I've been reading the threads in the different forums....
Its just pitiful. 90% of the people here don't know what the *** they are writing about.
They are all crack pots, and the remaining 10% just waste their time arguing with them.
Does this place have moderators? If so just ban all the idiots who think they've invented a free energy machine or unified quantum mechanics and relativity.
How come people like DavidD haven't been banned yet? That guy is clearly a crack pot.
Seriously, *** is with this place.
Absolutely splendid comment, from a knobmunch who can't even spell "retarded".
QUOTE (Ccnayak+Sep 6 2008, 04:43 AM)
Its just pitiful. 90% of the people here don't know what the *** they are writing about.
They are all crack pots, and the remaining 10% just waste their time arguing with them..
Hi ccnayak,
we both seem to be new here. I wasn't planning on getting down to the serious insults until I had figured out who was who, and what was what. You must be really *** hot to go straight for the jugular without the aid of a spellcheck.
If this is the first forum you have visited then your post seems even more precipitate. If you have participated in several then you should know that this pattern is the norm.
Personally, I rarely find arguing with crackpots to be a waste of time. There are always two distinct benfits, with the possibillity of a third.
1) It affords an opportunity to clarify my own thinking on a topic, or to add to my knowledge in that area.
2) It ensures that casual readers are presented with 'good science' and not the crackpot version only.
3) There is a small, but finite chance the crackpot can be brought to their senses.
Cheers,
H
They are all crack pots, and the remaining 10% just waste their time arguing with them..
Hi ccnayak,
we both seem to be new here. I wasn't planning on getting down to the serious insults until I had figured out who was who, and what was what. You must be really *** hot to go straight for the jugular without the aid of a spellcheck.
If this is the first forum you have visited then your post seems even more precipitate. If you have participated in several then you should know that this pattern is the norm.
Personally, I rarely find arguing with crackpots to be a waste of time. There are always two distinct benfits, with the possibillity of a third.
1) It affords an opportunity to clarify my own thinking on a topic, or to add to my knowledge in that area.
2) It ensures that casual readers are presented with 'good science' and not the crackpot version only.
3) There is a small, but finite chance the crackpot can be brought to their senses.
Cheers,
H
QUOTE (Harzburgite+Sep 6 2008, 05:50 AM)
Personally, I rarely find arguing with crackpots to be a waste of time. There are always two distinct benfits, with the possibillity of a third.
1) It affords an opportunity to clarify my own thinking on a topic, or to add to my knowledge in that area.
2) It ensures that casual readers are presented with 'good science' and not the crackpot version only.
3) There is a small, but finite chance the crackpot can be brought to their senses.
Here, here... My sentiments exactly.
Add to that:
4) It allows one to hone his or her debating skills on an opponent who will (likely) never concede defeat, and try every 'dirty trick' in the book to win.
5) It provides a perfect example of things to avoid when thinking about or discussing science.
1) It affords an opportunity to clarify my own thinking on a topic, or to add to my knowledge in that area.
2) It ensures that casual readers are presented with 'good science' and not the crackpot version only.
3) There is a small, but finite chance the crackpot can be brought to their senses.
Here, here... My sentiments exactly.
Add to that:
4) It allows one to hone his or her debating skills on an opponent who will (likely) never concede defeat, and try every 'dirty trick' in the book to win.
5) It provides a perfect example of things to avoid when thinking about or discussing science.
Ccnayak,
if you don't like this place, why don't you get the hell outta here? Why stay here and make wise cracks?
if you don't like this place, why don't you get the hell outta here? Why stay here and make wise cracks?
I just noticed ccnayak's join date: December 2005, in which time he has posted four times. His first post certainly adds support to his claim that 90% of the people posting here do not know what they are talking about.
QUOTE (vkamath+Sep 6 2008, 01:17 AM)
Ccnayak,
if you don't like this place, why don't you get the hell outta here? Why stay here and make wise cracks?
Only you and MJP are who you say you are anyway...
Troll thread, amigo.
if you don't like this place, why don't you get the hell outta here? Why stay here and make wise cracks?
Only you and MJP are who you say you are anyway...Troll thread, amigo.
None of you answered my question as to why no one bans the crackpots who make this forum look pitiful.
And I wasn't making a wise crack, I am just wondering why a so called scientific forum is composed almost entirely of pseudo scientific topics.
And I wasn't making a wise crack, I am just wondering why a so called scientific forum is composed almost entirely of pseudo scientific topics.
QUOTE (Ccnayak+Sep 6 2008, 08:03 PM)
None of you answered my question as to why no one bans the crackpots who make this forum look pitiful.
Take a wild freakin' guess.
Take a wild freakin' guess.
QUOTE (Ccnayak+Sep 6 2008, 08:03 PM)
None of you answered my question as to why no one bans the crackpots who make this forum look pitiful.
