On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC+1, frankwm wrote:
>
>
> gggg gggg should love-bomb that joint..

Technically, there should be a way to transport mr gggg to Lafayette without him even noticing, since he only scans his own stuff.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 23:25:07 -0800 (PST), frankwm
<frankwmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 11:15:25 PM UTC, Chris from Lafayette wrote:
>
>> I might as well put in a plug for a forum which I moderate: the "Classical Court" forum ......... I'm inclined NOT to "prune" messages if I can help it. In addition, there are a few other former posters there who have left because they've taken offense at what I've posted (i.e., not how I've moderated the forum, but just with what I've posted!).
>
>
>................................................
>https://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/search.mpl?forum=classical&searchtext=frankwm
>
>I'd left because of that guy's arrogance ('Classical Court' being his special little Fiefdom) after over 15 years on AA: he sure doesn't like to be shown as being incorrect and engages in Winston Smith re-writing/editing/removal of posts (had previously mentioned Philips' re-recording (in another acoustic) of Stokowski/Tchaikovsky - also Davis/Berlioz Te Deum) where he engaged in contortions to prove he was originally correct after stating I was wrong (as if....) - now seemingly all vanished.
>Typically that lot only wish to read those opinions that they hold so dear.
>
>Thought he was in safe-ground re: the over-hyped Barbirolli Elgar/RVW string disc.. see his laughable inability to Comprehend the written-word..
>https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=classical&m=25836
>
>gggg gggg should love-bomb that joint..

I looked over the list of posts on the "Classical Court" website and I
didn't see a single one devoted to the most important and long lasting
medium of contemporary classical music making, DVDs and Blu-Rays of
operas.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 3:30:40 PM UTC, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:

> I looked over the list of posts on the "Classical Court" website and I
> didn't see a single one devoted to the most important and long lasting
> medium of contemporary classical music making, DVDs and Blu-Rays of
> operas.
..............................
Not much there in 3years (one-man-band):-

https://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/search.mpl?searchtext=blu-ray+opera&b=AND&topic=&topics_only=N&author=&date1=&date2=&slowmessage=&sort=score&sortOrder=DESC&forum=classical

My collection (<300gb + ballet) only began 2020 with the avalanche of Bolshoi/Maryinsky productions on YouTube in DVD quality: and with so many more visual standouts - two being Covent Garden's 2017 "Turandot" & Komische Oper's "Orfeo".

On Fri, 19 Nov 2021, Herman wrote:

> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 11:28:44 AM UTC+1, hvt...@xs4all.nl wrote:
>>
>> Most of what gggg posts makes sense. He would make more sense if he didn't disguise himself as a quote bot.
>>
>> Henk
>
> He's a madman talking to himself. Which is why noone ever responds.
> Virtually all his stuff is on endless all gggg fungus topics.
> If you like his stuff, go and give him your email address.

Frankly, I find this discussion near-incomprehensible. If you don't
want to read bis posts, just skip them. This is trivial to do, with
or without a kill file. If "noone ever responds", you won't evem
see threads he starts.

In fact, there are some responses, but give your fellow participants the
benefit of the doubt: if they respond, maybe a topic (even one 15 years
old) interests them, or maybe they have their own comment on a link.
(In classical music, just because a topic is old doesn't exclude it
from current interest.)

I too wish there were more posts actually expressing views on new
(or old) performances. And I wish this current thread focused more
on that. If we don't like the percentages, we need to contribute.
--
Al Eisner

On 11/20/2021 5:57 PM, Al Eisner wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2021, Herman wrote:
>
>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 11:28:44 AM UTC+1, hvt...@xs4all.nl wrote:
>>>
>>> Most of what gggg posts makes sense. He would make more sense if he didn't disguise himself as a quote bot.
>>>
>>> Henk
>>
>> He's a madman talking to himself. Which is why noone ever responds.
>> Virtually all his stuff is on endless all gggg fungus topics.
>> If you like his stuff, go and give him your email address.
>
> Frankly, I find this discussion near-incomprehensible.  If you don't
> want to read bis posts, just skip them.  This is trivial to do, with
> or without a kill file.  If "noone ever responds", you won't evem
> see threads he starts.
>

It is perfectly reasonable to find gggg's type of participation here objectionable and it is perfectly reasonable to say so.

> In fact, there are some responses, but give your fellow participants the
> benefit of the doubt:  if they respond, maybe a topic (even one 15 years
> old) interests them, or maybe they have their own comment on a link.
> (In classical music, just because a topic is old doesn't exclude it
> from current interest.)
>
> I too wish there were more posts actually expressing views on new
> (or old) performances.  And I wish this current thread focused more
> on that.  If we don't like the percentages, we need to contribute.

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 5:16:31 PM UTC-5, Andy Evans wrote:
>
> It's clear that Dan was holding up the
> group with his energy and eccentric
> impact.

Non sense.

dk

Op zondag 21 november 2021 om 01:14:09 UTC+1 schreef Frank Berger:
> On 11/20/2021 5:57 PM, Al Eisner wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Nov 2021, Herman wrote:
> >
> >> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 11:28:44 AM UTC+1, hvt...@xs4all.nl wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Most of what gggg posts makes sense. He would make more sense if he didn't disguise himself as a quote bot.
> >>>
> >>> Henk
> >>
> >> He's a madman talking to himself. Which is why noone ever responds.
> >> Virtually all his stuff is on endless all gggg fungus topics.
> >> If you like his stuff, go and give him your email address.
> >
> > Frankly, I find this discussion near-incomprehensible. If you don't
> > want to read bis posts, just skip them. This is trivial to do, with
> > or without a kill file. If "noone ever responds", you won't evem
> > see threads he starts.

> It is perfectly reasonable to find gggg's type of participation here objectionable and it is perfectly reasonable to say so.

