This is how ugly Hurwitz is
Michael Schaffer
http://www.go-brooklyn.com/html/issues/_vol28/28_13/mahler.html
Matthew Silverstein
> Posing with a tam-tam, no big surprise there...
> http://www.go-brooklyn.com/html/issues/_vol28/28_13/mahler.html
Out of curiosity, why are David Hurwitz's looks relevant to anything we
discuss here?
Matty
jrs...@aol.com
The article and photo were of great interest to me: The photo
establishes (to some people's surprise) that DH is not actually a
tam-tam masquerading as a critic, and it also serves as encouragement
that someone so young could own nearly 100 complete sets of Beethoven
symphonies.
--Jeff
Michael Schaffer
Are his views relevant to anything we discuss here?
her...@yahoo.com
Well, yeah, on sofar as they are about music, and they seem to spur
people's discussions - although I have never understood why people get
so upset about what a critic says.
I don't think I have ever read a review of his, but may I add that I
don't think this is a picture of an inordinately ugly person? It's just
a guy. Besides, Stravinsky wasn't particularly pretty either.
alanwa...@aol.com
Michael Schaffer wrote:
> Posing with a tam-tam, no big surprise there...
> http://www.go-brooklyn.com/html/issues/_vol28/28_13/mahler.html
But that size not much use for Mahler unless it is the Tam Tam hoch of
No 2.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Ward F Moron Jr
her...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I don't think I have ever read a review of his, but may I add that I
> don't think this is a picture of an inordinately ugly person? It's just
> a guy. Besides, Stravinsky wasn't particularly pretty either.
Stravinsky wasn't grossly obese.
her...@yahoo.com
In case you don't know, Stravinsky was very short, like many geniuses
of his generation.
But I take it pretty much everybody on this board is 6 foot tall and
irresistibly handsome, which is why they're posting here between dating
supermodels.
Matthew B. Tepper
in news:1151836802.8...@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
> In case you don't know, Stravinsky was very short, like many geniuses
> of his generation.
>
> But I take it pretty much everybody on this board is 6 foot tall and
> irresistibly handsome, which is why they're posting here between dating
> supermodels.
I'm 5'11"....
I agree with the poster who said, "It's just a guy." The aesthetics of a
troll poster are without value; who cares whether they're "attractive" to a
troll? Trolls have occasionally disparaged my looks, which hurts me not
one whit. In fact, I'm glad of it!
Bruckner, who is obviously revered in this newsgroup, didn't look like any
sort of a Cary Grant, you know.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. ~ FDR (attrib.)
Ian Pace
"Matthew B. Tepper" <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns97F44D209D4...@207.217.125.201...
> her...@yahoo.com appears to have caused the following letters to be typed
> in news:1151836802.8...@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
>
>> In case you don't know, Stravinsky was very short, like many geniuses
>> of his generation.
>>
>> But I take it pretty much everybody on this board is 6 foot tall and
>> irresistibly handsome, which is why they're posting here between dating
>> supermodels.
>
> I'm 5'11"....
>
> I agree with the poster who said, "It's just a guy." The aesthetics of a
> troll poster are without value; who cares whether they're "attractive" to
> a
> troll? Trolls have occasionally disparaged my looks, which hurts me not
> one whit. In fact, I'm glad of it!
>
> Bruckner, who is obviously revered in this newsgroup, didn't look like any
> sort of a Cary Grant, you know.
>
Incidentally, has anyone else noticed how few major composers were tall?
Ones I can think of - Liszt (moderately), Verdi (moderately), Rachmaninov
(very), Berg (very). Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Chopin,
Brahms, for example, all short.
Ian (6'3")
tomdeacon
Michael Schaffer wrote:
> Posing with a tam-tam, no big surprise there...
> http://www.go-brooklyn.com/html/issues/_vol28/28_13/mahler.html
Hmmmmmmm.
Hurwitz once said that he had met me.
I think I would have remembered meeting one of Frank Oz's original
models.
Perhaps he was selling hotdogs in front of Lincoln Center?
The thing is: I don't eat hot dogs.
Anyway, the mystery continues.
TD
John Harrington
> Posing with a tam-tam, no big surprise there...
> http://www.go-brooklyn.com/html/issues/_vol28/28_13/mahler.html
There's no shame in being ugly on the outside, and if he just lost some
weight, he wouldn't be so bad. However, if hurwitz were as ugly on the
outside as he is inside, we simply could not look at his picture
without vomiting. And no regimine of diet and exercise will ever fix
that.
J
Todd Schurk
Michael Schaffer wrote:
> Posing with a tam-tam, no big surprise there...
> http://www.go-brooklyn.com/html/issues/_vol28/28_13/mahler.html
What a petty little shit you must be to start such a thread. I'm
thankful that I don't know you . And I pity those who do. Jerk.
masters...@gmail.com
makropulos
What a nasty little post/thread.
Matthew B. Tepper
typed in news:1151858226....@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> 6'3"ers unite!
Spohr was "nearly 6ft 7in tall."
http://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/societies/spohr.html
Bob Harper
> Have I missed National Be-Gratuitously-Offensive Week?
> What a nasty little post/thread.
>
Totally unnecessary and highly offensive.
BTW, I knew Rachmaninov was tall (what was he, 6'4" or 6'5"?), but I
didn't know Berg was tall. How tall was he?
Bob Harper (6'1", having shrunk a half inch or so from my maximum, and
no Cary grant, either :)
record hunter
certainly would. This is how ugly *Schaffer* is.
John Harrington
Yes, I'm sure everybody just loooves you.
J
Michael Schaffer
Bob Harper wrote:
> makropulos wrote:
> > Have I missed National Be-Gratuitously-Offensive Week?
> > What a nasty little post/thread.
> >
> I'm afraid that was my reaction, especially to the original post.
> Totally unnecessary and highly offensive.
You hit the nail on the head: just like many of Mr Hurwitz' so-called
"reviews". The tone he often takes, the deep resentments he harbors
against some artists and which break through in many of his "reviews"
all point to a very unbalanced individual with a lot of issues, of
which his ugliness could be part. He is a little hater, that's for
sure.
But
"
Hurwitz's qualifications to write about Mahler are impeccable.
"I've been listening to [Mahler's music] since I was 12, and I've
performed all of his symphonies except for the Eighth," said Hurwitz, a
percussionist. "So I know it intimately. And some of the chapters are
adapted from liner notes I've written for recordings."
"
Wow, so banging around on percussion instruments in hobby orchestras
qualfies him eminently to pass the kind of judgment he often defecates
on highly accomplished artists? Interesting. Is that *it*? What kind of
professional training does he have?
> BTW, I knew Rachmaninov was tall (what was he, 6'4" or 6'5"?), but I
> didn't know Berg was tall. How tall was he?
Dunno, but he looks fairly tall, at least next to
Webern...http://w3.rz-berlin.mpg.de/cmp/berg_2.jpg
BTW, it's "Rachmaninoff", not "Rachmaninov".
Todd Schurk
As a matter of fact yes thank you.
Ralph
>
> Incidentally, has anyone else noticed how few major composers were tall?
Morton Feldman was tall.
Ralph
Russ and/or Martha Oppenheim
"Ian Pace" <i...@ianpace.com> wrote in message
news:7WQpg.66470$qD.5...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
> Incidentally, has anyone else noticed how few major composers were tall?
> Ones I can think of - Liszt (moderately), Verdi (moderately), Rachmaninov
> (very), Berg (very). Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Chopin,
> Brahms, for example, all short.
>
> Ian (6'3")
>
Prokofiev and Kabalevsky were also quite tall.
Schubert was possibly the shortest of all the 1st-rate composers - 5'1" or
so.
Russ (not Martha)
makropulos
and yet you still choose to read them. I find that odd. I find him a
good deal more perceptive than several other record critics, so I'm
happy to keep reading his reviews, but I can't understand why you
bother.
her...@yahoo.com
a very unbalanced individual with a lot of issues, of
> which his ugliness could be part. He is a little hater, that's for
> sure.
Michael, the Hurwitz pucture you are so obsessed with does not show an
inordinately ugly man. Just a regular guy. So he's got a couple chins,
big deal. I seem to recall a picture you posted of yourself wearing a
pony tail. Lots of people find that objectionable. This is no-win
avenue.
Michael Schaffer
I rarely ever read them anymore. But sometimes, people start
discussions (for instance, here) about interesting recordings and quote
him or other reviewers. In that case, I usually check the review in
order to be able to follow the discussion better. Or people refer to
one of his reviews and ask for a "second opinion". Then it is also
sometimes necessary to read the review. But I don't visit the website
anymore to check for new reviews because I often find them very silly
and unfair. They sometimes happen to agree with my views, for instance,
the apparently general praise for the Staatskapelle Dresden, but then
that doesn't really count because it appears to come from bias rather
than appreciation of the very special qualities of the orchestra. They
certainly have no appreciation and only bias for the qualities of the
WP which makes the reviews of their recordings completely superfluous.
Plus that strange fixation on percussion and the biases they have,
again, against the Viennese and German percussion sections in general,
apprently because they play some instruments sitting down. And since
Hurwitz is a hobby percussionist himself, he seems to think that he
knows better. Weird. I actually asked several worldclass percussion
pros about that, and they all told me, it doesn't matter at all (and so
did Mr Watkins in this very foum).
Michael Schaffer
I never wore a pony tail in my life. Not even a pony tail buttplug.
Allen
Wayne Reimer wrote:
>>In article <1151871975.8...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, her...@yahoo.com says...
> It's gonna a matter of individual perception, of course, but I think
> he's quite a bit more ugly than not ugly. And yes, his appearance
> could have affected on his personality - it's not very sensible to
> pretend that appearance doesn't count.
>
> And no, I'm not great-looking, either.
>
> wr
In my experience, accumulated over 77 years and accompanied by a loss in
height of four inches, inordinately _good_ looks seems to have a greater
negative effect on some of those who possess it, causing them to confuse
appearance with ability. Now let's say that Britney Spears and Jane
Eaglen both should write a review of a classical performance.........
Allen
Norman M. Schwartz
"Wayne Reimer" <wrdslremovethis濃pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f11d0f1...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> he's quite a bit more ugly than not ugly. And yes, his appearance
> could have affected on his personality - it's not very sensible to
> pretend that appearance doesn't count.
>
I don't know about that. If he were concerned with appearance matters, why
would have posed for the picture, or any picture?
norman...@comcast.net
> news:Xns97F44D209D4...@207.217.125.201...
>> her...@yahoo.com appears to have caused the following letters to be typed
>> in news:1151836802.8...@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> In case you don't know, Stravinsky was very short, like many geniuses
>>> of his generation.
>>>
>>> But I take it pretty much everybody on this board is 6 foot tall and
>>> irresistibly handsome, which is why they're posting here between dating
>>> supermodels.
>>
>> I'm 5'11"....
>>
>> I agree with the poster who said, "It's just a guy." The aesthetics of a
>> troll poster are without value; who cares whether they're "attractive" to
>> a
>> troll? Trolls have occasionally disparaged my looks, which hurts me not
>> one whit. In fact, I'm glad of it!
>>
>> Bruckner, who is obviously revered in this newsgroup, didn't look like
>> any
>> sort of a Cary Grant, you know.
>>
> Nor Schubert.
I have a CD with a painting of Schubert at around 18. He was rather
attractive.
Norm Strong
Ralph
Ugly" in quite a while. Good music there too.
Ralph
Bob Lombard
>
> Anyway, yeah, it seems that extreme good looks are often a strange and
> deceptive burden for the victim who has them.