My answer was implicit. The posts are allowed to remain because
1) that is the norm for forums of this type.
2) they provide opportunities for those who do know something to consolidate, broaden and share their knowledge.
My answer was implicit. The posts are allowed to remain because
1) that is the norm for forums of this type.
2) they provide opportunities for those who do know something to consolidate, broaden and share their knowledge.
QUOTE
And I wasn't making a wise crack, ...
No one said you were. Four of us suggested the way you raised the point was rude.
QUOTE (Ccnayak+Sep 6 2008, 08:03 PM)
None of you answered my question as to why no one bans the crackpots who make this forum look pitiful.
And I wasn't making a wise crack, I am just wondering why a so called scientific forum is composed almost entirely of pseudo scientific topics.
I like this forum as it is.
And I wasn't making a wise crack, I am just wondering why a so called scientific forum is composed almost entirely of pseudo scientific topics.
I like this forum as it is.
QUOTE (Ccnayak+Sep 6 2008, 03:03 PM)
None of you answered my question as to why no one bans the crackpots who make this forum look pitiful.
Because, unfortunately, being an idiot isn't against the terms of service.
On a side note, why is m oron censored but not fucktard...
Because, unfortunately, being an idiot isn't against the terms of service.
On a side note, why is m oron censored but not fucktard...
QUOTE (Ccnayak+Sep 6 2008, 04:43 AM)
I've been reading the threads in the different forums....
Its just pitiful. 90% of the people here don't know what the *** they are writing about.
They are all crack pots, and the remaining 10% just waste their time arguing with them.
Does this place have moderators? If so just ban all the idiots
Maybe a bit over a year ago we had a few people apparently decide the forum deserved widespread harassment. They dubbed themselves the forum mafia and claim to be performing a public crankbusting service.
A lot of the better posters have left and because of their rather immature comments and posted images, we can't post links to images anymore (it's annoying when "we're all suppose to sacrifice" simply because a few people enjoy abusing the site).
Obviously most of them have little interest in technical discussions and they prefer to just socialize and harass people. (Reminds me of a gaming website I used to hang out on a long time ago ... yes, it can be some fun, but the forum mafia would probably have a lot more fun on a gaming website)
Its just pitiful. 90% of the people here don't know what the *** they are writing about.
They are all crack pots, and the remaining 10% just waste their time arguing with them.
Does this place have moderators? If so just ban all the idiots
Maybe a bit over a year ago we had a few people apparently decide the forum deserved widespread harassment. They dubbed themselves the forum mafia and claim to be performing a public crankbusting service.
A lot of the better posters have left and because of their rather immature comments and posted images, we can't post links to images anymore (it's annoying when "we're all suppose to sacrifice" simply because a few people enjoy abusing the site).
Obviously most of them have little interest in technical discussions and they prefer to just socialize and harass people. (Reminds me of a gaming website I used to hang out on a long time ago ... yes, it can be some fun, but the forum mafia would probably have a lot more fun on a gaming website)
QUOTE (SteveA2+)
Maybe a bit over a year ago
Incorrect. The Forum Mafia was officially founded in May 2007, not August 2007. It's been more than "a bit over a year ago".
A lie. If anything, people like you and your ilk have been one of the main reasons for the emptying of this forum. rpenner and mr_homm rarely post here because now everywhere they turn they find a post made by a crank. And guess who supports those cranks? You.
A lie. If anything, people like you and your ilk have been one of the main reasons for the emptying of this forum. rpenner and mr_homm rarely post here because now everywhere they turn they find a post made by a crank. And guess who supports those cranks? You.
Obviously most of them have little interest in technical discussions
Another lie. Technical discussion has been tried with you before and it has failed. I've witnessed it. Same with DavidD, same with Farsight.
You are a hypocrite.
TRUE
every off topic post, every uncalled for ad hominem remark, every case of continued stalking etc
leads to resentment... realise posters are real people with real feelings
The perpetual run of off topic posts on a serious topic causes the readership to lose interest
""Oh that has a post by the Doc, NOM,,,oh ***, won't look there"""... meanwhile worthwhile posts are buried by the load laid on top of them
Not sure why the mods don't kick out the scum, the off loaders, the trolls, the pestering creeps......
The quality of this forum just has to go downhill and anyone with expertise will go elsewhere
This whole forum has become dysfunctional
no one here has any expertise.. you neg system is ludicrous and the level of disruption is massive.
I don't mind teaching respectful posters, but sure as hell y'all seem to be rejects from hell.
It's you and your gang Doc that are mainly responsible. Either on purpose, or you really are quite dense people.
It's you and your gang Doc that are mainly responsible. Either on purpose, or you really are quite dense people.
Watch your step, Lui, or I'll turn you into a Rose Tyler action figure.