<g> "Type"-objections have little to do with reason.

Henk

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 11:57:31 PM UTC+1, Al Eisner wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2021, Herman wrote:
>
> > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 11:28:44 AM UTC+1, hvt...@xs4all.nl wrote:
> >>
> >> Most of what gggg posts makes sense. He would make more sense if he didn't disguise himself as a quote bot.
> >>
> >> Henk
> >
> > He's a madman talking to himself. Which is why noone ever responds.
> > Virtually all his stuff is on endless all gggg fungus topics.
> > If you like his stuff, go and give him your email address.
> Frankly, I find this discussion near-incomprehensible. If you don't
> want to read bis posts, just skip them. This is trivial to do, with
> or without a kill file. If "noone ever responds", you won't evem
> see threads he starts.
>
This is only partly true. Over time Mr gggg has developed a method of building a wall of topics so that if you open RMCR on google groups, you see nothing but topics without any substance other than "gggg was here" - resurrected topics from ten or fifteen years ago with nothing added other than a mention of a vaguely connected youtube posting (without link, so completely useless), or, the latest trick, a link to another gggg topic, so that you're getting the anxious feeling you're dealing with a totally self-involved crazy man, whose entire world consists of gggg and his extremily limited concerns i.e. Holst's Neptune, a couple of movies from a long time ago, like Space Odyssey, and the decline of intellectual culture, which is kind of ironic since mr gggg would serve well as Exhibit A for said decline.

It reminds me too much of Ansermaniac, another self-obsessed RMCRer. I'm fully aware every internet group attracts at least one of these cases, and I'm fully willing to sidestep or humour them. Ansermaniac made me sad sometimes, he was obviously suffering. However, if you look at the wine group mr. gggg has colonized with a similar strategy, it doesn't make me sad, and there is no way to sidestep gggg; he's all over the place, he desperately wants you to see his thingie, over and over again, even though he's got nothing to contribute. That's why he started ressurecting these old topics: you think, 'Hey that's a topic I'm interested in, and what happened to the OP?' and then you find out it's just gggg again. It's tedious and exhausting.

On 11/21/2021 6:20 AM, Herman wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 11:57:31 PM UTC+1, Al Eisner wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2021, Herman wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 11:28:44 AM UTC+1, hvt...@xs4all.nl wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Most of what gggg posts makes sense. He would make more sense if he didn't disguise himself as a quote bot.
>>>>
>>>> Henk
>>>
>>> He's a madman talking to himself. Which is why noone ever responds.
>>> Virtually all his stuff is on endless all gggg fungus topics.
>>> If you like his stuff, go and give him your email address.
>> Frankly, I find this discussion near-incomprehensible. If you don't
>> want to read bis posts, just skip them. This is trivial to do, with
>> or without a kill file. If "noone ever responds", you won't evem
>> see threads he starts.
>>
> This is only partly true. Over time Mr gggg has developed a method of building a wall of topics so that if you open RMCR on google groups, you see nothing but topics without any substance other than "gggg was here" - resurrected topics from ten or fifteen years ago with nothing added other than a mention of a vaguely connected youtube posting (without link, so completely useless), or, the latest trick, a link to another gggg topic, so that you're getting the anxious feeling you're dealing with a totally self-involved crazy man, whose entire world consists of gggg and his extremily limited concerns i.e. Holst's Neptune, a couple of movies from a long time ago, like Space Odyssey, and the decline of intellectual culture, which is kind of ironic since mr gggg would serve well as Exhibit A for said decline.
>
> It reminds me too much of Ansermaniac, another self-obsessed RMCRer. I'm fully aware every internet group attracts at least one of these cases, and I'm fully willing to sidestep or humour them. Ansermaniac made me sad sometimes, he was obviously suffering. However, if you look at the wine group mr. gggg has colonized with a similar strategy, it doesn't make me sad, and there is no way to sidestep gggg; he's all over the place, he desperately wants you to see his thingie, over and over again, even though he's got nothing to contribute. That's why he started ressurecting these old topics: you think, 'Hey that's a topic I'm interested in, and what happened to the OP?' and then you find out it's just gggg again. It's tedious and exhausting.
>

Would it be possible to turn this into a moderated group and ban him?

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 3:13:59 PM UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
>
> >
> Would it be possible to turn this into a moderated group and ban him?

It would not be possible. And even it were it would not be worth the trouble.

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 11:25:09 PM UTC-8, frankwm wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 11:15:25 PM UTC, Chris from Lafayette wrote:
>
> > I might as well put in a plug for a forum which I moderate: the "Classical Court" forum ......... I'm inclined NOT to "prune" messages if I can help it. In addition, there are a few other former posters there who have left because they've taken offense at what I've posted (i.e., not how I've moderated the forum, but just with what I've posted!).
>
>
> ................................................
> https://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/search.mpl?forum=classical&searchtext=frankwm
>
> I'd left because of that guy's arrogance ('Classical Court' being his special little Fiefdom) after over 15 years on AA: he sure doesn't like to be shown as being incorrect and engages in Winston Smith re-writing/editing/removal of posts (had previously mentioned Philips' re-recording (in another acoustic) of Stokowski/Tchaikovsky - also Davis/Berlioz Te Deum) where he engaged in contortions to prove he was originally correct after stating I was wrong (as if....) - now seemingly all vanished.
> Typically that lot only wish to read those opinions that they hold so dear.
>
> Thought he was in safe-ground re: the over-hyped Barbirolli Elgar/RVW string disc.. see his laughable inability to Comprehend the written-word..
> https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=classical&m=25836

Oh dear! The "victim" has spoken!

