably come to an understanding of reading and the theory
of the development of the skill of reading that was so wrong as to be
comical. They could assumably substantiate their conclusions by
looking at human brains, and let's pretend that they had access to
brains of humans ten thousand years ago; their false conclusions would
even be more outlandish, and yet better 'supported' by the evidence
from what natural selection tells us happens, and why (to take a
simple and obviously over-distorted example, natural selection 'tells
us' that giraffes have longer necks because they were grazing for food
higher and higher up, which grazing, and which nutrients, gave the
longer-necked giraffes a competitive advantage in reproduction.)
The problem with natural selection as a theory, or one of the
problems, is that it is based on a post hoc, propter hoc kind of
reasoning, and my ultimate objection to it (there are many, and I am
certainly not alone in questioning it - I wouldn't know how to do it
unless I had read real scientists who question it) is that it is not
science at all, but rather a kind of religion - a teleology - which is
imported into science to 'explain' things we really can't explain, by
making reference to what we know. In other words, we know that
giraffes eat leaves high up, we know they have longer necks,
therefore...... (again, a terribly simple and distorted example).
But a giraffe's neck could have evolved for all kinds of reasons,
including simply as being ancillary to something else which WAS the
basis for the change, and we will never "know" that scientifically. We
will just be 'guessing' it, and increasing the myth of certainty of
human knowledge, by telling ourselves that natural selection accounts
for the change, and that we know what was selected for. This is
exactly what our aliens would do, wrongly, in terms of trying to
understand reading (which may not really be understandable by the
human mind, for example) and relating it to the 'theory' of natural
selection.
The aliens would be even more wrong, I think, if they tried to develop
a natural selection theory based on reading music.
I am NOT talking about mere skills here, which are not necessarily
subject to evolution (although some scientists and quasi scientists
now try to apply evolution to such cultural patterns), but about very
fundamental cultural elements which have clear correlates in the
brain. There must be something in our brains that lets us be able to
read words and read music, obviously, so I think that reading is a
legitimate inquiry for evolution. One would certainly argue that
literacy increases ones competitive advantage in reproduction, all
joking aside.
I look forward to Paul's corrections <g>, and any other corrections
and comments on the article, which is well worth while.
Dorme Riposa
wrote:
> The New York Times Magazine has an article this week, here
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/magazine/03Braille-t.html?ref=magazine
>
> side light, the alphabet as such was only imported into Ancient Greece
> at some point between 700 and 100 BCE, largely, it is thought, to
> organize the Homeric Odes, which until then had been entirely oral;
>
I'm a person from California. I must ask you what you mean by
"sometime between 700 and 100 B.C.E.," given the widespread presence
of Greek inscriptions from the Archaic period (pre-500):
(or just search Google Images for "greek inscriptions archaic")
and from the classical period (500-323 B.C.) too numerous to cite.
Most of Ancient Greek history took place between 700 and 100 B.C. It's
a long span of time.
dav
Dorme Riposa
> On Jan 4, 4:37 am, "richer...@hotnail.com" <richer...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The New York Times Magazine has an article this week, here
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/magazine/03Braille-t.html?ref=magazine
>
> > reading is only 6,000 or so years old. (Just as a
> > side light, the alphabet as such was only imported into Ancient Greece
> > at some point between 700 and 100 BCE, largely, it is thought, to
> > organize the Homeric Odes, which until then had been entirely oral;
>
> I'm a person from California. I must ask you what you mean by
> "sometime between 700 and 100 B.C.E.," given the widespread presence
> of Greek inscriptions from the Archaic period (pre-500):
>
>
> (or just search Google Images for "greek inscriptions archaic")
>
> and from the classical period (500-323 B.C.) too numerous to cite.
>
> Most of Ancient Greek history took place between 700 and 100 B.C. It's
> a long span of time.
>
> dav
Oh also, it's the two Homeric epics, which have 24 books each, not the
Homeric Odes, which don't exist. There are Homeric hymns but not odes.
dav
rich...@gmail.com
typo - it is 700 - 1,000 BCE. I would have thought that was obvious.
However, my year of 700, which was in the first example, still was
pretty correct. I have seen no figures that indicate that the alphabet
came into Greek society much before 800 BCE, and only one speculation
that it may have entered Greek society in any form as early as 1200
BCE. The fact that you note so many inscriptions at the 500 BCE period
is part of what is so strange about the whole importation; in one
historical instant there is no writing, and in a blink of an eye,
historically speaking, the alphabet is diffused and no one thinks
about it anymore - it is as if it has 'always' existed. My
understanding is that this only could happen because it was
essentially imported, with some changes, from other societies. There
is no evidence that I know that it developed 'on its own' in Greek
soil. Your point here is appreciated as a minor typo, but my earlier
date was not likely off by much in any case. Are you missing the
larger point?