LOL
judgment by cretin minds
LOL
luv it
It is obvious to me, that there are so few scientists here that they have the power of one hand clapping !!!!
I expect NO SCIENTIST would allow themselves to be degraded in public by moronic cretins..... amongst an audience of moronic cretins.
You guys know not what you are doing.....
but I expect if there was a significant scientific presence here that really called y'all out... in a scientific audience, y'all would shite yourselves and fade into the woodwork
Meanwhile this forum is totally dysfunctional
There is more science in the Physorg main page report comments than in this forum.....
It is painfully obvious that this is a backwater, where no mods tread.
really pathetic... but more
its tragic
Oh take heart,
it appears from my extensive experience that ALL net science forums are infested with uncontrollable and arrogantly ignorant rabble...this is what the government would like
science is a threat to any establishment.... there is a higher authority and that is not DOG, nor the STATE
it is science.... viva la revolution !!
Agents of the establishment, y'all will get your just deserts I can assure you....LOL LOL
LOL
That's HILLARIOUS coming from an idiot who claims to be from outer space and doesn't know what WATER is.
Between you and Lui I doubt there is one neuron still firing effectively.
If either of you think you have a "level of expertise", Please don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. Good Riddance to idiotic rubbish.
Grumpy
Incorrect. The Forum Mafia was officially founded in May 2007, not August 2007. It's been more than "a bit over a year ago".
QUOTE
A lot of the better posters have left and because of their rather immature comments and posted images
A lie. If anything, people like you and your ilk have been one of the main reasons for the emptying of this forum. rpenner and mr_homm rarely post here because now everywhere they turn they find a post made by a crank. And guess who supports those cranks? You.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A lot of the better posters have left and because of their rather immature comments and posted images |
A lie. If anything, people like you and your ilk have been one of the main reasons for the emptying of this forum. rpenner and mr_homm rarely post here because now everywhere they turn they find a post made by a crank. And guess who supports those cranks? You.
Obviously most of them have little interest in technical discussions
Another lie. Technical discussion has been tried with you before and it has failed. I've witnessed it. Same with DavidD, same with Farsight.
You are a hypocrite.
Well it is quite fascinating as a newcomer to observe the group dynamics and try to figure out who does what, and to whom, and why, and how often. Myself, I've never been factionally, or individually oriented on forums, prefering to address what is being said and how it is being said, rather than who is saying it.
In that spirit I suggest your statement "Incorrect. The Forum Mafia was officially founded in May 2007, not August 2007. It's been more than "a bit over a year ago".is erroneous. When I read the original my immediate thought was 'so that would be May/June time'. I now learn, from your post, I was correct. Since the rest of your post doesn't suggest English is your second language I am surprised that you've chosen that particular quantification of 'a bit'.
Of course, this is flagrantly off-topic, mind numbingly nit-picking, sits on the verge of being patronising and is probably just as pointless as your original observation. In that regard it will serve as quite a good introduction.
In that spirit I suggest your statement "Incorrect. The Forum Mafia was officially founded in May 2007, not August 2007. It's been more than "a bit over a year ago".is erroneous. When I read the original my immediate thought was 'so that would be May/June time'. I now learn, from your post, I was correct. Since the rest of your post doesn't suggest English is your second language I am surprised that you've chosen that particular quantification of 'a bit'.
Of course, this is flagrantly off-topic, mind numbingly nit-picking, sits on the verge of being patronising and is probably just as pointless as your original observation. In that regard it will serve as quite a good introduction.
QUOTE
A lot of the better posters have left and because of their rather immature comments and posted images, we can't post links to images anymore (it's annoying when "we're all suppose to sacrifice" simply because a few people enjoy abusing the site).
TRUE
every off topic post, every uncalled for ad hominem remark, every case of continued stalking etc
leads to resentment... realise posters are real people with real feelings
The perpetual run of off topic posts on a serious topic causes the readership to lose interest
""Oh that has a post by the Doc, NOM,,,oh ***, won't look there"""... meanwhile worthwhile posts are buried by the load laid on top of them
Not sure why the mods don't kick out the scum, the off loaders, the trolls, the pestering creeps......
The quality of this forum just has to go downhill and anyone with expertise will go elsewhere
This whole forum has become dysfunctional
no one here has any expertise.. you neg system is ludicrous and the level of disruption is massive.
I don't mind teaching respectful posters, but sure as hell y'all seem to be rejects from hell.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Sep 6 2008, 11:56 PM)
QUOTE
A lie. If anything, people like you and your ilk have been one of the main reasons for the emptying of this forum. rpenner and mr_homm rarely post here because now everywhere they turn they find a post made by a crank. And guess who supports those cranks? You.
It's you and your gang Doc that are mainly responsible. Either on purpose, or you really are quite dense people.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 7 2008, 12:42 AM)
It's you and your gang Doc that are mainly responsible. Either on purpose, or you really are quite dense people.
