Oh, it is SO hip ..
RAF
btw - for the guy who said Albert King *hated* Hendrix, check his version of
"Red House."
BlackMonk
"RAF" <righta...@aol.comfortable> wrote in message
news:20030525125421...@mb-m16.aol.com...
> ... to bash Clapton in favor of lesser known players.
>
Wouldn't you say it's also arrogant to think that the only reason a person
could prefer "lesser known players" to Clapton is a desire to appear hip?
RAF
> Wouldn't you say it's also arrogant to think that the only reason a person
could prefer "lesser known players" to Clapton is a desire to appear hip?
If someone thought that I might agree. I haven't seen that yet.
BlackMonk
"RAF" <righta...@aol.comfortable> wrote in message
Then why bring it up?
jweber
"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote
> "RAF" <righta...@aol.comfortable> wrote in message
> news:20030525182715...@mb-m17.aol.com...
> > > Wouldn't you say it's also arrogant to think that the only reason a
> person
> > could prefer "lesser known players" to Clapton is a desire to appear
hip?
> > If someone thought that I might agree. I haven't seen that yet.
>
> Then why bring it up?
heh.
personally, i think clapton is a talent completed wasted nowadays. he hasn't
lost his ability to play meaningful music, but he sure doesn't _display_ any
meaningful music.
"tears in heaven" was his last gasp, which is rather strange, since the guy
can really _play_. the three chord blues progression on every song is a bit
tedious. maybe in the yardbirds days it gave some creedence to the "white
boys" ripping off blues tunes by muddy waters and such, but clapton needs to
be more creative.
i've lost confidence in the guy now. if you listen real close to the early
Clapton style of guitar playing, you do _feel_ the passion. it's purely
instinctive and refreshing, but I dont hear the passion anymore, and most
musicians know what i mean. its just a feeling that clapton's going through
the motions.
passion in your guitar playing can't be taught or learned. either you have
it or you don't. i dont think clapton has it anymore.
BlackMonk
"jweber" <jweb...@new.rr.com> wrote in message
news:barhuk$rr9$0...@pita.alt.net...
>
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote
>
> > "RAF" <righta...@aol.comfortable> wrote in message
> > news:20030525182715...@mb-m17.aol.com...
>
> > > > Wouldn't you say it's also arrogant to think that the only reason a
> > person
> > > could prefer "lesser known players" to Clapton is a desire to appear
> hip?
>
> > > If someone thought that I might agree. I haven't seen that yet.
> >
> > Then why bring it up?
>
> heh.
>
> personally, i think clapton is a talent completed wasted nowadays. he
hasn't
> lost his ability to play meaningful music, but he sure doesn't _display_
any
> meaningful music.
>
> "tears in heaven" was his last gasp, which is rather strange, since the
guy
> can really _play_. the three chord blues progression on every song is a
bit
> tedious. maybe in the yardbirds days it gave some creedence to the "white
> boys" ripping off blues tunes by muddy waters and such, but clapton needs
to
> be more creative.
>
During Clapton's Yardbirds days, he really was just learning to play and
they were a bunch of kids bashing out cover versions. (which resulted in a
lot of fun records and one brilliant moment in "I Ain't Got You.") The
Yardbirds greatness mainly comes from the Beck period, when they were as
progressive as anyone around.
jweber
"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote
> The
> Yardbirds greatness mainly comes from the Beck period, when they were as
> progressive as anyone around.
yeah, i forgot, clapton wasn't with the yardbirds that long before cream.
jeff beck definitely was a major factor in the progression of the yardbirds.
i love the first hint of psychedelia on a record i forget the title to.
when i saw the yardbirds do a Who impersonation in an old B movie, i was
hooked.
elg110254
Herbie Hancock as well. Saw Clapton back in ' 87,with Mark Knofler on rhythm
guitar. Was like watching glorified guitar school ! But hey,Eric's lived the
blues;so he can play any damn way he wishes! Imagine reading David Gilmour
admitting he played on auto-pilot during Pink Floyd's Division Bell tour! Now
that's blasphemy!!!
jweber
"elg110254" <elg1...@aol.com> wrote
> Think the movie yer tryin' to remember wuz called "Blow Out", and also
featured
> Herbie Hancock as well.
yup, that was it. thanks.