Your second point seems pettifogging, although I appreciate the
detail; I was not writing for an audience of scholars, and there are
none here. I doubt that anyone didn't know what I was referring to,
which is the Illiad and the Odyssey. There are certainly enough
references to the Illiad and Odyssey where odes and epics are used
interchangably, even if in pure classical scholarshp they are called
'epics', and in any case there is a question as to whether these are
epics or 'books' (not in the concrete sense). There is also a question
as to the authorship of the hymns (actually, there is no question
anymore - I don't know of any source that would refer to them as
written by "Homer"), although they are called that. It is a completely
open point as to whether there was a "Homer"; the evidence of the
development of oral narratives in the Balkans and what was previously
Yugoslavia has tended to suggest there would not have been.
I appreciate the proofreading, but these are minor or non-existent
points, and I would be curious about whether you have read the article
or thought about it.
> dav- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pat
>
> We also know that the mere process of reading seems to make for
> certain structural changes in the brain;
=============
Bien sur -- you've got millions of those little neurons pumping irony
at one time -- how could it be otherwise?
Pat
rich...@gmail.com
<g>
Time for a moose-burger.
Pat
======================
I'm not sure I understand your argument here, but you seem to be
saying that the fact that humans began to read only a few thousand
years ago is an argument against 'evolution' or 'natural selection.'
If that's what you're saying, I don't buy it.
Reading, while of consummate importance, is only one type of abstract
thinking that has developed and expanded over time, but I don't think
reading is linked to 'evolution' any more than are the ability to
calculate with numbers or to play chess, or to write music, or to
understand the movements in the heavens. Reading is a tool which was
invented for an important purpose, and being an almost universally
useful tool, it spread rather quickly (in terms of evolutionary time)
over many societies in most of the world. I'm prepared to believe
that reading, like other mental activities, can stimulate certain
areas of the brain, but I don't believe, for example, that 20th
century babies are born with significantly different brains than 15th
century babies or 5th century BC babies. They are brought up in
different worlds, with vastly different stimuli, and will learn
different things in different ways, but I don't think that the
physiology of the brain itself has greatly 'evolved' over the last two
or three millennia.
Or am I misunderstanding your whole line of thought?
Pat
Dorme Riposa
wrote:
Everything you say about "importation" and the problem of a historical
Homer is now common knowledge. There was no need for you to mention
any of it. The original scholarship, by the way, was done by Milman
Parry, a graduate student at Berkeley, several generations ago. (Don't
take the Wikipedia article about him too seriously. I have held in my
hands the original of his Berkeley M.A. thesis, which already outlines
his views.)
Also, the sudden adoption of the Greek alphabet, as an improvement
over Linear B, is not mysterious at all. Think of the invention of
calculus, which within less than a generation took over the
mathematical expression of physical laws. Nobody ponders why. The
efficiency of the method explains completely the rapidity of the
transition.
I have never seen the books of the Iliad and Odyssey referred to as
Odes. It would be like referring to Aida as being by Monteverdi
instead of Verdi.
A happy New Year to you, REG.
dav
rich...@gmail.com
and I certainly agree on most of what you are saying in response.
What I am getting to is that natural selection as an explanatory model
is often misleading, in that it makes assumptions it can never
validate in a teleological way (the necks of the giraffes). Darwin, I
believe, got to natural selection by looking at how farmers bred
animals, and that has been criticized before and much more clearly
(and better) by others.
Evolution is separate from natural selection, and a number of
scientists are not comfortable with it. Stephen Jay Gould, although he
is not a model for me in a lot of ways, invoked punctuated equilibrium
as a 'booster' for natual selection. Evolution is a 'fact', even if we
don't really understand how it works, but natural selection is a
theory at best, and not often a very good one; it is often misleading
in important ways.
If aliens came down (how can you not rise to the bait about
California? what a disappointment) and looked at reading, they would
say what you say (and I agree with everything you are saying, by the
way), but using our current ideas on evolution AND natural selection,
I think they would posit a 'reading gene' (understanding 'gene' to be
a catchall term, much like Ode), and they would say that there was a
'reading gene' that only some of our ancestors had had, and that for
it now to be so ubiquitously spread among humanity, it must have had
survival and reproductive value.
Now, is there such a gene? Maybe, maybe not. But in the absence of
knowing the brief history of reading, I submit that an alien (like
humans studying animals, or people preh-historically) would make
assumptions that there was, based on behavior or structure (hunting
or fighting, or having two eyes in front, or being upright), and they
would think that the gene (which shows itself now in reading, but
before showed itself in eveything you say), developed.
Might the aliens be right? Maybe. But my point was the theory of
natural selection (or at least, one theory of natural selection) would
mislead you completely as to what you were really looking at. It might
have been easier and clearer if I had spoken about a 'reading gene' at
the beginning, but I thought that was too abstract to be clear.
I am not sure if this helps or not?
> Pat- Hide quoted text -
Pat
>
> - Show quoted text -
==============
It strikes me that my post wasn't very clear either. I believe in
'evolution' as a general concept. But I don't think that the fact that
very few if any humans read 3,000 years ago, that only a tiny
percentage read 2,000 years ago, only a slightly larger percentage
read one thousand years and a much much larger percentage of them read
today tells us much of anything about the merits of the arguments for
and against evolution.
Most creatures have much shorter life spans than humans. It is
conceivable to me than two or three thousand years is enough time for
natural selection to have a significant affect on a species of
butterfly, say. But not on a primate, with a life span whos life span
is scores of years not scores of hours.