Watch your step, Lui, or I'll turn you into a Rose Tyler action figure.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Sep 7 2008, 12:50 AM)
Watch your step, Lui, or I'll turn you into a Rose Tyler action figure.
Get a reality check child.
Get a reality check child.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 7 2008, 01:10 AM)
Get a reality check child.
Get a sense of humor, idiot.
Get a sense of humor, idiot.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 7 2008, 12:42 AM)
It's you and your gang Doc that are mainly responsible. Either on purpose, or you really are quite dense people.
I've read at least 6 different posts in which members who rarely participate here claimed to have left due to the cranks.
I've yet to see a single one in which a member claims to dislike this forum because of the FM, and then actually leaves.
Liar.
I've read at least 6 different posts in which members who rarely participate here claimed to have left due to the cranks.
I've yet to see a single one in which a member claims to dislike this forum because of the FM, and then actually leaves.
Liar.
I expect or at least hope, y'all are kids
because if you are older than 12 years old... you future is dense
really dense
enlist as cannon fodder, because that is all you are useful for.
Meanwhile please tell me
(1) where do you get the authority to disrupt serious discussion
(2) where do you get the "knowledge" to claim you know better than anyone else..... especially your claim you know better than people who have devoted their extensive number of years to science.
(3) what make you think mob rule is beneficial...science does not rely on consensus... it relies upon facts.
(4) House invasion as well as topic-invasion by cretin bully-boys bent upon destruction is illegal.
get a life guys and grow up.
because if you are older than 12 years old... you future is dense
really dense
enlist as cannon fodder, because that is all you are useful for.
Meanwhile please tell me
(1) where do you get the authority to disrupt serious discussion
(2) where do you get the "knowledge" to claim you know better than anyone else..... especially your claim you know better than people who have devoted their extensive number of years to science.
(3) what make you think mob rule is beneficial...science does not rely on consensus... it relies upon facts.
(4) House invasion as well as topic-invasion by cretin bully-boys bent upon destruction is illegal.
get a life guys and grow up.
QUOTE (Ccnayak+Sep 6 2008, 08:03 PM)
None of you answered my question as to why no one bans the crackpots who make this forum look pitiful.
And I wasn't making a wise crack, I am just wondering why a so called scientific forum is composed almost entirely of pseudo scientific topics.
I find that one's feedback score usually correlates with whether or not someone knows what they're talking about.
And I wasn't making a wise crack, I am just wondering why a so called scientific forum is composed almost entirely of pseudo scientific topics.
I find that one's feedback score usually correlates with whether or not someone knows what they're talking about.
QUOTE
one's feedback score usually correlates with whether or not someone knows what they're talking about.
LOL
judgment by cretin minds
LOL
luv it
It is obvious to me, that there are so few scientists here that they have the power of one hand clapping !!!!
I expect NO SCIENTIST would allow themselves to be degraded in public by moronic cretins..... amongst an audience of moronic cretins.
You guys know not what you are doing.....
but I expect if there was a significant scientific presence here that really called y'all out... in a scientific audience, y'all would shite yourselves and fade into the woodwork
Meanwhile this forum is totally dysfunctional
There is more science in the Physorg main page report comments than in this forum.....
It is painfully obvious that this is a backwater, where no mods tread.
really pathetic... but more
its tragic
Oh take heart,
it appears from my extensive experience that ALL net science forums are infested with uncontrollable and arrogantly ignorant rabble...this is what the government would like
science is a threat to any establishment.... there is a higher authority and that is not DOG, nor the STATE
it is science.... viva la revolution !!
Agents of the establishment, y'all will get your just deserts I can assure you....LOL LOL
LOL
QUOTE (Grasshopper+Sep 7 2008, 03:41 AM)
I find that one's feedback score usually correlates with whether or not someone knows what they're talking about.
That's a factor, but limited because the ratings are just votes. The easiest way to get a high rating is to not post anything controversial and try to agree with the majority of posters, or at least just disagree with the more tolerant non-mafia members in the forum as they tend to not spam negatives in the same manner as the forum mafia.
That's a factor, but limited because the ratings are just votes. The easiest way to get a high rating is to not post anything controversial and try to agree with the majority of posters, or at least just disagree with the more tolerant non-mafia members in the forum as they tend to not spam negatives in the same manner as the forum mafia.
QUOTE (SteveA2+Sep 7 2008, 05:48 AM)
That's a factor, but limited because the ratings are just votes. The easiest way to get a high rating is to not post anything controversial and try to agree with the majority of posters, or at least just disagree with the more tolerant non-mafia members in the forum as they tend to not spam negatives in the same manner as the forum mafia.
That sounds boring!
That sounds boring!