> Saw Clapton back in ' 87,with Mark Knofler on rhythm
> guitar. Was like watching glorified guitar school ! But hey,Eric's lived
the
> blues;so he can play any damn way he wishes! Imagine reading David Gilmour
> admitting he played on auto-pilot during Pink Floyd's Division Bell tour!
Now
> that's blasphemy!!!
gilmour is a mere shadow of what he once was. once again, he's a great
talent with very little motivation. he did a radio interview on the BBC a
few years back, and he was content to sit around the house with the wife and
kids. more power to him, but as far as guitar players go, he's in the "where
are they now" file along with Spinal Tap.
Clapton is a genius, and I guess I expect more from him.
BlackMonk
Stroll On, from Blow Up. It was actually a pretty arty film for the time,
based on a story by Julio Cortazar. (VERY loosely based)
Trivia note: according to Keith Relf, while Page is in the footage of the
band, the guitar on the record is probably Beck overdubbed.
BlackMonk
"elg110254" <elg1...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030525214240...@mb-m10.aol.com...
> Think the movie yer tryin' to remember wuz called "Blow Out", and also
featured
> Herbie Hancock as well.
That was a later DePalma movie that had a similar plot.
jweber
"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote
> Trivia note: according to Keith Relf, while Page is in the footage of the
> band, the guitar on the record is probably Beck overdubbed.
and it's ironic that page was a studio musician uncredited on the who and
kinks albums!
now relf is quite a piece of work. i read he died in the bathtub holding a
microphone!
BlackMonk
>
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote
>
> > Trivia note: according to Keith Relf, while Page is in the footage of
the
> > band, the guitar on the record is probably Beck overdubbed.
>
> and it's ironic that page was a studio musician uncredited on the who and
> kinks albums!
>
But Page makes up for that by giving himself credit for stuff he didn't
play. He actually had a very minor role on both albums.
> now relf is quite a piece of work. i read he died in the bathtub holding a
> microphone!
>
That's a pretty well circulated rumor, at least among the few people who
know who Relf is, but according to his family and Jim McCarty, it's not
true. He was playing a guitar that wasn't grounded.
Incidently, if you ever see a good review of his last band, Armageddon, and
want to check them out, don't. I've had the album for over a decade and
still haven't been able to listen to the whole thing. Progressive Heavy
Metal claptrap. I'm always amazed when people like it. (yet, it's probably
still better than Steve Marriot's solo album from the same period. 76 was
not a good year for british pop stars from the sixties.)
Brother Michael
"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:bas01k$2tamn$1...@ID-133514.news.dfncis.de...
I bought the Armageddon album that came out in the mid 70's - I really liked
it back then. Haven't listened to it in years.
BlackMonk
"Brother Michael" <msta...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:QNfAa.17507$e11....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> and
> > want to check them out, don't. I've had the album for over a decade and
> > still haven't been able to listen to the whole thing. Progressive Heavy
> > Metal claptrap. I'm always amazed when people like it. (yet, it's
probably
> > still better than Steve Marriot's solo album from the same period. 76
was
> > not a good year for british pop stars from the sixties.)
>
> I bought the Armageddon album that came out in the mid 70's - I really
liked
> it back then. Haven't listened to it in years.
>
Yeah, a few people have told me they really liked it. I just don't get that
at all.
RAF
>> > Wouldn't you say it's also arrogant to think that the only reason a person
could prefer "lesser known players" to Clapton is a desire to appear hip?
>> If someone thought that I might agree. I haven't seen that yet.
>Then why bring it up?
I didn't. Read carefully, critically. I have no quarrel with anyone's
preferences. If your Uncle Ted is your fave guitarist of all time, rock on.
RAF
band, the guitar on the record is probably Beck overdubbed.
>now relf is quite a piece of work. i read he died in the bathtub holding a
microphone!
He had been told to clean up his act.
BlackMonk
"RAF" <righta...@aol.comfortable> wrote in message
Didn't you start this thread? If not, I apologize. If so, you brought it up
in the subject heading.
robertandrews
>when i saw the yardbirds do a Who impersonation in an old B movie, i was
hooked.
Blow Up? Not exactly a B movie (except for the title).
Greasy Feast
A great film! As they blow up the picture that was taken innocently, we
finally see... (I won't give it away)! Highly recommended!
RAF
>> >> > Wouldn't you say it's also arrogant to think that the only reason a
person could prefer "lesser known players" to Clapton is a desire to appear
hip?
>> >> If someone thought that I might agree. I haven't seen that yet.
>> >Then why bring it up?