Incidentally, I stumbled across something I thought fascinating the
other day. Many people are familiar with the fact that great colonies
of monarch butterflies migrate more than a thousand miles southward at
the end of summer, and then return to the exact same locations the
following spring. They have probably been doing this for thousands of
years.
What I didn't know, and find remarkable, is that it takes three or
four generations of Monarchs to accomplish each migration -- that none
of the millions of monarch butterflies that descend on the Bakersfield
Ca area (for example) each spring, are the same butterflies that left
the year before. They are the grand-children or great grand-children
of those that flew away. It's difficult to understand how the young
ones know how to find the very same poppy fields (in the case of
Bakersfield) that their ancestors left behind. I'm thinking of going
up there this spring to research the issue.
My current theory is that a few of the leaders carry really, really
tiny road maps that are passed down from generation to generation.
Pat
edo...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I was so pleased to see these long dissertations upon reading RMO this
morning. In addition to being utterly boring and wildly OT, it is
bound to escalate into a battle royal. I hope not, but we shall see.
Is this done on purpose, or just a very frequent accident that
continues to occur?
Ed
rich...@gmail.com
Thanks for the New Year wishes. Same of course to you, in all good
feeling.
I wasn't saying that my recounting of it was original. I am not sure
of the provenance of the development of knowledge on the importation
of the Greek alphabet, but my knowledge of it doesn't come from anyone
at U of C, but rather from some British studies and things from France
in translation. I am not home at the moment, but hope to dig them out
later. In any event, I wasn't using Wiki for any of this.
Where we seem to be talking at cross purposes, which we do so often
(sigh), is the importation. I don't think that you can liken the
appearance of the Greek alphabet to the development of math. As far as
I know, and here I would be glad to be corrected, before the
importation of the alphabet, the Greek cities were largely purely
oral. They did not have, largely, a prior alphabet (and you are right,
obviously, on Linear B, which I had forgotten about but I don't think
anyone suggests is was spread throughout Greece).
So what you have (and correct me if I am wrong) is one island culture,
even if predominant, that has a script. Then the Dark Ages, and
nothing (though nothing probably overstates it). Then, the alphabet as
such is imported, those works by Homer are systematized, and writing
exists, without, in most of the cities, any precursor. In fact, I've
read some theories that the alphabet was brought in specifically to
systematize (a bad word) Homer!
I have looked at Wiki just now for the little precis on Linear B, and
I don't think that what I am suggesting is different from that.
So, isn't it really phenomonal? No alphabet in most of Greece,
certainly mainland Greece, a script that had very limited uses in
Mycenae, then that script disappears completely, and then out of
'nowhere', really somewhere, an alphabet is introduced, and no one
ever seems to comment on the change. The Greeks wrote about almost
everything they experienced, but seemed to have nothing to say about
this amazing cultural change. That's my point, I think.
All best and thanks for the reminder on the Linear.
Richard
Dorme Riposa
Driving through clouds of Monarch butterflies is an amazing
experience. Unfortunately, it results in the death-by-windshield of
thousands of them.
dav
rich...@gmail.com
is so impressive.
I think that natural selection reads out of development everything
that is conceivably interesting, and turns it all into a kind of 19th
century utilitarianism/rationalism that suggests an ultimate and
perfectable sense of cause and effect. I don't believe any of this,
and I think it theoretical over-reaching from a scientific point of
view, perhaps to 'combat' religious fervor. I think that evolution, as
such, and without the pretense of natural selection as an explanation
for so much, would be a much more comprehensible idea for a lot of
people who resist it because the two are confused. (Again, obviously,
I believe in evolution, and Sarah is quite tolerant of it when I speak
with her about it. I try to explain it as regime change.)
I am sure that there is some explanation (even if there's no
explanation about why they would want to be near Bakersfield), but how
fascinating to think that it would be transmitted, I assume, to all
the Monarchs.
All best
Pat
>
> Driving through clouds of Monarch butterflies is an amazing
> experience. Unfortunately, it results in the death-by-windshield of
> thousands of them.
>
> dav-
============
Es verdad. Hence the expression auto-da-fe, which has been so
misunderstood by most non-Californians.
Pat
rich...@gmail.com
But some of us prefer auto-de-fee.
Dorme Riposa
Bury knife, as the English would say...
dav
Pat
Ed, wildly OT it may be, but so it was advertised. And it can't have
been utterly boring to everyone, or it wouldn't have generated so many
responses.
it is > bound to escalate into a battle royal.
Possibly, but there is at least a slight chance that this year's
battle royals will not lead to an attempted REGicide.
It is my understanding that a number of rmo-ers have resolved - and I
believe it is correct to say that this is the first year for which
that can be said -- not to attempt to strangle Richard in 2010. Not
being a saint, I have not yet taken that pledge myself, but I think it
is to my credit that I am seriously considering it.
<g>
Pat
rich...@gmail.com
I don't understand why your own group isn't good enough for you. Are
you not letting people here join?