QUOTE
TRUE
every off topic post, every uncalled for ad hominem remark, every case of continued stalking etc
leads to resentment... realise posters are real people with real feelings
The perpetual run of off topic posts on a serious topic causes the readership to lose interest
""Oh that has a post by the Doc, NOM,,,oh ***, won't look there"""... meanwhile worthwhile posts are buried by the load laid on top of them
Not sure why the mods don't kick out the scum, the off loaders, the trolls, the pestering creeps......
The quality of this forum just has to go downhill and anyone with expertise will go elsewhere
This whole forum has become dysfunctional
no one here has any expertise.. you neg system is ludicrous and the level of disruption is massive.
I don't mind teaching respectful posters, but sure as hell y'all seem to be rejects from hell.
every off topic post, every uncalled for ad hominem remark, every case of continued stalking etc
leads to resentment... realise posters are real people with real feelings
The perpetual run of off topic posts on a serious topic causes the readership to lose interest
""Oh that has a post by the Doc, NOM,,,oh ***, won't look there"""... meanwhile worthwhile posts are buried by the load laid on top of them
Not sure why the mods don't kick out the scum, the off loaders, the trolls, the pestering creeps......
The quality of this forum just has to go downhill and anyone with expertise will go elsewhere
This whole forum has become dysfunctional
no one here has any expertise.. you neg system is ludicrous and the level of disruption is massive.
I don't mind teaching respectful posters, but sure as hell y'all seem to be rejects from hell.
That's HILLARIOUS coming from an idiot who claims to be from outer space and doesn't know what WATER is.
Between you and Lui I doubt there is one neuron still firing effectively.
If either of you think you have a "level of expertise", Please don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. Good Riddance to idiotic rubbish.
Grumpy
Grumpy you are a totally deluded fool.
goodluck
goodluck
Hi Grumpy,
QUOTE (Grumpy+)
That's HILARIOUS [spelling corrected] coming from an idiot who claims to be from outer space and doesn't know what WATER is.
It seems 'humour' doesn't cross cultures particularly well.
Whilst I occasionally admire your contributions I am also keen to see that any door that lies between us should remain securely locked.
Why?
Intolerance.
Religious and 'scientific' intolerance comes from the same type of people but with different backgrounds.
How best to deal with intolerant people? I have no idea. It would be counter-productive to try to deprive them of the rights that they would deny to others.
Suggestions welcome.
-C2.
It seems 'humour' doesn't cross cultures particularly well.
Whilst I occasionally admire your contributions I am also keen to see that any door that lies between us should remain securely locked.
Why?
Intolerance.
Religious and 'scientific' intolerance comes from the same type of people but with different backgrounds.
How best to deal with intolerant people? I have no idea. It would be counter-productive to try to deprive them of the rights that they would deny to others.
Suggestions welcome.
-C2.
QUOTE (SteveA2+Sep 7 2008, 12:21 AM)
Obviously most of them have little interest in technical discussions and they prefer to just socialize and harass people.
Like you. You refuse to engage Euler, myself or anyone else in a technical discussion.
Same goes for Farsight or Kaneda or NeoNo.1 (all of whom post on Sciforums, where they continue to avoid taking up a technical discussion with me) or Precursor or Sylwester or any other crank.
Like you. You refuse to engage Euler, myself or anyone else in a technical discussion.
Same goes for Farsight or Kaneda or NeoNo.1 (all of whom post on Sciforums, where they continue to avoid taking up a technical discussion with me) or Precursor or Sylwester or any other crank.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Sep 7 2008, 02:49 AM)
I've read at least 6 different posts in which members who rarely participate here claimed to have left due to the cranks.
I've yet to see a single one in which a member claims to dislike this forum because of the FM, and then actually leaves.
Liar.
Hey you wrote your own epitaph and mistakenly left it as feedback for another poster:
In your case very short. Especially when you resort to lying in order to give the impression you are defeating an "opponent". I think you'll find that is the sort of behaviour that puts many people from joining or staying here. With so many other forums, why should anyone enter a cauldron of intimidation like here? It will end up being you, the gang, and the growd up intolerants, Grumpy AN Euler Trips. You can go on day trips together.
I've yet to see a single one in which a member claims to dislike this forum because of the FM, and then actually leaves.
Liar.
Hey you wrote your own epitaph and mistakenly left it as feedback for another poster:
QUOTE
MjolnirPants Posted: Sep 3 2008, 07:32 PM
Negative Still an immature little pissant, only capable of maturity in short, infrequent spurts.
Negative Still an immature little pissant, only capable of maturity in short, infrequent spurts.
In your case very short. Especially when you resort to lying in order to give the impression you are defeating an "opponent". I think you'll find that is the sort of behaviour that puts many people from joining or staying here. With so many other forums, why should anyone enter a cauldron of intimidation like here? It will end up being you, the gang, and the growd up intolerants, Grumpy AN Euler Trips. You can go on day trips together.