>> I didn't. Read carefully, critically. I have no quarrel with anyone's
preferences. If your Uncle Ted is your fave guitarist of all time, rock on.
>Didn't you start this thread? If not, I apologize. If so, you brought it up in
the subject heading.
I made the initial post. The first follow up changed the direction of the
thread. Reading is Fun.
BlackMonk
"RAF" <righta...@aol.comfortable> wrote in message
The initial post was the one that suggested people bashed Clapton because of
the hipness of doing so. Or are you saying that there was no subject heading
in this thread until the first follow up?
RAF
the hipness of doing so.
Close enough. <sigh>
>Or are you saying that there was no subject heading in this thread until the
first follow up?
The followup presumed to tell me that I thought that was the *only* reason
someone would prefer others to EC.
BlackMonk
"RAF" <righta...@aol.comfortable> wrote in message
I repeat, if it isn't the only reason, why bring it up? I'm not going to
stop prefering better guitarists because it's hip to do so.
RAF
Because there was a lot of Clapton bashing going on. I'm sorry this is so
difficult for you.
>I'm not going to stop prefering better guitarists because it's hip to do so.
Who said you should?
BlackMonk
"RAF" <righta...@aol.comfortable> wrote in message
> >I repeat, if it isn't the only reason, why bring it up?
>
> Because there was a lot of Clapton bashing going on. I'm sorry this is so
> difficult for you.
>
It's only difficult because you make no sense.
If it's not the only reason, then there's nothing signficant about it.
Douglas North
Just like smoking isn't the only cause of lung cancer, therefore it's
insignificant. So I say, "Light up, folks!!"
BlackMonk
"Douglas North" <Pample...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25543-3E...@storefull-2337.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> >If it's not the only reason, then there's >nothing signficant about it.
>
> Just like smoking isn't the only cause of lung cancer, therefore it's
> insignificant. So I say, "Light up, folks!!"
>
Oh, there's a good comparison. Millions of people die from not liking
Clapton.
Crowfoot
Face it BlackMonk, you've lost the argument. The original poster had a
perfectly valid point, and if your only objection is that he shouldn't
have brought it up then I suggest you simply read a different thread.
There are lots out there.
Miguel B Good
He was great with Cream.
After that he slipped into mediocrity.
Douglas North
Clapton.
No, I'm just using your logic. If something is not the ONLY cause of a
situation, it is insignificant. Didn't you say that? Oh wait, yes you
did:
Dale Houstman
I wouldn't go that far: his first solo album is fine, and Derek and the
Donminoes' Layla is fantastic.
dmh
BlackMonk
"Crowfoot" <crow...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:5bb8bca3.03052...@posting.google.com...
Face it, Crowfoot. He didn't make any point, valid or not. My objection is
that he was being insulting by suggesting that people who prefer other
guitarists to Clapton do so for anything other than musical reasons.
BlackMonk
If the two situations aren't analgous, then there's no basis for comparison.
The two aren't analgous.
Crowfoot
> > No, I'm just using your logic. If something is not the ONLY cause of a
> > situation, it is insignificant. Didn't you say that? Oh wait, yes you
> > did:
> >
> > "If it's not the only reason, then there's nothing signficant about it."
> >
>
> If the two situations aren't analgous, then there's no basis for comparison.
>
> The two aren't analgous.
They're perfectly analogous. Of course, since you don't even know the
word -- it's not anal-gous -- I wouldn't expect you to understand the
concept.
.Tna Yzarc!..
oh look mommy, the lamer has resorted to a spelling flame!
LOL! what a wanker!
BlackMonk
A spelling flame from an idiot. How surprising.
Now, tell me how many people died from not liking Clapton, or how medical
cause and effect is identical to a subjective judgment about musical
quality, and I might reconsider my appraisal of your mental powers.
Maybe not, though.
Crowfoot
> Now, tell me how many people died from not liking Clapton, or how medical
> cause and effect is identical to a subjective judgment about musical
> quality
The point is perfectly obvious to anyone who can reason logically, and
who understands what analogies are all about. Or analgies, as you
prefer.
RAF
Even when it's explained you remain clueless.
RAF
Lot's of people other than BF post here, therefore you are insignificant.
RAF
comparison.
>The two aren't analgous.[sic]
Sick.
RAF
guitar player. I think he gets slagged because of his pop sounding stuff. Not
sure.
Also because it is oh SO hip to knock the top guy. :)
.Tna Yzarc!..