>
> wr
Yes, I can attest to that. My driver's license photo has appeared in
several late-night advertisements of the 'before & after' variety. It is
a burden.
bl
Matthew B. Tepper
caused the following letters to be typed in
> Prokofiev and Kabalevsky were also quite tall.
>
> Schubert was possibly the shortest of all the 1st-rate composers - 5'1"
> or so.
Wasn't Max Reger quite short? (I know, he's not Schubert-quality, but at
least he's well-known to us.)
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in
> Good looks sure had a weird effect on Pogorelich, who once said "People
> cannot forgive me for being good-looking." Well, he was right - Tepper
> won't even buy Pogo's new compilation CD for that reason.
You've completely missed my point. Not because of his looks _per se_ --
but because of the way in which his label is marketing him. I'd rather buy
a CD by warted, wrinkled, crumpled Clara Haskil.
Actually, I rather like this photograph of Haskil:
http://windshoes.new21.org/classic/haskil/haskil04.jpg
> Anyway, yeah, it seems that extreme good looks are often a strange and
> deceptive burden for the victim who has them.
Boo freakin' hoo.
Frank Berger
"Matthew B. Tepper" <oyé‘‚earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns97F4AC50B62...@207.217.125.201...
> Wayne Reimer <wrdslremovethis濃pacbell.net> appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in
> news:MPG.1f11e60cf...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net:
>
>> Good looks sure had a weird effect on Pogorelich, who once said "People
>> cannot forgive me for being good-looking." Well, he was right - Tepper
>> won't even buy Pogo's new compilation CD for that reason.
>
> You've completely missed my point. Not because of his looks _per se_ --
> but because of the way in which his label is marketing him. I'd rather
> buy
> a CD by warted, wrinkled, crumpled Clara Haskil.
>
> Actually, I rather like this photograph of Haskil:
>
> http://windshoes.new21.org/classic/haskil/haskil04.jpg
>
Which one is Haskil?
Couldn't resist.
Ginette Neveu, one of my favorite vioilinists, was no beauty either. Never
bothered me or made me wonder if her homeliness affected her artistry.
Still doesn't.
Bob Harper
> Bob Harper wrote:
>> makropulos wrote:
>>> Have I missed National Be-Gratuitously-Offensive Week?
>>> What a nasty little post/thread.
>>>
>> I'm afraid that was my reaction, especially to the original post.
>> Totally unnecessary and highly offensive.
>
> You hit the nail on the head: just like many of Mr Hurwitz' so-called
> "reviews". The tone he often takes, the deep resentments he harbors
> against some artists and which break through in many of his "reviews"
> all point to a very unbalanced individual with a lot of issues, of
> which his ugliness could be part. He is a little hater, that's for
> sure.
But Michael, even if DH is as wrong/wicked/whatever as you say (and I'm
not granting that), your gratuitous, mean-spirited post reflects (and
badly!) *ONLY* on you. Your best bet would be to take seriously the
first seven words of your reply, admit you made a mistake, apologize,
take your lumps, and move on. History indicates you will find this
impossible to do, but it really would be best for all concerned.
Bob Harper
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:12agolr...@news.supernews.com:
There is a photograph of Neveu laughing, in which her face lights up.
Michael Schaffer
Apologize? For what? For being honest? I think his reviews suck and
show the author has some very serious unresolved issues, and I think he
is ugly like a baboon's ass, and I think that may play a part in the
hatred against more successful people who do what he apparently dreams
about - perform Mahler - that often breaks through in his idiotic
"reviews". And you did hit the nail on the head: totally offensive and
unnecessary, that is what his "reviews" are. That is my opinion and I
have a feeling you don't share it, but does that affect you in any way?
Probably not. So why would it be "better for all concerned" if I took
it back?
Andrys Basten
Michael Schaffer <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Bob Harper wrote:
>> makropulos wrote:
>> > Have I missed National Be-Gratuitously-Offensive Week?
>> > What a nasty little post/thread.
>> >
>> I'm afraid that was my reaction, especially to the original post.
>> Totally unnecessary and highly offensive.
>
>You hit the nail on the head: just like many of Mr Hurwitz' so-called
>"reviews". The tone he often takes, the deep resentments he harbors
>against some artists and which break through in many of his "reviews"
>all point to a very unbalanced individual with a lot of issues, of
>which his ugliness could be part. He is a little hater, that's for
>sure.
You know the old saying about It takes one to know one.
But I have to add that this is one of the most hate-filled
posts I've read on a newsgroup that has a lot of that in some
characterisic in some threads.
The ugliness shown in your post is internal, at the least.
I don't know what you look like yourself, otherwise, and it
wouldn't matter at any rate.
Thanks for the pointer. I found the article itself
interesting.
Perhaps someday a newspaper will find a reason to
write one about your work.
- A
John Harrington
> In article <1151867552.2...@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> Michael Schaffer <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Bob Harper wrote:
> >> makropulos wrote:
> >> > Have I missed National Be-Gratuitously-Offensive Week?
> >> > What a nasty little post/thread.
> >> >
> >> I'm afraid that was my reaction, especially to the original post.
> >> Totally unnecessary and highly offensive.
> >
> >You hit the nail on the head: just like many of Mr Hurwitz' so-called
> >"reviews". The tone he often takes, the deep resentments he harbors
> >against some artists and which break through in many of his "reviews"
> >all point to a very unbalanced individual with a lot of issues, of
> >which his ugliness could be part. He is a little hater, that's for
> >sure.
>
> You know the old saying about It takes one to know one.
>
> But I have to add that this is one of the most hate-filled
> posts I've read on a newsgroup that has a lot of that in some
> characterisic in some threads.
Maybe you have a low threshold for "hate-filled".
It would be funny, hilarious even, if it weren't so sad, how the
niceties of politesse are more policed on this newsgroup than the
basics of human decency. hurwitz has shown time and again, along with
his ideological comrades here, his contempt for human life and his
willingness to violently attack other countries' innocent civilians on
the least pretext, even made up, fictional pretexts. Or, I should say,
his willingness to let others fight and die while he sits comfortably
at home on his (we now know) fat ass. Shock and awe is just okay with
him--he doesn't know anybody under those barrages of bombs, and even if
he did, he probably wouldn't care. But who's the villain? Not
hurwitz, no, the villain is the one who transgresses the boundaries of
polite shows, who calls hurwitz ugly, who says the truth about his
obtuse opinions and his nasty political proclivities. Okay, whatever,
so be it.
John
John Harrington
<snip>
> Good looks sure had a weird effect on Pogorelich, who once said "People
> cannot forgive me for being good-looking." Well, he was right - Tepper
> won't even buy Pogo's new compilation CD for that reason.
However put a lollipop in Pogo's hand, dress him in pigtails, and
tepper would be all over it.
J
Andrys Basten
John Harrington <bear...@gmail.com> wrote:
more justification for posting ugly stuff.
But, really, I feel the same way about American disregard
for Iraqi lives; however, I also recognize that some really
feel it's necessary what the US does, though I vehemently
disagree, but not in a thread like this, which just excuses
personal vitriol toward the mere looks and being of someone
whose value-systems try to justify what we do in what I
consider mistaken "defense" of what was done to us by other
people 9-11.
Yes, I have a hard time talking with family who rah-rah
the war and don't understand that we are THERE trying to
control everything under the false rationale of 'spreading
freedom' and that's why we get attacked by people who live
there. We wish to help 'free' people who have reserves
attractive to us while we try to help install the right
leaders for them.
But war is exactly based on this kind of intolerance of
personal differences and the desire to annihilate others
who are different from or who disagree with us. The total
lack of respect for the entirety of a person due to
differences in emotional responses to things (belief
systems) is more unusual but is found most in those who
are aggressive enough to become leaders or at least
most pronounced in newsgroups.
True on all sides, which is why the ultimate ending won't
be long in coming. We can watch the dynamics right here.
Bob Harper
will, your (considerable) intelligence notwithstanding.
Bob Harper
Frank Berger
"Andrys Basten" <and...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:e8a57c$eku$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <1151897162.4...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> John Harrington <bear...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> more justification for posting ugly stuff.
>
> But, really, I feel the same way about American disregard
> for Iraqi lives; however, I also recognize that some really
> feel it's necessary what the US does
How do you rationalize your implied respect for people who "really feel it
is necessary what the US does," with "American disregard for Iraqi lives?"
Based on our own discussion that ran several days, in which you repeatedly
called me "unfeeling," and worse, I would suggest you don't recognize that
"some really feel it is necessay what the US does."
> Yes, I have a hard time talking with family who rah-rah
> the war and don't understand that we are THERE trying to
> control everything under the false rationale of 'spreading
> freedom' and that's why we get attacked by people who live
> there. We wish to help 'free' people who have reserves
> attractive to us while we try to help install the right
> leaders for them.
We had access to all the Iraqi oil we might wish to purchase before the
invasion. That argument simply makes no sense.
>
> But war is exactly based on this kind of intolerance of
> personal differences
Why would you tolerate Saddam Hussein?
> and the desire to annihilate others
A "desire to annihilae others?" I doubt even Harrington could turn such a
phrase.
> who are different from or who disagree with us. The total
> lack of respect for the entirety of a person due to
> differences in emotional responses to things (belief
> systems) is more unusual but is found most in those who
> are aggressive enough to become leaders or at least
> most pronounced in newsgroups.
You exhiibit total lack of respect for people who think the Iraq war was
moral.
hvt...@xs4all.nl
Frank Berger wrote:
> You exhiibit total lack of respect for people who think the Iraq war was
> moral.
ROTFL
Henk
WF Buttlover
Todd Schurk wrote:
> Michael Schaffer wrote:
> > Posing with a tam-tam, no big surprise there...
> > http://www.go-brooklyn.com/html/issues/_vol28/28_13/mahler.html
>
> What a petty little shit you must be to start such a thread. I'm
> thankful that I don't know you . And I pity those who do. Jerk.
Is Schurk an abbreviation of Shit-Jerk?
also
We know there are pics of fatty Tepper and A Basten online, among
others in this thread, any of Hardman or Deacon?
WF Buttlover
her...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Ward F Moron Jr wrote:
> > her...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think I have ever read a review of his, but may I add that I
> > > don't think this is a picture of an inordinately ugly person? It's just
> > > a guy. Besides, Stravinsky wasn't particularly pretty either.
> >
> > Stravinsky wasn't grossly obese.
>
> In case you don't know, Stravinsky was very short, like many geniuses
> of his generation.
What has that to do with ugliness? Kylie Minogue is about 1 foot 3 and
I'd happily slip her a length.
>
> But I take it pretty much everybody on this board is 6 foot tall and
> irresistibly handsome, which is why they're posting here between dating
> supermodels.
Yeah but his chin is so distended, I guess it's like a pelican, but not
for fish, something which smells of fish perhaps.
WF Buttlover
Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> her...@yahoo.com appears to have caused the following letters to be typed
> in news:1151836802.8...@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
>
> > In case you don't know, Stravinsky was very short, like many geniuses
> > of his generation.
> >
> > irresistibly handsome, which is why they're posting here between dating
> > supermodels.
>
Girth or height?
david...@aol.com
WF Buttlover wrote:
> Is Schurk an abbreviation of Shit-Jerk?
I fail to understand how Mr. Schurk became the villain for objecting to
so thoroughly objectionable a post.
-david gable
WF Buttlover
He brought the thread to a new low, introducing all these four-letter
words. They seemed to fit his name. Comprende?
JohnGavin
Have you ever heard the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right"?
Michael Schaffer
I have been in a couple of pro audio magazines, thanks you for you good
wishes, they have already come true. One of them also features a really
stupid pic of me and my boss staring emptily into the camera. I thought
I had a pdf copy of the article, but somehow, I don't. But if you want,
I can get one and mail it to you.