Hey Doc, now you've gone and left an epitaph for you in my feedback:
I get it now. You guys leave the impressions you have of yourselves through other people's feeedback. Cool. Don't forget the lie you told about them two music scales recently.
You must invite the gang over to Skegness for a day.
QUOTE
TheDoc Posted: Today at 6:02 AM
Negative Pathetic liar/idiot.
Negative Pathetic liar/idiot.
I get it now. You guys leave the impressions you have of yourselves through other people's feeedback. Cool. Don't forget the lie you told about them two music scales recently.
You must invite the gang over to Skegness for a day.
I wonder how many psychology undergraduates are conducting field studies of everyone's behaviour here. It is fascinating to observe a set of persons,, supposedly interested in science, with many claiming some form of scientific background - even if it is only highschool - engaged in infantile playground tactics.
Wonderful.
Wonderful.
QUOTE (Harzburgite+Sep 7 2008, 01:25 PM)
I wonder how many psychology undergraduates are conducting field studies of everyone's behaviour here. It is fascinating to observe a set of persons,, supposedly interested in science, with many claiming some form of scientific background - even if it is only highschool - engaged in infantile playground tactics.
Wonderful.
It seems a pretty fair assessment of where human nature tends to when not being moderated by an outside source. Obviously man isn't quite ready for self government just yet.
Wonderful.
It seems a pretty fair assessment of where human nature tends to when not being moderated by an outside source. Obviously man isn't quite ready for self government just yet.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 7 2008, 01:36 PM)
It seems a pretty fair assessment of where human nature tends to when not being moderated by an outside source. Obviously man isn't quite ready for self government just yet.
Thats an interesting point of view. So let me ask you this--Are you in favor of larger government, controlling our "human nature"?
Thats an interesting point of view. So let me ask you this--Are you in favor of larger government, controlling our "human nature"?
bonehead
At least we could have intelligent conversations NOT INCLUDING any numerology or mystical BS.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Grumpy AN Euler Trips. You can go on day trips together.
At least we could have intelligent conversations NOT INCLUDING any numerology or mystical BS.
Grumpy
QUOTE (occidental+Sep 7 2008, 02:05 PM)
Thats an interesting point of view. So let me ask you this--Are you in favor of larger government, controlling our "human nature"?
Just the opposite in fact. You should know that from my speil over at BFN.
Just the opposite in fact. You should know that from my speil over at BFN.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 7 2008, 01:36 PM)
It seems a pretty fair assessment of where human nature tends to when not being moderated by an outside source. Obviously man isn't quite ready for self government just yet.
Not necessarily. In the environment of the forum the anonymity (apparently) frees people of the consequences of their actions. In 'real world' situations the constraint of consequences is always present.
Not necessarily. In the environment of the forum the anonymity (apparently) frees people of the consequences of their actions. In 'real world' situations the constraint of consequences is always present.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Sep 7 2008, 02:12 PM)
bonehead
At least we could have intelligent conversations NOT INCLUDING any numerology or mystical BS.
Grumpy
Yes you've and your opinion very plain on that. But sadly you are wrong about it. And what's more your intolerance is not fitting for a supposed professor. You come accross more like some blind catholic.
At least we could have intelligent conversations NOT INCLUDING any numerology or mystical BS.
Grumpy
Yes you've and your opinion very plain on that. But sadly you are wrong about it. And what's more your intolerance is not fitting for a supposed professor. You come accross more like some blind catholic.
QUOTE (Harzburgite+Sep 7 2008, 03:09 PM)
Not necessarily. In the environment of the forum the anonymity (apparently) frees people of the consequences of their actions. In 'real world' situations the constraint of consequences is always present.
Yes, you're right there.
Yes, you're right there.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 7 2008, 03:05 PM)
Just the opposite in fact. You should know that from my speil over at BFN.
True, Lui, thats why I have asked you if you could clarify your remarks. So what kind of "moderation" would you like to see, and from what kind of "outside force"? It just sounds a bit Orwellian to me. Are you somehow against free speech?
Please note that I am asking you questions trying to understand your point of view here. I am not making statements of judgement on your point of view.
True, Lui, thats why I have asked you if you could clarify your remarks. So what kind of "moderation" would you like to see, and from what kind of "outside force"? It just sounds a bit Orwellian to me. Are you somehow against free speech?
Please note that I am asking you questions trying to understand your point of view here. I am not making statements of judgement on your point of view.
QUOTE (occidental+Sep 7 2008, 03:18 PM)
True, Lui, thats why I have asked you if you could clarify your remarks. So what kind of "moderation" would you like to see, and from what kind of "outside force"? It just sounds a bit Orwellian to me. Are you somehow against free speech?
Please note that I am asking you questions trying to understand your point of view here. I am not making statements of judgement on your point of view.