My own feeling is very similar about your literally countless Tucker
posts, combined with your anti-anyone-who-threatens-Tucker posts. I
actually consider many of them to be OT, because they are only
incidentally about opera - they are really about you and Tucker and
your personal idealization of him. I ignore them unless I have
something to say about Tucker's singing, because I consider the group
to be for all, not because I consider them to be about 'opera'.
Although you are not entitled to any explanation, I will give you one.
I consider the people on this group to be really bright and witty and
to have a background I don't have, and I consider it really a resource
(although I don't like that word, it sounds very mechanical) for a
lot of stimulating thinking. For example, my Hitchcock post was
equally OT, and I got a couple of really great responses that I never
would have known about. I got some great responses, that were really
helpful to me, on my writing about children's books. On this line of
posts, there are always some sparks, unfortunately, with dav and me,
but I would never have thought about the Linear B without him making
the comments.
I wish I felt as much insight from many of the Tucker posts.
Is it possible that you are overmoderating your group? Could people be
Tucker/Merrill anaesthetized?
Richard
Richard
> Ed- Hide quoted text -
Ancona21
Boring to some - absorbing to others, Ed. In any case it is clearly
labeled "OT". Where's the problem with that?
A21
Ancona21
wrote:
> Ed,
>
> I don't understand why your own group isn't good enough for you. Are
> you not letting people here join?
>
> My own feeling is very similar about your literally countless Tucker
> posts, combined with your anti-anyone-who-threatens-Tucker posts. I
> actually consider many of them to be OT, because they are only
> incidentally about opera - they are really about you and Tucker and
> your personal idealization of him. I ignore them unless I have
> something to say about Tucker's singing, because I consider the group
> to be for all, not because I consider them to be about 'opera'.
>
> Although you are not entitled to any explanation, I will give you one.
> I consider the people on this group to be really bright and witty and
> to have a background I don't have, and I consider it really a resource
> (although I don't like that word, it sounds very mechanical) for a
> lot of stimulating thinking. For example, my Hitchcock post was
> equally OT, and I got a couple of really great responses that I never
> would have known about. I got some great responses, that were really
> helpful to me, on my writing about children's books. On this line of
> posts, there are always some sparks, unfortunately, with dav and me,
> but I would never have thought about the Linear B without him making
> the comments.
>
> I wish I felt as much insight from many of the Tucker posts.
>
> Is it possible that you are overmoderating your group? Could people be
> Tucker/Merrill anaesthetized?
>
I almost wrote something to Ed along the same lines, but then it
occurred to me that he is hard-wired, Tucker-wise, much like those
Monarchs that find the special tree in Mexico, i.e., he has no choice.
(No offence, Ed)
A21
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
wkasimer
> I was so pleased to see these long dissertations upon reading RMO this
> morning. In addition to being utterly boring and wildly OT, it is
> bound to escalate into a battle royal. I hope not, but we shall see.
> Is this done on purpose, or just a very frequent accident that
> continues to occur?
Ed, when I found your group boring and repetitious, I unsubscribed.
If you are so aggravated by the boring, off-topic postings on RMO, I
suggest that you stop reading RMO and concentrate on your own group.
Bill
edo...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not at all. It's just that you have proven time and time again that
you can turn vicious on a dime. All one has to do is look as recently
as a day or two ago. These threads aways seem to turn to that. My
group is a very friendly, chatty place lately, full of very friendly
and nice people. Anyone may join, and Tucker and Merrill have hardly
come up at all, as a matter of fact.
I would say that this, and other of these OT "discussions" are almost
always between two people, you and Pat. Today Dave joined in, but he
seems to have stopped, thank goodness. I think that he, too, knows
just how vicious you can become with virtually no provocation. All one
has to do is disagree with you. Can an Obama blast be far behind? And
that will always lead to your perceived "enemy of the day" being
accused of gay bashing, almost always, even if not a word was written
about the subject.
As for any Tucker/Merrill post, at least it is about opera. You are
the obsessed one among the two of us. You are obsessed over Obama,
making gratuitous remarks, and anyone who dares to disagree with you
politically, which is just about everyone on the list.
I think Andre said it perfectly in his post about you which you
conveniently ignored.
You are further obsessed about me and my group, and the continuous
nasty remarks you make. At least Andre has the nerve to call it what
it is. It is unmitigated gall and nerve, ane the incredible
presumption that this is YOUR group. Your absurd posts continue to
stifle many others who simply don't post because of your bullying
tactics.
Other than that, your posts are just fine. You make the LT and Charlie
of old look positively tame by comarison.
I shan't be checking any e-mails again til late tonight, as I
sometimes have better things to do with my time than posting thousands
of words about nothing. Perhaps you love to post OT because your opera
posts are almost always completely ingnored.
The one that was titled, I believe, "Boeing, boeing, gone" was
particularly bad, and I read two lines, and said to myself, "boring,
boring, gone" as it received, I believe the deserved zero responses.
We can keep this up or not. It's up to you, as you think everything is
on this list. All your cheap shots about Tucker-Merrill, or anything
else pertaining to me or my group are just that. Cheap shots. They
reflect much more on you than they do on me.
