# Kind appeal to healthier discussions



## aeneas (Dec 6, 2007)

When you have some time, please read this article. Please take your time and read it all. I believe and I do hope that it will contribute to a healthier way of discussing topics on this board. Also, it may help you in many other ways.

When I say 'this board', I am referring especially (but not exclusively), to these two recent discussions: The ghostwriting thread and to New Smalley Book - Composing for Film thread. Those two threads are, IMO, full of logical fallacies. I think the former displays this type of fallacies: 
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html (Appeal to Common Practice), 
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html (Appeal to Tradition), 
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ignoring-a-common-cause.html (Ignoring a Common Cause), 
etc., 
while the latter displays this type of fallacies: 
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html (Appeal to Popularity), 
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html (Confusing Cause and Effect), 
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/questionable-cause.html (Questionable Cause), 
etc. 
Also, I think they both of them have in common this type of fallacies: 
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html (Ad hominem), 
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html (Appeal to Ridicule), 
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/bandwagon.html (Bandwagon), 
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html (Red Herring), 
etc.

More here. Besides being highly informative, the examples provided there are quite entertaining, especially for the people who are part of the American culture. So, happy reading!  

After reading those articles, I hope you will find useful to discover, in the mentioned two v.i. threads (also in other ones), the juicy examples corresponding to each of those fallacies.

HTH


----------



## lux (Dec 6, 2007)

Aeneas, 

i'm sure youre a good guy, you look so. However, have you ever considered giving more attention to the usefulness of your contribution to a place you just landed? Is this post really useful? A good friend of mine once suggested me to drink a water glass and count up to 50 before posting. It helped me a lot.

You cannot have your win here. No one wins. It seems your anger is putting you exacly on the road of being rejected by the members here and i'm sure its not your intention.

So, please, accept my suggestion, let exist discussions without necessarely having something so say and watch whether you really think you can contribute to the discussion or have fun contributing. Both cases a mere exercise of logic will lead you nowhere, there are things that one simply cant discuss or cannot offer enough interesting contribution to. Logic is not the key to gain respect. Respect and care of other members are the key to gain respect for yourself imho.

Now, its at you to decide. 

Best
Luca


----------



## aeneas (Dec 6, 2007)

Usefulness? Sure. Hence my consistent appeal to reason. I think reason to be very useful. So, yes, I truly believe, or at least I certainly do hope that the mentioned articles can be extremely useful for many people, as they may contribute to a more civil way to discuss topics. At least as useful as your glass of water.  In your own terms, it's up to each one. 

I don't think on terms of win/lose. I am only making appeal to reason and to civility. Those two can be everyone's win. Also, 'anger'?? There is no anger whatsoever from my part, you only seem to assuming/inventing it, in order to prove your point. It doesn't hold, for it is a false premise. :wink: 

I appreciate your suggestions, I sense that they are good-hearted. Of course I let discussions 'exist' - does it appear to you as if I want to block them? On the contrary, I very much want them to continue, only healthier. Again, I am only making appeal to reason and civility. I am not advocating 'mere exercises of logic', I only want healthier discussions. Learning, then avoiding fallacies - that may only help, or maybe that might hurt? I don't see how.

Respect for myself? No, respect for everyone. I only want a general respectful manner of discussing topics, without personal attacks. There is no personal gain in it, only collective. 'Care for other members'? - but of course I care, hence this thread. Don't you think that advocating to avoid logical fallacies and personal attacks, that would lead to healthier discussions? Wouldn't everyone benefit from healthier discussions? Or does that look to you as lack of care, from my part, for the others? 

I believe that the origin of many misunderstandings is in a too personal manner to approach discussions.

I do not want to 'win', to gain 'respect', to show that 'I' am useful, to not be 'rejected', to take pride in my 'accomplishments', or to prove 'myself' in any way. These are all personal things. IMO, personal things are for the real life, not for the internet. Again, all I want on internet discussions is, as my title clearly states: healthier discussions. And informative, of course - to the topic, and away from personal remarks. Is that too hard? If it is, then reading those two articles on fallacies might help making it easier, don't you think? It is my firm belief that most people are good individuals who are simply not aware of those fallacies. Therefore, learning those fallacies, they won't fall into those traps again. 

That is precisely 'my intention'. Nothing personal to it.


----------



## artsoundz (Dec 6, 2007)

Spock says" it's more logical to chilll, smartypants.."


----------



## lux (Dec 6, 2007)

Aeneas you missed totally the sense of my post. I hoped better. I've no time to discuss further. 

Do what you prefer.


----------



## aeneas (Dec 6, 2007)

artsoundz @ Thu 06 Dec said:


> Spock says" it's more logical to chilll, smartypants.."


Good advice, considering the source. :D Follow it, and disregard completely those articles - do what you feel inclined to do. 

But - if you will take the time to actually read those articles, then you will probably see how cheap and laughable Spock's argument is, and, more important, WHAT makes it so cheap and laughable.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 6, 2007)

Someone needs to get laid...


----------



## bryla (Dec 6, 2007)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Thu Dec 06 said:


> Someone needs to get laid...


  =o =o =o


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 6, 2007)

Urgently missing in your list and this sort of 'logic does it all' thinking: Intuition.

This is why this forum seems to be healthier than most ... a composer without intuition can not really be good.


----------



## aeneas (Dec 6, 2007)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Thu 06 Dec said:


> Someone needs to get laid...


That way of thinking is, IMO, the most in need for reading those articles. Unfortunately, considering some previous similar posts coming from the same source, that looks like the kind of thinking that rejects the very reason behind those articles. I sincerely hope to be proved wrong about that.



bryla @ Thu 06 Dec said:


> Ned Bouhalassa @ Thu Dec 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Someone needs to get laid...
> ...


Yes, this type of 'thinking' is also in big need for reading those articles.



Hannes_F @ Thu 06 Dec said:


> Urgently missing in your list and this sort of 'logic does it all' thinking: Intuition.
> 
> This is why this forum seems to be healthier than most ... a composer without intuition can not really be good.


Here is why your two conclusions are both false:
1) because you take for granted premises that are doubtful, and
2) because you are forcefully connecting disconnected premises.

Really, do yourself a favor and actually READ those articles. They are truly enlightening.


----------



## bryla (Dec 6, 2007)

I read a lot on this forum and I enjoy learning from the pros. What annoys me is that you constantly manages to destroy them. Take a step back and see if you really contribute to the discussions or just ruining them.


----------



## artsoundz (Dec 6, 2007)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Thu Dec 06 said:


> Someone needs to get laid...




Ned, I think you mean someone's NEVER going to get laid.


----------



## artsoundz (Dec 6, 2007)

Hey, I wanted to get one thing perfectly clear-

We're getting paid for this ,right?


----------



## aeneas (Dec 6, 2007)

bryla @ Thu 06 Dec said:


> I read a lot on this forum and I enjoy learning from the pros.


I am happy to be in total agreement with this point. Learning is a healthy habit. Hence my posting of those two articles. There are tremendously wise things there, waiting to be learned. There are big chances that they will help you, and everyone, to understand better A LOT of things.



> What annoys me is that you constantly manages to destroy them.


I have no control over what might annoy, or not, one person or another. I dislike personal remarks and I never meant any personal offense to anyone.

What I understand from what you say is that you consider my points destructive. That surprises me, as I am considering them constructive, and I always try to post in a 'bona fide' positive way. Honest, rational criticism, backed with rational arguments - is always positive, or at least I have strong reasons to believe so. I am sorry about you perspective on my posts. I think you are making some undue assumptions. Try to don't let your assumptions take over your capacity to understand things in a more detached manner, if possible. 