Michael Schaffer
Please don't be so dramatic, pull yourself together a little. There are
things and people and views you don't like either. Being outspoken
about these is not a bad thing, certainly better than the pseudo-PC
nonsense you sprout here. One of the few positive elements of Hurwitz'
reviews is that he appears to be at least honest, but the problem at
the same time is that there is a huge difference between blabla like
what we post here in this blabla forum, and someone who poses as
serious music journalist, with reviews, website, books, all that stuff,
but who doesn't seem to have any distinguishing musical or
musicological qualifications except for banging around on percussion
instruments in hobby orchestras and being ugly. See how far we have
come? That has nothing to do with wars and all that, but a lot with how
far pseudos without substance can get, especially in these days. *That*
should make you think.
>
> --
> http://www.andrys.com
Andrys Basten
Frank Berger <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>
>"Andrys Basten" <and...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:e8a57c$eku$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>> In article <1151897162.4...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> John Harrington <bear...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> more justification for posting ugly stuff.
>>
>> But, really, I feel the same way about American disregard
>> for Iraqi lives; however, I also recognize that some really
>> feel it's necessary what the US does
>
>How do you rationalize your implied respect for people who "really feel it
>is necessary what the US does," with "American disregard for Iraqi lives?"
>Based on our own discussion that ran several days, in which you repeatedly
>called me "unfeeling," and worse, I would suggest you don't recognize that
>"some really feel it is necessay what the US does."
Some people like you obviously feel what we chose to do
there, with ever morphing reasons given us and so easily
accepted by many, I respect your feelings on that but not
your reasoning.
>> Yes, I have a hard time talking with family who rah-rah
>> the war and don't understand that we are THERE trying to
>> control everything under the false rationale of 'spreading
>> freedom' and that's why we get attacked by people who live
>> there. We wish to help 'free' people who have reserves
>> attractive to us while we try to help install the right
>> leaders for them.
>
>We had access to all the Iraqi oil we might wish to purchase before the
>invasion. That argument simply makes no sense.
Whatever you like to think, but one of our goals
last week was to protect the oil. There are many more
dying from hidious regimes, but we don't go there to
try to free them. I'm talking this only to respond
to John H's puzzlement on how I can possibly think
Michael's post awful when we are doing what we do in
Iraq. When John was young, I don't expect he told
his folks not to bother him when he was being
awful since they should be angry at what others do
to others that are much worse. But maybe he did.
>> But war is exactly based on this kind of intolerance of
>> personal differences
>
>Why would you tolerate Saddam Hussein?
I'm not going to get into another idiotic
discussion with you on this. Tolerate? So
we went in there because YOU don't "tolerate"
Hussein? Well, congratulations, look at what
you've done for them and for our young people.
Most of the US is waking up to that, but
not Frank Berger.
>> and the desire to annihilate others
>
>A "desire to annihilae others?" I doubt even Harrington could turn such a
>phrase.
I had a "t" in mine, but yes, annihilation
is a primal motive when people disagree with one.
That's how Hell came into being. We make ourselves
happy with the idea others who believe differently
will roast after they're gone.
>> who are different from or who disagree with us. The total
>> lack of respect for the entirety of a person due to
>> differences in emotional responses to things (belief
>> systems) is more unusual but is found most in those who
>> are aggressive enough to become leaders or at least
>> most pronounced in newsgroups.
>
>You exhiibit total lack of respect for people who think the Iraq war was
>moral.
Whatever.
I'm not posting on how ugly you are. And I wouldn't,
even if I saw pictures that MIGHT indicate to some that
you were.
But you don't know the difference in these things, that's
clear.
Andrys Basten
Michael Schaffer <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Please don't be so dramatic, pull yourself together a little.
You should have done that yourself before posting
your truly embarrassingly juvenile note in this thread.
Andrys Basten
Maybe you don't know that 'perhaps...will' doesn't
indicate a wish, unless you are projecting.
What were you and your boss doing? Listening? Selling?
I'm not as interested in your looks as you were in
Dave Hurwitz's, so please don't go to any trouble.
Michael Schaffer
You completely overestimate me!
> Bob Harper
Michael Schaffer
Don't use words like "projecting" in a context in which they clearly
don't apply. That makes you appear dumb. You were just trying to defend
Hurwitz by saying, look, at least he has an article about himself. As
if tons of other people hadn't. That in itself is not an achievement,
especially in these days. I personally don't give a shit if people
write about me or porjects I take part in. I don't crave media
attention. But some people obviously do. Like Hurwitz. Probably because
he is ugly. Yes, that makes sense. That's why he feels the need to
defecate on the work of artists infintely more accomplished than
himself.
> What were you and your boss doing? Listening? Selling?
In that particular picture, just staring. Stupidly into the camera. In
the portrayed project, we had installed some brand new cinema pro audio
equipment, the first complete installation in the US. Geeky stuff.
John Harrington
<snip>
> Some people like you obviously feel what we chose to do
> there, with ever morphing reasons given us and so easily
> accepted by many, I respect your feelings on that but not
> your reasoning.
Andrys, from what I've read of you on this group, you are a truly
decent and intelligent person, and I suppose like many decent people
you are bound to attempt to respect just about any position, out of
humility, if nothing else. But please don't "respect" these people any
more than you would respect child molesters or nazis. People who are
willing to make war based on such "feelings", and who are fully aware
of what war is and what it's consequences are, are really not worth
respect. Anyone who would draw us into the hell of war, with the full
knowledge of the toll it would take on human lives, for a what if, a "1
percent doctrine" (as the current book has it), are capable of just
about anything.
<snip>
> ...When John was young, I don't expect he told
> his folks not to bother him when he was being
> awful since they should be angry at what others do
> to others that are much worse. But maybe he did.
I didn't. But that's not what's going on here. You're criticizing
someone for failing to be polite to a murderer by proxy. And I don't
mean a naive and stupid patriot who just supports whatever his country
does, right or wrong, but someone who wholeheartedly supports the
destruction we're working in Iraq and wishes, if anything, we were
doing more.
J
John Harrington
LOLOLOL!
J
Ian Pace
"John Harrington" <bear...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151930914....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
support, this war from crazy and dangerous ideological motivations, through
misguided patriotism (as you mention), or from naive faith that these
actions might actually benefit the Iraqi people, world peace, etc, and those
who are genuinely bent upon hatred and destruction. I would challenge the
ideologies, arguments, naivete, etc., etc., of the former category to the
last (as you know), and also maintain that as you say they are supporting
mass murder by proxy. But the question of motivation is crucial - I don't
honestly believe many such people actively *want* to see deaths in the tens
of thousands, even though they will sanction actions that will have that
effect. Others - and there are a few of them on r.m.c.r., most notably
Koren - who actively take glee in the wholescale murder and extermination of
entire groups of people; they are beneath contempt. Coulter would be another
who falls into that category. And that category also includes those who
believe some other peoples in the world (such as Arabs) to be subhuman.
There's nothing to be gained from making things personal with those
themselves who don't make things personal.
Ian
John Harrington
<snip>
> In fairness, there is a difference between those who support, even actively
> support, this war from crazy and dangerous ideological motivations, through
> misguided patriotism (as you mention), or from naive faith that these
> actions might actually benefit the Iraqi people, world peace, etc, and those
> who are genuinely bent upon hatred and destruction. I would challenge the
> ideologies, arguments, naivete, etc., etc., of the former category to the
> last (as you know), and also maintain that as you say they are supporting
> mass murder by proxy. But the question of motivation is crucial - I don't
> honestly believe many such people actively *want* to see deaths in the tens
> of thousands, even though they will sanction actions that will have that
> effect.
I didn't say they wanted to see those deaths. What I meant was they
don't give a shit. They are perfectly willing to see those deaths, and
entirely comfortable with them if there is but a one percent chance it
advances the goals of their ideologies. And they are willfully stupid,
since anyone who has paid attention to the events of the 20th century,
especially those in the mid-east, should realize that war and
intervention are hydras.
> Others - and there are a few of them on r.m.c.r., most notably
> Koren - who actively take glee in the wholescale murder and extermination of
> entire groups of people; they are beneath contempt.
Indeed, so why speak to them respectfully?
> There's nothing to be gained from making things personal with those
> themselves who don't make things personal.
It's not "personal". It is the proper contempt shown for those who
subscribe to evil ideas.
J
Ian Pace
> Ian Pace wrote:
>> Others - and there are a few of them on r.m.c.r., most notably
>> Koren - who actively take glee in the wholescale murder and extermination
>> of
>> entire groups of people; they are beneath contempt.
>
> Indeed, so why speak to them respectfully?
>
Ian
John Harrington
A quick google confirms my memory that you have routinely refered to
koren as "Mr. Koren" and spoken to and of him with the sort of
consideration that should be reserved for non-sociopaths.
J
John Harrington
<snip>
> what it's consequences
Shit.
its.
J
Todd Schurk
At least I have the courage to use my real name, instead of an alias
coined from your hobby Mr. Buttlover.
Frank Berger
> In article <12ah7uu...@news.supernews.com>,
> Frank Berger <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>>
>>"Andrys Basten" <and...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:e8a57c$eku$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>>> In article <1151897162.4...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>> John Harrington <bear...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> more justification for posting ugly stuff.
>>>
>>> But, really, I feel the same way about American disregard
>>> for Iraqi lives; however, I also recognize that some really
>>> feel it's necessary what the US does
>>
>>How do you rationalize your implied respect for people who "really feel it
>>is necessary what the US does," with "American disregard for Iraqi lives?"
>>Based on our own discussion that ran several days, in which you repeatedly
>>called me "unfeeling," and worse, I would suggest you don't recognize that
>>"some really feel it is necessay what the US does."
>
> Some people like you obviously feel what we chose to do
> there, with ever morphing reasons given us and so easily
> accepted by many, I respect your feelings on that but not
> your reasoning.
This statement is not consistent with your repeatedly calling me
"unfeeling."
This is neither a useful nor reasoned statement.
>
>>> and the desire to annihilate others
>>
>>A "desire to annihilae others?" I doubt even Harrington could turn such a
>>phrase.
>
> I had a "t" in mine
Why point out my typo? What does that contribute to the discussion?
>but yes, annihilation
> is a primal motive when people disagree with one.
We're trying to annihilate the culture of Islamo-Fascism. Was it wrong to
annihilate Naziism?
> That's how Hell came into being. We make ourselves
> happy with the idea others who believe differently
> will roast after they're gone.
>
>>> who are different from or who disagree with us. The total
>>> lack of respect for the entirety of a person due to
>>> differences in emotional responses to things (belief
>>> systems) is more unusual but is found most in those who
>>> are aggressive enough to become leaders or at least
>>> most pronounced in newsgroups.
>>
>>You exhiibit total lack of respect for people who think the Iraq war was
>>moral.
>
> Whatever.
Good one.
>
> I'm not posting on how ugly you are.
> And I wouldn't,
> even if I saw pictures that MIGHT indicate to some that
> you were.
>
> But you don't know the difference in these things, that's
> clear.
So instead of wanting to annihilate me for disagreeing with you, you just
call me "unfeeling," suggest that I might be ugly (in some sense), and point
out my typos. You're a wonderful person.
Andrys Basten
Frank Berger <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
[to]
>> I'm not posting on how ugly you are.
>
>
>> And I wouldn't,
>> even if I saw pictures that MIGHT indicate to some that
>> you were.
>>
>> But you don't know the difference in these things, that's
>> clear.