Generally, the only time posts are "pruned" from "Classical Court" is when they involve pure name calling, or, more seriously, threats of violence (in which case, the poster might be banished from the site or, at the very least, obliged to take an enforced "vacation" for some period of time too.) However, I am not the only moderator on the Audio Asylum site, and, in rare cases, another moderator will remove posts from the Classical Court forum. I don't remember your posts about Stokowski/Tchaikovsky or the Davis/Berlioz Te Deum - but posts on those subjects would certainly not have been removed if that was their only subject matter. It's also the case that posts could be removed after complaints on the part of other "inmates" there.

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 8:57:12 PM UTC, Chris from Lafayette wrote:

> Oh dear! The "victim" has spoken!

.........
I'm no 'victim'.

You edited some 4 lines from your last message - which was highly personal and offensive.

Poster's edits retain a link to the original post - yours doesn't: in 15 years I never had other than 2 >loopy< complaints about my posts (posts still there).

You didn't like being condradicted (SoL): yet you were previously 'begging' for my involvement

...................................

https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=classical&m=24580

So, Frank - you aren't SHY, are you? [nt] ;-) - Chris from Lafayette 11:49:12 01/8/21 (2)

RE: So, Frank - you aren't SHY, are you? [nt] ;-) - frankwm 12:44:52 01/8/21 (1)
"Saving the Keyboard from over-excitement" - No doubt a wise move! [nt] ;-) - Chris from Lafayette 17:44:16 01/8/21 (0)

....................................

"Yankee Style dissertation" is the typical AA use of 1000 words when 100 would do - not to mention your pretending the reputation of the SoL was so good - by referencing near 60year-later recordings - with pictures - 'to prove that'..bizarre.

Don't attempt to depict me as a troublemaker: The classical postings prior to 2018 were on Vinyl Asylum: they were informative & good-natured for very many years by Tom B., Garrod, myself and some others...people now gone: I don't recall your being part of That.

As was my input in your 'Court' - until I was abused that day by "Ivan303" - which you were quite happy to allow.

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 1:33:54 PM UTC-8, frankwm wrote:
> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 8:57:12 PM UTC, Chris from Lafayette wrote:
>
> > Oh dear! The "victim" has spoken!
> ........
> I'm no 'victim'.
>
> You edited some 4 lines from your last message - which was highly personal and offensive.
>
> Poster's edits retain a link to the original post - yours doesn't: in 15 years I never had other than 2 >loopy< complaints about my posts (posts still there).
>
> You didn't like being condradicted (SoL): yet you were previously 'begging' for my involvement
>
> ..................................
>
> https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=classical&m=24580
>
> So, Frank - you aren't SHY, are you? [nt] ;-) - Chris from Lafayette 11:49:12 01/8/21 (2)
>
> RE: So, Frank - you aren't SHY, are you? [nt] ;-) - frankwm 12:44:52 01/8/21 (1)
> "Saving the Keyboard from over-excitement" - No doubt a wise move! [nt] ;-) - Chris from Lafayette 17:44:16 01/8/21 (0)
>
> ...................................
>
> "Yankee Style dissertation" is the typical AA use of 1000 words when 100 would do - not to mention your pretending the reputation of the SoL was so good - by referencing near 60year-later recordings - with pictures - 'to prove that'..bizarre.
>
> Don't attempt to depict me as a troublemaker: The classical postings prior to 2018 were on Vinyl Asylum: they were informative & good-natured for very many years by Tom B., Garrod, myself and some others...people now gone: I don't recall your being part of That.
>
> As was my input in your 'Court' - until I was abused that day by "Ivan303" - which you were quite happy to allow.

Wow, frank - you're not only a victim, but an aggrieved victim! ;-)

On 11/22/2021 3:46 PM, Chris from Lafayette wrote:
> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 1:33:54 PM UTC-8, frankwm wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 8:57:12 PM UTC, Chris from Lafayette wrote:
>>
>>> Oh dear! The "victim" has spoken!
>> ........
>> I'm no 'victim'.
>>
>> You edited some 4 lines from your last message - which was highly personal and offensive.
>>
>> Poster's edits retain a link to the original post - yours doesn't: in 15 years I never had other than 2 >loopy< complaints about my posts (posts still there).
>>
>> You didn't like being condradicted (SoL): yet you were previously 'begging' for my involvement
>>
>> ..................................
>>
>> https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=classical&m=24580
>>
>> So, Frank - you aren't SHY, are you? [nt] ;-) - Chris from Lafayette 11:49:12 01/8/21 (2)
>>
>> RE: So, Frank - you aren't SHY, are you? [nt] ;-) - frankwm 12:44:52 01/8/21 (1)
>> "Saving the Keyboard from over-excitement" - No doubt a wise move! [nt] ;-) - Chris from Lafayette 17:44:16 01/8/21 (0)
>>
>> ...................................
>>
>> "Yankee Style dissertation" is the typical AA use of 1000 words when 100 would do - not to mention your pretending the reputation of the SoL was so good - by referencing near 60year-later recordings - with pictures - 'to prove that'..bizarre.
>>
>> Don't attempt to depict me as a troublemaker: The classical postings prior to 2018 were on Vinyl Asylum: they were informative & good-natured for very many years by Tom B., Garrod, myself and some others...people now gone: I don't recall your being part of That.
>>
>> As was my input in your 'Court' - until I was abused that day by "Ivan303" - which you were quite happy to allow.
>
> Wow, frank - you're not only a victim, but an aggrieved victim! ;-)
>

The best kind.