> Take a step back and see if you really contribute to the discussions or just ruining them.


That 'I am ruining them', that is yet to be proved. Till then, that is a false premise and false conclusion at the same time. 

To the point made: I am always several steps back and I am constantly striving to be as helpful as I see fit. If you don't find my posts helpful, please explain, to the point, what prevents them from being helpful. Or, if you don't find anything reasonable against my points, and still you utterly dislike them, then just disregard them, as oposed to insulting their author. That is what I would call civility.


----------



## aeneas (Dec 6, 2007)

artsoundz @ Thu 06 Dec said:


> Ned Bouhalassa @ Thu Dec 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Someone needs to get laid...
> ...


That is one of the problems that reading those article may prevent: insulting. A very ugly and unhealthy habit, IMO. This forum is full of remarks like that. Some people might find them funny, but 'finding them funny' only makes their situation even sadder, and the discussions on this forum even less healthy.

There can be many benefits from reading those two articles, so just do yourself a favor and actually read them. They might help you to think twice before getting personal and insulting individuals, strangers that never meant you any harm. And more important, they will help understand better what you read. Also, they might prevent you from making undue assumptions that are the basis of all sorts of misunderstandings, which often lead to insulting personal remarks (like the ones quoted above).


----------



## lux (Dec 6, 2007)

Aeneas you got what you looked for. Not less and no more. Stop crying and moaning about injustice and healty habits. You act like a troll. Point. Any other discussion is pointless.

This is not a septarian forum, i disagree with a certain percentage of the members here usually, and here and there had some small trouble with few of them. The fact that you got no defense by any person means that youre doing wrong. No matter if you understand or not.

To the members, *please lets use the ignore button and stop replying*. He seems to enjoy too much having trouble with members here. Ignoring is a powerful methos and an "healty" solution.

Aeneas, i'm a moderator of this forum, i'm quite tired of your spam. There isnt any healty, reasonable or whatever appeal in your writing. Believe it or not youre just an angry troll. There are better places to go, its few click away from here. Take your chance then.

and please, please guys DO NOT REPLY HIM, lets just everything go. 

Luca


----------



## aeneas (Dec 6, 2007)

lux @ Thu 06 Dec said:


> Aeneas you got what you looked for. Not less and no more. Stop crying and moaning about injustice and healty habits. You act like a troll. Point. Any other discussion is pointless.


If you would have read those articles, then you would now see your post in a different light. And you probably would not like what you see. As I see it, there is a huge density of fallacies in your previous post. For example, in the quote above, each and every sentence is a fallacy. Read those articles and that will probably become clear as daylight to you.



> This is not a septarian forum, i disagree with a certain percentage of the members here usually, and here and there had some small trouble with few of them. The fact that you got no defense by any person means that youre doing wrong. No matter if you understand or not.


I hate to make assumptions, but I must take your 'septarian' as sectarian, right? Also, the fact that I got 'no defense from anyone' is hardly a prove that I am 'doing wrong'. It is in fact a deceptive incorrect statement that is covered by several fallacies - quite a performance, BTW.  I leave to you, and to others, the pleasure to name those fallacies. Your last sentence is yet another fallacy - a great density of them in your previous post, as I said.



> To the members, *please lets use the ignore button and stop replying*. He seems to enjoy too much having trouble with members here. Ignoring is a powerful methos and an "healty" solution.


Of course everyone is free to use whatever button he/she wants, these are civil means that I completely agree with. I am not questioning your reasons for doing it, nor will I take any personal offense about it. I agree with you, Luca, that that button is a healthy solution to your 'problem'. An even healthier solution to your 'problems' would be to really read those two articles. If you think I am harmful, I assure you that those two articles are harmless. Actually they are extremely helpful.

Also, the assumption that I 'seem to enjoy' doesn't hold. The only thing that I would enjoy would be to see this discussion, and also others, going by a cooler tone, without any personal references to 'me'. More to the point, to the topic. This topic is not about 'me'.Forget my humble person, address those articles instead, find flaws in them, attack them in any way you want - but leave individuals alone. That would be civil, decent, and healthy.



> Aeneas, i'm a moderator of this forum, i'm quite tired of your spam. There isnt any healty, reasonable or whatever appeal in your writing. Believe it or not youre just an angry troll. There are better places to go, its few click away from here. Take your chance then.


Congratulations for being a moderator! 8) Remember though, power comes with responsibility, and impersonal detachment can only improve responsibility. Moderator doesn't equal dictator, at least not in my books. 'Spam'? What are the characteristics of my posts that make you call them 'spam'? 

Also, you are talking about my 'anger', which you assume and take for granted, but - (besides being yet another fallacy) do you really hear how your last post sounds? To me, it sounds as if you are taking personal issue about my appeal to rationality and civility. 'Angry troll'? In all fairness, tell me how is that NOT personal? Which arguments is your point based on? What is that would make me a 'troll', and even and 'angry' one? :D What is rational and civil about this little remark? How does it fit with the status of moderator? As I see it, being a moderator obligates one to be even more rational, polite, and civil, than any other forum member. Leave my behavior alone, if you can't find anything rational against it, and consider your own behavior instead - do you think your behavior can be an example for everyone? Appealing to gang feelings and such? Trying to impose your own point of view? Think: I am constantly referring to those two articles, and all I'm saying is - read them. I am not trying to impose anything. Is not that hard, just try it.



> and please, please guys DO NOT REPLY HIM, lets just everything go.


Are you asking that as a personal favor? Why can't you just follow your own advice and just stop reading my posts, including this one? :wink: In your own terms, 'just let everything go', is it that hard? Just do not reply to my posts, exactly as you said. And everyone is free to do the same thing. But - and here you seem to neglect a basic principle: you can't ban someone only for not liking what he says. First, you should prove, and I mean rationally prove, that that person has said something that is against the forums rules. Unless you are able to do that, your personal distaste for what I say can have little consequences, IMO.


----------



## aeneas (Dec 6, 2007)

Fair enough, so I will return your favor by NOT explaining why your two previous sentences, that I was referring to, are both irrational and they hardly address the topic, and why your personal assumptions about me are just that: personal assumptions. Fare well, sailor!


----------



## lux (Dec 6, 2007)

as stated before, just let him go...


----------



## aeneas (Dec 6, 2007)

lux @ Thu 06 Dec said:


> as stated before, just let him go...


_"Use the 'Button', Luke!"_ 

o


----------



## aeneas (Dec 6, 2007)

Thanks, Jose, for the kind comments. I acknowledge your points abut human interaction, and that is precisely what those two articles might improve. 

'How I am perceived by others', while not very important in itself, that perception seems to be very influenced by the others' (in)capacity to give up assumptions, to taking things at face value, to focus on topics rather than on personal sides, and to refrain from 'funny' insults such as 'being laid' and other inappropriate remarks. The most appropriate word I can find is civility.

I am all for Manners, especially when capitalized :wink: , hence my appeal to rationality and civility and to abandoning the practices of personal remarks and insults. The very title and the initial post in this thread, I think, are very clear as about what I stand for. I always accept different opinions without attempting to put down their author. I only address the points that I disagree with. And I expect reciprocity - rational discussions, to the point and not to the person.

I really cannot find one single reason for everybody's trying to prove me wrong. It is not 'me' who is wrong. It is not important whether 'I' am wrong or right. This is a thread who only points to a couple of articles, with the invitation to read them, invitation based on my assumption that reading them can do only good. So please, I insist, try to disregard my person and try to address the topics. Not only this one. Topics, in general. 