"RAF" <righta...@aol.comfortable> wrote in message
no one's knocking Mr King.
BlackMonk
The point is stupid. Only a superficial cretin would think otherwise.
Correction, a superficial cretin and asshole who feels the need to not only
make pathetic spelling flames, but to obsess over them.
BlackMonk
"RAF" <righta...@aol.comfortable> wrote in message
> >Oh, there's a good comparison. Millions of people die from not liking
Clapton.
>
> Even when it's explained you remain clueless.
That's because it was a stupid thing to say.
BlackMonk
"RAF" <righta...@aol.comfortable> wrote in message
> >"If it's not the only reason, then there's nothing signficant about it."
>
> Lot's of people other than BF post here, therefore you are insignificant.
Sorry I don't think every bit of drool that falls from your mouth is a pearl
of wisdon.
BlackMonk
"RAF" <righta...@aol.comfortable> wrote in message
Yes, you are. And stupid.
>
BlackMonk
"RAF" <righta...@aol.comfortable> wrote in message
That's just as dumb now as it was the first time you said it.
Douglas North
'Course they are. You said that nothing is significant unless it is the
SOLE cause of something else. Smoking is not the SOLE cause of lung
cancer. Some get it from working in coal mines, etc. So therefore, by
your logic, smoking isn't significant. Just because no one died in the
second situation (Clapton disliking) doesn't mean you can't compare the
two
Douglas North
Well, if you're gonna be THAT way I'm not playing anymore.
Mom, he's LOOKING at me!!
Douglas North
If it was so stupid, then it's funny how everyone else is jumping over
themselves trying to explain it to you, while you seem to be the only
one complaining about it.
If it was stupid, then it was begat by another stupid comment, one whose
logic you seem to still want to defend, yet distance yoruself from at
the same time.
RJK
I scraped analgies off my fish tank this morning.
BlackMonk
"AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs" <AllYourBaseAreB...@newsguy.com>
wrote in message news:bbaja...@drn.newsguy.com...
> On Sat, 31 May 2003 10:14:49 -0400, in article
> <bbae3j$7co9s$1...@ID-133514.news.dfncis.de>, "BlackMonk" stated:
>
> Is it *that* much better to burn out than to fade away? ;o)
Yes.
But I haven't self-destructed this time, just lost patience.
BlackMonk
> >That's because it was a stupid thing to >say.
>
> If it was so stupid, then it's funny how everyone else is jumping over
> themselves trying to explain it to you, while you seem to be the only
> one complaining about it.
>
If it wasn't stupid, then no one would have to explain it to me.
> If it was stupid, then it was begat by another stupid comment, one whose
> logic you seem to still want to defend, yet distance yoruself from at
> the same time.
It was stupid, and no one has yet explained to me any value in the whine
that "people prefer other guitarists to Clapton because it's hip to do so."
And no one ever WILL be able to explain the value of that comparison because
it was foolish and without base.
And anyone who has to not only resort to spelling flames, but also harp on
them is pathetic.
BlackMonk
But the two situations, preferring other guitarists to Clapton and getting
cancer for a given reason, aren't comprable. One is subjective, and one is
objective.
BlackMonk
"AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs" <AllYourBaseAreB...@newsguy.com>
wrote in message news:bbaim...@drn.newsguy.com...
> On 31 May 2003 02:38:36 -0700, in article
> <5bb8bca3.03053...@posting.google.com>, crow...@excite.com
stated:
passed
> over the event horizon into a black hole. :o)
>
He doesn't need your help. He can make pathetic spelling flames all by
himself.
RJK
"Comprable"?
RJK
> "Douglas North" <Pample...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:10824-3E...@storefull-2334.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> > >That's because it was a stupid thing to >say.
> >
> > If it was so stupid, then it's funny how everyone else is jumping over
> > themselves trying to explain it to you, while you seem to be the only
> > one complaining about it.
> >
>
> If it wasn't stupid, then no one would have to explain it to me.
Unless....no, I won't say it.
BlackMonk
"RJK" <RJKe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bc2f4e1d.03053...@posting.google.com...
I admit it. You found a typo in my post. I left out the first "a" in that
word.
What an intelligent, perceptive person you must be.
And to think that of all the lesser causes you could devote your time to, of
all the things you could waste your brilliance upon, you managed to avoid
being distracted and managed to realize what's truly important, to correct
my spelling on usenet.
