Honest Discussion on UseNet? Pt II
Significant Pickle
Tom Fletcher wrote:
> Please, elaborate here. Maybe you should do a survey on this newsgroup to
> ask people if they buy the music they DON'T like, just because it has a
> Maiden logo on it. Accepted it is a different thread, please can you
offer
> some valid points to back you up?
Circumstantial evidence: When I bought No Prayer for the Dying, and
listened to it the first couple of times, my opinion was....."Eh. Not that
good for Maiden. BUUUUUUUUT.....better than the mainstream, yeah, that's
the ticket!" That was my excuse for being lazy and not searching for stuff
I'd enjoy more. I forced myself to be "happy" with NPFTD knowing there was
nothing better.
It took some serious honest introspection to realize what I was doing
(honest: not telling myself what I wanted to hear).
Had you confronted me with a post like this at the time, I would have told
you to Fuck Off, and insulted the shit out of you. You'd be a loser 4-year
old with nothing better to do than try to act superior to me....and that's
how I'd respond to all your posts accordingly.
Now, consider: Was I the exception to the rule, with NPFTD? Even close?
> Question : I bought Maiden's Virus single a while ago. I do not like the
> Virus song a great deal, but I bought the CD because it has Sanctuary and
> Wrathchild from Metal For Muthas as b-sides. Did I buy the single like a
> sheep, or because of other factors?
You are absolutely right: I cannot answer this question for you. But I
can offer perspective.
> I believe that some people are intelligent, but still spend their time
> flaming others (I am not saying this is anyone on this NG, I am referring
to
> other NG's). Some of the less intelligent people make some of the most
valid
> points. The bashers with generally abrasive posts nine out of ten times
will
> get the best reply, but this is basically because people over look the
> content. My original reply to your original post was full of attacks
because
> your original post was rather abrasive. Not many people post with the
same
> style as you in this NG.
I figured that out pretty quick ;)
> >No, you said "If you don't like it, go listen to Korn/Coal Chamber".
BIG
> >difference.
>
> Maybe I should have said "If you don't like it, go listen to Country and
> Western"?
It'd be the same thing. Different aesthetic (which you admit below).
> I phrased my reply badly. What I would liked to have got across was:
>
> "I will listen to the music I do because I am exercising free will. I
> appreciate your advertisement for other bands, but frankly I am not
> interested because I am content at the minute. If you do not like the
music
> I listen to, then you should appreciate I am not posting to your
favourite
> band's NG with the abrasive posting style you have come here with. You
> listen to the music you want to, even if I do not agree."
That's content (altho difficult to respond to). Note: it doesn't matter
that it was "polite".....if you inserted the words 'asshole' and
'motherfucker' all over it, it'd be the same, and I'd respond the same.
Response: I can only say that I would appreciate somebody posting to my
'favorite band's NG' with such comments (I'm recognized as too much of a
Troll on alt...metallica, it's wrecked some credibility ;).
I realize that's not what you wanted to hear.
> I am not asking for any argument, I simply am interested in why you
believe
> Maiden is not >quality<. So far you have not given me any valid reasons,
> apart from "it doesn't match up to their old stuff"
In retrospect, I should have stated "relative quality" in my original post.
Iron Maiden's new albums are a bare shadow of their older works. As for
other 'valid' proof, I can only cite musical reasons (are you a musician?).
If you're interested, let me know.
> >Essentially, you are saying that you care more for how "polite" a post
is
> >than the content?
>
> No. I do not say this. Your original post, agreed, has content. BUT its
> provactive manner is not apprreciated.
It wasn't meant to be.
S. Pickle: "I'm not here to tell you what you want to hear....I'm here for
discussion"
> >Note: the content of my "nice" and "mean" posts is EXACTLY the same.
>
> I know. The content of my "mean and flaming" first reply to you, and this
is
> exactly the same.
No. Not even close.....this post is light years ahead of your initial
response.
Please re-read your original very carefully [www.dejanews.com].
> >Remember my statement? "those who are unhappy with the music they listen
> >to....", etc.?
> >You are making a leap of logic (once again) to assume I'm 'attacking you
> >all' by saying that.
>
> If people are unhappy with the music they listen to, I would seriously
hope
> that they have found something else.
Amen.
> If people listen to recent Maiden
> works, are they "not happy"
Regardless of what you may think, I do not pretend to speak for other
individual people. But I offer perspective, so that one can take it and
come to their own conclusion.
Those who read my posts and conclude that I'm full of shit and have nothing
to say, I have no interest in discussing. It may be their honest opinion,
tho.
> >> >Content! Woohoo! :)
> >> Sarcasm? Doesn't work with me. Sorry.
> >
> >That was the least sarcastic thing I've said on this newsgroup so far.
> >Seriously.
>
> This may be the least sarcastic thing on this NG so far, but it may be
the
> ONLY sarcastic comment on this NG?
I'll let you answer this one for yourself.
> >> I have attacked you, then it is from the fact you believe we are all
> >> "sheep".
> >
> >And I have 'proven' that this is not necessarily the case. Right?
>
> You have only realised from replies. (your original post "Your all going
to
> buy it, like well trained animals"??)
a) the word "all" is your addition. Consider the implication of leaving
the sentence intact, but without the word all. Now read
[www.dejanews.com].
b) hopefully, by now, you will see where the original post fits into "the
plan".
> >Almost none. I appreciate your effort to reply mostly to content.
>
> Once again, I can say I have not included any personal attacks to you in
> this post.
None. I appreciate it more than you think.