On Sun, 21 Nov 2021, Herman wrote:

> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 11:57:31 PM UTC+1, Al Eisner wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2021, Herman wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 11:28:44 AM UTC+1, hvt...@xs4all.nl wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Most of what gggg posts makes sense. He would make more sense if he didn't disguise himself as a quote bot.
>>>>
>>>> Henk
>>>
>>> He's a madman talking to himself. Which is why noone ever responds.
>>> Virtually all his stuff is on endless all gggg fungus topics.
>>> If you like his stuff, go and give him your email address.
>> Frankly, I find this discussion near-incomprehensible. If you don't
>> want to read bis posts, just skip them. This is trivial to do, with
>> or without a kill file. If "noone ever responds", you won't evem
>> see threads he starts.
>>
> This is only partly true. Over time Mr gggg has developed a method of building a wall of topics so that if you open RMCR on google groups, you see nothing but topics without any substance other than "gggg was here" - resurrected topics from ten or fifteen years ago with nothing added other than a mention of a vaguely connected youtube posting (without link, so completely useless), or, the latest trick, a link to another gggg topic, so that you're getting the anxious feeling you're dealing with a totally self-involved crazy man, whose entire world consists of gggg and his extremily limited concerns i.e. Holst's Neptune, a couple of movies from a long time ago, like Space Odyssey, and the decline of intellectual culture, which is kind of ironic since mr gggg would serve well as Exhibit A for said decline.
>
> It reminds me too much of Ansermaniac, another self-obsessed RMCRer. I'm fully aware every internet group attracts at least one of these cases, and I'm fully willing to sidestep or humour them. Ansermaniac made me sad sometimes, he was obviously suffering. However, if you look at the wine group mr. gggg has colonized with a similar strategy, it doesn't make me sad, and there is no way to sidestep gggg; he's all over the place, he desperately wants you to see his thingie, over and over again, even though he's got nothing to contribute. That's why he started ressurecting these old topics: you think, 'Hey that's a topic I'm interested in, and what happened to the OP?' and then you find out it's just gggg again. It's tedious and exhausting.

Well, perhaps the perspective of a google groups user differs from mine.
I find the site extraordinarily annoying, and my only usage of it is
to search (it is good at that, but still annoyingly comes up with entire
long threads, rather than focusing on the one or two posts relevant to
my search).

As to gggg, I think your comparison does him (likely a him) a disservice.
The messages themselves are all over the place, as you say, but not
(at least in rncr) neither nuts nor insulting. Rose-colored lenses perhaos?
--
Al Eisner

On 11/22/21 2:21 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 11/22/2021 3:46 PM, Chris from Lafayette wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 1:33:54 PM UTC-8, frankwm wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 8:57:12 PM UTC, Chris from Lafayette
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh dear! The "victim" has spoken!
>>> ........
>>> I'm no 'victim'.
>>>
>>> You edited some 4 lines from your last message - which was highly
>>> personal and offensive.
>>>
>>> Poster's edits retain a link to the original post - yours doesn't: in
>>> 15 years I never had other than 2 >loopy< complaints about my posts
>>> (posts still there).
>>>
>>> You didn't like being condradicted (SoL): yet you were previously
>>> 'begging' for my involvement
>>>
>>> ..................................
>>>
>>> https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=classical&m=24580
>>>
>>> So, Frank - you aren't SHY, are you? [nt] ;-) - Chris from Lafayette
>>> 11:49:12 01/8/21 (2)
>>>
>>> RE: So, Frank - you aren't SHY, are you? [nt] ;-) - frankwm 12:44:52
>>> 01/8/21 (1)
>>> "Saving the Keyboard from over-excitement" - No doubt a wise move!
>>> [nt] ;-) - Chris from Lafayette 17:44:16 01/8/21 (0)
>>>
>>> ...................................
>>>
>>> "Yankee Style dissertation" is the typical AA use of 1000 words when
>>> 100 would do - not to mention your pretending the reputation of the
>>> SoL was so good - by referencing near 60year-later recordings - with
>>> pictures - 'to prove that'..bizarre.
>>>
>>> Don't attempt to depict me as a troublemaker: The classical postings
>>> prior to 2018 were on Vinyl Asylum: they were informative &
>>> good-natured for very many years by Tom B., Garrod, myself and some
>>> others...people now gone: I don't recall your being part of That.
>>>
>>> As was my input in your 'Court' - until I was abused that day by
>>> "Ivan303" - which you were quite happy to allow.
>>
>> Wow, frank - you're not only a victim, but an aggrieved victim! ;-)
>>
>
> The best kind.

I've never seen anything from Mr. WM that has *not* been aggrieved.

Bob Harper

On 11/22/2021 8:30 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 11/22/21 2:21 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 11/22/2021 3:46 PM, Chris from Lafayette wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 1:33:54 PM UTC-8, frankwm wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 8:57:12 PM UTC, Chris from Lafayette wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Oh dear! The "victim" has spoken!
>>>> ........
>>>> I'm no 'victim'.
>>>>
>>>> You edited some 4 lines from your last message - which was highly personal and offensive.
>>>>
>>>> Poster's edits retain a link to the original post - yours doesn't: in 15 years I never had other than 2 >loopy< complaints about my posts (posts still there).
>>>>
>>>> You didn't like being condradicted (SoL): yet you were previously 'begging' for my involvement
>>>>
>>>> ..................................
>>>>
>>>> https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=classical&m=24580
>>>>
>>>> So, Frank - you aren't SHY, are you? [nt] ;-) - Chris from Lafayette 11:49:12 01/8/21 (2)
>>>>
>>>> RE: So, Frank - you aren't SHY, are you? [nt] ;-) - frankwm 12:44:52 01/8/21 (1)
>>>> "Saving the Keyboard from over-excitement" - No doubt a wise move! [nt] ;-) - Chris from Lafayette 17:44:16 01/8/21 (0)
>>>>
>>>> ...................................
>>>>
>>>> "Yankee Style dissertation" is the typical AA use of 1000 words when 100 would do - not to mention your pretending the reputation of the SoL was so good - by referencing near 60year-later recordings - with pictures - 'to prove that'..bizarre.
>>>>
>>>> Don't attempt to depict me as a troublemaker: The classical postings prior to 2018 were on Vinyl Asylum: they were informative & good-natured for very many years by Tom B., Garrod, myself and some others...people now gone: I don't recall your being part of That.
>>>>
>>>> As was my input in your 'Court' - until I was abused that day by "Ivan303" - which you were quite happy to allow.
>>>
>>> Wow, frank - you're not only a victim, but an aggrieved victim! ;-)
>>>
>>
>> The best kind.
>
> I've never seen anything from Mr. WM that has *not* been aggrieved.
>
> Bob Harper

He's been in my killfile for a long time, but I don't remember why. I see his posts only accidentally.