Again, just read those articles. Do it for yourselves. Forget about 'me'.


----------



## rpjd (Dec 6, 2007)

I feel I must come to the defence of Aeneas here; not a defence of his views _per se_ but a defence of the diversity of opinion he brings here. In an age when everything is watered down to processes and formulaic behaviour, I really believe we need this diversity more than ever and should encourage it as much as possible. Chasing it away will leave everyone the poorer for it.

I love coming to this forum, even though I'm nothing more than a musical dabbler, simply because I've always found that the people here are REAL people who say what they mean, usually respectfully, and who don't pull any punches out of fear of fanatical moderation that occurs elsewhere. I also recognise the dangers of giving too much freedom to "write-what-you-want" but, on that score, I would find it very difficult to fault the mature, considered moderation that has always been applied here.

May Aeneas and the VI moderators be with us for a long time to come!

Ray


----------



## madbulk (Dec 6, 2007)

aeneas @ Thu Dec 06 said:


> To me, it sounds as if you are taking personal issue about my appeal to rationality and civility.



(Shortly, Ned.)

Sir, I took immediate personal issue about your appeal to rationality and civility. I did not read the essay. I find your posts persistent and badgering, belligerent and stubborn, but not so much illogical and almost completely indicative that you're a good guy. I think there are plenty who still feel that way though I'm sure you feel very put upon at this point.

I PROMISE YOU, your approach is lacking. Even if you are quite sure you are on the high ground. I would've preferred, for example, that you didn't presume to direct us to that essay. Better to have simply appealed for rationality and civility and stopped there.

I won't ask you not to respond. You're entitled. I'm sure you must. I'm not offering a discussion on the matter however. I'm reluctant in fact to hit POST.... hmmm....eh, what the hell.


----------



## madbulk (Dec 6, 2007)

wow... grain of sand on the beach.


----------



## aeneas (Dec 6, 2007)

JohnnyMarks @ Thu 06 Dec said:


> The Web community (outside the "Philosophy/Critical Thinking" forums), would benefit from a good dose of training in critical thinking and discussion.


Thanks for that!  

The rest of your post? - personal, personal, personal, assumptions, assumptions, assumptions... But at least civil, and even entertaining! It proves that some people here can joke without insulting. 8) 

Whether or not 'I' am - as a person, poster, musician, etc. - inside, outside, or beside the point (which point?) is completely irrelevant for the scope of this thread. I would love to see one single rational argument against reading those two articles. Or against the points made there. That would be one thing that will surely NOT be 'beside the point'.

While I acknowledge that others may have a different opinion about that, I do not see internet discussions as 'cocktail parties', and I do not want 'football fights', 'sword fights', etc. All I want is: civilized discussions, to the point, without personal remarks. While there is a possibility that that is abhorrent to everybody here, well, that would be only too bad. I hope it will ring a bell, at the very least. 

I am not looking for personal approval - only for healthier discussions. And those two articles might help. If you think they might not, discuss THAT, do not discuss 'me'.


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 6, 2007)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Thu Dec 06 said:


> Someone needs to get laid...



This is the core issue, case closed. 8)


----------



## aeneas (Dec 6, 2007)

choc0thrax @ Thu 06 Dec said:


> Ned Bouhalassa @ Thu Dec 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Someone needs to get laid...
> ...



While I understand what might make you want this case to be closed on that note, I beg to differ: the initial case cannot be closed with such a cheap insulting remark. Instead of that, by that remark, a different case is *open* - a case indirectly related to the topic: those type of statements are one more reason for the people who make them, or agree with them, to not only read, but to carefully study those articles.

This is the the 'core issue' - some people's refusal to accept that they can learn something useful for themselves, and for the others, which is: rationality, civility.

Read the articles.


----------



## Mike Greene (Dec 6, 2007)

aeneas @ Thu Dec 06 said:


> This is the the 'core issue' - some people's refusal to accept that they can learn something useful for themselves


I certainly believe I can learn useful things. Just not from you.

You haven't earned any respect from me by your countless words here, so I can't take you seriously. From here on out, I'm ignoring all your posts.

***Note to my friends: if aeneas actually says something thoughtful, without the endless repeating of "Listen to me!!! Listen to me!!! Listen to MEEEEE!!!!!!!!" then please let me know.


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 6, 2007)

Two cases now? Hope you don't wear out your keyboard!


----------



## JohnnyMarks (Dec 6, 2007)

aeneas @ Thu Dec 06 said:


> choc0thrax @ Thu 06 Dec said:
> 
> 
> > Ned Bouhalassa @ Thu Dec 06 said:
> ...


Well, we all have things to learn Aenaes.


----------



## aeneas (Dec 6, 2007)

Mike Greene @ Thu 06 Dec said:


> aeneas @ Thu Dec 06 said:
> 
> 
> > This is the the 'core issue' - some people's refusal to accept that they can learn something useful for themselves
> ...


Not from 'me', of course. That is precisely the point, hence the articles posted in the initial post.



> You haven't earned any respect from me by your countless words here, so I can't take you seriously. From here on out, I'm ignoring all your posts.


'Me', 'respect', 'you' - these are exactly the type of things and the type of mentality that made me look for those articles and post them for the benefit for this kind of posters, primarily. Too bad if some chose to turn your back, for they are not turning their back to 'me', but to those useful lessons on rationality and civility. 



> Note to my friends: if aeneas actually says something thoughtful, please let me know so that I might bother to read it.


Whether 'aeneas' says or not anything 'thoughtful' is clearly besides the point here. Hence those two articles. For your own benefit, I hope you will reconsider and just read them.


----------



## lux (Dec 6, 2007)




----------



## Thonex (Dec 6, 2007)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Thu Dec 06 said:


> Someone needs to get laid...



LOL

I found the perfect book for aeneas:


----------



## aeneas (Dec 6, 2007)

JohnnyMarks @ Thu 06 Dec said:


> Read the articles.


Well, we all have things to learn Aenaes.[/quote]
Acknowledged. :wink: 

I know that, even when I give the impression that I am not paying attention to it. Just don't ask me to unlearn civility, politeness, which I know you don't.  I learn new things with every post that I see, including the malevolent ones.


----------



## midphase (Dec 6, 2007)

Why can't everyone stop acting like an asshole and let Aeneas do what he wants?

It's an open forum, let him post to his heart's content, and if it annoys you you can simply ignore it. There is even a function that allows you to ignore all posts by a certain individual.

Let's not get into this censorship mode where "if you don't have anything productive to say....don't say it" because as we all know, a productive post is in the eye of the beholder.

I am not endorsing what Aeneas says....merely defending his right to say it, and I think that's the way we should keep this place.


----------



## madbulk (Dec 6, 2007)

Thonex @ Thu Dec 06 said:


> Ned Bouhalassa @ Thu Dec 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Someone needs to get laid...
> ...



You guys are not distinguishing yourselves.


----------



## Thonex (Dec 6, 2007)

midphase @ Thu Dec 06 said:


> Why can't everyone stop acting like an asshole and let Aeneas do what he wants?
> 
> It's an open forum, let him post to his heart's content, and if it annoys you you can simply ignore it. There is even a function that allows you to ignore all posts by a certain individual.
> 
> ...



Someone else needs to get laid :D 

Everyone needs to lighten up.