I say grow up or shut up. And perhaps you should count my "Tucker
posts" compared to your OT posts that end in war. You will find that
over the past many months, yours outnumber mine by at least 10 to 1,
and, again, whether you like them or not, my posts that you don't like
are about opera, aren't they. Have a nice day.
Ed
rich...@gmail.com
ago, and that was that. I couldn't deal with all the repetition of the
same stories, I couldn't deal with all the same problems you kept
having with employees and everyone else who turned on you over and
over, and I just kind of withdrew. I left your group, being very clear
why, and I guess I thought that would be ok and not alter our
relationship, but it obviously did. I tried to keep up personal
contact with you, but it was essentially the same discussion and the
same interests from you over and over. I made our personal meetings
less and less frequent, and our phone calls briefer, and obviously
that wasn't appreciated. The last time I met you for dinner, after
maybe a dozen insistent requests from you, it was just terrible for
me, I was bored stiff, and I left after half an hour, making, I
suppose, a not completely believable excuse. I would have been smarter
and better to just say 'no' to the dinner invitation in retrospect,
but you couldn't stop asking, and finally I felt guilty
I am sure it is both insulting and incomprehnsible to someone to be on
the wrong end of it, but that's the way it was. You are never going to
forgive me. But nothing else has changed, other than your 'opinion' of
me, now that you feel I have rejected you and your group.
But you cannot let it go. I had to tell you forcefully, privately, not
to email me further privately, and what you immediately started doing
were these posts about me publicly. I do strongly suggest you stop
this, and simply not respond with your 'thoughts' about my posts. Your
dime store psychoanalysis of me is just going to create problems if it
continues.
It really is harassment, and you need to stop it. I take it seriously.
> posts" compared to ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
wkasimer
> My group is a very friendly, chatty place lately, full of very friendly
> and nice people.
Is Lenny there? Please give him my kind regards.
> I think that he, too, knows
> just how vicious you can become with virtually no provocation. All one
> has to do is disagree with you.
I've certainly disagreed with Richard about any number of things, and
never felt threatened by him.
> As for any Tucker/Merrill post, at least it is about opera.
Not really, Ed. As Richard politely pointed out, they're really about
you.
> It is unmitigated gall and nerve, ane the incredible
> presumption that this is YOUR group.
Ed, I think that you're projecting here. Richard posts here,
sometimes at length, about a variety of topics. He enjoys the back-
and-forth repartee. He likes to express his views - what on earth is
wrong with that?
> Your absurd posts continue to
> stifle many others who simply don't post because of your bullying
> tactics.
Name one person who is witholding valuable postings because of
Richard's presence here.
> Other than that, your posts are just fine. You make the LT and Charlie
> of old look positively tame by comarison.
Ed, your memory is very, very short.
> I shan't be checking any e-mails again til late tonight,
I'll alert the media.
> as I
> sometimes have better things to do with my time than posting thousands
> of words about nothing.
Still scouring the WWW looking for stuff about Domingo, eh?
> Perhaps you love to post OT because your opera
> posts are almost always completely ingnored.
Well, unlike you, Ed, I've never seen Richard whine and complain when
he gets no response.
Honestly, Ed, if there's one person who thinks that RMO is his
personal playground, it's you. Even Charlie and Lenny have given up
on that.
BTW, ever heard of a killfile? You could killfile both Richard and
Pat, and you'd never have to read their boring posts again.
Bill
wagnerfan
news:8cebea5b-11f8-423c...@v7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
Ed - back in the prehistoric era, Richard and I got into it and it was messy
and ugly - but we have talked it out, reconciled and now I think we really
appreciate each others posts and, I dare say, personalities. So you see it
can be done - put a period to the bad stuff, forget it and move on. Believe
me, you'll be glad you did. Wagner fan
edo...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Of course, you totally misrepresent everything to make yourself look
good and correct. I will not lower myself to your depths. So it's
harassment? Then sue me, please, and stop with the stupid threats.
Nothing of what you wrote (which of course you shouldn't have written
anyway, since you wrote, or rather, misrepresented personal matters)
is even close to the truth. Should I respond in kind, and say things
about you that I have personally witnessed? I don't plan to, but if
you keep up with your current output, I may change my mind. You asked
me not to e-mail you exactly once, and I have not since then. I only
did at that time because I genuinely felt sorry for you. You have to
be the dumbest intellegent person I have ever known.
This is what you always resort to, it seems. A character assasination
of someone who strongly disagrees with you and your tactics here on
this list. Shoot away. I am bulletproof to your bullets. You are and
long have been a polarizing force here on RMO. I just never said so
earlier, since we had been friendly. Perhaps I should have said it
sooner. Nothing you can write about me, true or made up, can change
this, or can change what I wrote in my previous post.
You are obsessed.
Ed
Pat
wrote:
>
> It really is harassment, and you need to stop it. I take it seriously.
>
================================
I think everyone just needs to take a deep breath. If Ed wants to
post about Richard Tucker a lot, I have no problem with that at all
(which doesn't mean that I promise to read every word he writes on
that subject). I much prefer somewhat repetitious positive posts to
repetitious negative ones. And if he feels that, since this is an
opera group, we shouldn't have so many off-topic posts, he's entitled
to his opinion. Personally, I don't see that the OT posts greatly
incovenience anyone, and, while it's true that they have occasionally
become hostile in the past, so too, have some of the on topic
threads. Personalities will trump topics every time.