I think you may have made a fundamental misunderstanding here. I would rather see more self responsible people than more moderation. However I don't think I am wrong in saying that , when moderation is taken away, as it is at Physorg here, one can see what it tends towards. Even that is a matter of opinion I know. I know what mine is. It tends toward, as Harzburgite said, lack of accountability for actions from those that remain anonimous. I would even go as far as saying that Orwellian type control is more evident here from the anonimous amongst us, who seem to implement that wish for control through "forum mafia" actions.
Please note that I am asking you questions trying to understand your point of view here. I am not making statements of judgement on your point of view.
I think you may have made a fundamental misunderstanding here. I would rather see more self responsible people than more moderation. However I don't think I am wrong in saying that , when moderation is taken away, as it is at Physorg here, one can see what it tends towards. Even that is a matter of opinion I know. I know what mine is. It tends toward, as Harzburgite said, lack of accountability for actions from those that remain anonimous. I would even go as far as saying that Orwellian type control is more evident here from the anonimous amongst us, who seem to implement that wish for control through "forum mafia" actions.
I have to admit I gave up , for the most part commenting on just about any subject for fear of the religious fanatics lurking behind every tree, ready to pounce on any one who tried to offer alternative views not requiring a supernatural explanation. "Because God said so" just won't cut it. Never the less I view the "supernatural" as just the natural we don't understand yet. It took us a long time to understand, at least to a point, the cause and effect relationships that apply to natural events and disasters.
I see what youre saying. It does seem like the world is never too far from anarchy.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 7 2008, 12:38 PM)
Hey Doc, now you've gone and left an epitaph for you in my feedback:
I get it now. You guys leave the impressions you have of yourselves through other people's feeedback. Cool. Don't forget the lie you told about them two music scales recently.
You must invite the gang over to Skegness for a day.
I take it your new motto is "Intellectual Dishonesty FTW", right Lui?
I get it now. You guys leave the impressions you have of yourselves through other people's feeedback. Cool. Don't forget the lie you told about them two music scales recently.
You must invite the gang over to Skegness for a day.
I take it your new motto is "Intellectual Dishonesty FTW", right Lui?
QUOTE (hawksecho+Sep 7 2008, 04:11 PM)
Never the less I view the "supernatural" as just the natural we don't understand yet. It took us a long time to understand, at least to a point, the cause and effect relationships that apply to natural events and disasters.
You are engaged in the dangerous practice of displaying an open mind. Not only may you be attacked by religious fundamentalists of every persuasion, but by the even more dangerous knee-jerk reactionary dogmatists who pose as real scientists.
(Shhhh! I think I may have spotted some on this forum already and it's only my third day here.)
You are engaged in the dangerous practice of displaying an open mind. Not only may you be attacked by religious fundamentalists of every persuasion, but by the even more dangerous knee-jerk reactionary dogmatists who pose as real scientists.
(Shhhh! I think I may have spotted some on this forum already and it's only my third day here.)
QUOTE (Harzburgite+Sep 7 2008, 04:58 PM)
You are engaged in the dangerous practice of displaying an open mind. Not only may you be attacked by religious fundamentalists of every persuasion, but by the even more dangerous knee-jerk reactionary dogmatists who pose as real scientists.
(Shhhh! I think I may have spotted some on this forum already and it's only my third day here.)
(Shhhh! I think I may have spotted some on this forum already and it's only my third day here.)
QUOTE (Ccnayak+Sep 6 2008, 08:03 PM)
None of you answered my question as to why no one bans the crackpots who make this forum look pitiful.
And I wasn't making a wise crack, I am just wondering why a so called scientific forum is composed almost entirely of pseudo scientific topics.
This place isn't moderated, otherwise the porn spam posts would be deleted. The crackpots are fine, if people ignored them they would go away. The worst are the creationists that keep showing up. It makes little sense to have a forum about creation/evolution considering creationism isn't science.
And I wasn't making a wise crack, I am just wondering why a so called scientific forum is composed almost entirely of pseudo scientific topics.
This place isn't moderated, otherwise the porn spam posts would be deleted. The crackpots are fine, if people ignored them they would go away. The worst are the creationists that keep showing up. It makes little sense to have a forum about creation/evolution considering creationism isn't science.
QUOTE (Harzburgite+Sep 7 2008, 11:58 AM)
(Shhhh! I think I may have spotted some on this forum already and it's only my third day here.)
It took you that long?
It took you that long?
QUOTE (TheDoc+Sep 7 2008, 04:46 PM)
I take it your new motto is "Intellectual Dishonesty FTW", right Lui?
You see, you are doin it again. You end up lying to protect a mate, init like, and then accuse someone else of your crime. No science going on there.
You see, you are doin it again. You end up lying to protect a mate, init like, and then accuse someone else of your crime. No science going on there.