----------



## lux (Dec 6, 2007)

midphase @ Thu Dec 06 said:


> Why can't everyone stop acting like an asshole and let Aeneas do what he wants?
> 
> It's an open forum, let him post to his heart's content, and if it annoys you you can simply ignore it. There is even a function that allows you to ignore all posts by a certain individual.
> 
> ...



speaking out of mind I honestly think that spamming quite every thread on this forum with cheap logic games equals to trolling.

Sure the ignore button can resolve, problem is that i dont seem to find it.

however I simply think aeneas has an unheducated way of acting. In real life you woud just agree with me i'm afraid.


----------



## JohnnyMarks (Dec 6, 2007)

OK Aenaes, to be clear: you are RIGHT about the value of those articles. RIGHT about the value of rationality and civility. RIGHT in asserting that others here haven't always been so. YES, YES, YES, RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT.

But...

Is that your entire world? Do you talk to your mother this way? Does it matter to you that you come off like a pompous prig looking for trouble?


----------



## aeneas (Dec 6, 2007)

Well Thonex, an interesting and somewhat unexpected contribution to this thread. What I can say? - it seems that you, like Ned, choc0trax, lux, and Mike (am I forgetting anyone?) you enjoy making insulting jokes. Still, I think that you can benefit much more from refraining to make insulting jokes, while reading those articles instead. I hope, someday, you will.


----------



## aeneas (Dec 6, 2007)

JohnnyMarks @ Thu 06 Dec said:


> Does it matter to you that you come off like a pompous prig looking for trouble?


Frankly, no. 'Coming off' one way or another is completely irrelevant. As Zappa said, "You Are What You Is". :D 

Where I stand is perfectly clear by now, I believe. What would really matter, is that people will refrain from making personal insulting remarks and will consider reading those articles instead. The more you think you don't need to read them, the bigger the chances are that you really need to read them.


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 6, 2007)

You know thinking of health I think health=balance and I find this site is mostly civilized so in order to balance things out we need stupid arguements. Now that the bright burning star of NS has died out somewhere out in cold dead space we have nothing to argue about, we have to fill that void.


----------



## Thonex (Dec 6, 2007)

aeneas @ Thu Dec 06 said:


> Well Thonex, an interesting and somewhat unexpected contribution to this thread. What I can say? - it seems that you, like Ned, choc0trax, lux, and Mike (am I forgetting anyone?) you enjoy making insulting jokes. Still, I think that you can benefit much more from refraining to make insulting jokes, while reading those articles instead. I hope, someday, you will.



It would only be insulting if it were true aeneas. Sorry if you were offended and didn't see the humor in it. But like I said, some need to lighten up. Life's too short. And on that note (pun intended) I'll leave this wonderful thread and let you "carry on". :D


----------



## aeneas (Dec 6, 2007)

Thonex @ Thu 06 Dec said:


> aeneas @ Thu Dec 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Well Thonex, an interesting and somewhat unexpected contribution to this thread. What I can say? - it seems that you, like Ned, choc0trax, lux, and Mike (am I forgetting anyone?) you enjoy making insulting jokes. Still, I think that you can benefit much more from refraining to make insulting jokes, while reading those articles instead. I hope, someday, you will.
> ...


The first sentence comes directly from the list of fallacies in the second article (I let you name it). I did not say that I 'feel' insulted, I only said that it is (i.e. it has all the features of) an insulting joke, in itself. I surely see the humor in it, since I said that is an insulting joke - jokes are humorous, right? :D Humor is not good in itself, and not every joke is worth making, IMHO.


----------



## JohnnyMarks (Dec 6, 2007)

Python sketch (think John Cleese):

Good evening.

The last scene was interesting from the point of view of a professional logician because it contained a number of logical fallacies; that is, invalid propositional constructions and syllogistic forms, of the type so often committed by my wife. "All wood burns," states Sir Bedevere. "Therefore," he concludes, "all that burns is wood." This is, of course, pure bullshit. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. "Oh yes," one would think.

However, my wife does not understand this necessary limitation of the conversion of a proposition; consequently, she does not understand me. For how can a woman expect to appreciate a professor of logic, if the simplest cloth-eared syllogism causes her to flounder.

For example, given the premise, "all fish live underwater" and "all mackerel are fish", my wife will conclude, not that "all mackerel live underwater", but that "if she buys kippers it will not rain", or that "trout live in trees", or even that "I do not love her any more." This she calls "using her intuition". I call it "crap", and it gets me very *irritated* because it is not logical.

"There will be no supper tonight," she will sometimes cry upon my return home. "Why not?" I will ask. "Because I have been screwing the milkman all day," she will say, quite oblivious of the howling error she has made. "But," I will wearily point out, "even given that the activities of screwing the milkman and getting supper are mutually exclusive, now that the screwing is over, surely then, supper may, logically, be got." "You don't love me any more," she will now often postulate. "If you did, you would give me one now and again, so that I would not have to rely on that rancid (milkman) for my orgasms." "I will give you one after you have got me my supper," I now usually scream, "but not before" -- as you understand, making her bang contingent on the arrival of my supper.

"God, you turn me on when you're angry, you ancient brute!" she now mysteriously deduces, forcing her sweetly throbbing tongue down my throat. "Fuck supper!" I now invariably conclude, throwing logic somewhat joyously to the four winds, and so we thrash about on our milk-stained floor, transported by animal passion, until we sink back, exhausted, onto the cartons of yoghurt.

I'm afraid I seem to have strayed somewhat from my original brief. But in a nutshell:

Sex is more fun than logic -- one cannot prove this, but it "is" in the same sense that Mount Everest "is", or that Alma Cogan "isn't".

Goodnight.


----------



## bryla (Dec 6, 2007)

Haha... I use these topics to have a good laugh now and then... Really.

Anus, stop it.

I don't even bother to read more than the first sentence of your posts because it's just the same stuff that you keep saying.............

Use your 80 bucks on the book Thonex found instead of Jack Smalley's and turn down any work that comes along because you find them immoral and stop talking to people that doesn't agree with you on ANYTHING!


----------



## kid-surf (Dec 6, 2007)

Maybe he's just hungry? Anyone got a knuckle-sandwich handy?


*Kays --* Look at it this way. This thread is still open, not locked. He's not been censored or banned. Non-Censorship would include NOT censoring the complaints. 

So, in this democracy folks are afforded the "right" to "respond" without being censored. They are free to ignore, but they are also free to respond. See? :D

Seriously... 

Cheers bro,
KID


----------



## Mike Greene (Dec 6, 2007)

bryla @ Thu Dec 06 said:


> Use your 80 bucks on the book Thonex found instead of Jack Smalley's . . .


Heck, I'm buying BOTH! 8)


----------



## aeneas (Dec 6, 2007)

JohnnyMarks @ Thu 06 Dec said:


> Python sketch (think John Cleese):
> 
> ...


OK, sex is funnier than logic. A good title for another thread and another discussion (although I can't see what is more to be discussed about that. :wink: ) But on this thread? What would that say about the topic of this thread? What is the relation with: healthier discussions, with refraining from personal attacks and from insulting jokes while addressing the topic instead?


----------



## bryla (Dec 6, 2007)

Having problems too, Mike?


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 6, 2007)

Aeneas, no insult intended but while having the courage of your conviction is an admirable trait, like any other virtue carried to an extreme it becomes a vice. 

When you make a point and others disagree and you rebut a few times it that is fine. But IMHO when over and over you re-iterate it or continue to argue it is no longer admirable but becomes an exercise in ego and obstinance.

And that is NOT admirable and has been the cause of the hostility towards you of some here. I know this because I have this tendency myself and am trying to learn to recognize when I am being guilty of this.