>
>So instead of wanting to annihilate me for disagreeing with you, you just
>call me "unfeeling," suggest that I might be ugly (in some sense), and point
>out my typos. You're a wonderful person.
own over the false and ever-changing rationales for doing so,
yes. Obviously. Point out your typos? Horrors. You have
the lowest threshhold for emotional pain that I've seen on
these boards while being able to defend pain against others
very easily.
And you verify you don't know the difference in these
things, as I said. You didn't even stop to wonder.
Suggest you might be ugly?
I'm pointing out that you're missing what happened in
this thread, because you are so focused only on hurts from
a past thread and thinking only of yourself, as usual.
A member of the the group made a thread to call attention
to what he himself perceives as the ugly appearance of
another group member, hated by him (hated for his
statements about some musicians when reviewing them or
posting here) and then went on to repeat how ugly are his
looks. Rather than look at that, you turn the thread all
around on yourself, as if someone said it -about- you and
THAT upsets yo (of course) but not that it was done to
someone else in all seriousness.
Once more, I'm saying that you're upset by what I post
about those who blindly support the war in Iraq with no
qualms about what we have done to so many in order to be
"right" about the shifting "whys" we went in there.
What I am not doing is saying you are ugly, as was done
at the start of this thread for someone else. I have no
idea what you look like and don't care at all. But if you
-were- ugly in appearance I wouldn't start a thread to
point it out. Do you get it now?
Andrys Basten
Michael Schaffer <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >I have been in a couple of pro audio magazines, thanks you for you good
>> >wishes, they have already come true. One of them also features a really
>> >stupid pic of me and my boss staring emptily into the camera. I thought
>> >I had a pdf copy of the article, but somehow, I don't. But if you want,
>> >I can get one and mail it to you.
>>
>> Maybe you don't know that 'perhaps...will' doesn't
>> indicate a wish, unless you are projecting.
>
>Don't use words like "projecting" in a context in which they clearly
>don't apply. That makes you appear dumb. You were just trying to defend
>Hurwitz by saying, look, at least he has an article about himself. As
>if tons of other people hadn't. That in itself is not an achievement,
>especially in these days. I personally don't give a shit if people
>write about me or porjects I take part in. I don't crave media
>attention. But some people obviously do. Like Hurwitz. Probably because
>he is ugly. Yes, that makes sense. That's why he feels the need to
>defecate on the work of artists infintely more accomplished than
>himself.
Others who have been recognized for what they do more
than he, eh? That's a concept very important to you, and
your anger at him suggests you are more angry at his
effectiveness in a position he's made so that his
statements have a sort of clout, to more readers.
Whatever, you love to call him ugly, and it just says
more about you than it does about Hurwitz.
>> What were you and your boss doing? Listening? Selling?
>
>In that particular picture, just staring. Stupidly into the camera. In
>the portrayed project, we had installed some brand new cinema pro audio
>equipment, the first complete installation in the US. Geeky stuff.
That'll be interesting, and I'm glad no one made a thread
about it re your appearance in it ;)
I'll repeat the thanks for the pointer to the article
itself though.
Frank Berger
> In article <12aie7n...@news.supernews.com>,
> Frank Berger <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
> [to]
>>> I'm not posting on how ugly you are.
>>
>>
>>> And I wouldn't,
>>> even if I saw pictures that MIGHT indicate to some that
>>> you were.
>>>
>>> But you don't know the difference in these things, that's
>>> clear.
>>
>>So instead of wanting to annihilate me for disagreeing with you, you just
>>call me "unfeeling," suggest that I might be ugly (in some sense), and
>>point
>>out my typos. You're a wonderful person.
>
> Unfeeling about the damage we have done to Iraqis and to our
> own over the false and ever-changing rationales for doing so,
> yes. Obviously.
For the umpteenth time, you have no idea how I feel. Your conclusion seems
to be based on the inability to understand how someone with true feelings
could come to a different conclusion than yourself. Harrington, obviously,
suffers from the same disease, though to a greater extent. I don't fully
understand the nature of this disease that requires one to demonize those
with which one disagrees.
You referred to this yourself above, but don't recognize that you suffer
from it as well. I don't claim to be entirely free of it, nor, lest someone
put words in my mouth, do I believe the Right is any less guilty of it than
the Left. But I am aware of it, and try not to do it.
>Point out your typos? Horrors.
You didn't answer the question. Why did you point it out? Why not ignore
it? Anyone can make a typo or a spelling error. Pointing it out is a
distraction from reasoned discussion.
> You have the lowest threshhold for emotional pain that I've seen on
> these boards while being able to defend pain against others
> very easily.
Again, you mistake my feelings. You cause me no pain whatsoever. I am, and
have been, simply trying to point out that your forays into character
assasination (though milder than Harrington's) are unwarranted, incorrect,
and, more importantly, do not contribute to the dialogue.
Andrys Basten
Frank Berger <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>> Unfeeling about the damage we have done to Iraqis and to our
>> own over the false and ever-changing rationales for doing so,
>> yes. Obviously.
>
>For the umpteenth time, you have no idea how I feel.
You -show- concern only about words typed to you on
threads, much more than about any civilians or US soldiers
killed and maimed over this continuing horror of a war.
> Your conclusion seems
>to be based on the inability to understand how someone with true feelings
>could come to a different conclusion than yourself. Harrington, obviously,
>suffers from the same disease, though to a greater extent. I don't fully
>understand the nature of this disease that requires one to demonize those
>with which one disagrees.
Of course not, you and others just demonize people to the extent you
so easily justify killing hundreds of thousands from all sides
and not give it another thought that's part of a thread like
this. All we get is how you feel about how someone is talking
to you.
>You referred to this yourself above, but don't recognize that you suffer
>from it as well.
We all demonize to some extent but less of us will easily
justify killing so many others over it and not pay attention
to the shifting reasons given us (any will do) and rely only
on faith-based responses.
> I don't claim to be entirely free of it, nor, lest someone
>put words in my mouth, do I believe the Right is any less guilty of it than
>the Left. But I am aware of it, and try not to do it.
Enthusiastic support of this war and the effects from
it on others (far more than words flung at them) is one
way to continue doing it.
>>Point out your typos? Horrors.
>
>You didn't answer the question. Why did you point it out? Why not ignore
>it? Anyone can make a typo or a spelling error. Pointing it out is a
>distraction from reasoned discussion.
Could it be that you pointed out the word, specifically ?
>> You have the lowest threshhold for emotional pain that I've seen on
>> these boards while being able to defend pain against others
>> very easily.
>
>Again, you mistake my feelings. You cause me no pain whatsoever. I am, and
>have been, simply trying to point out that your forays into character
>assasination (though milder than Harrington's) are unwarranted, incorrect,
>and, more importantly, do not contribute to the dialogue.
Character assassination? You were pointing out something
you felt pain from in an old thread.
You signed off before this set, so I'll repeat
the major point of it here:
Frank Berger
> In article <12aimg0...@news.supernews.com>,
> Frank Berger <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>
>>> Unfeeling about the damage we have done to Iraqis and to our
>>> own over the false and ever-changing rationales for doing so,
>>> yes. Obviously.
>>
>>For the umpteenth time, you have no idea how I feel.
>
> You -show- concern only about words typed to you on
> threads, much more than about any civilians or US soldiers
> killed and maimed over this continuing horror of a war.
Do you think it's possible that there is a difference between "showing
feelings" and "having feelings?" I know you do.
Therefore, I retiterate my statement that you are baseless concluding that I
have no feelings from what you perceive as insufficient showing of feelings.
Can't you see this? Do you not know that people have different personality
types - have different levels of expressivneess, INDEPENDENT of political
outlook?
>
>> Your conclusion seems
>>to be based on the inability to understand how someone with true feelings
>>could come to a different conclusion than yourself. Harrington,
>>obviously,
>>suffers from the same disease, though to a greater extent. I don't fully
>>understand the nature of this disease that requires one to demonize those
>>with which one disagrees.
>
> Of course not, you and others just demonize people
I "demonize" Saddam Hussein, Islamo-Fascists, terrorist, Nazis, etc. You
demonize me and people like me.
> to the extent you so easily justify
You don't know how easily I came to my position.
>killing hundreds of thousands from all sides
> and not give it another thought
You don't know any more about how much thought I or anyone else have given
"it" than tou do about our feelings.
> that's part of a thread like
> this. All we get is how you feel about how someone is talking
> to you.
I am trying to teach YOU something that has nothing to do with our political
differences. I do not accuse you of beeing unfeeling towards those murdered
by Saddam Hussein, just because you would prefer we hadn't overthrown him.
I could, but it would be unwarranted, as is your accusation that I am
unfeeling.
>
>>You referred to this yourself above, but don't recognize that you suffer
>>from it as well.
>
> We all demonize to some extent but less of us will easily
I object again to the word "easily." It is unwarranted and shows bias.
> justify killing so many others over it and not pay attention
> to the shifting reasons given us (any will do) and rely only
> on faith-based responses.
What do the circumstances of how we got into the war (Bush lied, was
deceptive, whatever), have to do with the waging of it?
It is possible to have gotten into it for the wrong reasons and still be
right.
My support for the Iraq war, which as I have said before, I was ambivalent
about, has nothing to do with faith.
>
>> I don't claim to be entirely free of it, nor, lest someone
>>put words in my mouth, do I believe the Right is any less guilty of it
>>than
>>the Left. But I am aware of it, and try not to do it.
>
> Enthusiastic support of this war and the effects from
> it on others (far more than words flung at them) is one
> way to continue doing it.
You focus on my acceptance of the horrors inflicted on others, but ignore
the horrors inflicted on people by Saddam Hussein and the benefits that
might come from democracy. That doesn't seem fair and balanced to me.
>
>>>Point out your typos? Horrors.
>>
>>You didn't answer the question. Why did you point it out? Why not ignore
>>it? Anyone can make a typo or a spelling error. Pointing it out is a
>>distraction from reasoned discussion.
>
> Could it be that you pointed out the word, specifically ?
I don't know what that means.
>
>>> You have the lowest threshhold for emotional pain that I've seen on
>>> these boards while being able to defend pain against others
>>> very easily.
>>
>>Again, you mistake my feelings. You cause me no pain whatsoever. I am,
>>and
>>have been, simply trying to point out that your forays into character
>>assasination (though milder than Harrington's) are unwarranted, incorrect,
>>and, more importantly, do not contribute to the dialogue.
>
> Character assassination? You were pointing out something
> you felt pain from in an old thread.
I just said you have caused me no pain . Why do you doubt that?
>
> You signed off before this set, so I'll repeat
> the major point of it here:
>
>>> What I am not doing is saying you are ugly, as was done
>>> at the start of this thread for someone else. I have no
>>> idea what you look like and don't care at all. But if you
>>> -were- ugly in appearance I wouldn't start a thread to
>>> point it out. Do you get it now?
I thought you were implyng that I was "internally" ugly because of my views.
Even if you didn't mean it in the above, your the attitudes you express
toward me indicates it's true anyway. Think about what it means to say to
someone, "you have no feelings." It makes them less than human, doesn't it?
Though, I repeat, your saying that does not hurt my feelings. It's your
problem, not mine.
Michael Schaffer
Nice try, but really a bunch of nonsense. You really shouldn't throw
words like "projecting" and "anger" around like that, it really makes
you look like some hollow pseudo-psycoanalytical late hippie. No, I am
not "censoring" you, just pointing out that these are very shallow
statements. I think you can do better than that kind of sandbox
psychology. I don't envy Hurwitz at all for being what he is. I never
wanted to be a - critic -, and I don't need public attention. So the
small degree of infamy he has achieved in a small special interest
group does not "anger" me at all. When I organized my own chamber
ensemble in Berlin, I could have easily gotten myself some limelight by
conducting it, too, but even though I am actually fairly good at it, I
decided to seek out and pull in those who I thought were better than
me.