Over the years there have been any number of OT threads that I found
interesting -- years ago GP Dave and Mark D Lew and Andre were among
the principal contributors. More recently, I suppose it has been
mostly Richard and Paul C and me, with others occasionally injecting
comments on the subjects that interest them. It's probably too much
to say that those socio/political threads on controversial subjects
have uncovered facts or data that changed anyone's mind, but they
certainly serve to illuminate how strongly some people feel about
certain issues. Just as one example I was surprised by the intensity
of Richard's feelings on gay rights issues (ditto Paul on some aspects
of the Israeli/Palestine question). It's a good thing, I think, that
I (we) understand how strongly others feel about issues, whether we
agree on every point.
In any event, I enjoy spirited, even "loud" discussions about matters
of interest. But most of us, myself included, could do better at
framing our arguments without using button-pushing language (words
like 'vicious' 'obsessed' and 'harassment' come to mind at the
moment) which are virtually guantareed to make someone angry.
Pat
edo...@gmail.com
I agree with you Pat, but feel compelled to point out one big
difference between my posts in this thread and those of Richard.
Mine, like them or hate them, were comprised only of matters that were
here for all to read right on RMO. Richard immediately mentioned
"private" matters, which, I believe, he almost entirely fabricated. I
could also sink that low and mention many "private" matters that
Richard might find very unappealing, but I purposely choose not to do
so. I prefer to address things that are here on the list for all to
see, and either agree or disagree with.
I think that is a major difference. Unless further provoked unfairly,
this is all I will post on this disasteful matter.
Ed
edo...@gmail.com
I never said Pat's posts were boring Bill, so please don't put words
into my mouth. Pat is affable and friendly, and I have never seen him
viciously go after anyone. If you haven't seen Richard go viciously
after a number of people, than you simply did not read the posts.
Between the two, I wish he would whine and complain about unanswered
posts than nastily attack others. At least the unanswered posts are
about opera, yes? And if you could fine a number of those compaints
from me in recent months or more, I would truly like to see them.
Generalizing doesn't really say very much, IMHO.
Many of my posts go unanswered, and I have learned that there is
nothing I can do about it. I am sure I have commented in the past, but
very little if at all in recent times.
Keeping things musical, I love A21's mystery voice posts, but I hate
the fact that I rarely know any of them! You, on the other hand, know
many of them, and I am always impressed and fascinated at your great
knowledge of singers from the past who, in most cases, are not very
well know.
Ed
Pat
>
> I never said Pat's posts were boring Bill, so please don't put words
> into my mouth. Pat is affable and friendly,
>
> Ed
===================
Hey, don't forget humble. You'd have to search far and wide to find
anyone who is even in the same league with me as far as humility goes.
My humility is the stuff of legend. In fact, if there were an Olympic
Gold Medal for humility, I'm sure I'd deserve it.
Pat
F R
into my mouth. Pat is affable and friendly,
Ed
===================
Hey, don't forget humble. You'd have to search far and wide to find
anyone who is even in the same league with me as far as humility goes.
My humility is the stuff of legend. In fact, if there were an Olympic
Gold Medal for humility, I'm sure I'd deserve it.
Pat
Add "funny" to your medal display. By now I am sure you've bronzed your
gold medals for preservation sake.
Frank
edo...@gmail.com
Senza dubio!!
Ed
Pat
> I never said Pat's posts were boring Bill, so please don't put words
> into my mouth. Pat is affable and friendly,
> Ed
> ===================
> Hey, don't forget humble. You'd have to search far and wide to find
> anyone who is even in the same league with me as far as humility goes.
> My humility is the stuff of legend. In fact, if there were an Olympic
> Gold Medal for humility, I'm sure I'd deserve it.
> Pat
> ----------------
> Add "funny" to your medal display.>
Nah, I can't claim credit for that. Sable the Wonder Puppy writes all
my material.
She's quite a dog. Can I tell you a quick story about her?
Early riser that I am, I went to bed about 9:00 PM on New Year's Eve
(TFK always goes to a church service which lasts from about 10PM to
1:00 AM on New Year's Eve). But I was awoken a few hours later by an
odd noise.
I rolled over in bed groggily and rubbed my eyes and saw a familiar
lttle black ball of fur lying on the corner of the bed watching the
TV. It was Sable. She had a party hat on her head and was busily
blowing one of those noisemaker thingies. Anderson Cooper and Kathy
Griffin were counting down the new year in Times Square, and Sable
managed to pawp the cork on a bottle of champagne just as the count
reached one.
As the cork bounced off the far wall, Sable glanced over at me and saw
that I was awake. She rose up, scratched herself for a moment, and
then she spun around as dogs do, revealing a couple of champagne
glasses lying on the bed. Then she poured each of us a glass and we
toasted the New Year together.
Pretty amazing, huh? I had no idea that she knew that champagne
should be served in flutes.