Maybe, just maybe, a little self-examination might be in order for yyou.


----------



## bryla (Dec 6, 2007)

aeneas @ Thu Dec 06 said:


> JohnnyMarks @ Thu 06 Dec said:
> 
> 
> > Python sketch (think John Cleese):
> ...



Sorry, personal question. Can't answer


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 6, 2007)

Mike Greene @ Thu Dec 06 said:


> bryla @ Thu Dec 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Use your 80 bucks on the book Thonex found instead of Jack Smalley's . . .
> ...



I guess it goes without saying that someone interested in a book on how to write music to films is in the position of needing the book Thonex speaks of.


----------



## JohnnyMarks (Dec 6, 2007)

Ashermusic @ Thu Dec 06 said:


> Aeneas, no insult intended but while having the courage of your conviction is an admirable trait, like any other virtue carried to an extreme it becomes a vice.
> 
> When you make a point and others disagree and you rebut a few times it that is fine. But IMHO when over and over you re-iterate it or continue to argue it is no longer admirable but becomes an exercise in ego and obstinance.
> 
> ...


A "kind appeal to healthier discussions" if there ever was one.


----------



## edafe96 (Dec 6, 2007)

Where do I find that *Ignore* button?


----------



## aeneas (Dec 6, 2007)

While explicitly intended for the benefit of the others, this thread is turning into a great lesson, for me, on some interesting mentalities. Truly enlightening! I mean it. 

After all, my own learning should be more important, to me, than your learning. So - don't be shy, just let yourself go! 8)


----------



## madbulk (Dec 6, 2007)

JohnnyMarks @ Thu Dec 06 said:


> Ashermusic @ Thu Dec 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Aeneas, no insult intended but while having the courage of your conviction is an admirable trait, like any other virtue carried to an extreme it becomes a vice.
> ...



indeed.


----------



## bryla (Dec 6, 2007)

Shut it!!


----------



## Moonchilde (Dec 6, 2007)

Oh come on guys, this is really over reacting. He posted useful information. I wonder how many of you actually read it before deciding you were going to rip on him?

I'll say it right now, I haven't read it, but I can tell from the topics they're good and interesting things to read, in an off topic portion of the forum. Hes just posting information and posted examples of why it may or may not be useful here.

This thread itself is a great example of attack on character rather than the information provided. Hell, thats ad hominem right there. There is a time and place for everything, but this is not a productive use of ad hominem.

I realize most are just joking around, but the guy is just posting up useful information that is beneficial to anyone who enjoys reading and debating.

That said, its impossible to expect people to join in discussion they enjoy without personalizing what they post. The information is still good information, and may become useful one day, even if it isn't useful to most people here on this forum.


----------



## kid-surf (Dec 6, 2007)

aeneas @ Thu Dec 06 said:


> While explicitly intended for the benefit of the others, this thread is turning into a great lesson, for me, on some interesting mentalities. Truly enlightening! I mean it.
> 
> After all, my own learning should be more important, to me, than your learning. So - don't be shy, just let yourself go! 8)




If you were truly the genius you hope to portray you wouldn't resort to this Psychology-101 manipulative con-job. Far too transparent and sloppy with your implications, I'm afraid. Back to the drawing board for you. Let's see how clever you really are at your "craft..." 

Currently you safely resided at pedestrian level intelligence, sorry to alert you. 

*TIP:* If you wish to manipulate our collective sensibilities, for your amusement, your conspiring needs to become seamless and transparent. Otherwise you raise psychological red flags (blame God, or whomever created the "brain") I can send you a book on writing if you'd like.

Lastly -- you inadvertently clarified your motive. Very sloppy. Needs work. Anyway... I'll send you the book, goes into 'exposition' and so forth. You'll love it!

Meanwhile... back to your lesson.


KID


----------



## artsoundz (Dec 6, 2007)

from the Smalley thread "All in all, it all sounds very much like old school to me, and, IMO, it has very little to do with filmscoring, in spite of the fancy title. Also, that 'intervalic' thinking smells a bit like EIS to me. Nonetheless, I would buy that booklet only as a sort of a reference guide for how to NOT write for film. But, again - $80 for 176 pages? Quality? What quality?? "

impolite-not helpful- full of fallacy ,illogical and baiting.

But this is what it's about -

"I take great pleasure in annoying 'annoyable' people. Over and over and over and over."


----------



## Hans Adamson (Dec 6, 2007)

Everybody is just waiting for Thonex to reveal where to get that book. That's the only reason this thread is still alive. It puts him under a lot of pressure... Can't just keep it to yourself you know, Thonex!! ~o)

Is the discussion healthy yet? 8)


----------



## aeneas (Dec 6, 2007)

kid-surf - WHO are talking about?

artsoundz - WHAT are you talking about?

Your both argumentations makes me think that you probably did not read those two articles that I am constantly referring to. I actually HOPE you didn't. And, just as well, I hope you will.

You may say whatever you want, but, until proved with rational arguments, your points have little consistency. That is precisely where those two articles may come handy, especially the first one. Yet I have admit that the fun part in logical fallacies is that they seem to be extremely useful - they seem to be able to 'prove' whatever one WANTS. Logical arguments can only prove only what IS. How dull...


----------



## Thonex (Dec 6, 2007)

Hans Adamson @ Thu Dec 06 said:


> Everybody is just waiting for Thonex to reveal where to get that book. That's the only reason this thread is still alive. It puts him under a lot of pressure... Can't just keep it to yourself you know, Thonex!! ~o)
> 
> Is the discussion healthy yet? 8)



Hans... you know I need all the help I can get... I'm one ugly dude :D 

See:
http://www.andrewkmusic.com/filearea/Hair.jpg

That's me on a good day. :lol: 

Also.... type "getting laid" into google images 8)


----------



## Hans Adamson (Dec 6, 2007)

Thonex @ Thu Dec 06 said:


> See:
> http://www.andrewkmusic.com/filearea/Hair.jpg



Ok that was definitely going too far Thonex. That killed the thread. Ok, so you say "google"... hmmmm (o)


----------



## nomogo (Dec 6, 2007)

Aeneas.. o/~ .. its an internet forum, take everything with a grain of salt, as you never know who is on the other end posting. Also keep in mind that everyone's IQ goes up by about 150 points when they post on an internet forum >8o


----------



## madbulk (Dec 6, 2007)

Well that was quite a day.
Frederick by now is wringing his hands and wondering if he should just bag this whole board.


----------



## kid-surf (Dec 6, 2007)

I can confirm that the pic of Thonex is real. After all, Mike e-mailed it to me almost immediately after he sold it to Nick...

I would'a paid double, damn it!

Then again, I don't run a mens magazine... So? (just a subscriber)

KID


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 6, 2007)

What?!

MIKE! YOU TOLD ME IT WAS AN EXCLUSIVE!

I don't want to share that with other guys!


----------



## Mike Greene (Dec 6, 2007)

No, I never said it was an exclusive. I just said it was a less frightening alternative to that picture you now have on page 5 of every issue of VI Mag.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 6, 2007)

Well yes, but that puts it in a very wide category.


----------



## artsoundz (Dec 6, 2007)

I forwarded the pic to a hair removal company and they apparently want to hire Thonex as a human billboard.

They want to shave "Epilady" on his back.


----------



## bryla (Dec 7, 2007)

Is this thread finally dead?


----------



## aeneas (Dec 9, 2007)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Thu 06 Dec said:


> Someone needs to get laid...