> >See above ("defensiveness")
>
> The Concise English Dictionary states:
> Defensive: Proper for defence; carried on in resisting attack; in a state
or
> posture to defend. That which defends; state or posture of defence.
>
> Please state why my comments are defensive, and why your replies are NOT
> defensive. This could be rather interesting.
Not yet. First, indulge me a second:
* Look up and post the dictionary's definition of "truth", "good", and
"evil".
Context: I'm attacking the credibility of the dictionary.
> >> If I apologized for all my replies to you, would this make them
alright?
> >
> >You should realize by now that this is not the case. I asked: "you are
> >'calling me' for admitting that I make mistakes?"
>
> The question was : If I apologized for silly replies to you, would you
> forget them?
> If so, you would not be able to use these comments against me later on.
This is aesthetic (a personality issue), but all right: No, I would not
forget them. Just as you should not forget my mistakes.
> >[Simplified]
> >Any time one attack the poster, not the post, is a personality attack.
If
> >you are drawing conclusions (about the poster) that are clearly not
linked
> >to the content of the post, it is dishonest.
>
> Please state your source of information. Or maybe you could explain why
"If
> you are drawing conclusions (about the poster) that are clearly not
linked
> to the content of the post, it is dishonest.". If I were asking you to
piss
> off, how is this a "dis-honest statement"? Explain how this could be made
> HONEST.
Analogy:
Christopher Columbus: "The world must be round, for [dated scientific
theoretical reasons X, Y, and Z"
Local Detractor: "You think we're stupid. You have no idea what you're
talking about"
> >> I don't want a flame war. I would be interested to know your
definition
> >of
> >> "dis-honest". The Concise English Dictionary states it as "Void of
> >honesty;
> >> fraudulent; knavish; perfidious"
> >> How do you know most of my comments are dishonest? I am an individual,
> >and I
> >> think differently to you. Maybe they are dishonest because they do not
> >agree
> >> with you?
> >
> >See above.
>
> Because they are not linked to what has been said already?
> Imagine this in a shop.
> Shopkeeper : "Good morning, would you like your regular newspaper"
> Customer : "Have you got any bananas for sale in here?"
>
> Is the customer making a dishonest statement? There is nothing to link a
> newspaper with bananas.
Your analogy is not very good (constructive criticism), but it definetly
warrants a response:
The customer is making an >irrelevant< statement. Take this analogy from
yours:
Shopkeeper: "I raised the prices of milk by one cent because I figured
customers don't care about the difference"
Customer: "You're ignorant. Why are you saying we're all stupid?"
(personality attack AND dishonesty)
> >The title was "Maiden Sucks?" The question mark--"?"--implies
something,
> >non?
> >
> >Your ommission of the "?" when quoting me was either forgetful
(omission),
> >or dishonest (you changed the nature of the quote to fit an argument).
>
> I did forget, and will apologize.
That's big of you (no sarcasm).
> >> Well, I hope I have settled my side of this situation. Btw, below is a
> >list
> >> of cutting down statements from your original post.
> >
> >Read this entire post, then re-read it. Then, read all other posts I've
> >made thus far (using this one as context, if you will).
> >
> >You will note: my posting "style" is consistent, and I have not made
> >personality attacks (against individuals) ever. You will also note
that I
> >have been accused of both (inconsistency and personality attacks) by
every
> >poster except Tony S (who >disagrees< with me) and D.P.
> >Chalk that up to "dishonesty".
> You have never made any personal attacks? The lying sack of shit comment
> could be viewed as a personal attack. I sure as hell would think of it
as.
> Because you have said above this was not meant to be a personal attack,
> should I forget about it?
Re-read both posts, carefully. Then I'd like you to answer this one.
E.
--
******
"We die and are reborn with each breath,
And for each death; the shedding of a lie,
A truth is born."
--Foundation, "Morning"
Tom Fletcher
I have read both of your replies to my large post enough times to realise
that you are trying to fool me into believe I am lying to myself. There is
no point in carrying on this discussion, at least not on this NG. It has
nothing to do with Maiden, and it certainly is starting to piss people off.
I know some totally empty NG's if you wish to carry on this discussion
there.
First of all, you keep posting the link to DejaNews, and telling me to read
my posts, your posts. Well, my computer is more than capable of saving these
posts. Your link is suggesting to me that you think I am a liar? No. Wrong.
You are in the wrong, I can prove it, if you want proof I shall post it. I
aren't cluttering the NG with big 20+ Kb files.
Second, your comments about Maiden now seem to be "EVERYONE WHO LIKES THE
NEW MAIDEN MATERIAL ARE NOT ENJOYING IT, I DON'T SO NOBODY ELSE SHOULD". Why
not just give it a rest?
Basically, you talk in riddles, and you skip around the truth of my posts so
it pleases you, and then you make your "dis-honest" comments.
There are no examples to back me up in this post, but if you want them, feel
free to ask. Like I have said, I don't want to spoil it for everyone else by
cluttering the NG with irrelevant, large messages.
Tom Fletcher
t...@fletch05.globalnet.co.uk
"Who leads you to the dark secrets?"
Bruce Dickinson
"You haunt me, you taunt me
You torture me back at your lair"
Steve Harris
Tony Szablowski
>Hello Pickle.
>I have read both of your replies to my large post enough times to
realise
>that you are trying to fool me into believe I am lying to myself.
There is
>no point in carrying on this discussion, at least not on this NG. It
has
>nothing to do with Maiden, and it certainly is starting to piss
people off.
>I know some totally empty NG's if you wish to carry on this
discussion
>there.
<Respectful SNIP!>
The whole post, well said, sir.
--
Regards,
Tony