Since I don't work as a musician anymore, I sometimes envy those who
still do, but not in a malicious way. On the contrary, since I know how
much time and sweat it takes to be a good performer, I have a lot of
admiration for those who operate on a high level. Being a good musician
on any decent level is way too much an achievement in my eyes not to
respect it, even if I disagree with interpretive approaches. I also
have a lot of respect for good musicologists and music journalists, a
ton actually, since I enjoy reading about music and musicians
immensely, and I respect people who have the knack of writing about
music and interpretations effectively and who can actually discuss
peformances on an informed level. However, Hurwitz is not a good music
journalist. He is just a little poison pen and bottom feeder who has a
lot of aggressive BS stored that he sprouts out over some of the
artists he is biased against. Classicstoday is the Daily Mirror of
classical music journalism. Despiccable.
Andrys Basten
Frank Berger <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>
>"Andrys Basten" <and...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:e8bpqa$nm8$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>> In article <12aimg0...@news.supernews.com>,
>> Frank Berger <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> Unfeeling about the damage we have done to Iraqis and to our
>>>> own over the false and ever-changing rationales for doing so,
>>>> yes. Obviously.
>>>
>>>For the umpteenth time, you have no idea how I feel.
>>
>> You -show- concern only about words typed to you on
>> threads, much more than about any civilians or US soldiers
>> killed and maimed over this continuing horror of a war.
>
>Do you think it's possible that there is a difference between "showing
>feelings" and "having feelings?" I know you do.
Very obviously. The key is that you 'show' and 'show'
your feelings about being hurt by someone else's words
about your enthusiastic support of the war and its killing
while showing no qualms about that activity at all. But
it happens to others. Others' families. Others' children.
If you didn't keep showing your feelings about receiving
unwelcome words on a thread that turns to war talk, there
wouldn't be anything to discuss here on a thread that was
about something else and not about you.
>Therefore, I retiterate my statement that you are baseless concluding that I
>have no feelings from what you perceive as insufficient showing of feelings.
>Can't you see this? Do you not know that people have different personality
>types - have different levels of expressivneess, INDEPENDENT of political
>outlook?
I sure do. You express what's most important to you.
>>> Your conclusion seems
>>>to be based on the inability to understand how someone with true feelings
>>>could come to a different conclusion than yourself. Harrington,
>>>obviously,
>>>suffers from the same disease, though to a greater extent. I don't fully
>>>understand the nature of this disease that requires one to demonize those
>>>with which one disagrees.
>>
>> Of course not, you and others just demonize people
>
>I "demonize" Saddam Hussein, Islamo-Fascists, terrorist, Nazis, etc. You
>demonize me and people like me.
Please don't flatter yourself, Frank. I disagree with
you and feel you show a blind support of a war, for which
most of us see rationales changing when they no longer work
which has horrific effects on -other people, not you- while
going on and on about how you feel about words typed at
you.
>> to the extent you so easily justify
>
>You don't know how easily I came to my position.
I know how easily you don't regret tremendous
harm done in our name for -- what was it a few hours
ago, it keeps changing --.
>>killing hundreds of thousands from all sides
>> and not give it another thought
>
>You don't know any more about how much thought I or anyone else have given
>"it" than tou do about our feelings.
I know only what you want to show here, and what
you show here is very self-involved.
>
>> that's part of a thread like
>> this. All we get is how you feel about how someone is talking
>> to you.
>
>I am trying to teach YOU something that has nothing to do with our political
>differences. I do not accuse you of beeing unfeeling towards those murdered
>by Saddam Hussein, just because you would prefer we hadn't overthrown him.
>I could, but it would be unwarranted, as is your accusation that I am
>unfeeling.
Seeing yourself as a teacher is not going to help you.
>> We all demonize to some extent but less of us will easily
>
>I object again to the word "easily." It is unwarranted and shows bias.
Easily. As in giving the leaders easy permission to
kill on our behalf in the name of freeing people, when most
can see it just frees the worst of them to infiltrate
the leadership, take advantage of existing divisions this
country chose not to try to understand. You have to offer
people something better when deciding to act againsst
despotism.
>> justify killing so many others over it and not pay attention
>> to the shifting reasons given us (any will do) and rely only
>> on faith-based responses.
>
>What do the circumstances of how we got into the war (Bush lied, was
>deceptive, whatever), have to do with the waging of it?
>It is possible to have gotten into it for the wrong reasons and still be
>right.
Omigod. I rest my case.
>My support for the Iraq war, which as I have said before, I was ambivalent
>about, has nothing to do with faith.
If you say so. You'll need to believe what you need to
believe.
>> Enthusiastic support of this war and the effects from
>> it on others (far more than words flung at them) is one
>> way to continue doing it.
>
>You focus on my acceptance of the horrors inflicted on others, but ignore
>the horrors inflicted on people by Saddam Hussein and the benefits that
>might come from democracy. That doesn't seem fair and balanced to me.
Democracy? Think again. Are you awake about what is
going on over there, outside of meaningless speeches by
The Decider? The only people who like to use the words
"fair and balanced" are Fox News affiliates who mean
balanced to one's own point of view :-)
>>>>Point out your typos? Horrors.
>>>
>>>You didn't answer the question. Why did you point it out? Why not ignore
>>>it? Anyone can make a typo or a spelling error. Pointing it out is a
>>>distraction from reasoned discussion.
>>
>> Could it be that you pointed out the word, specifically ?
>
>I don't know what that means.
Ok.
>>>Again, you mistake my feelings. You cause me no pain whatsoever. I am,
>>>and
>>>have been, simply trying to point out that your forays into character
>>>assasination (though milder than Harrington's) are unwarranted, incorrect,
>>>and, more importantly, do not contribute to the dialogue.
>>
>> Character assassination? You were pointing out something
>> you felt pain from in an old thread.
>
>I just said you have caused me no pain . Why do you doubt that?
Because you're forever complaining here about my words
about your feeling not much about the harm we do. Only
abou harm you felt done to you. This is ongoing and will
never end.
>> You signed off before this set, so I'll repeat
>> the major point of it here:
>>
>>>> What I am not doing is saying you are ugly, as was done
>>>> at the start of this thread for someone else. I have no
>>>> idea what you look like and don't care at all. But if you
>>>> -were- ugly in appearance I wouldn't start a thread to
>>>> point it out. Do you get it now?
>
>I thought you were implyng that I was "internally" ugly because of my views.
>Even if you didn't mean it in the above, your the attitudes you express
>toward me indicates it's true anyway. Think about what it means to say to
>someone, "you have no feelings." It makes them less than human, doesn't it?
Think of the what it means to show only feelings
about felt-harm to oneself vs horrific harm done to
others.
>Though, I repeat, your saying that does not hurt my feelings. It's your
>problem, not mine.
That's nice. Now maybe you'll stop complaining about it.
Andrys Basten
Michael Schaffer <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Andrys Basten wrote:
>> In article <1151928538.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
>> Michael Schaffer <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Others who have been recognized for what they do more
>> than he, eh? That's a concept very important to you, and
>> your anger at him suggests you are more angry at his
>> effectiveness in a position he's made so that his
>> statements have a sort of clout, to more readers.
>
>Nice try, but really a bunch of nonsense. You really shouldn't throw
>words like "projecting" and "anger" around like that, it really makes
>you look like some hollow pseudo-psycoanalytical late hippie.
Or, right in this case. I read the rest of the note
about all the things you could have done. You do respect
musicians whose music making you like. But the anger you
feel toward reviews that state differing and negative
views toward musicians you admire (while getting a lot
of attention due to the site he created) is way out of
proportion and your thread has just drawn attention to
your own 'younger' level of negativy.
>journalist. He is just a little poison pen and bottom feeder who has a
>lot of aggressive BS stored that he sprouts out over some of the
>artists he is biased against. Classicstoday is the Daily Mirror of
>classical music journalism. Despiccable.
Yes, I get that you don't like his reviews, Michael.
And, so you want us to share your dislike of his looks.
That desire to share is so not-shallow! :-)
tomdeacon
makropulos wrote:
> Well here's an odd thing. You say you don't like Mr Hurwitz's reviews,
> and yet you still choose to read them. I find that odd. I find him a
> good deal more perceptive than several other record critics, so I'm
> happy to keep reading his reviews, but I can't understand why you
> bother.
>
> > You hit the nail on the head: just like many of Mr Hurwitz' so-called
> > "reviews". The tone he often takes, the deep resentments he harbors
> > against some artists and which break through in many of his "reviews"
> > all point to a very unbalanced individual with a lot of issues, of
> > which his ugliness could be part. He is a little hater, that's for
> > sure.
I will have to confess that I have not read a single "review" by DH
unless it was quoted here.
I have, of course, read many of his rmcr disquisitions, which reveal an
almost terminal case of verbal diarrhea.
So, as a pure self-protection device - I really don't know if that
condition is catching, or not - I have tried hard to avoid his writings
completely.
TD
tomdeacon
Frank Berger wrote:
> For the umpteenth time, you have no idea how I feel. Your conclusion seems
> to be based on the inability to understand how someone with true feelings
> could come to a different conclusion than yourself.
If that sentence had been written by ANYBODY but you, Frank Berger, it
would have had some credibility.
Unfortunately you simply don't qualify for its conditions.
TD
Frank Berger
> In article <12aitn2...@news.supernews.com>,
> Frank Berger <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>>
>>"Andrys Basten" <and...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:e8bpqa$nm8$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>>> In article <12aimg0...@news.supernews.com>,
>>> Frank Berger <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Unfeeling about the damage we have done to Iraqis and to our
>>>>> own over the false and ever-changing rationales for doing so,
>>>>> yes. Obviously.
>>>>
>>>>For the umpteenth time, you have no idea how I feel.
>>>
>>> You -show- concern only about words typed to you on
>>> threads, much more than about any civilians or US soldiers
>>> killed and maimed over this continuing horror of a war.
>>
>>Do you think it's possible that there is a difference between "showing
>>feelings" and "having feelings?" I know you do.
>
> Very obviously. The key is that you 'show' and 'show'
> your feelings about being hurt by someone else's words
> about your enthusiastic support of the war and its killing
> while showing no qualms about that activity at all. But
> it happens to others. Others' families. Others' children.
>
> If you didn't keep showing your feelings about receiving
> unwelcome words on a thread that turns to war talk, there
> wouldn't be anything to discuss here on a thread that was
> about something else and not about you.
It's amazing to see that you fail to see that the discussion is as much
about you as me. And I repeat, you have not hurt my feelings, Really and
truly. Are you going to insist that I am lying when I say this (again and
again)? I am trying to show the illogic in your conclusions about the
"feelings" of people who might support the war. You have made an emotional
leap that isn't justified on a logical basis.
>
>>Therefore, I retiterate my statement that you are baseless concluding that
>>I
>>have no feelings from what you perceive as insufficient showing of
>>feelings.
>>Can't you see this? Do you not know that people have different
>>personality
>>types - have different levels of expressivneess, INDEPENDENT of political
>>outlook?
>
> I sure do. You express what's most important to you.
Doesn't everyone? When I say I support the Iraq war, this is not an
emotional statement. When I say I grieve over the deaths of innocents as you
do, this is an emotional statement. But you won't believe me, will you.
You can't, since I support the war.
Although that is not logical.
>
>
>>>> Your conclusion seems
>>>>to be based on the inability to understand how someone with true
>>>>feelings
>>>>could come to a different conclusion than yourself. Harrington,
>>>>obviously,
>>>>suffers from the same disease, though to a greater extent. I don't
>>>>fully
>>>>understand the nature of this disease that requires one to demonize
>>>>those
>>>>with which one disagrees.