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 10:05:18 AM UTC-5, MELMOTH wrote:
> RMCR...

Vive la revolution!

dk

hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Sonntag, 21. November 2021 um 11:28:23 UTC+1:
> Op zondag 21 november 2021 om 01:14:09 UTC+1 schreef Frank Berger:
> > On 11/20/2021 5:57 PM, Al Eisner wrote:
> > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2021, Herman wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 11:28:44 AM UTC+1, hvt...@xs4all.nl wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Most of what gggg posts makes sense. He would make more sense if he didn't disguise himself as a quote bot.
> > >>>
> > >>> Henk
> > >>
> > >> He's a madman talking to himself. Which is why noone ever responds.
> > >> Virtually all his stuff is on endless all gggg fungus topics.
> > >> If you like his stuff, go and give him your email address.
> > >
> > > Frankly, I find this discussion near-incomprehensible. If you don't
> > > want to read bis posts, just skip them. This is trivial to do, with
> > > or without a kill file. If "noone ever responds", you won't evem
> > > see threads he starts.
>
> > It is perfectly reasonable to find gggg's type of participation here objectionable and it is perfectly reasonable to say so.
> <g> "Type"-objections have little to do with reason.
>
> Henk

BTW Henk. Gilels is not one of my favourite Mozart pianists anymore ;D And since I remember that you once posted about wanting to read more on Kierkegaard, you might find interest in what Adorno has to say here:

"De gustibus est disputandum – Even those who are convinced of the incomparability of works of art, find themselves continually entangled in debates where works of art, and precisely those of the highest and for that reason incomparable rank, are compared with and evaluated against each other. The objection invariably raised during such considerations, that it is all just a matter of collectors’ instincts, of measuring by ells, usually means only that the good citizens, to whom art can never be irrational enough, wish to keep the inner constitution and claim of truth distant from the works. The compulsion of the consideration is however located in the work of art itself. So much is true, that they do not allow themselves to be compared. Rather, they want to annihilate each other. It is not for nothing that the ancients [i.e. Greeks] reserved the pantheon of that which is compatible to the gods or to ideas, but required works of art to enter the agon [Greek: contest, conflict, struggle], each one the mortal enemy of the other. The depiction of a “pantheon of classicism,” which Kierkegaard still clung to, is a fiction of neutralized upbringing. For if the idea of the beautiful is portrayed as merely divided up into many works, each individual one nevertheless reckons on an inalienable claim to the whole, claiming the beautiful for itself out of its uniqueness and can never admit its segmentation, without annulling itself. The beautiful, as something unitary, true and appearanceless [scheinlos], emancipated from such individuation, is not represented by the synthesis of all works, by the unity of arts and of art, but solely corporeally and actually: in the downfall of art itself. Every work of art aims at such a downfall, by seeking the death of all the others. That all art reckons on its own end, is another way of stating the same state of affairs. It is out of such a compulsion towards self-annihilation in works of art, from their innermost concern, that drives towards the appearanceless [scheinlos] picture of what is beautiful, which stirs up seemingly useless aesthetic disputes over and over again. While they stubbornly and obstinately wish to find what is aesthetically correct [Recht] and precisely thereby fall victim to an unquenchable dialectic, they are more correct than they can know; by delimiting each art-work, whose energy they take into themselves and raise to a concept, they work towards the destruction of art, which is its salvation. The aesthetic tolerance, which validates works of art in their immediate narrowness, without breaking this last, yields only the wrong downfall, that of the juxtaposition, which denies the claim of the unitary truth."

It is out of Minima Moralia and while I don't always agree with Adorno on Music, I think he makes some good points here and also elsewhere (I still have to get more familiar with his musical philosophy, and even though much of it is very likely wrong, one can still learn a lot). What I get out the upper mentioned essay is: That taste is debatable. De gustibus est disputandum as opposed to De gustibus non est disputandum.

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 10:40:19 PM UTC-8, gggg gggg wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 7:05:18 AM UTC-8, MELMOTH wrote:
> > RMCR...
>
> In the U.S., nobody talks about 'dumbing down' anymore because it's become only too obvious.

- The dumbing down of the country reflects itself on Broadway. The shows get dumber, and the public gets used to them.

Stephen Sondheim: 1930 - 2021

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/stephen-sondheim-a-giant-in-musical-theater-dies-at-91