Bravo. You have lived a life that's truly significant.
Ehtue
>> > If it was so stupid, then it's funny how everyone else is jumping
>> > over themselves trying to explain it to you, while you seem to be
>> > the only one complaining about it.
>> >
>>
>> If it wasn't stupid, then no one would have to explain it to me.
>
> Unless....no, I won't say it.
That's okay. Most are probably thinking it anyway.
-Ehtue
BlackMonk
"Ehtue" <eh...@aa.com> wrote in message
news:O2eCa.1087143$S_4.1098213@rwcrnsc53...
Hmm, I don't remember ever taking any shots at you, yet you felt the need to
join in when someone else was taking one at me. That would make you
something of a jerk, wouldn't it?
Doug Campbell
At least argue about Clapton; that had some merit.
DC
Ehtue
>> >> > If it was so stupid, then it's funny how everyone else is
>> >> > jumping over themselves trying to explain it to you, while you
>> >> > seem to be the only one complaining about it.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> If it wasn't stupid, then no one would have to explain it to me.
>> >
>> > Unless....no, I won't say it.
>>
>> That's okay. Most are probably thinking it anyway.
>>
>
> Hmm, I don't remember ever taking any shots at you, yet you felt the
> need to join in when someone else was taking one at me. That would
> make you something of a jerk, wouldn't it?
I see you were thinking what I thought most probably were. I never
mentioned you, Tom. Why did you think that was a shot at you? ;-)
-Ehtue
Dale Houstman
BlackMonk wrote:
> "Douglas North" <Pample...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:10824-3E...@storefull-2334.public.lawson.webtv.net...
>
>>>That's because it was a stupid thing to >say.
>>
>>If it was so stupid, then it's funny how everyone else is jumping over
>>themselves trying to explain it to you, while you seem to be the only
>>one complaining about it.
>>
>
>
> If it wasn't stupid, then no one would have to explain it to me.
>
>
Occam's Razor: It's not stupid, you are.
BlackMonk
Context. From your statement, it seems I was correct about your meaning, and
hence also about my opinion of your character.
.Tna Yzarc!..
eh, i think you mis-read(!) the thread, tom.
i took A2's comment to be as he says, ie. an affirmation of your remarks.
no biggie, these things happens in the heat of a long day in RMB...:)
Ehtue
I suppose jerks often think it of others.
-Ehtue
BlackMonk
".Tna Yzarc!.." <heb...@helle.co.ukkllk> wrote in message
news:bbc4jc$npk$1...@pita.alt.net...
He never said that.
And since he said "Most are thinking it anyway" in support of someone
disagreeing with me, I don't see how it could possibly be that.
> no biggie, these things happens in the heat of a long day in RMB...:)
>
True. I've even done it on occasion, not here though.
I find the "how do you know I was talking about you, I didn't mention your
name" defense overly cute and disingenuous and the smiley didn't get him off
the hook at all.
BlackMonk
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:3ED98EF2...@citilink.com...
Why don't you take that razor and slash your wrists with it.
Incidently, Occam's razor doesn't apply here. You might want to familiarize
yourself with terms before using them.
Dale Houstman
Actually it does apply: you're assuming that everyone else must be
stupid, but the simplest (and thus probably the most accurate)
assumption would be that only one person - you - is stupid.
Sharpen your wits before you use them.
dmh
ripper
Hey Dale, Tom has WAY more intelligence & wit than you'll ever have.
Now shove that fat head of yours back up your ass you st00pid fuck.
Dale Houstman
Now how could anyone who thinks "Now shove that fat head of yours back
up your ass you st00pid fuck" is a sharp retort be any judge of
intelligence & wit? Your credentials are painted brown.
dmh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
BlackMonk
>
>
> BlackMonk wrote:
> > "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
> > news:3ED98EF2...@citilink.com...
> >
> >>
> >> BlackMonk wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Douglas North" <Pample...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:10824-3E...@storefull-2334.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> That's because it was a stupid thing to >say.
> >>>>
> >>>> If it was so stupid, then it's funny how everyone else is
> >>>> jumping over themselves trying to explain it to you, while you
> >>>> seem to be the only one complaining about it.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If it wasn't stupid, then no one would have to explain it to me.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Occam's Razor: It's not stupid, you are.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Why don't you take that razor and slash your wrists with it.
> >
> > Incidently, Occam's razor doesn't apply here. You might want to
> > familiarize yourself with terms before using them.