Pat
rich...@gmail.com
reference into the story, although it was quite a wait.
clem
Bill - as to your remark "Is Lenny there..." I hardly need to tell
you that he and I do not get along. He pretty much ignores me, even
when I post on-topic in agreement (or disagreement) with him. But he
is a valuable contributer to Ed's group, where he shows an impressive
depth and breadth of knowledge in areas that particularly interest
me.
Ed and Richard are two people whom I like very much. I would really
appreciate their either ending their feud, or keeping it off this
board. The quantity of really interesting strings has been steadily
increasing here lately, and that includes some of the off-topic ones.
Paul
rich...@gmail.com
as have the number of people participating (and lurking, but who write
in about posts). When you see the number of posts on football, you
know that better days are ahead. Football, of course, means American
football, the sport for Freedom Fries without ketchup.
As to Ed, I am not only prepared to avoid him, I have no interest in
hearing from him or responding to him, and it's been that way for
months. I have ignored him, or tried to, but he has been able
eventually to get under my skin, which I am sure is my failing. I
think that there should not be a problem if he can stop himself from
lecturing about threads he isn't a part of, and if he can accept that
if he posts comments, or You Tubes in particular about singers, then
any comment about the performer or work is acceptable in response. I
certainly will not, wiith anyone, not express my opinion on a singer
or a performance if I feel I have something to say (even if I don't,
lol), and if Ed is going to feel attacked or that there is a 'hidden
agenda', to use his term, when I do so, then he will be unhappy and
the group will be in something else like today.
An internet group should be more than big enough for many people.I
have no interest in Ed whatsovever. I only want him to have no
interest in me, and that has not happened yet.
All best
> Paul- Hide quoted text -
Pat
wrote:
> Paul, I certainly think the number of interesting posts has increased,
> as have the number of people participating (and lurking, but who write
> in about posts). When you see the number of posts on football, you
> know that better days are ahead. Football, of course, means American
> football, t
=============
Not to be disputatious, but 'football' means 'American football' to
less than 5% of the people on the planet.
Pat
clem
Um, Pat? You once suggested that I missed the "whimsy" (IIRC) of
something you posted? You did not catch that the "of course" was less
than serious?
Let me stick my neck out a bit, and get back the the giraffes. It is
no longer alleged in any modern text (that I checked while writing my
last science book) that taller giraffes were "selected" because they
were better able to reach food. The latest suggestion is that male
giraffes indulge in an aggressive behavior called "necking" ( I am
not making this up, as Dave Barry would say) in their competition for
mates. The male with the longer neck is more likely to win, and thus
more likely to pass his genes on to the next generation. If this
seems pretty absurd to you, I agree with you. But what do I know; I
am a chemist.
Pat, is "I was awoken" correct? Isn't it "I was awakened"? Or are
both acceptable? Just curious...
Paul
rich...@gmail.com
Middle Ages? I think in a few hundred years, we will see an advance.
Though not in the Giants defense, I don't think.
On Jan 4, 8:50 pm, Pat <pfin...@fenceonline.com> wrote:
Pat
> > Not to be disputatious, but 'football' means 'American football' to
> > less than 5% of the people on the planet.
>
> > Pat
>
> Um, Pat? You once suggested that I missed the "whimsy" (IIRC) of
> something you posted? You did not catch that the "of course" was less
> than serious?
Evidently not. <g> In my defense, may I observe that our friend
Richard has said goofier things than that in all seriousness?
> Let me stick my neck out a bit, and get back the the giraffes.
Okapi me, please, on all your camelopardic research.
It is
> no longer alleged in any modern text (that I checked while writing my
> last science book) that taller giraffes were "selected" because they
> were better able to reach food. The latest suggestion is that male
> giraffes indulge in an aggressive behavior called "necking" ( I am
> not making this up, as Dave Barry would say)
I don't know much about Dave Barry. Might he have stolen that line
from Anna Russell? Or the other way round? "I'm not making this up,
you know" was one of the great laugh lines in her Ms Russell's
wonderful Ring parody. {Note, please, that once again yours truly has
tried manfully to steer the conversation back on topic.}
> Pat, is "I was awoken" correct? Isn't it "I was awakened"? Or are
> both acceptable? Just curious...
I checked several websites and it's not entirely clear. "I was
awakened" is certainly acceptable. I''m not so sure about "I was
awoken." It's confusing because wake/woken, awake/awoken, and awaken/
awakened are three separate verbs which all mean pretty much the same
thing.
In any event, you have awoken my wrath, by questioning the syntax of
the innocent terrier, who, (or possibly whom) as I made very clear
earlier, writes all my material.
Pat
LT
> Honestly, Ed, if there's one person who thinks that RMO is his
> personal playground, it's you.
No, kazzie, actually it's you and, as always, your pack of equally
smug, self-entitled fellow nonentities.
Try to get that right, won't you? Not that we'd really expect you to.
> Even [Charlie and] Lenny have given up
> on that.
Huh?
Before you continue deluding yourself with your baseless self-
congratulations, kazzie, why not tell us how I could have 'given up on
that', when you and your ilk are the ones who've always perpetrated
it, kazzie?
