|
|
|
Hi all
The Tchaikovsky thread has clearly caused a stir for some; it's clear some of these heated responses resulted from a failure to spot the (I think) intended satire & I don't think anything malicious was intended from any party. This does perhaps highlight that it is not always apparent to everyone when a post is "spoof" and, when touching on issues about which views are often passionately held, these "spoofs" can unfortunately miss their target.
I'm not sure how best to make these more light-hearted/satirical posts read in the manner they are intended but perhaps something like "sarcasm on"/"sarcasm off" to envelope the section(s) in question?
Open to suggestions...
Cheers, PN
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox February 24, 2014 (2 of 20)
|
|
I suggest that people just stick to thread topics. We have reached an all time low point now where it seems every topic is diverted into blind alleys within the first five entires, often by this kind of sarcasm from people who have nothing useful to add. Sadly some form of censure may be the only solution but I hasten to confirm my firm belief in self regulation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greetings to the preceding Johns as well as other readers,
I, in short, believe this Forum sorts itself out rather well.
It's like the above graphic I'm currently using as a Cover Photo in Facebook ; I know what I want to convey (within the limits of the standard viewable size without viewers needing to click for enlargement) and can elaborate the bigger picture when asked (because, with me, I've always cropped to fit [due to time and energy]).
When nobody questions, Posts rests peacefully ; when there's contention, it eventually becomes resolved (albeit quicker for some participants).
I'm on this Forum, without Posting in any others, because of the inherent quality of both audience and administrators. And my faith remains constant amid the changing waves of discourse, old and new :)
Participation is perhaps forever key ; the strong should help when the inarticulate weak speaks up...
'zeus' in /showthread/38857/39757#39757 said :
Anyway, I'd like to make a few general points. People often see forums/fora as a means of achieving a consensus view. They're not. They're for the exchange of ideas and views. Broadening horizons rather than perpetuating your own. Those who are dogmatic and belligerent in their views tend to burn out in time when others don't seem to "get" it ... though some, as we've seen recently, can really try the patience of those seeking an intelligent exchange.
Incidentally, my current Profile pic :
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202186838344833
|
|
|
Post by wehecht February 24, 2014 (4 of 20)
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
Hi all
The Tchaikovsky thread has clearly caused a stir for some; it's clear some of these heated responses resulted from a failure to spot the (I think) intended satire & I don't think anything malicious was intended from any party.
Cheers, PN
Hi John,
I don't think I missed the "spoof", but I'm with hiredfox et al. The airing of political/social/ religious commentary even in the form of satire isn't relevant to the site unless it's intrinsic to the music under discussion. Of what possible relevance to the Gergiev/Matsuev disc is the question of whether Mr Gergiev has made himself a "useful idiot" (my term) in the service of a kgb trained thug who's virtually indistinguishable from his soviet era predecessors except that he wears better suits? Why not refight the "Furtwangler/Karajan were nazis" war everytime one of their recordings is reissued? Several threads have devolved into name calling in ways that do no honor to any of us. I no longer read the "any other passions" thread because of the overt bashing of people of faith (victims of mass delusion, etc) that consumed it for a time. To say that I was disappointed in the behavior of some people I considered "friends" of a sort is putting it mildly.
I don't envy anyone the task of moderating an internet forum and I thank you and Stephen for years of service to the rest of us.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by Lute February 24, 2014 (5 of 20)
|
|
wehecht said:
Hi John,
I don't think I missed the "spoof", but I'm with hiredfox et al. The airing of political/social/ religious commentary even in the form of satire isn't relevant to the site unless it's intrinsic to the music under discussion. Of what possible relevance to the Gergiev/Matsuev disc is the question of whether Mr Gergiev has made himself a "useful idiot" (my term) in the service of a kgb trained thug who's virtually indistinguishable from his soviet era predecessors except that he wears better suits? Why not refight the "Furtwangler/Karajan were nazis" war everytime one of their recordings is reissued? Several threads have devolved into name calling in ways that do no honor to any of us. I no longer read the "any other passions" thread because of the overt bashing of people of faith (victims of mass delusion, etc) that consumed it for a time. To say that I was disappointed in the behavior of some people I considered "friends" of a sort is putting it mildly.
I don't envy anyone the task of moderating an internet forum and I thank you and Stephen for years of service to the rest of us.
Bill
That doesn't sound like an airing of political/social/religious commentary.
Sarcasm ON. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by wehecht February 24, 2014 (6 of 20)
|
|
Lute said:
That doesn't sound like an airing of political/social/religious commentary.
Sarcasm ON. ;-)
Precisely.
|
|
|
Post by rammiepie February 25, 2014 (7 of 20)
|
|
I find this Thread Homo Neurotic!
|
|
|
Post by Iain February 25, 2014 (8 of 20)
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
Hi all
The Tchaikovsky thread has clearly caused a stir for some; it's clear some of these heated responses resulted from a failure to spot the (I think) intended satire & I don't think anything malicious was intended from any party. This does perhaps highlight that it is not always apparent to everyone when a post is "spoof" and, when touching on issues about which views are often passionately held, these "spoofs" can unfortunately miss their target.
I'm not sure how best to make these more light-hearted/satirical posts read in the manner they are intended but perhaps something like "sarcasm on"/"sarcasm off" to envelope the section(s) in question?
Open to suggestions...
Cheers, PN
This site desperately needs a complete set of smileys. My favourite at other sites is:
:rolleyes:
LOL!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wilhelm—Xu Zhong-Rui said:
I know what I want to convey...
and one likes to recall that the difference between the comic side of things, and their cosmic side, depends upon one sibilant.
— Vladimir Nabokov
When it's all mere words (and the odd image) under our free will...
Oh, to paraphrase Shakespeare, I can (when I choose to) be but a spoof of a spoof ? Can you discern ??
Seriously, I realise I've not said it in the following words :
When Ken retires from Marantz, I too retire from this forum. Because my faith in the brand rests in my trust in Ken ; his quality control of product releases.
Of course, much stems from the above 2 sentences. Not least, every product, like ourselves, has a life and a lifespan ; we all age and change. I, for my friendship, will buy a Marantz product (especially if it has the KI Signature) and live with it to explore thoroughly how it replays my media (by substituting the playback chain [amplification, interconnects, etc] to witness differences) for as long as I live (thus, I seldom sell)
I know my limitations (and soon, I need to go offline). When I Post, at it's heart, I'm not comparing products for 'the best buy' ; I'm simply contributing an awareness around what my friend does.
For you who is rash, http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202597562892690 already has the question and my reply to the photo's supposed flaw.
I'm not Japanese, but I can appreciate...
And Marantz is a very interesting company having American origins combined with Japanese industrial strength and European finesse [thus, strict "wabi-sabi" aesthetics isn't applicable here].
— Ken Ishiwata
|
|
|
Post by steviev February 27, 2014 (10 of 20)
|
|
Wilhelm—Xu Zhong-Rui said:
For you who is rash, http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202597562892690 already has the question and my reply to the photo's supposed flaw.
No, no, the composition is brilliant, sir. You stand outside a building, barred, because of the no-smoking sign that dominates the scene. You can't go in -- because you're SMOKIN'.
|
|
