On 16/06/2022 08:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> On 16/06/2022 in message <t8drdl$ien$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Yawn, more bullshit.  You expressed an 'opinion' or 'view', it doesn't
>> matter what it is called, that was then proved to be untrue, and then
>> restated that 'opinion' or 'view' as if it were true.  That is lying
>> in anyone's dictionary, even yours.
>
> Until you understand that an opinion cannot be untrue you are wasting
> everybody's time.

Until you understand that yours was shown to be untrue by others
supplying contrary *EVIDENCE*, you are wasting everybody's time.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 13:32:52 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 16/06/2022 06:50, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 00:53:23 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yawn, more bullshit. You expressed an 'opinion' or 'view', it doesn't
>>> matter what it is called, that was then proved to be untrue, and then
>>> restated that 'opinion' or 'view' as if it were true. That is lying in
>>> anyone's dictionary, even yours.
>>
>> In my dictionary a lie is an intentionally false statement, or a
>> deception. A deliberate deception is not quite the same as simply
>> misunderstanding something and getting it wrong.
>
>That would be fine if he just voiced an opinion which was then shown to
>be untrue, and never voiced it again thereafter - nobody would call
>that lying. The problem is that, despite being shown, I think it was
>around 13, links to information that shown his opinion to be false, he
>then insisted on restating it, and that is lying.

Some people continue to believe things that are untrue despite
rational explanations, but that doesn't mean they are not sincere in
what they believe. If a lie is a deliberate untruth, it cannot be
possible to be sincere, and a liar, at the same time.

Rod.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:07:34 +0100, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>We had a dictionary at home (collected in fortnightly instalments [1])
>which defined jazz as "a noisy, discordant kind of music"

To my ears, some of it is.

Rod.

On 16/06/2022 03:52 pm, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:07:34 +0100, Max Demian
> <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>> We had a dictionary at home (collected in fortnightly instalments [1])
>> which defined jazz as "a noisy, discordant kind of music"

> To my ears, some of it is.

You're thinking of reggae or drum and bass, shirley?

On 16/06/2022 03:50 pm, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 16/06/2022 06:50, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> Yawn, more bullshit. You expressed an 'opinion' or 'view', it doesn't
>>>> matter what it is called, that was then proved to be untrue, and then
>>>> restated that 'opinion' or 'view' as if it were true. That is lying in
>>>> anyone's dictionary, even yours.
>
>>> In my dictionary a lie is an intentionally false statement, or a
>>> deception. A deliberate deception is not quite the same as simply
>>> misunderstanding something and getting it wrong.
>
>> That would be fine if he just voiced an opinion which was then shown to
>> be untrue, and never voiced it again thereafter - nobody would call
>> that lying. The problem is that, despite being shown, I think it was
>> around 13, links to information that shown his opinion to be false, he
>> then insisted on restating it, and that is lying.
>
> Some people continue to believe things that are untrue despite
> rational explanations, but that doesn't mean they are not sincere in
> what they believe. If a lie is a deliberate untruth, it cannot be
> possible to be sincere, and a liar, at the same time.

An ex-colleague of mine (in an engineering workshop, decades ago) was a
committed and confirmed communist - a member of the party. That was no
problem for me - I had relatives who were members. And some of my very
best friends over the years.

I was about 18 (an apprentice on low pay) and this colleague was a
mature, established, married man with a family. I looked up to him in
every possible way.

But his beliefs did contain a flaw (and this is, or was, common among
CPGB members): he could not accept anything said about the USSR which
was anything less than totally laudatory. He would swear black was
white, for instance, that workers' living standards in Russia were
higher than those of workers in the UK or the USA.

I conclude that he wasn't lying, as such. He firmly believed it to be
the truth on the simple basis that it *must* be true because that is
what Marx, Lenin, Stalin et al had said would happen. And they couldn't
be wrong.

At 18, I tended to side with him (it's a great story, after all, to be
able to tell the workers that they'll be better off in some alternative
reality).