Op vrijdag 26 november 2021 om 13:05:09 UTC+1 schreef Marc S:
> hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Sonntag, 21. November 2021 um 11:28:23 UTC+1:
> > Op zondag 21 november 2021 om 01:14:09 UTC+1 schreef Frank Berger:
> > > On 11/20/2021 5:57 PM, Al Eisner wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2021, Herman wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 11:28:44 AM UTC+1, hvt...@xs4all.nl wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Most of what gggg posts makes sense. He would make more sense if he didn't disguise himself as a quote bot.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Henk
> > > >>
> > > >> He's a madman talking to himself. Which is why noone ever responds..
> > > >> Virtually all his stuff is on endless all gggg fungus topics.
> > > >> If you like his stuff, go and give him your email address.
> > > >
> > > > Frankly, I find this discussion near-incomprehensible. If you don't
> > > > want to read bis posts, just skip them. This is trivial to do, with
> > > > or without a kill file. If "noone ever responds", you won't evem
> > > > see threads he starts.
> >
> > > It is perfectly reasonable to find gggg's type of participation here objectionable and it is perfectly reasonable to say so.
> > <g> "Type"-objections have little to do with reason.
> >
> > Henk
> BTW Henk. Gilels is not one of my favourite Mozart pianists anymore ;D And since I remember that you once posted about wanting to read more on Kierkegaard, you might find interest in what Adorno has to say here:
>
> "De gustibus est disputandum – Even those who are convinced of the incomparability of works of art, find themselves continually entangled in debates where works of art, and precisely those of the highest and for that reason incomparable rank, are compared with and evaluated against each other. The objection invariably raised during such considerations, that it is all just a matter of collectors’ instincts, of measuring by ells, usually means only that the good citizens, to whom art can never be irrational enough, wish to keep the inner constitution and claim of truth distant from the works. The compulsion of the consideration is however located in the work of art itself. So much is true, that they do not allow themselves to be compared. Rather, they want to annihilate each other. It is not for nothing that the ancients [i.e. Greeks] reserved the pantheon of that which is compatible to the gods or to ideas, but required works of art to enter the agon [Greek: contest, conflict, struggle], each one the mortal enemy of the other. The depiction of a “pantheon of classicism,” which Kierkegaard still clung to, is a fiction of neutralized upbringing. For if the idea of the beautiful is portrayed as merely divided up into many works, each individual one nevertheless reckons on an inalienable claim to the whole, claiming the beautiful for itself out of its uniqueness and can never admit its segmentation, without annulling itself. The beautiful, as something unitary, true and appearanceless [scheinlos], emancipated from such individuation, is not represented by the synthesis of all works, by the unity of arts and of art, but solely corporeally and actually: in the downfall of art itself. Every work of art aims at such a downfall, by seeking the death of all the others. That all art reckons on its own end, is another way of stating the same state of affairs. It is out of such a compulsion towards self-annihilation in works of art, from their innermost concern, that drives towards the appearanceless [scheinlos] picture of what is beautiful, which stirs up seemingly useless aesthetic disputes over and over again. While they stubbornly and obstinately wish to find what is aesthetically correct [Recht] and precisely thereby fall victim to an unquenchable dialectic, they are more correct than they can know; by delimiting each art-work, whose energy they take into themselves and raise to a concept, they work towards the destruction of art, which is its salvation. The aesthetic tolerance, which validates works of art in their immediate narrowness, without breaking this last, yields only the wrong downfall, that of the juxtaposition, which denies the claim of the unitary truth."
>
> It is out of Minima Moralia and while I don't always agree with Adorno on Music, I think he makes some good points here and also elsewhere (I still have to get more familiar with his musical philosophy, and even though much of it is very likely wrong, one can still learn a lot). What I get out the upper mentioned essay is: That taste is debatable. De gustibus est disputandum as opposed to De gustibus non est disputandum.

Hello Marc, I am not familiar with the Frankfurter's philosophy of art.
From this text, I gather that a work of art has to be "raised to a concept ", to be debatable, i.e. related to the idea of beauty and aesthetic correctness.
Personally, I do not see the need for a unitary truth, for a clear conception of what beauty is. I am one of Adorno's "good citizens".

Henk

hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Samstag, 27. November 2021 um 14:55:05 UTC+1:
> Op vrijdag 26 november 2021 om 13:05:09 UTC+1 schreef Marc S:
> > hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Sonntag, 21. November 2021 um 11:28:23 UTC+1:
> > > Op zondag 21 november 2021 om 01:14:09 UTC+1 schreef Frank Berger:
> > > > On 11/20/2021 5:57 PM, Al Eisner wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2021, Herman wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 11:28:44 AM UTC+1, hvt...@xs4all..nl wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Most of what gggg posts makes sense. He would make more sense if he didn't disguise himself as a quote bot.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Henk
> > > > >>
> > > > >> He's a madman talking to himself. Which is why noone ever responds.
> > > > >> Virtually all his stuff is on endless all gggg fungus topics.
> > > > >> If you like his stuff, go and give him your email address.
> > > > >
> > > > > Frankly, I find this discussion near-incomprehensible. If you don't
> > > > > want to read bis posts, just skip them. This is trivial to do, with
> > > > > or without a kill file. If "noone ever responds", you won't evem
> > > > > see threads he starts.
> > >
> > > > It is perfectly reasonable to find gggg's type of participation here objectionable and it is perfectly reasonable to say so.
> > > <g> "Type"-objections have little to do with reason.
> > >
> > > Henk
> > BTW Henk. Gilels is not one of my favourite Mozart pianists anymore ;D And since I remember that you once posted about wanting to read more on Kierkegaard, you might find interest in what Adorno has to say here:
> >
> > "De gustibus est disputandum – Even those who are convinced of the incomparability of works of art, find themselves continually entangled in debates where works of art, and precisely those of the highest and for that reason incomparable rank, are compared with and evaluated against each other. The objection invariably raised during such considerations, that it is all just a matter of collectors’ instincts, of measuring by ells, usually means only that the good citizens, to whom art can never be irrational enough, wish to keep the inner constitution and claim of truth distant from the works. The compulsion of the consideration is however located in the work of art itself. So much is true, that they do not allow themselves to be compared. Rather, they want to annihilate each other. It is not for nothing that the ancients [i.e. Greeks] reserved the pantheon of that which is compatible to the gods or to ideas, but required works of art to enter the agon [Greek: contest, conflict, struggle], each one the mortal enemy of the other. The depiction of a “pantheon of classicism,” which Kierkegaard still clung to, is a fiction of neutralized upbringing. For if the idea of the beautiful is portrayed as merely divided up into many works, each individual one nevertheless reckons on an inalienable claim to the whole, claiming the beautiful for itself out of its uniqueness and can never admit its segmentation, without annulling itself. The beautiful, as something unitary, true and appearanceless [scheinlos], emancipated from such individuation, is not represented by the synthesis of all works, by the unity of arts and of art, but solely corporeally and actually: in the downfall of art itself. Every work of art aims at such a downfall, by seeking the death of all the others. That all art reckons on its own end, is another way of stating the same state of affairs. It is out of such a compulsion towards self-annihilation in works of art, from their innermost concern, that drives towards the appearanceless [scheinlos] picture of what is beautiful, which stirs up seemingly useless aesthetic disputes over and over again. While they stubbornly and obstinately wish to find what is aesthetically correct [Recht] and precisely thereby fall victim to an unquenchable dialectic, they are more correct than they can know; by delimiting each art-work, whose energy they take into themselves and raise to a concept, they work towards the destruction of art, which is its salvation. The aesthetic tolerance, which validates works of art in their immediate narrowness, without breaking this last, yields only the wrong downfall, that of the juxtaposition, which denies the claim of the unitary truth."
> >
> > It is out of Minima Moralia and while I don't always agree with Adorno on Music, I think he makes some good points here and also elsewhere (I still have to get more familiar with his musical philosophy, and even though much of it is very likely wrong, one can still learn a lot). What I get out the upper mentioned essay is: That taste is debatable. De gustibus est disputandum as opposed to De gustibus non est disputandum.
> Hello Marc, I am not familiar with the Frankfurter's philosophy of art.
> From this text, I gather that a work of art has to be "raised to a concept ", to be debatable, i.e. related to the idea of beauty and aesthetic correctness.
> Personally, I do not see the need for a unitary truth, for a clear conception of what beauty is. I am one of Adorno's "good citizens".
>
> Henk