In order to get things straight when talking of trolling and baiting, I think I owe you this: In future, maybe you will benefit from following your own advice -

_"Take a look at this when you've got some time."_ ( from http://vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.p ... ht=#100393 )

Now, strictly on the topic of this thread, some food for thought:

1) Consider the relation between these two: the initial post of this thread and Ned's reply to it.

2) Consider the relation between these two: a moderator's status and statements like the quote in the top of this post. Also, notice in which way that relation did contribute to the 'healthy' discussion that followed. 

(My two pence: a moderator status is incompatible with such statements as the quote on the top, which can only lead to unhealthy follow-ups - as this thread plainly, unintentionally, and unfortunately, proves. Also, one needs to think before one posts. That is, unless one thinks that personal attacks and insulting are fun. And yes - one seems to think that attacking and insulting, trolling and baiting are fun precisely because one finds such a generous support from people who think alike.)

3) Last but not least, consider the relation between these two:
_"Great minds think alike."_ (net folklore)
and
_"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."_ (Nietzsche, The Dawn)


----------



## CFDG (Dec 9, 2007)

Are you the trumpeteer or the one with a fiddle?


----------



## aeneas (Dec 9, 2007)

CFDG @ Sun 09 Dec said:


> Are you the trumpeteer or the one with a fiddle?


Of course, personal attacks and insults are excusable, human, and funny, while rational thinking is for robots.


----------



## rJames (Dec 9, 2007)

aeneas @ Thu Dec 06 said:


> When you have some time, please read this article. Please take your time and read it all. I believe and I do hope that it will contribute to a healthier way of discussing topics on this board. Also, it may help you in many other ways.



Aeneas, you need to take a look at this article.

The people who come to this forum don't come to debate. That is over at the debate society's forum.

We come here to share opinions. 

All of this ribbing of you (in this thread) is just a bunch of people responding to you and your posts.

They are not ganging up on you. These are all individuals speaking their mind. 

Your style of conversation is abrasive. Well, not abrasive but annoying.

You can't really logically prove your various premises, so you just ignore any responses and repeat the same argument over and over.

It gets old quick. And this response to your thread is the way a bunch of individuals has responded. You shouldn't ignore that fact.

The joke about "getting laid," is just a euphemism for, "you need something better to do." (you know that already)

Sometimes you've drawn me in (as you have here) but it gets old. Soon, no one will respond to you.


----------



## aeneas (Dec 10, 2007)

_Aeneas, you need to take a look at this article._
From the direct way you present it, I understand that it is your opinion that 'I', more than any one else, 'need' to read that article. IMO, that is an interesting article for everyone to read, but I fail to see the connection with the topic of this thread, and I also fail to see the reasoning behind your opinion that I need to read that article 'more' than anyone else. What are the facts that make you believe that I am projecting some hidden ugly desires onto others?  

_The people who come to this forum don't come to debate. That is over at the debate society's forum._
I am not interested in debates, I am interested in civility. IMO, those two articles can contribute to the exchange of opinions in a more civil manner.

_We come here to share opinions. _
Of course. And the opinions are to be expressed in a civilized manner, without personal attacks and insults.

_All of this ribbing of you (in this thread) is just a bunch of people responding to you and your posts._
Precisely my point: IMO, they should address the topic rather than addressing 'me'. As clearly seen, many people prefer to respond to 'me', to put down the person, instead of expressing opinions on the topic. They prefer to attack the person rather than the points.

_They are not ganging up on you. These are all individuals speaking their mind._ 
Question: what prevents them from focusing on the topic instead of addressing 'me'? 

_Your style of conversation is abrasive. Well, not abrasive but annoying._
Oh, so it is my 'abrasive, annoying conversation', my 'trolling, baiting style', that provoke those aggressive reactions? Maybe I am the aggressor then!... OMG - those hidden ugly desires, which I can't stand, so I am unawarely projecting them onto the others!...  Now, knowing myself and my intentions pretty well, rest assured that that is not the case. That might be your opinion, you perception, your 'projection', etc. There are a few different opinions about it, on this very thread. But even if everybody's opinions would be that my 'style' is annoying, that's besides the point. If I was attacking people personally and insulting individuals, then I would have understand to shut me down, according to forum rules. But the topic here is not about 'my style' (or anyone's perception/projection of it), the topic is about two articles that presumably can contribute to a more civilized discussion. At least, now it appears that the refuse to read them seem to contribute to a less civilized discussion.

_You can't really logically prove your various premises, so you just ignore any responses and repeat the same argument over and over._
That is a classic fallacy: 
A) You can't really logically prove your various premises,
B') so you just ignore any responses
B") and repeat the same argument over and over.
Read those articles and see the mistake, it's extremely obvious.

_It gets old quick. And this response to your thread is the way a bunch of individuals has responded. You shouldn't ignore that fact._
I am very aware of the way this topic is responded to, I don't ignore that fact. The fact is that a 'bunch of individuals' is constantly trying to put me down, as opposed to addressing the topic. But - how can that be about 'me'? Isn't it more about 'them'? Just asking, not saying... I don't want anything to be about 'me' and 'them'. I only want civilized discussions, without personal attacks and insults. IMO, a civilized discussion here would be an exchange of opinions on the points raised in those two articles, also on opinions about them.

_The joke about "getting laid," is just a euphemism for, "you need something better to do." (you know that already)_
No, you are wrongly assuming that I was or am aware of any presumed 'mild' connotation of that expression. I took it and I am taking it as written, and the other sexually oriented posts proved that that expression is to be taken as it is. Also, your example seems to 'project' an upside-down perception on euphemisms. To get it straight: euphemism is a mild expression of a harsh thought. If that was an euphemism (and I tend to agree that it was) - then think of the harsh thought behind that mild expression.

_Sometimes you've drawn me in (as you have here) but it gets old._
It's not my intention to draw anyone into showing any interest in the subject 'me'. My clearly stated two (related) intentions were: 1) read those two articles, and 2) civility.

_Soon, no one will respond to you._
Is that the kind of 'projection' Dr Fraud was talking about? :wink: 
I do not want anyone to respond to 'me'. Only to the info presented in this medium, regardless the person.

In conclusion: no, I'm not a psychological case, although I can understand why some people have this sort of 'projection' on individuals who are presenting different viewpoints. That is a more general mentality ('hear him, guys - he must be nuts!'). Hence my Nietzsche quote. Actually, that book, and maybe all his books, IMO, should be a requirement in colleges, far above athletics. But, 'the herd' (in Nietzsche's acception) has its means to protect itself against individuals, and school seems to be an effective one. Sorry for the slight OT.


----------



## bryla (Dec 10, 2007)

Just stick to the off topic forum, aeneas


----------



## CFDG (Dec 10, 2007)




----------



## bryla (Dec 11, 2007)

Better read up about the copyright, dude


----------



## aeneas (Dec 11, 2007)

bryla @ Tue 11 Dec said:


> Better read up about the copyright, dude


My previous statement is proof enough that I did (although, whether 'I' did or didn't read about it, is irrelevant - you either agree or you disagree with that statement itself). In many countries, copyright primarily refers to the right to copy intellectual works. Here is one formulation, from the US copyright law: "... gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following: To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords; To prepare derivative works based upon the work; ..." (my underlines) More here: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

Please take that as an illustration of the idea that is always better to stay away from getting personal, and I mean away especially from personal assumptions. If you have objections to this statement: "Copyright means PRECISELY that you do have the right to copy, while others don't", then please address (attack) the statement, and not your 'strawman' (while thinking that 'he' is 'me'). 