Of course, now, I see that it was all different.

The phrase is "cognitive dissonance".

It's very difficult to argue with facts against a religionist. And
socialism is a religion.

On 16/06/2022 12:19, JNugent wrote:
> Why does an opinion have to have meaning for anyone but the opinion-holder?

Semantics makes me feel sleepy.

Bill

('semantics' isn't a plural so shut yer gobs)

On 16/06/2022 15:50, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 13:32:52 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 16/06/2022 06:50, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 00:53:23 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yawn, more bullshit. You expressed an 'opinion' or 'view', it doesn't
>>>> matter what it is called, that was then proved to be untrue, and then
>>>> restated that 'opinion' or 'view' as if it were true. That is lying in
>>>> anyone's dictionary, even yours.
>>>
>>> In my dictionary a lie is an intentionally false statement, or a
>>> deception. A deliberate deception is not quite the same as simply
>>> misunderstanding something and getting it wrong.
>>
>> That would be fine if he just voiced an opinion which was then shown to
>> be untrue, and never voiced it again thereafter - nobody would call
>> that lying. The problem is that, despite being shown, I think it was
>> around 13, links to information that shown his opinion to be false, he
>> then insisted on restating it, and that is lying.
>
> Some people continue to believe things that are untrue despite
> rational explanations, but that doesn't mean they are not sincere in
> what they believe. If a lie is a deliberate untruth, it cannot be
> possible to be sincere, and a liar, at the same time.

I'm not interested in the untestable personal inner psychology of people
who lie in public, only in the externally testable fact that they lie in
public.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In message <t8f81g$lpm$2@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> writes
>On 16/06/2022 08:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>> On 16/06/2022 in message <t8drdl$ien$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>> Yawn, more bullshit.  You expressed an 'opinion' or 'view', it
>>>doesn't matter what it is called, that was then proved to be untrue,
>>>and then restated that 'opinion' or 'view' as if it were true.  That
>>>is lying in anyone's dictionary, even yours.
>> Until you understand that an opinion cannot be untrue you are
>>wasting everybody's time.
>
>Until you understand that yours was shown to be untrue by others
>supplying contrary *EVIDENCE*, you are wasting everybody's time.
>
In any discussion, an 'opinion' (regardless of whether it is correct or
not), in the presence of true facts is inadmissible evidence.
--
Ian

On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 17:29:04 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 16/06/2022 15:50, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 13:32:52 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 16/06/2022 06:50, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 00:53:23 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yawn, more bullshit. You expressed an 'opinion' or 'view', it doesn't
>>>>> matter what it is called, that was then proved to be untrue, and then
>>>>> restated that 'opinion' or 'view' as if it were true. That is lying in
>>>>> anyone's dictionary, even yours.
>>>>
>>>> In my dictionary a lie is an intentionally false statement, or a
>>>> deception. A deliberate deception is not quite the same as simply
>>>> misunderstanding something and getting it wrong.
>>>
>>> That would be fine if he just voiced an opinion which was then shown to
>>> be untrue, and never voiced it again thereafter - nobody would call
>>> that lying. The problem is that, despite being shown, I think it was
>>> around 13, links to information that shown his opinion to be false, he
>>> then insisted on restating it, and that is lying.
>>
>> Some people continue to believe things that are untrue despite
>> rational explanations, but that doesn't mean they are not sincere in
>> what they believe. If a lie is a deliberate untruth, it cannot be
>> possible to be sincere, and a liar, at the same time.
>
>I'm not interested in the untestable personal inner psychology of people
>who lie in public, only in the externally testable fact that they lie in
>public.

Perhaps I haven't made my point clearly enough, because you are
definitely missing it. For an untruth to be a lie, it has to be
deliberate, with the intention of deceiving, so a person who says
something untrue because they sincerely believe it is not lying.

If they're wrong they're still wrong of course, but they're not lying.

If you want your usual *EVIDENCE!*, check the OED.