>>>
>>> Of course not, you and others just demonize people
>>
>>I "demonize" Saddam Hussein, Islamo-Fascists, terrorist, Nazis, etc. You
>>demonize me and people like me.
>
> Please don't flatter yourself, Frank. I disagree with
> you and feel you show a
> blind support of a war
Why do you continue to use expressions like these? To say I show "blind
support" is itself a form of demonization. My support is reasoned and
moral, whether correct or incorrect. If you think about it, I am trying to
teach you how to win a debate.
>for which most of us see rationales changing when they no longer work
> which has horrific effects on -other people, not you- while
> going on and on about how you feel about words typed at
> you.
>
>>> to the extent you so easily justify
>>
>>You don't know how easily I came to my position.
>
> I know how easily you don't regret tremendous
> harm done in our name for -- what was it a few hours
> ago, it keeps changing --.
>
I see tremendous good coming from the Iraq war, that will outweigh the bad.
Why don't you value the lives that would have been lost had Saddam stayed in
power? Why haven't you expressed sorrow over those that he did murder? Are
you unfeeling? Why don't you value the benefits in term of physical safety,
freedom and standard of living that will accrue wherever democracy takes
root? Are you a bigot? Are these things suitable only for Americans?
>>>killing hundreds of thousands from all sides
>>> and not give it another thought
>>
>>You don't know any more about how much thought I or anyone else have given
>>"it" than tou do about our feelings.
>
> I know only what you want to show here, and what
> you show here is very self-involved.
I'm talking logic and issues and your accusing me of self-involvement. It
has nothing to do with me.
>>
>>> that's part of a thread like
>>> this. All we get is how you feel about how someone is talking
>>> to you.
>>
>>I am trying to teach YOU something that has nothing to do with our
>>political
>>differences. I do not accuse you of beeing unfeeling towards those
>>murdered
>>by Saddam Hussein, just because you would prefer we hadn't overthrown him.
>>I could, but it would be unwarranted, as is your accusation that I am
>>unfeeling.
>
> Seeing yourself as a teacher is not going to help you.
It might help you to open your mind a little. I don't mean supporting the
Iraq war, God forbid. I mean having respect for people who don't agree with
you.
>
>>> We all demonize to some extent but less of us will easily
>>
>>I object again to the word "easily." It is unwarranted and shows bias.
>
> Easily. As in giving the leaders easy permission to
What is easy? Congress authorized the President to act? Is such
authorization ever easy?
> kill on our behalf in the name of freeing people, when most
> can see it just frees the worst of them to infiltrate
> the leadership, take advantage of existing divisions this
> country chose not to try to understand. You have to offer
> people something better when deciding to act againsst
> despotism.
You apparently have failed to notice the fledgling democracy that is in
place in Iraq, that just today issued a warning to its neighbors not to
harbor terrorists. Did you not notice the vast voter turnout in the face of
terrorist threats? Does none of this mean anything to you?
>
>>> justify killing so many others over it and not pay attention
>>> to the shifting reasons given us (any will do) and rely only
>>> on faith-based responses.
>>
>>What do the circumstances of how we got into the war (Bush lied, was
>>deceptive, whatever), have to do with the waging of it?
>>It is possible to have gotten into it for the wrong reasons and still be
>>right.
>
> Omigod. I rest my case.
What case exactly are you resting? That the Adminstration may have been
deceptive? OK. But the "ever-changing" list of reasons for invading Iraq
still exists and many find it valid. Even most democrats don't favor an
immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, but see the value of
continuing to support the Iraq democracy.
>
>>My support for the Iraq war, which as I have said before, I was ambivalent
>>about, has nothing to do with faith.
>
> If you say so. You'll need to believe what you need to believe.
This is meaningless to me.
>
>>> Enthusiastic support of this war and the effects from
>>> it on others (far more than words flung at them) is one
>>> way to continue doing it.
>>
>>You focus on my acceptance of the horrors inflicted on others, but ignore
>>the horrors inflicted on people by Saddam Hussein and the benefits that
>>might come from democracy. That doesn't seem fair and balanced to me.
>
> Democracy? Think again. Are you awake about what is
> going on over there, outside of meaningless speeches by
> The Decider? The only people who like to use the words
> "fair and balanced" are Fox News affiliates who mean
> balanced to one's own point of view :-)
You are not funny. The smiley was not necessary.
>
>>>>>Point out your typos? Horrors.
>>>>
>>>>You didn't answer the question. Why did you point it out? Why not
>>>>ignore
>>>>it? Anyone can make a typo or a spelling error. Pointing it out is a
>>>>distraction from reasoned discussion.
>>>
>>> Could it be that you pointed out the word, specifically ?
>>
>>I don't know what that means.
>
> Ok.
>
>>>>Again, you mistake my feelings. You cause me no pain whatsoever. I am,
>>>>and
>>>>have been, simply trying to point out that your forays into character
>>>>assasination (though milder than Harrington's) are unwarranted,
>>>>incorrect,
>>>>and, more importantly, do not contribute to the dialogue.
>>>
>>> Character assassination? You were pointing out something
>>> you felt pain from in an old thread.
>>
>>I just said you have caused me no pain . Why do you doubt that?
>
> Because you're forever complaining here about my words
> about your feeling not much about the harm we do. Only
> abou harm you felt done to you. This is ongoing and will
> never end.
No. YOU talking about my feelings. That is, that I don't have them. Which
is character assiasination. If you stuck to issues I wouldn't have ever
brought it up. My "forever complaining" is in response to your forever
doing it. Let's simply the whole thing:
A: I think "A."
B: I think "B."
A: You are stupid and unfeeling.
You are A.
>
>>> You signed off before this set, so I'll repeat
>>> the major point of it here:
>>>
>>>>> What I am not doing is saying you are ugly, as was done
>>>>> at the start of this thread for someone else. I have no
>>>>> idea what you look like and don't care at all. But if you
>>>>> -were- ugly in appearance I wouldn't start a thread to
>>>>> point it out. Do you get it now?
>>
>>I thought you were implyng that I was "internally" ugly because of my
>>views.
>>Even if you didn't mean it in the above, your the attitudes you express
>>toward me indicates it's true anyway. Think about what it means to say to
>>someone, "you have no feelings." It makes them less than human, doesn't
>>it?
>
> Think of the what it means to show only feelings
> about felt-harm to oneself vs horrific harm done to
> others.
Think that I have repeatedly said you don't hurt my feelings. Think what it
means to engage in character assassination instead of reason.
>
>>Though, I repeat, your saying that does not hurt my feelings. It's your
>>problem, not mine.
>
> That's nice. Now maybe you'll stop complaining about it.
>
When you stop the unwarranted character assassination, I will.
Michael Schaffer
Andrys Basten wrote:
> In article <1151958108.2...@j8g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Michael Schaffer <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Andrys Basten wrote:
> >> In article <1151928538.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Michael Schaffer <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Others who have been recognized for what they do more
> >> than he, eh? That's a concept very important to you, and
> >> your anger at him suggests you are more angry at his
> >> effectiveness in a position he's made so that his
> >> statements have a sort of clout, to more readers.
> >
> >Nice try, but really a bunch of nonsense. You really shouldn't throw
> >words like "projecting" and "anger" around like that, it really makes
> >you look like some hollow pseudo-psycoanalytical late hippie.
>
> Or, right in this case. I read the rest of the note
> about all the things you could have done. You do respect
> musicians whose music making you like.
Wrong again. I did do and continue to do the things I wanted and want
to do, and I am very content with that. Unlike Hurwitz who seems to
think he knows better than a lot of people how to perform Mahler but
will never get a shot at doing it himself. I never had the urge to do
that, and even when I had opportunities to conduct myself, I preferred
to let people do it who I thought would do better than myself. I never
had that kind of ambition, I just wanted to put together nice musical
events. That is the exact opposite from what you say and from the deep
dissatisfaction speaking from Hurwitz' reviews. And I don't write books
and reviews putting down people's performances as "disgusting" or
saying nasty things like "Abbado's sickness was a wake-up call for
him".
I don't just respect musicians whose music making I like. I respect all
musicians who operate on a high level of musical craftsmanship, no
matter if their ideas and mine are compatible or not. Because I know
what it takes to get to that level. It doesn't take much to get to the
level Hurwitz is on.
> But the anger you
> feel toward reviews that state differing and negative
> views toward musicians you admire (while getting a lot
> of attention due to the site he created) is way out of
> proportion and your thread has just drawn attention to
> your own 'younger' level of negativy.
Funny comment from someone who takes some of the negative comments made
about Hurwitz by myself and some other posters and blows them up to
statements about war and intolerance in thw world in general.
Apparently it is you who is "projecting" here, to use your own
terminology.
Like I said very clearly, I don't care if he agrees with my views or
not. In some respects, he actually happens to agree with my
preferences. What I find despiccable about his "journalism" is the
primitive and insulting way he brings these views across. That is not
the intellectual level on which one should think "classical" music
should be discussed.
But apparently his pseudo reviews appeal to a lot of pseudo
intellectuals, like you. Why is that? Obviously, because it gives
people strong opinions without much behind it. And so they can echo
strong opinions without having much behind it themselves.
Andrys Basten
Frank Berger <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>> If you didn't keep showing your feelings about receiving
>> unwelcome words on a thread that turns to war talk, there
>> wouldn't be anything to discuss here on a thread that was
>> about something else and not about you.
>
>It's amazing to see that you fail to see that the discussion is as much
>about you as me. And I repeat, you have not hurt my feelings, Really and
>truly. Are you going to insist that I am lying when I say this (again and
>again)?
No, you're just not understanding your eternal need to
say how hurt you were by my words to you on the Iraq War
that you didn't care 1/10th as much about Iraq dead and
maimed as you do about words to you on this thread.
I think you are sincere but tiresome in this.
> I am trying to show the illogic in your conclusions about the
>"feelings" of people who might support the war. You have made an emotional
>leap that isn't justified on a logical basis.
Well, the thread was about what Michael felt was
David Hurwitz's physical ugliness matching what Michael
felt was the personality in his reviews negative toward
Michael's admired musicians.
I then said to John that even if David Hurwitz
is FOR the war it doesn't trump our own behavior on
such juvenile thread topics as the starting note.
However, then you come in and make it all about Frank.
Again.
You will never get that if someone did that to your
photo, and you, I'd do the same. You're stuck on an
old conversation which was about entirely different things,
the 'reasons' for the war in Iraq, and their viability
no matter what they might be, day to day. And re your
not particularly caring that so much suffering goes on
and continues due to folks like you.
Now, I don't agree with your stance at all, but I
do understand faith-based (and looking up to 'leaders')
or almost authoritarian perspectives and respect that
you're sincere in this stance of yours, even if you
never look back at the harm vs the 'rewards' of
this continuing action.
What I don't respect is your lack of reasoning. It just
requotes The Decider no matter what he is deciding to say
that day. It's like a tape recorder that plays back
anything heard from one source.
Samir, on the other hand, cites all kinds of
facts that make him lean another way. That reasoning
I can respect even if I disagree with the ultimate
focus.
Now, can we get off Frank Berger and how he is
misunderstood or not given enough respect?
Point again, which you evade. No one that we know
would make a post about your physical appearance and
carry on about it, even if we disagree with you
vehemently when it comes to the Iraq war.
>>>Can't you see this? Do you not know that people have different
>>>personality
>>>types - have different levels of expressivneess, INDEPENDENT of political
>>>outlook?
>>
>> I sure do. You express what's most important to you.
>
>Doesn't everyone? When I say I support the Iraq war, this is not an
>emotional statement. When I say I grieve over the deaths of innocents as you
>do, this is an emotional statement. But you won't believe me, will you.
