[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

OT: Basic intro (OT)

*getting popcorn*


----- Original Message -----
From: "Caliban Tiresias Darklock" <caliban@darklock.com>
To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: Basic intro (OT)

> On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 11:36:32 -0500, jim palmer
<jimp@pobox.com> wrote:
> >i think you are getting unnecessarily defensive.
> I tend to do that. ;)
> >>Okay, now that you've said "you're wrong and you're stupid",
> >
> >while i do think he implied that you were wrong, he did not
say you are
> >stupid.
> The restatement was intended to be light-hearted, not
accusatory. I
> apologise for any perception that I was angry about something.
> >> perhaps you
> >> could tell me exactly which set of blanket statements you
have a problem
> >> with...
> >
> >blanket statement #1:
> >>"Each generation of technology provides simpler ways to make
> >is anything simpler than whacking two sticks together.
> >maybe singing?
> Absolutely.
> Whacking two sticks together produces a very limited series of
> When "sticks on logs" was presented, producing the first
> xylophone, a larger number of notes could be produced.
> Singing requires a great deal of training and practice. When
> through a shell" was presented, pleasant sounds could be made
with much
> less effort.
> Technology simplifies the process of making music. It provides
> capability with less training. That's the entire point of
applying it.
> The statement is certainly not "simply untrue".
> >blanket statement #2:
> >>"The previous generation, being jealous..."
> >the previous generation of technology is jealous?
> >older people are jealous of younger people?
> >users of older technology are jealous?
> I noticed this. It's probably the major foundation of the
> arguments; it's also a perfect example of "apply common
> Obviously, the intended meaning is USERS OF the previous
generation. A
> misstatement, but hardly a logical error. Once again,
certainly not
> "simply untrue".
> >anyway you slice it, a blanket statement...
> Wrong. "This isn't a universal truth, of course." It was never
> to be a blanket statement, and I specifically noted that in
the original
> post.
> >blanket statement #3:
> >"...claims the music isn't "real". "
> >a whole generation of people (or users, or technology) can't
make any claim.
> However, a substantive portion of those people can and will
have common
> beliefs and opinions which constitute an implied claim. And,
of course,
> certainly not "simply untrue".