More generally - people who have objections to the two articles in the first post, or have objections to this appeal to rational discussion to the point (rather than to the person) - please address (attack) the points, the topic, the ideas, the articles - and not the person who happens to have posted them.


----------



## bryla (Dec 11, 2007)

You misunderstood my signature quote... but that's fine.. you have your ideas of right and wrong.


----------



## wonshu (Dec 11, 2007)

popcorn


----------



## aeneas (Dec 11, 2007)

bryla @ Tue 11 Dec said:


> You misunderstood my signature quote... but that's fine.. you have your ideas of right and wrong.


1) You don't know what I have or haven't misunderstood.

2) I have just said: 
"Copyright means PRECISELY that you do have the right to copy, while others don't", 
which is a direct negation of this statement: 
"Copyright doesn't mean you have the right to copy!" 
Stating the former doesn't mean that I have misunderstood the latter, only that I have mirrored the meaning of 'you' in it. :wink: 

3) That's fine with me too! 

4) My ideas of right and wrong have nothing to do with this OT copyright 'apparent' contradiction. (which, from my pov, is only: my tongue in cheek vs your tongue in cheek.  )


----------



## bryla (Dec 11, 2007)

:roll: 

Do you get a kick out of this?


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 2, 2008)

I'm not sure why aeneas has now proclaimed himself as the spokes-person for civility on this forum. He employed expletives in one of his posts directed at me because he felt I was personally attacking him. 

The hypocracy of this thread is overwhelming.


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

dcoscina @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> I'm not sure why aeneas has now proclaimed himself as the spokes-person for civility on this forum. He employed expletives in one of his posts directed at me because he felt I was personally attacking him.
> 
> The hypocracy of this thread is overwhelming.


"Expletives"?! Oh dear oh dear... Also, "Hypocracy"?!! WTF? Outrageous! BTW "Idiocracy" is a very entertaining film, about 'getting laid' and stuff - http://imdb.com/title/tt0387808/


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 2, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> dcoscina @ Sun 02 Mar said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure why aeneas has now proclaimed himself as the spokes-person for civility on this forum. He employed expletives in one of his posts directed at me because he felt I was personally attacking him.
> ...



Aeneas, getting laid has nothing to do with sleeping for 500 years and then awake in the future


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

Waywyn @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:
> 
> 
> > dcoscina @ Sun 02 Mar said:
> ...


And you suppose that I didn't know that? Because if you do, then you are implying that I am an idiot, which would be, again, a personal attack. OTOH, did you see the movie? The movie has A LOT to do with 'getting laid', exactly as I stated.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 2, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> Waywyn @ Sun 02 Mar said:
> 
> 
> > aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:
> ...



No I didn't suppose. I assumed that you connected the term "getting laid" with the movie ... and in it's (the movies) description it says that the guy is sleeping for 500 years and then wakes up in another time.
I was simply reading your post and followed the movies link and description. I didn't see the movie, but as an info you posted that link which I visited.

If you actually ment one should look the movie to understand your post, why did you link it to IMDB?

Again, I didn't personally attack you. How can I. I don't even know your real name and who you are. If I were you, you'd say one is non existent if there is no proof .. and actually I don't know someone I can trust you are really existent.

So, no matter what I say I don't have the smallest chance to attack you personally.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 2, 2008)

dcoscina @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> aeneas, I'm not sure where the communicaton is breaking down here but you seem bereft of the notion that you are as much a part of the insults and gutter fighting as anyone else here. You just do it in a more passive-aggressive manner than most.
> 
> If your posts did not incite people, they would not respond as "personally" as you perceive them to be. Simple equation: cause and effect. You challenge people's credibility and ideologies by subtely discrediting or invalidating their view points, therefore they launch back out of frustration with more primal or emotional responses.
> 
> ...



My friend, no offense, but you are a slow learner. He does not want to communicate, he only wants to argue.

We can all put a stop to this simply by not responding.


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 2, 2008)

Yeah I know Jay. I have been away from the forum writing music the last couple days (er, should I say trying to get my PC to work...so glad I'm mainly use a Mac G5!) so I wasn't contributing but from the look of it, things haven't changed one bit.

Ah well, back to diagnosing my PC problem...maybe kicking the s**t out of it will help.


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

dcoscina @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> aeneas, I'm not sure where the communicaton is breaking down here but you seem bereft of the notion that you are as much a part of the insults and gutter fighting as anyone else here. You just do it in a more passive-aggressive manner than most.
> 
> If your posts did not incite people, they would not respond as "personally" as you perceive them to be. Simple equation: cause and effect. You challenge people's credibility and ideologies by subtely discrediting or invalidating their view points, therefore they launch back out of frustration with more primal or emotional responses.
> 
> ...


Thanks for sharing your vision on your straw man. I, for one, couldn't care less for your straw man. Please, just stop using my name when you are addressing your him, or else I'll come up with my own straw man, I'll call him dcoscina, and I'll start to insult him.


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

Waywyn @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> No I didn't suppose. I assumed that you connected the term "getting laid" with the movie ... and in it's (the movies) description it says that the guy is sleeping for 500 years and then wakes up in another time.
> I was simply reading your post and followed the movies link and description. I didn't see the movie, but as an info you posted that link which I visited.
> 
> If you actually ment one should look the movie to understand your post, why did you link it to IMDB?
> ...


1) Kind of awkward explanation for your previous assumption. If you didn't see the movie, then why did you assume what is it about? IMDB is not a replacement from seeing movie.
2) I linked it to IMDB as an ad for those who didn't see it.
3) Your point on the impossibility of attacking someone whose name you don't know, doesn't hold. First, my name IS aeneas, in this forum, just as your name IS waywyn, in this forum. Second, you really don't need to know people's name in order to be able to personally insult them. Call a Muslim stranger: "drunken pig" - and see what happens. You seem to make yet another confusion here: between the 'names' and the 'individuals' behind those names. Totally different entities. If my name was: @#$%^&*, that doesn't mean that you can call the person behind the name @#$%^&* - a "drunken pig". What if I am a Muslim? What if you waywin was (or is) a Muslim and I call waywyn - a "drunken pig"? How would the Muslim @#$%^&* or the Muslim waywyn feel about that? Wouldn't that be a personal insult to them? So, you should respect a stranger, regardless the name. On internet forums it is a sign of minimal decency to not address the person, but the points.
4) You have attacked me more than a dozen times only today. How is that for a troll?


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 2, 2008)

I see. So I'm wrong. Okay. You win. Happy?


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

dcoscina @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> I see. So I'm wrong. Okay. You win. Happy?


I acknowledge that you see. 
I am sorry that you feel you're wrong, but your "Okay" looks like a ray of hope. 
I do not win anything, maybe your straw man wins, although it's sort of unclear what he wins.


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 2, 2008)

Oh brother....you just like to argue don't you? ...


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

dcoscina @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> Oh brother....you just like to argue don't you?


But of course not. I just hate personal remarks and assumptions, that's all. Simple.


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 2, 2008)

And YOU don't think you have levelled ANY personal remarks towards myself or any others on this forum????

Wake up and smell what you're shovelling!


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

dcoscina @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> And YOU don't think you have levelled ANY personal remarks towards myself or any others on this forum????


Of course I did, and I will always do that BACK. I will always be rude BACK. The difference is that I have never initiated personal attack, plus I tried to be as civil as I could, sometimes in very improper conditions for civility.