> >
>
> Actually it does apply: you're assuming that everyone else must be
> stupid,
No, this has nothing to do with "everyone" else. Only a few people have
expressed an opinion one way or the other, and at least one person has
agreed with me. That's far from enough people to make a determination about
what "everyone" thinks.
but the simplest (and thus probably the most accurate)
> assumption would be that only one person - you - is stupid.
>
Wrong. The question is whether I'm wrong or whether the analogy really is
stupid. Neither explanation is simpler than the other.
> Sharpen your wits before you use them.
>
Seems like a waste of effort if I'm responding to you.
RJK
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
> news:3ED98EF2...@citilink.com...
> >
> >
> > BlackMonk wrote:
> > > "Douglas North" <Pample...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> > > news:10824-3E...@storefull-2334.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> > >
> > >>>That's because it was a stupid thing to >say.
> > >>
> > >>If it was so stupid, then it's funny how everyone else is jumping over
> > >>themselves trying to explain it to you, while you seem to be the only
> > >>one complaining about it.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > If it wasn't stupid, then no one would have to explain it to me.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Occam's Razor: It's not stupid, you are.
> >
>
> Why don't you take that razor and slash your wrists with it.
Can anyone say "meltdown"? Sheesh.
Oh, and that other person was right about who's being stupid.
ripper
Which would be the color of your face if you really *did* shove your fat
head up your ass- you're full of shit.
Your problem is this; while you *do* appear to have a tweak of common sense
& intelligence, you lack any humility whatsoever. Also, you are quick to
pass off your opinion as fact when indeed it isn't. You have no vision
Dale. You stay firmly within the box (and the closet too I suspect).
Here is your *interpetation* of Occam's Razor-
"Actually it does apply: you're assuming that everyone else must be
stupid, but the simplest (and thus probably the most accurate)
assumption would be that only one person - you - is stupid."
The above selective interpetation that you present serves only your purpose
and is very one sided. I present another interpetation- everyone else
really IS stupid (yourself included) and the one person is right.
The Dale Houstman train of thought:
Cattle are mammals and some mammals are dogs therefore cattle are dogs.
Now put your dress on, come knock on my door, and when I answer the door,
raise your dress up to your waist, point down to your winkie and say "this
is what you are" and run off.
Dale Houstman
You just get more and more clever with every post. You've moved beyond
endtable and are slowly approaching stump post. Keep up the good work!
> Your problem is this; while you *do* appear to have a tweak of common sense
> & intelligence, you lack any humility whatsoever. Also, you are quick to
> pass off your opinion as fact when indeed it isn't. You have no vision
> Dale. You stay firmly within the box (and the closet too I suspect).
Yeah: I'm gay. That's it. You're not only an emerging wit, you're a
reifying psychoanalyst also. Multi-talented stump post.
>
> Here is your *interpetation* of Occam's Razor-
>
> "Actually it does apply: you're assuming that everyone else must be
> stupid, but the simplest (and thus probably the most accurate)
> assumption would be that only one person - you - is stupid."
>
> The above selective interpetation that you present serves only your purpose
> and is very one sided. I present another interpetation- everyone else
> really IS stupid (yourself included) and the one person is right.
Very unlikely, but you're welcome to your uninformed opinion.
There's nothing "selective" however about the above statement, since it
doesn't necessarily represent my opinion, but an assessment of what
would be the likeliest set of facts given Occam's Razor, and arising
totally from someone else's rather rude opinion of other people. To me
it's merely a joke. To you, it appears to be just another roadblock on
your way to self-actualizing numbheadediness. But the solution to this
is easy: detour around the barrier and head straight for Dumbville on
the alternate path. It may take longer, but you'll get it.
> The Dale Houstman train of thought:
> Cattle are mammals and some mammals are dogs therefore cattle are dogs.
Now where did I say anything like that, Aristotle?
dmh
Crowfoot
> Correction, a superficial cretin and asshole who feels the need to not only
> make pathetic spelling flames, but to obsess over them.
Ha! You're the one obsessing over it, as I've obviously touched a sore
spot. That's a metaphor, by the way. A metphor to you, perhaps.
BlackMonk
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote in message news
>
> > Correction, a superficial cretin and asshole who feels the need to not
only
> > make pathetic spelling flames, but to obsess over them.
>
> Ha! You're the one obsessing over it,
You know, you really should find something to give your life meaning. Just
for your own sake.
as I've obviously touched a sore
> spot. That's a metaphor, by the way. A metphor to you, perhaps.