Rod.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:33:30 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

[...]
>At 18, I tended to side with him (it's a great story, after all, to be
>able to tell the workers that they'll be better off in some alternative
>reality).

Yes, that's how religions do it; the good old "jam tomorrow" argument.
Sometimes it can be more persuasive than it has any right to be.

Rod.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:20:52 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

>On 16/06/2022 03:52 pm, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:07:34 +0100, Max Demian
>> <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>> We had a dictionary at home (collected in fortnightly instalments [1])
>>> which defined jazz as "a noisy, discordant kind of music"
>
>> To my ears, some of it is.
>
>You're thinking of reggae or drum and bass, shirley?

I don't know what it's called, but I know when I don't like something.

I never really understood jazz, or why it was routinely to be found on
the BBC Third Programme (later Radio 3) but there it was, and labelled
as such, so I guess that's what it must be. Even though I don't know
all their names, I can tell there are several different types of jazz,
some of them worse than others.

Rod.

On 17/06/2022 07:27, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:20:52 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
>> On 16/06/2022 03:52 pm, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:07:34 +0100, Max Demian
>>> <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> We had a dictionary at home (collected in fortnightly instalments [1])
>>>> which defined jazz as "a noisy, discordant kind of music"
>>
>>> To my ears, some of it is.
>>
>> You're thinking of reggae or drum and bass, shirley?
>
> I don't know what it's called, but I know when I don't like something.
>
> I never really understood jazz, or why it was routinely to be found on
> the BBC Third Programme (later Radio 3) but there it was, and labelled
> as such, so I guess that's what it must be. Even though I don't know
> all their names, I can tell there are several different types of jazz,
> some of them worse than others.

You should stick to the Home Service. You know it makes sense.

If the little woman wants something different, allow her an hour a week
or so, but I urge no more, to listen to the Light Programme.

In article <xn0nj5noa11fhj000@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> "opinion noun 1 a belief or judgement which seems likely to be true, but
> which is not based on proof. 2 (usually opinion on or about something)
> what one thinks about it. 3 a professional judgement given by an expert
> * medical opinion. 4 estimation or appreciation * has a high opinion of
> himself. a matter of opinion a matter about which people have different
> opinions. be of the opinion that ... to think or believe that ....
> ETYMOLOGY: 13c: from Latin opinion belief, from opinari to believe."

> As you can see an opinion cannot be judged true or false because it is
> exactly what it says, an opinion. Really unless you are willing to
> understand that you are just wasting everybody's time.

The snag being that in reality an asserted 'opinion' or 'view' may be
vacuous nonsense. i.e. not true.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <xn0nj5otz2kkli001@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >You haven't grasped the paradox that for that opinion to have any
> >meaning it must be true.

> No, that's your problem, you won't accept that that is incorrect.

No, its not his or our problem. We're quite happy to agree that you are
sponting some 'views' that are nonsense. That's our 'view' so we can't be
'wrong' by your own 'view' of 'opinion'.

Your turn to go one more level in your recursive digging. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <t8dlqs$k8f$1@dont-email.me>, Lew <lew@none.org> wrote:

> You haven't grasped the paradox that for that opinion to have any
> meaning it must be true.

Well, the 'truth' may be that the 'opinion' shows that the asserter is an
opininated dimwit whose thinking is devorced from reality. So we have a
meta-truth about a meta-opinion:-)

Infinite loop, anyone? 8-]

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <u0hlah9qt87g1l72ctuv4iltf0bg24pgco@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> In my dictionary a lie is an intentionally false statement, or a
> deception. A deliberate deception is not quite the same as simply
> misunderstanding something and getting it wrong.

However when someone reasserts a point that has been shown to be false,
they can be expected to know it isn't true. if not, they're either a dim
bulb or a liar. Once it has been pointed out that a 'view' clashes with
reality then restating that 'view' can be a lie. Although you can then
argue that the assertion stems from the person being a dimwit who is
delusional.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <xn0nj6fr4lxvve003@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 16/06/2022 in message <t8drdl$ien$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:

> >Yawn, more bullshit. You expressed an 'opinion' or 'view', it doesn't
> >matter what it is called, that was then proved to be untrue, and then
> >restated that 'opinion' or 'view' as if it were true. That is lying in
> > anyone's dictionary, even yours.