Oh, I'm not speaking for Charlie, but you needlessly, and stupidly,
chose to evoke *my* nickname (for once, spelling it right, to our
utter amazement).
As to my visit here, well, it just so happens that no one owns this
group, least of all you and your cohorts.
Then again, there are the silly little gatherings that you *do* 'own',
btw, which are, in fact, Nada, ergo not very tempting (Note: I've seen
each, and couldn't possibly have been less impressed.)
Y'see, I was reliably alerted to your typically dopey little remark
(quoted above), and sure enough, you're still the same snide, truth-
challenged little pustule you've always been.
>BTW, ever heard of a killfile?
BTW, I'm just wondering, kaz: how can Ed, or anyone here, have failed
to 'hear of a killfile', when you and several of your nitwit co-bozos
have never stopped bragging about yours?
Isn't it a shame, though, that you never really learned to use it?
>:)))>
>You could killfile both Richard and
> Pat, and you'd never have to read their boring >posts again.
Hmm.....
Tell you what, kazzie: Why don't you try following your own
repetitiously offered 'advice', and then you'd never have to read
*any* boring posts again? -Especially your own.
> Bilious Boor
Yes, we know that. We most definitely do.
Kindly...etc.,
L. 'More Suggestions Upon Request' T.
LT
One bird of a feather addressing another:
> Bilious, - as to your remark "Is >Lenny there..."
Oh, that's just the kaz's heated, futile obsession, nothing more,
nothing less.
>I hardly need to tell
> you that he and I do not get >along.
But you may need to
'tell' yourself of that fact. It seems you don't really believe it; or
don't want to.
>He pretty much ignores me
Confidentially, I "pretty much" wish I'd done that, now -as
well. :)))
But, fortunately I can always return to that most-rewarding policy.
In fact, I'll resume it right now.
LT, focusing on what's worthy, rather than what.... isn't.
edo...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
What a wicked post to make to rekindle things. I have less than no
interest in you.It's your posts that I object to here. How many times
do you feel you need to make the same invalid point? Do you really
think the reason I posted here instead of writing you privately was
because I was afraid to write you privately? Wrong. It was because I
didn't want to, after your recent behavior. A post such as you just
made can only rekindle everything bad. You paint yourself as an
innocent person who was duped by an evil person. Sorry, it won't
float. Just leave ME alone and stop making posts like this one you
last made.
Anyone who can read can see for themselves just how vicious you can
be. I didn't write the vicious posts- you did. In recent months you
have written them to FR, Dave, and now me. There have been others in
the past, who simply do not post here anymore.
I am not going away, and any comment such as this or negative
reference to me will be met by a post from me. I suggest you either
filter me or don't read me. The only reason I am posting this is so
you don't seem like little Mr. Innercence, which you are most
certainly not. You write as if you're a babe in arms. Yes, it is your
failing, as you admit. Stop trying to undo what cannot be undone and
just go from here, and leave me out of your posts.
Ed
clem
Who. In grateful memory of Ms. Tasman, from whom I learned proper sin
tax.
Paul
L T
From: the gas-mire (quoting Ed, incontextually, as gassy kaz will do):
>I was so pleased to see these long dissertations upon reading RMO this
morning. >In addition to being utterly boring and wildly OT, it is bound
to escalate into a battle royal. I >hope not, but we shall see.
And we saw. Did we ever!
>Is this done on purpose, or just a very >frequent accident that
continues to occur?
And speaking of accidents, one of Nature's, evidently, here's gassy
kazzie:
>Ed, when I found your group boring and >repetitious
Ahh, now *there's* a clear case of projection!
>I unsubscribed.
Oh, how terrible! Boo-hoo, and all that! :)))
'Tis wondered:
Can Ed's Group ever recover from this?
>If you are so aggravated by the boring, off->topic postings on RMO
Alas, the aforementioned boring, off-topic postings are by none but
gassy-kaz and each of its boor-buddies. "Quel surpreezie!!" :)))))
>I suggest that you stop reading RMO and >concentrate on your own group.
Hmm.... a 'suggestion' the kaz and its ilk have yet to follow, which
proves beyond any doubt, that any 'suggestion' from the kaz is worth a
soggy three-dollar bill - with kazzie's ghoulie countenance emblazoned
(replete with its cheapy periwig) on the front.
A US Historical Fact: The Liberty Bell (pictured on the reverse side)
was never as cracked as kazzie.
>Bilious Boor
-And don't we know it! :)))))
clem
Since you criticize Bill for quoting Ed "incontextually", you might
have included, while quoting me, the ENTIRE sense of my post.
Here is is: "Bill - as to your remark "Is Lenny there..." I hardly
need to tell
you that he and I do not get along. He pretty much ignores me, even
when I post on-topic in agreement (or disagreement) with him. But he
is a valuable contributer to Ed's group, where he shows an impressive
depth and breadth of knowledge in areas that particularly interest
me." The post is entirely complimentary to you. The first two
sentences, which are all you quote, were included only the strengthen
the impact of the last sentence, which you omit.
I meant well then, and I mean well now. I have nothing but respect
and gratitude for your contributions to Ed's group.
Paul