You can believe this. Nothing against it, even though I am of different opinion.

Marc S schrieb am Sonntag, 28. November 2021 um 15:01:56 UTC+1:
> hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Samstag, 27. November 2021 um 14:55:05 UTC+1:
> > Op vrijdag 26 november 2021 om 13:05:09 UTC+1 schreef Marc S:
> > > hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Sonntag, 21. November 2021 um 11:28:23 UTC+1:
> > > > Op zondag 21 november 2021 om 01:14:09 UTC+1 schreef Frank Berger:
> > > > > On 11/20/2021 5:57 PM, Al Eisner wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2021, Herman wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 11:28:44 AM UTC+1, hvt...@xs4all.nl wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Most of what gggg posts makes sense. He would make more sense if he didn't disguise himself as a quote bot.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Henk
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> He's a madman talking to himself. Which is why noone ever responds.
> > > > > >> Virtually all his stuff is on endless all gggg fungus topics.
> > > > > >> If you like his stuff, go and give him your email address.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Frankly, I find this discussion near-incomprehensible. If you don't
> > > > > > want to read bis posts, just skip them. This is trivial to do, with
> > > > > > or without a kill file. If "noone ever responds", you won't evem
> > > > > > see threads he starts.
> > > >
> > > > > It is perfectly reasonable to find gggg's type of participation here objectionable and it is perfectly reasonable to say so.
> > > > <g> "Type"-objections have little to do with reason.
> > > >
> > > > Henk
> > > BTW Henk. Gilels is not one of my favourite Mozart pianists anymore ;D And since I remember that you once posted about wanting to read more on Kierkegaard, you might find interest in what Adorno has to say here:
> > >
> > > "De gustibus est disputandum – Even those who are convinced of the incomparability of works of art, find themselves continually entangled in debates where works of art, and precisely those of the highest and for that reason incomparable rank, are compared with and evaluated against each other. The objection invariably raised during such considerations, that it is all just a matter of collectors’ instincts, of measuring by ells, usually means only that the good citizens, to whom art can never be irrational enough, wish to keep the inner constitution and claim of truth distant from the works. The compulsion of the consideration is however located in the work of art itself. So much is true, that they do not allow themselves to be compared. Rather, they want to annihilate each other. It is not for nothing that the ancients [i.e. Greeks] reserved the pantheon of that which is compatible to the gods or to ideas, but required works of art to enter the agon [Greek: contest, conflict, struggle], each one the mortal enemy of the other. The depiction of a “pantheon of classicism,” which Kierkegaard still clung to, is a fiction of neutralized upbringing. For if the idea of the beautiful is portrayed as merely divided up into many works, each individual one nevertheless reckons on an inalienable claim to the whole, claiming the beautiful for itself out of its uniqueness and can never admit its segmentation, without annulling itself. The beautiful, as something unitary, true and appearanceless [scheinlos], emancipated from such individuation, is not represented by the synthesis of all works, by the unity of arts and of art, but solely corporeally and actually: in the downfall of art itself. Every work of art aims at such a downfall, by seeking the death of all the others. That all art reckons on its own end, is another way of stating the same state of affairs. It is out of such a compulsion towards self-annihilation in works of art, from their innermost concern, that drives towards the appearanceless [scheinlos] picture of what is beautiful, which stirs up seemingly useless aesthetic disputes over and over again. While they stubbornly and obstinately wish to find what is aesthetically correct [Recht] and precisely thereby fall victim to an unquenchable dialectic, they are more correct than they can know; by delimiting each art-work, whose energy they take into themselves and raise to a concept, they work towards the destruction of art, which is its salvation. The aesthetic tolerance, which validates works of art in their immediate narrowness, without breaking this last, yields only the wrong downfall, that of the juxtaposition, which denies the claim of the unitary truth."
> > >
> > > It is out of Minima Moralia and while I don't always agree with Adorno on Music, I think he makes some good points here and also elsewhere (I still have to get more familiar with his musical philosophy, and even though much of it is very likely wrong, one can still learn a lot). What I get out the upper mentioned essay is: That taste is debatable. De gustibus est disputandum as opposed to De gustibus non est disputandum.
> > Hello Marc, I am not familiar with the Frankfurter's philosophy of art.
> > From this text, I gather that a work of art has to be "raised to a concept ", to be debatable, i.e. related to the idea of beauty and aesthetic correctness.
> > Personally, I do not see the need for a unitary truth, for a clear conception of what beauty is. I am one of Adorno's "good citizens".
> >
> > Henk
> You can believe this. Nothing against it, even though I am of different opinion.