A third spelling flame based on a single post. I hope that's some sort of
record. If there are people even more pathetic than you, that would be too
sad to contemplate.
Now go back under your bridge, troll.
RAF
"It" isn't stupid. You just can't read. Proof to follow:
> no one has yet explained to me any value in the whine that "people prefer
other guitarists to Clapton because it's hip to do so."
That quote is your own invention. I never said it.
RAF
guitar player. I think he gets slagged because of his pop sounding stuff. Not
sure.
>> Also because it is oh SO hip to knock the top guy. :)
>That's just as dumb now as it was the first time you said it.
45 posts later and you *still* don't get it.
RAF
cancer for a given reason, aren't comprable. One is subjective, and one is
objective.
Only you, wise one, have inserted *preference* into the argument. Demonstrating
again, you can't grasp the plain words in front of you.
RAF
That's an important first step. However, typing is the least of your problems.
RAF
You were patient?
BlackMonk
"RAF" <righta...@aol.comfortable> wrote in message
news:20030602015229...@mb-m05.aol.com...
Then it's not hip to do so? Why did you say it was?
BlackMonk
"RAF" <righta...@aol.comfortable> wrote in message
Because there's nothing to get.
BlackMonk
"RAF" <righta...@aol.comfortable> wrote in message
> >I admit it. You found a typo in my post.
>
> That's an important first step. However, typing is the least of your
problems.
Yes, I waste too much time responding to morons.
BlackMonk
"RAF" <righta...@aol.comfortable> wrote in message
> >I haven't self-destructed this time, just lost patience.
>
> You were patient?
Very.
Crowfoot
> A third spelling flame based on a single post.
It wasn't about the spelling; it was that your spelling clearly
indicated (twice) that you didn't even know the word, just as your
argument indicated you didn't understand the concept. You were just
completely befuddled by the fact that an analogy could include
references to both a guitar player and cigarette smoking -- a clear
indication, as I say, of your complete ignorance on the whole matter.
RAF
other guitarists to Clapton because it's hip to do so."
>> That quote is your own invention. I never said it.
>Then it's not hip to do so? Why did you say it was?
I didn't. It remains your own invention. Explain it yourself.
RAF
At your level of comprehension everything looks moronic.
RAF
>Very.
"I waste too much time responding to morons" isn't patient.
BlackMonk
"RAF" <righta...@aol.comfortable> wrote in message
> >> You were patient?
>
> >Very.
>
> "I waste too much time responding to morons" isn't patient.
I said my patience ran out.
RAF
You're the one who changed it. I won't explain it yet again. It's clear you
aren't interested in knowing what you're talking about.
RAF
>> >Very.
>> "I waste too much time responding to morons" isn't patient.
>I said my patience ran out.
Is the type font too small for you?
BlackMonk
"RAF" <righta...@aol.comfortable> wrote in message
I never changed the subject heading to this thread.
RJK
> "Douglas North" <Pample...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:10824-3E...@storefull-2334.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> >
> >
> > 'Course they are. You said that nothing is significant unless it is the
> > SOLE cause of something else. Smoking is not the SOLE cause of lung
> > cancer. Some get it from working in coal mines, etc. So therefore, by
> > your logic, smoking isn't significant. Just because no one died in the
> > second situation (Clapton disliking) doesn't mean you can't compare the
> > two
> >
>
> But the two situations, preferring other guitarists to Clapton and getting
> cancer for a given reason, aren't comprable. One is subjective, and one is
> objective.
Uh, it's objective that some people prefer other guitarists to
Clapton, just as it is objective that cancer is caused.
BlackMonk
"RJK" <RJKe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bc2f4e1d.03060...@posting.google.com...
The reason for the preference is subjective. The reason for cancer isn't.
RJK
There's only one reason for preferring other guitarists to Clapton?
RAF
>> You're the one who changed it. I won't explain it yet again. It's clear you
>> aren't interested in knowing what you're talking about.
>I never changed the subject heading to this thread.
There it is - the switcheroo again. The subject of the thread and the subject
heading are two different things. But you know that. What a child.
BlackMonk
"RAF" <righta...@aol.comfortable> wrote in message
You haven't told me how I changed the subject, just asserted that I did.
However, it's inarguable that the person who introduced the idea of hipness
as a reason to prefer other guitarists to Clapton was you.