Well, it's nice to even see you type that. Mainly
it's been about poor Frank.
>You can't, since I support the war.
>Although that is not logical.
That you support the war? I agree :-)
>>>I "demonize" Saddam Hussein, Islamo-Fascists, terrorist, Nazis, etc. You
>>>demonize me and people like me.
>>
>> Please don't flatter yourself, Frank. I disagree with
>> you and feel you show a
>
>> blind support of a war
>
>Why do you continue to use expressions like these? To say I show "blind
>support" is itself a form of demonization. My support is reasoned and
>moral, whether correct or incorrect. If you think about it, I am trying to
>teach you how to win a debate.
You also have incredible delusions of grandeur.
There's no sense in trying to talk to someone with
this form of dementia. Sad to say, your posting
reached a really pathetic level here. Lordy (not you,
by the way).
>> I know how easily you don't regret tremendous
>> harm done in our name for -- what was it a few hours
>> ago, it keeps changing --.
>>
>
>I see tremendous good coming from the Iraq war, that will outweigh the bad.
>Why don't you value the lives that would have been lost had Saddam stayed in
>power? Why haven't you expressed sorrow over those that he did murder? Are
>you unfeeling? Why don't you value the benefits in term of physical safety,
>freedom and standard of living that will accrue wherever democracy takes
>root? Are you a bigot? Are these things suitable only for Americans?
You can think whatever you choose. I won't come on
another thread to berate you for opinions you held (and
still do) in an old thread between us which bored the
entire community but seems to excite you no end. We both
have strong beliefs. You, however, won't let go of someone
else not giving you what you feel is proper respect. For
your reasoning, as shown in the past, you're never going to
get it from me, Frank. But if this excites you, keep
posting on this eternal complaint. It'll be a solitary
endeavor soon, and that might be enjoyable for you too.
>> I know only what you want to show here, and what
>> you show here is very self-involved.
>
>I'm talking logic and issues and your accusing me of self-involvement. It
>has nothing to do with me.
EVERYthing to do with you. Look at the pronouns in
all your writings on this thread. I, me, my.
>> Seeing yourself as a teacher is not going to help you.
>
>It might help you to open your mind a little. I don't mean supporting the
>Iraq war, God forbid. I mean having respect for people who don't agree with
>you.
:-)
I defended Hurwitz on the 'ugly' thread and would
do it for you, no matter how you look.
>What is easy? Congress authorized the President to act? Is such
>authorization ever easy?
No, so Bush/Cheney are now downplaying Congress's role
in things important to a democracy. Thanks to Addington et
al.
>You apparently have failed to notice the fledgling democracy that is in
>place in Iraq, that just today issued a warning to its neighbors not to
>harbor terrorists. Did you not notice the vast voter turnout in the face of
>terrorist threats? Does none of this mean anything to you?
Not when most people are aware that the terrorists,
insurgents, and civilians not happy about us controlling
things where they live have now infiltrated the police
and military forces. But you cite only BushWords.
One heavy motivation for voter turnout is the
ability to vote us out of there, as shown in polls
there asking voting people.
>>>What do the circumstances of how we got into the war (Bush lied, was
>>>deceptive, whatever), have to do with the waging of it?
>>>It is possible to have gotten into it for the wrong reasons and still be
>>>right.
>>
>> Omigod. I rest my case.
>
>What case exactly are you resting? That the Adminstration may have been
>deceptive? OK. But the "ever-changing" list of reasons for invading Iraq
>still exists and many find it valid. Even most democrats don't favor an
>immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, but see the value of
>continuing to support the Iraq democracy.
No, no running after what Bush did to put us in this
quagmire. He got us in this mess (with your help) and
we'll have to work out something that's decent for the
people left behind. It's not supporting the Iraq
democracy, it's to prevent mayhem and chaos after we
leave since it's really us who is controlling things.
>> Democracy? Think again. Are you awake about what is
>> going on over there, outside of meaningless speeches by
>> The Decider? The only people who like to use the words
>> "fair and balanced" are Fox News affiliates who mean
>> balanced to one's own point of view :-)
>
>You are not funny. The smiley was not necessary.
LOL!
>>>> Character assassination? You were pointing out something
>>>> you felt pain from in an old thread.
>>>
>>>I just said you have caused me no pain . Why do you doubt that?
Because of the incessant whining I have to read here.
A thread about Hurwitz became a thread about poor Frank.
As ever.
>No. YOU talking about my feelings. That is, that I don't have them. Which
>is character assiasination. If you stuck to issues I wouldn't have ever
>brought it up. My "forever complaining" is in response to your forever
>doing it. Let's simply the whole thing:
If I stuck to issues? You think I character assassinated
you on this thread BEFORE you showed up and emitted all
these complaints about an older thread between us?
I take it back, you -could- teach, but it would be
illogic and you're now a master of it. Not one thought
about you entered my mind while posting to Michael, John
and Ian. Not even a glimmer.
But you needed this fix, Frank.
>>>Though, I repeat, your saying that does not hurt my feelings. It's your
>>>problem, not mine.
>>
>> That's nice. Now maybe you'll stop complaining about it.
>>
>
>When you stop the unwarranted character assassination, I will.
You're self assassinating with this performance.
Have fun, until the next thread you want to interrupt
so we can hear more about you and the lack of respect given
you.
Andrys Basten
>> Or, right in this case. I read the rest of the note
>> about all the things you could have done. You do respect
>> musicians whose music making you like.
>
>Wrong again.
> I did do and continue to do the things I wanted and want
>to do, and I am very content with that. Unlike Hurwitz who seems to
>think he knows better than a lot of people how to perform Mahler but
>will never get a shot at doing it himself.
He's performed in many Mahler concerts, even if you don't
value his instrument(s). He didn't perform the 8th though.
>dissatisfaction speaking from Hurwitz' reviews. And I don't write books
>and reviews putting down people's performances as "disgusting" or
>saying nasty things like "Abbado's sickness was a wake-up call for
>him".
Opinion. I don't see anything awful about that.
Many of us have had bouts like Abbado's and felt they
were wakeup calls for us.
>I don't just respect musicians whose music making I like. I respect all
>musicians who operate on a high level of musical craftsmanship,
You decide what's high though?
>> But the anger you
>> feel toward reviews that state differing and negative
>> views toward musicians you admire (while getting a lot
>> of attention due to the site he created) is way out of
>> proportion and your thread has just drawn attention to
>> your own 'younger' level of negativy.
>
>Funny comment from someone who takes some of the negative comments made
>about Hurwitz by myself and some other posters and blows them up to
>statements about war and intolerance in thw world in general.
Yes, the syndrome is very much what starts wars.
It starts at the ground level. Most of us who post
in threads like this have it in some measure. Some
have it more and start whole threads of bombast against
one individual whose opinions about some musicians are
negative and counter to theirs. It's one thing to
find it disgusting; it's another to express it by
calling attention to someone's physical appearance
and in a derogatory way.
>preferences. What I find despiccable about his "journalism" is the
>primitive and insulting way he brings these views across. That is not
>the intellectual level on which one should think "classical" music
>should be discussed.
No harm in saying so. This thread-starter was something else,
as others have said to you.
>But apparently his pseudo reviews appeal to a lot of pseudo
>intellectuals, like you. Why is that? Obviously, because it gives
>people strong opinions without much behind it. And so they can echo
>strong opinions without having much behind it themselves.
This 'pseudo intellectual' (who is a noisily assertive
sentimentalist actually) enjoys the writings of several.
Some maybe too acerbic for you, but I read them here and
I read them on David's site. He's an interesting writer,
if infuriating, but most of us would not carry it to what
you needed to do in your starter-post.
I can't stress this enough. You're an intelligent guy,
whose posting arguments in the past I've backed, but your
lead post and follow-ups re Hurwitz are just childish and
disappointing.
I realize that may anger you further, but I've
been one of those who tended to enjoy reading your
thoughts.
tomdeacon
At the risk of intruding on a personal feud of some kind, I wonder if I
might politely suggest that none of the parties in this dispute are
covering themselves with glory of any variety whatsoever.
TD
Michael Schaffer
Andrys Basten wrote:
> In article <1151964633....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> Michael Schaffer <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Andrys Basten wrote:
> >> . . .
> >> Or, right in this case. I read the rest of the note
> >> about all the things you could have done. You do respect
> >> musicians whose music making you like.
> >
> >Wrong again.
> Re what you quoted above?
Huh?
> > I did do and continue to do the things I wanted and want
> >to do, and I am very content with that. Unlike Hurwitz who seems to
> >think he knows better than a lot of people how to perform Mahler but
> >will never get a shot at doing it himself.
>
> He's performed in many Mahler concerts, even if you don't
> value his instrument(s). He didn't perform the 8th though.
There is a huge, huge difference between banging around on some
percussion instruments in hobby orchestras - which very often people do
who can't play any instrument properly - that has nothing to do with
percussion instruments being "easier" to play at all, BTW, but they are
easier to play on a hobby level than most other instruments, so you
often find them manned by wannabees.
I do appreciate and respect the extremely difficile and high precision
work of true professional classical percussionists, but then - and that
is another indication of his pseudodom - Hurwitz doesn't.
He seems to think only because he messed around with some gongs and
triangles he knows better than the WP how to play percussion. Including
that some instruments can't be played sitting down, one of his favorite
pet peeves. I actually asked a very well known world class
percussionist with whom I worked recently about his opinion, and he
actually listened to some of the recordings and said they were
absolutely first class, percussion wise. But that's only one of many
details. Although it does get blown up out of proportion by DH's
reviews regularly.
And if he just stuck to reviews of orchestral performances from the
percussion point of view, well, that would just be geeky and somewhat
funny in his fixatedness on that one area. But he fantasizes about
knowing everything about Mahler performances. That in itself
disqualifies him as the kind of expert he wants to be. The field is way
too complex. A good reviewer could describe the different approaches,
let us know his personal preferences, but the kind of from-above
dispensation of judgment Hurwitz gives is just ridiculous. He sure
dreams about conducting Mahler symphonies himself. But only in his
dreams, or in front of the stereo set, air counducting. Hmmm. Maybe
that is what is his criterion for good performances. The ones you can
airconduct to best.
I think it takes much more than that to be able to judge musical
performances of such complex works as absolutely as he often does. A
very solid musical and musicological background, much more practical
performaing experience, a whole lot other insights he probably doesn't
have either. I wonder if he speaks any German good enough so that he is
able to read what Mahler wrote and what he read, and what constitues
the intellectual and literary athmosphere of Mahler's time and of which
he was such a fascinating, many-faceted mirror. Probably not.
> >dissatisfaction speaking from Hurwitz' reviews. And I don't write books
> >and reviews putting down people's performances as "disgusting" or
> >saying nasty things like "Abbado's sickness was a wake-up call for
> >him".
>
> Opinion. I don't see anything awful about that.
> Many of us have had bouts like Abbado's and felt they
> were wakeup calls for us.
>
> >I don't just respect musicians whose music making I like. I respect all
> >musicians who operate on a high level of musical craftsmanship,
>
> You decide what's high though?
Oh, I see, you don't have much of a musical background yourself. Like
Hurwitz. If you had, it would be obvious to you how much of music
making is actually craftsmanship, and there are, if not "objective",
but still fairly definable standards or levels of craftsmanship when it
comes to playing and how music is played. That is called "style". Being
able to separate these elements of craftsmanship from personal and
subjective preferences is one element which distinguishes a really good
reviewer and which makes his obsevrations all the more valuable and
informative for the reader.
So, no, I don't decide what a high level of craftsmanship is.