> Until you understand that an opinion cannot be untrue you are wasting
> everybody's time.

The "opinion" that the Moon is made of green cheese is untrue. If someone
holds that view they are simply wrong. Until you understand that you're
simply playing games to dodge the reality.

"Opinions" only have the property of being neither "true" or "false"
when they can't be checked by comaprison with mere reality. Once they
can be checked their states can be resolved. Sadly, those who prefer
to believe in what they wish to be true may refuse to accept this.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 16/06/2022 in message <59f95f5b79noise@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf wrote:

>>As you can see an opinion cannot be judged true or false because it is
>>exactly what it says, an opinion. Really unless you are willing to
>>understand that you are just wasting everybody's time.
>
>The snag being that in reality an asserted 'opinion' or 'view' may be
>vacuous nonsense. i.e. not true.

That is incorrect and your inability to understand it is what has cause
this diversion, an opinion is just that and you can certainly disagree
with it but opinions cannot be wrong.

I said I would stop posting on the subject as it's annoying the group so
I'll leave you to research "opinion" and "view", it may help stop you
making a twat of yourself again, who knows!

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
This is as bad as it can get, but don't bet on it

On 17/06/2022 07:15, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 17:29:04 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 16/06/2022 15:50, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 13:32:52 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 16/06/2022 06:50, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 00:53:23 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yawn, more bullshit. You expressed an 'opinion' or 'view', it doesn't
>>>>>> matter what it is called, that was then proved to be untrue, and then
>>>>>> restated that 'opinion' or 'view' as if it were true. That is lying in
>>>>>> anyone's dictionary, even yours.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my dictionary a lie is an intentionally false statement, or a
>>>>> deception. A deliberate deception is not quite the same as simply
>>>>> misunderstanding something and getting it wrong.
>>>>
>>>> That would be fine if he just voiced an opinion which was then shown to
>>>> be untrue, and never voiced it again thereafter - nobody would call
>>>> that lying. The problem is that, despite being shown, I think it was
>>>> around 13, links to information that shown his opinion to be false, he
>>>> then insisted on restating it, and that is lying.
>>>
>>> Some people continue to believe things that are untrue despite
>>> rational explanations, but that doesn't mean they are not sincere in
>>> what they believe. If a lie is a deliberate untruth, it cannot be
>>> possible to be sincere, and a liar, at the same time.
>>
>> I'm not interested in the untestable personal inner psychology of people
>> who lie in public, only in the externally testable fact that they lie in
>> public.
>
> Perhaps I haven't made my point clearly enough, because you are
> definitely missing it. For an untruth to be a lie, it has to be
> deliberate, with the intention of deceiving, so a person who says
> something untrue because they sincerely believe it is not lying.
>
> If they're wrong they're still wrong of course, but they're not lying.
>
> If you want your usual *EVIDENCE!*, check the OED.

Very well, if you must go into untestable areas, my *EVIDENCE* of intent
is the deliberate way he has tried and is still trying to maintain a
losing argument both over the original issue and then over the
definition of an 'opinion' or 'view' - an honest person would have
simply accepted that over the original issue the evidence contradicted
him, apologised for being in the wrong, no-one would have reason to
accuse him of lying, and he and we would already be getting on with the
rest of our lives.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 17/06/2022 10:20, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> On 16/06/2022 in message <59f95f5b79noise@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf
> wrote:
>>
>>> As you can see an opinion cannot be judged true or false because it is
>>> exactly what it says, an opinion. Really unless you are willing to
>>> understand that you are just wasting everybody's time.
>>
>> The snag being that in reality an asserted 'opinion' or 'view' may be
>> vacuous nonsense. i.e. not true.
>
> That is incorrect and your inability to understand it is what has cause
> this diversion, an opinion is just that and you can certainly disagree
> with it but opinions cannot be wrong.
>
> I said I would stop posting on the subject as it's annoying the group so
> I'll leave you to research "opinion" and "view", it may help stop you
> making a twat of yourself again, who knows!