_«Wake up and smell what you're shovelling!»_
That sounds offensive to me, very much like unprovoked personal attacking. This time I'll let it go. Next time I'll make in a haste an ugly straw man, I'll call him dcoscina, and I'll say one or two things to him.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 2, 2008)

aeneas @ Mon Mar 03 said:


> First, my name IS aeneas, in this forum, just as your name IS waywyn, in this forum.



Dude, you just don't get it, huh?
My NICKNAME is Waywyn here, but my REAL name is Alex Pfeffer as it is shown in my signature. Also there is a link to my website and messengers, but since you stated you just believe in what you want to believe and what you can trust in it might be nonexistent to you, no?

Your REAL name is NOT Aeneas, this is your NICKNAME.

Man, you are such a poor clown. This is ridiculous!


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

Waywyn @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> aeneas @ Mon Mar 03 said:
> 
> 
> > First, my name IS aeneas, in this forum, just as your name IS waywyn, in this forum.
> ...


You missed this part:
"3) Your point on the impossibility of attacking someone whose name you don't know, doesn't hold. First, my name IS aeneas, in this forum, just as your name IS waywyn, in this forum. Second, you really don't need to know people's name in order to be able to personally insult them. Call a Muslim stranger: "drunken pig" - and see what happens. You seem to make yet another confusion here: between the 'names' and the 'individuals' behind those names. Totally different entities. If my name was: @#$%^&*, that doesn't mean that you can call the person behind the name @#$%^&* - a "drunken pig". What if I am a Muslim? What if you waywin was (or is) a Muslim and I call waywyn - a "drunken pig"? How would the Muslim @#$%^&* or the Muslim waywyn feel about that? Wouldn't that be a personal insult to them? So, you should respect a stranger, regardless the name. On internet forums it is a sign of minimal decency to not address the person, but the points.
4) You have attacked me more than a dozen times only today. How is that for a troll?"


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 2, 2008)

Seriously, do you honestly believe that you haven't, in one part, invited the animosity launched at you on this forum? I'm not asking in a quasi-sarcastic tone either. I'm genuinely asking you to reflect.

Why would so many forum members have such antipathy for you if you were a nice fellow? It wouldn't follow would it? Nice personò5¾   r+Ù5¾   r+Ú5¾   r+Û5¾   r+Ü5¾   r+Ý5¾   r+Þ5¾   r,S5¾   r,T5¾   r,U5¾   r,V5¾   r,W5¾   r,X5¾   r,Y5¾   r,Z5¾   r,[5¾   r,\5¾   r,]5¾   r,^5¾   r,_5¾   r,`5¾   r,a5¾   r,b5¾   r,c5¾   r,d5¾   r,e5¾   r,f5¾   r,g5¾   r,h5¾   r,i5¾   r,j5¾   r,k5¾   r,l5¾   r,m5¾   r,n5¾   r,o5¾   r,p5¾   r,q5¾   r,r5¾   r,s5¾   r,t5¾   r,u5¾   r,v5¾   r,w5¾   r,x5¾   r,y5¾   r,z5¾


----------



## PolarBear (Mar 2, 2008)

Healthier.... hmm, comparative... implying a healthier than... something before. What was unhealthy before?


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

PolarBear @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> Healthier.... hmm, comparative... implying a healthier than... something before. What was unhealthy before?


At last! Thanks for asking! As I said in the original post, I thought that reading articles on logic would lead to less logical fallacies (less ad hominem, less straw men, etc.) therefore healthier discussions. Healthier than when? - Healthier than the continuous now.  Continuously healthier.

Also, consider the alternative: "Kind appeal to *healthy* discussions" - that sounds to me sort of neutral. Also, it would have been simply un-realistic - there is always room for cleaner, healthier, better. Clean, healthy, good - those are kinda neutral, they don't say much, to me. Also, some could ask: "what do you mean by «healthy» - you think that now the discussions are *unhealthy*? :evil: " :wink: 

Never mind the alternative: "*healthiest* discussions"! 

So, *healthier* seemed to me only a realistic word choice. It's my hopes that proved less realistic, unfortunately.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Mar 2, 2008)

I am officially invoking the Nazi Germany clause.



> I have never invited animosity. I hate animosity. I love addressing points, I hate having to respond to personal attacks. But sometimes, the aggressor feels like he's a victim. I remember the Nazi were feeling threaten by the Jews - so they took some measures against those 'aggressive' Jews.





> I see your point, but that's doesn't happen always. There must have been many nice Jews in the Germany of the '30s, don't you think?



Twice in one post, no less, Aeneas. You can't very well start banging people over the head with lectures on the art of logic in argument, then invoke the Holocaust when people gently remind you that "the art of argument" is not the point--simply becuase you've decided to declare it the point.


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> I am officially invoking the Nazi Germany clause.
> 
> 
> > I have never invited animosity. I hate animosity. I love addressing points, I hate having to respond to personal attacks. But sometimes, the aggressor feels like he's a victim. I remember the Nazi were feeling threaten by the Jews - so they took some measures against those 'aggressive' Jews.
> ...


- Yes, twice, on purpose. I could have offered other examples but I thought would be less familiar to the people around (Tibet, Gaza). The Nazi/Jews example seemed to me an internationally accepted example of aggressor falsely claiming that was previously "aggressed". Only a well-known example of an "aggressed" aggressor.
- I'm not banging over the head anybody
- I don't offer lectures on logic
- I don't believe in an 'art of logic', only in applying basic simple principles, like: address the topic rather than the person
- I did not invoke the Holocaust per se, that was only an example of common-sense upside-down: the "aggressed" aggressor 
- people didn't remind me that that "the art of argument" is not the point
- I never declared that to be the point.

edit: Please, please, please - try to take things at face-value, or ask instead of assuming.


----------



## Aaron Sapp (Mar 2, 2008)

Aeneas, question: Why do frequent the VI-CONTROL forum?


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

Aaron Sapp @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> Aeneas, question: Why do frequent the VI-CONTROL forum?


I don't understand. Is there a "you" missing from your question? Did you mean, my personal reason for frequenting it, or generally why does one frequent it? Or maybe I'm missing a third possibility ? ...

For the first possible case - personal reasons and other personal things are not to be talked, among perfect strangers, into public 'ears'. IMO, this is not stuff of public interest. There are many other topics to be discussed instead. If you think that this stuff is to be publicly discussed, then I'd suggest you start a thread asking for everyone's reason(s) to frequent this board. Likely, some will respond, some won't.

For the second possible case - I can't speak for others.

Is there a third possibility?


----------



## Aaron Sapp (Mar 2, 2008)

Whoops! There is a "you" missing.  My bad.

I'm just curious why you frequent this particular forum. Do you come here as a musician? Composer? Hobbyist? Musicologist? Teacher?


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

I have presented my position on personal stuff. It's just a matter of where one draws a line. As I suggested, you can start a thread on that topic, and some may respond. Some may not. I won't.


----------



## Aaron Sapp (Mar 2, 2008)

I ask because 99.99% of those who frequent this particular forum have a common interest - music/sampling/instruments/performing/music technology. Skimming through your recent posts/threads, there are rarely, if any posts that are related to any of that stuff. So why here? I assure you there are a number of other forums out there that would readily welcome whatever interests you may have.


----------



## Chrislight (Mar 2, 2008)

AA? (Arguers Anonymous) :wink:


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 3, 2008)

Aaron,

I believe the answer to your question is: ego. Big needy ego. Talk about me, me, me. It's all about me, me, me. This could be a plumbers' forum, makes no diff. Just keep challenging me, me, me. Music? Blah. Scoring? Blah. Samples? Who cares? Me, me and my ego, that's what counts.


----------