BTW: It may also be too much as an introduction to Adorno probably. I also don't fully grasp Adorno here.

Op zondag 28 november 2021 om 15:01:56 UTC+1 schreef Marc S:
> hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Samstag, 27. November 2021 um 14:55:05 UTC+1:
> > Op vrijdag 26 november 2021 om 13:05:09 UTC+1 schreef Marc S:
> > > hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Sonntag, 21. November 2021 um 11:28:23 UTC+1:
> > > > Op zondag 21 november 2021 om 01:14:09 UTC+1 schreef Frank Berger:
> > > > > On 11/20/2021 5:57 PM, Al Eisner wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2021, Herman wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 11:28:44 AM UTC+1, hvt...@xs4all.nl wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Most of what gggg posts makes sense. He would make more sense if he didn't disguise himself as a quote bot.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Henk
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> He's a madman talking to himself. Which is why noone ever responds.
> > > > > >> Virtually all his stuff is on endless all gggg fungus topics.
> > > > > >> If you like his stuff, go and give him your email address.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Frankly, I find this discussion near-incomprehensible. If you don't
> > > > > > want to read bis posts, just skip them. This is trivial to do, with
> > > > > > or without a kill file. If "noone ever responds", you won't evem
> > > > > > see threads he starts.
> > > >
> > > > > It is perfectly reasonable to find gggg's type of participation here objectionable and it is perfectly reasonable to say so.
> > > > <g> "Type"-objections have little to do with reason.
> > > >
> > > > Henk
> > > BTW Henk. Gilels is not one of my favourite Mozart pianists anymore ;D And since I remember that you once posted about wanting to read more on Kierkegaard, you might find interest in what Adorno has to say here:
> > >
> > > "De gustibus est disputandum – Even those who are convinced of the incomparability of works of art, find themselves continually entangled in debates where works of art, and precisely those of the highest and for that reason incomparable rank, are compared with and evaluated against each other. The objection invariably raised during such considerations, that it is all just a matter of collectors’ instincts, of measuring by ells, usually means only that the good citizens, to whom art can never be irrational enough, wish to keep the inner constitution and claim of truth distant from the works. The compulsion of the consideration is however located in the work of art itself. So much is true, that they do not allow themselves to be compared. Rather, they want to annihilate each other. It is not for nothing that the ancients [i.e. Greeks] reserved the pantheon of that which is compatible to the gods or to ideas, but required works of art to enter the agon [Greek: contest, conflict, struggle], each one the mortal enemy of the other. The depiction of a “pantheon of classicism,” which Kierkegaard still clung to, is a fiction of neutralized upbringing. For if the idea of the beautiful is portrayed as merely divided up into many works, each individual one nevertheless reckons on an inalienable claim to the whole, claiming the beautiful for itself out of its uniqueness and can never admit its segmentation, without annulling itself. The beautiful, as something unitary, true and appearanceless [scheinlos], emancipated from such individuation, is not represented by the synthesis of all works, by the unity of arts and of art, but solely corporeally and actually: in the downfall of art itself. Every work of art aims at such a downfall, by seeking the death of all the others. That all art reckons on its own end, is another way of stating the same state of affairs. It is out of such a compulsion towards self-annihilation in works of art, from their innermost concern, that drives towards the appearanceless [scheinlos] picture of what is beautiful, which stirs up seemingly useless aesthetic disputes over and over again. While they stubbornly and obstinately wish to find what is aesthetically correct [Recht] and precisely thereby fall victim to an unquenchable dialectic, they are more correct than they can know; by delimiting each art-work, whose energy they take into themselves and raise to a concept, they work towards the destruction of art, which is its salvation. The aesthetic tolerance, which validates works of art in their immediate narrowness, without breaking this last, yields only the wrong downfall, that of the juxtaposition, which denies the claim of the unitary truth."
> > >
> > > It is out of Minima Moralia and while I don't always agree with Adorno on Music, I think he makes some good points here and also elsewhere (I still have to get more familiar with his musical philosophy, and even though much of it is very likely wrong, one can still learn a lot). What I get out the upper mentioned essay is: That taste is debatable. De gustibus est disputandum as opposed to De gustibus non est disputandum.
> > Hello Marc, I am not familiar with the Frankfurter's philosophy of art.
> > From this text, I gather that a work of art has to be "raised to a concept ", to be debatable, i.e. related to the idea of beauty and aesthetic correctness.
> > Personally, I do not see the need for a unitary truth, for a clear conception of what beauty is. I am one of Adorno's "good citizens".
> >
> > Henk
> You can believe this. Nothing against it, even though I am of different opinion.

You are not alone. It is a fair question whether goodness and beauty are part of history, or not.

Henk

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 9:04:44 AM UTC-5, Marc S wrote:
>
> BTW: It may also be too much as an introduction to
> Adorno probably. I also don't fully grasp Adorno here.

Thank God you don't! Otherwise
you would be writing a hundred
times longer posts to explain
Adorno's philosophy! Please
spare us such lectures.

dk