Yes, you said that several days ago, but here you still are trying to
argue a point that no-one else agrees with, because it's obvious to
everyone else here that some opinions can be checked against reality and
found to be untrue, which is what happened to yours way up thread. The
problem since has been your juvenile and dishonest refusal to accept this.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 17/06/2022 in message <t8hksg$vlm$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:

>On 17/06/2022 10:20, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>>On 16/06/2022 in message <59f95f5b79noise@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>As you can see an opinion cannot be judged true or false because it is
>>>>exactly what it says, an opinion. Really unless you are willing to
>>>>understand that you are just wasting everybody's time.
>>>
>>>The snag being that in reality an asserted 'opinion' or 'view' may be
>>>vacuous nonsense. i.e. not true.
>>
>>That is incorrect and your inability to understand it is what has cause
>>this diversion, an opinion is just that and you can certainly disagree
>>with it but opinions cannot be wrong.
>>
>>I said I would stop posting on the subject as it's annoying the group so
>>I'll leave you to research "opinion" and "view", it may help stop you
>>making a twat of yourself again, who knows!
>
>Yes, you said that several days ago, but here you still are trying to
>argue a point that no-one else agrees with, because it's obvious to
>everyone else here that some opinions can be checked against reality and
>found to be untrue, which is what happened to yours way up thread. The
>problem since has been your juvenile and dishonest refusal to accept this.

The problem is your lack of understanding of what "view" or "opinion"
means and until you do you are just wasting our time.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Every day is a good day for chicken, unless you're a chicken.

In article <t8f7tl$lpm$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> That would be fine if he just voiced an opinion which was then shown to
> be untrue, and never voiced it again thereafter - nobody would call
> that lying. The problem is that, despite being shown, I think it was
> around 13, links to information that shown his opinion to be false, he
> then insisted on restating it, and that is lying.

To be fair, he may be delusional, or simply trolling. The latter seems more
likely. But both might your 'opinion'. 8-]

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <jh10q9Fe0clU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> It's very difficult to argue with facts against a religionist. And
> socialism is a religion.

...for some. Just as the "Free Market" is a religion for some. Ditton "Neo
liberalism", etc.

Many of the basis arguments, etc, of 'socialism' are OK. This is why, for
example, Macmillian continued to build social housing, etc, after WW2.
Despite being a Conservative he and his generation of Tories had been
though the war in a way that made them realise that social actions like the
housbuilding, improvements to education, etc, were desirable overall for
the population to make a more stable and good place to live.

Alas, as time passed the predictable 'tribal' effects returned and the rich
got back to doing what suited them as the poor got back to what seemed to
them the best responses when the rich had most of the power.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <gl6oah10dp2rqvr0t08j8b5vpr5op36jj0@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> Perhaps I haven't made my point clearly enough, because you are
> definitely missing it.

Nope, he's *deliberately* missing it. 8-]

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <347oah9ut6ocrmcrfd4rgsr2hs4sr4n465@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> I never really understood jazz, or why it was routinely to be found on
> the BBC Third Programme (later Radio 3) but there it was, and labelled
> as such, so I guess that's what it must be. Even though I don't know all
> their names, I can tell there are several different types of jazz, some
> of them worse than others.

There is a world of difference between be-bop or 'modern' jazz and 40s Big
Band or the early 'cool' jazz or Jack Teagarden.

Alas, in recent times the tendency on R3 has been towards the more modern
types and ye olde stuff gets largely ignored. As a result some early UK
Jazz musicians now get regarded as also-rans quite undeservedly, and via
not really being listened to.

As a label now, "Jazz" is about as misleading as "Classical". Both cover a
vast range of styles, playing, etc. Easy to dislike or be bored by some and
yet find other examples wonderful.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html