> >> But the anger you
> >> feel toward reviews that state differing and negative
> >> views toward musicians you admire (while getting a lot
> >> of attention due to the site he created) is way out of
> >> proportion and your thread has just drawn attention to
> >> your own 'younger' level of negativy.
> >
> >Funny comment from someone who takes some of the negative comments made
> >about Hurwitz by myself and some other posters and blows them up to
> >statements about war and intolerance in thw world in general.
>
> Yes, the syndrome is very much what starts wars.
> It starts at the ground level. Most of us who post
> in threads like this have it in some measure. Some
> have it more and start whole threads of bombast against
> one individual whose opinions about some musicians are
> negative and counter to theirs.
Hello? Hellooooo?!? I said *several times* now that his views don't
generally counter mine. *Several* times, very *explicitly*. That is not
what I am talking about at all. It's the style in which he sometimes
puts down accomplished artists, and the hollowness of his rantings
which is very apparent to anyone with a solid musical background. Why
shouldn't he be judged in the same style that he judges others?
Frank Berger
> In article <12aj5c7...@news.supernews.com>,
> Frank Berger <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>
>>> If you didn't keep showing your feelings about receiving
>>> unwelcome words on a thread that turns to war talk, there
>>> wouldn't be anything to discuss here on a thread that was
>>> about something else and not about you.
>>
>>It's amazing to see that you fail to see that the discussion is as much
>>about you as me. And I repeat, you have not hurt my feelings, Really and
>>truly. Are you going to insist that I am lying when I say this (again and
>>again)?
>
> No, you're just not understanding your eternal need to
> say how hurt you were by my words to you on the Iraq War
> that you didn't care 1/10th as much about Iraq dead and
> maimed as you do about words to you on this thread.
> I think you are sincere but tiresome in this.
And I'm starting to think you're not as smart as I once thought you were.
Now you're not only saying my feelings were hurt by you (which they never
were), but you're saying that I SAID I was hurt, which I never did. So
rather than take my word on this, you've escalated the lie.
>
>> I am trying to show the illogic in your conclusions about the
>>"feelings" of people who might support the war. You have made an
>>emotional
>>leap that isn't justified on a logical basis.
>
> Well, the thread was about what Michael felt was
> David Hurwitz's physical ugliness matching what Michael
> felt was the personality in his reviews negative toward
> Michael's admired musicians.
>
> I then said to John that even if David Hurwitz
> is FOR the war it doesn't trump our own behavior on
> such juvenile thread topics as the starting note.
> However, then you come in and make it all about Frank.
> Again.
No I didn't. You referred to "American disregard for Iraqi lives," and I
objected to that.
>
> You will never get that if someone did that to your
> photo, and you, I'd do the same. You're stuck on an
> old conversation which was about entirely different things,
> the 'reasons' for the war in Iraq, and their viability
> no matter what they might be, day to day. And re your
> not particularly caring that so much suffering goes on
> and continues due to folks like you.
> Now, I don't agree with your stance at all, but I
> do understand faith-based (and looking up to 'leaders')
> or almost authoritarian perspectives and respect that
That's funny. Among people who DO know me, I am known as an
anti-authoritarian. My support for the war is entirely practical and not at
all faith-based, whatever that's supposed to mean.
> you're sincere in this stance of yours, even if you
> never look back at the harm vs the 'rewards' of
> this continuing action.
"Never look back" You simply cannot resist these ridiculous assumptions anf
exxagerations, can you? Even when I'm banging you over the head, pointing
them out.
>
> What I don't respect is your lack of reasoning. It just
> requotes The Decider
This is your second reference to "The Decider." I have no idea what you are
talking about.
> no matter what he is deciding to say
> that day. It's like a tape recorder that plays back
> anything heard from one source.
>
> Samir, on the other hand, cites all kinds of
> facts that make him lean another way. That reasoning
> I can respect even if I disagree with the ultimate
> focus.
>
> Now, can we get off Frank Berger and how he is
> misunderstood or not given enough respect?
>
> Point again, which you evade. No one that we know
> would make a post about your physical appearance and
> carry on about it, even if we disagree with you
> vehemently when it comes to the Iraq war.
I have no argument with your criticism of Schaffer. Never did. I agree
entirely. In fact, I consider his bringing in Hurwitz's looks to be akin to
your predeliction for making assumptions and statements about the character
of people who disagree with you on political matters. You are the pot
calling the kettle black
I must be touching a nerve. Now I'm "demented." Who has a delusion of
grandeur? One who thinks he may be able to teach another something? Or the
one who doesn't think they have anything to learn?
>
>>> I know how easily you don't regret tremendous
>>> harm done in our name for -- what was it a few hours
>>> ago, it keeps changing --.
>>>
>>
>>I see tremendous good coming from the Iraq war, that will outweigh the
>>bad.
>>Why don't you value the lives that would have been lost had Saddam stayed
>>in
>>power? Why haven't you expressed sorrow over those that he did murder?
>>Are
>>you unfeeling? Why don't you value the benefits in term of physical
>>safety,
>>freedom and standard of living that will accrue wherever democracy takes
>>root? Are you a bigot? Are these things suitable only for Americans?
>
> You can think whatever you choose.
Not without youre thinking I have no feelings and that I am demented.
(This statement is not about me. It is about you).
> I won't come on
> another thread to berate you for opinions you held (and
> still do) in an old thread between us which bored the
> entire community but seems to excite you no end.
It takes two to tango. Are you getting off on this? Neither am I.
> We both
> have strong beliefs.
> You, however, won't let go of someone
> else not giving you what you feel is proper respect.
I would call it civil behavior.
>For your reasoning, as shown in the past, you're never going to
> get it from me, Frank.
What does that say about you?
> But if this excites you, keep
> posting on this eternal complaint. It'll be a solitary
> endeavor soon, and that might be enjoyable for you too.
I notice that you chose not to reply to my questions.
They are my words, reflecting my thoughts. And I didn't vote for Bush.
> One heavy motivation for voter turnout is the
> ability to vote us out of there, as shown in polls
> there asking voting people.
Polls indicate the majority of Iraqis, in fact, do NOT want us to just up
and leave. There is a fact for you. Which blows many of your arguments out
of the water, by the way.
>
>>>>What do the circumstances of how we got into the war (Bush lied, was
>>>>deceptive, whatever), have to do with the waging of it?
>>>>It is possible to have gotten into it for the wrong reasons and still be
>>>>right.
>>>
>>> Omigod. I rest my case.
>>
>>What case exactly are you resting? That the Adminstration may have been
>>deceptive? OK. But the "ever-changing" list of reasons for invading Iraq
>>still exists and many find it valid. Even most democrats don't favor an
>>immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, but see the value of
>>continuing to support the Iraq democracy.
>
> No, no running after what Bush did to put us in this
> quagmire. He got us in this mess (with your help)
Not at all. As I 've said about a billion times, I didn't vote for him. I
voted straight Libertarian, few, if any, of which would have supported the
Iraq war.
> and we'll have to work out something that's decent for the
> people left behind.
What do you think we are in the process of doing?
> It's not supporting the Iraq
> democracy, it's to prevent mayhem and chaos after we
> leave since it's really us who is controlling things.
It seems you care about how things LOOK and not about how things ARE? The
million or more who were murdered by Saddam (quietly and more-or-less out of
sight) don't matter. Only order matters?
>
>>> Democracy? Think again. Are you awake about what is
>>> going on over there, outside of meaningless speeches by
>>> The Decider?
Instead of calling me unwake, why not tell me what is "going on over there?"
Who the hell is the Decider?
> The only people who like to use the words
>>> "fair and balanced" are Fox News affiliates who mean
>>> balanced to one's own point of view :-)
>>
>>You are not funny. The smiley was not necessary.
>
> LOL!
>
>>>>> Character assassination? You were pointing out something
>>>>> you felt pain from in an old thread.
>>>>
>>>>I just said you have caused me no pain . Why do you doubt that?
>
> Because of the incessant whining I have to read here.
> A thread about Hurwitz became a thread about poor Frank.
>
No, it's about your behavior
> As ever.
>
>>No. YOU talking about my feelings. That is, that I don't have them.
>>Which
>>is character assiasination. If you stuck to issues I wouldn't have ever
>>brought it up. My "forever complaining" is in response to your forever
>>doing it. Let's simply the whole thing:
>
> If I stuck to issues? You think I character assassinated
> you on this thread BEFORE you showed up and emitted all
> these complaints about an older thread between us?
> I take it back, you -could- teach, but it would be
> illogic and you're now a master of it. Not one thought
> about you entered my mind while posting to Michael, John
> and Ian. Not even a glimmer.
Who said anyone was thinking about me? You mentioned "American disregard of
Iraqi lives." I called you to task for that excessive, hyperbolic, and
unfair characterization. It had nothing to do with me, except that I
mentioned it was the same kind of thing you did to me in our other
discussion.
>
> But you needed this fix, Frank.
>
>>>>Though, I repeat, your saying that does not hurt my feelings. It's your
>>>>problem, not mine.
>>>
>>> That's nice. Now maybe you'll stop complaining about it.
>>>
>>
>>When you stop the unwarranted character assassination, I will.
>
> You're self assassinating with this performance.
>
> Have fun, until the next thread you want to interrupt
Huh? You are the thread police now? What did I interrupt? Your
interruption?
> so we can hear more about you and the lack of respect given
> you.
>
>
I want you to cease the exaggeration, hyperbole and unwarranted assumptions
about people's characters. If you do, you will be a more effective
communicator.
Frank Berger
"tomdeacon" <tomde...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1151968399.3...@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I'm crushed that you think so.
Matthew Silverstein
> You hit the nail on the head: just like many of Mr Hurwitz' so-called
> "reviews". The tone he often takes, the deep resentments he harbors
> against some artists and which break through in many of his "reviews"
> all point to a very unbalanced individual with a lot of issues, of
> which his ugliness could be part.
Even if that were true (and I don't think that it is), how precisely would
that justify your post?
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> How do you want precision to be measured? Would 'very precisely' be an
> acceptable answer?
No, I need a numerical answer (to at least three decimal places) in
precision units.
Matty
rkhalona
Andrys Basten wrote:
> In article <1151923715....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> Michael Schaffer <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Please don't be so dramatic, pull yourself together a little.
>
> You should have done that yourself before posting
> your truly embarrassingly juvenile note in this thread.
>
Michael is right. Pull yourself together, but much more than a little.
RK
Michael Schaffer
Like this: freedom of speech. Happy 4th of July!
david...@aol.com
Michael Schaffer wrote:
> Like this: freedom of speech. Happy 4th of July!
Freedom of speech is not the issue.
-david gable
tomdeacon
Frank Berger wrote:
> > What I don't respect is your lack of reasoning. It just
> > requotes The Decider
>
> This is your second reference to "The Decider." I have no idea what you are
> talking about.
Think Dubya.
Think news conference.
Google it if you like.
But don't look so damned ignorant, Frank.
Very unbecoming.
TD
WF Buttlover
Yes, Frank Berger is pure hamburger from ear to ear.
WF Buttlover
Todd Schurk wrote:
> WF Buttlover wrote:
> > david...@aol.com wrote:
> > > WF Buttlover wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Is Schurk an abbreviation of Shit-Jerk?
> > >
> > > I fail to understand how Mr. Schurk became the villain for objecting to
> > > so thoroughly objectionable a post.
> >
> > He brought the thread to a new low, introducing all these four-letter
> > words. They seemed to fit his name. Comprende?
>
> At least I have the courage to use my real name, instead of an alias
> coined from your hobby Mr. Buttlover.
I don't see what courage has to do with it. Perhaps I'm Luciano
Pavarotti and don't want to be deluged with boring questions.