QUOTE (Harzburgite+Sep 7 2008, 04:58 PM)
You are engaged in the dangerous practice of displaying an open mind. Not only may you be attacked by religious fundamentalists of every persuasion, but by the even more dangerous knee-jerk reactionary dogmatists who pose as real scientists.
(Shhhh! I think I may have spotted some on this forum already and it's only my third day here.)
(Shhhh! I think I may have spotted some on this forum already and it's only my third day here.)
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 8 2008, 04:10 AM)
I would rather see more self responsible people than more moderation.
I would rather see fewer hypocritical tossers who continually sneak back in after being banned.
I would rather see fewer hypocritical tossers who continually sneak back in after being banned.
QUOTE (Ccnayak+Sep 5 2008, 10:43 PM)
I've been reading the threads in the different forums....
Its just pitiful. 90% of the people here don't know what the *** they are writing about.
They are all crack pots, and the remaining 10% just waste their time arguing with them.
Does this place have moderators? If so just ban all the idiots who think they've invented a free energy machine or unified quantum mechanics and relativity.
How come people like DavidD haven't been banned yet? That guy is clearly a crack pot.
Seriously, *** is with this place.
Dude, don't be a douche.
While I kind of agree with what you have to say, if you do not like this place, just leave. Some people do know what they are talking about, and others do not; deal with it.
And, if you are going to whine about how stupid some people are, try to make yourself look like a somewhat intelligent person... For instance, if you cannot spell, use the spell check button found down near the "Add Reply" button... Actually, it happens to be right above that button, and about twice the size.
Merry Christmas.
Its just pitiful. 90% of the people here don't know what the *** they are writing about.
They are all crack pots, and the remaining 10% just waste their time arguing with them.
Does this place have moderators? If so just ban all the idiots who think they've invented a free energy machine or unified quantum mechanics and relativity.
How come people like DavidD haven't been banned yet? That guy is clearly a crack pot.
Seriously, *** is with this place.
Dude, don't be a douche.
While I kind of agree with what you have to say, if you do not like this place, just leave. Some people do know what they are talking about, and others do not; deal with it.
And, if you are going to whine about how stupid some people are, try to make yourself look like a somewhat intelligent person... For instance, if you cannot spell, use the spell check button found down near the "Add Reply" button... Actually, it happens to be right above that button, and about twice the size.
Merry Christmas.
QUOTE (N O M+Sep 7 2008, 07:49 PM)
I would rather see fewer hypocritical tossers who continually sneak back in after being banned.
No you wouldn't. You would rather toss off on negging campaigns and intimidation.
No you wouldn't. You would rather toss off on negging campaigns and intimidation.
QUOTE (excaza+Sep 7 2008, 05:22 PM)
It took you that long?
Not really, but I don't like to boast.
To TheDoc, did you have a question, or were you just pleased to see me?
Not really, but I don't like to boast.
To TheDoc, did you have a question, or were you just pleased to see me?
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 7 2008, 07:58 PM)
No you wouldn't. You would rather toss off on negging campaigns and intimidation.
More cuntitious fucktardinations
More cuntitious fucktardinations
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 7 2008, 12:34 PM)
Hey you wrote your own epitaph and mistakenly left it as feedback for another poster:
More schoolyard insults. This time, a variation of the time honored "I know you are but what am I?"
I find it funny that your entire argument in every single discussions consists of insulting your opponent. It goes to show just how valid your position is.
Quote me some proof then, asswipe
You've accused me of lying many many many times. Prove it.
Quote me some proof then, asswipe
You've accused me of lying many many many times. Prove it.
I think you'll find...
Hey everyone else: Is it just me, or is this Liu's favorite phrase?
Keep telling yourself that, Liu.
Keep telling yourself that, Liu.
With so many other forums, why should anyone enter a cauldron of intimidation like here?
"Cauldron of intimidation"? Do I intimidate you?
Thanks for the comparison to some actual scientists. It's good to know that some people consider me to be their equals, even if I already know it's just your complete lack of intelligence and knowledge that makes it seem that way.
Quote me some proof then, asswipe
You've accused me of lying many many many times. Prove it.
It's been proved asswipe. I have every faith that you won't be teaching any music students what you have tried to pass off as true here.
More schoolyard insults. This time, a variation of the time honored "I know you are but what am I?"
I find it funny that your entire argument in every single discussions consists of insulting your opponent. It goes to show just how valid your position is.
QUOTE
In your case very short. Especially when you resort to lying in order to give the impression you are defeating an "opponent".
Quote me some proof then, asswipe
You've accused me of lying many many many times. Prove it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In your case very short. Especially when you resort to lying in order to give the impression you are defeating an "opponent". |
Quote me some proof then, asswipe
You've accused me of lying many many many times. Prove it.
I think you'll find...
Hey everyone else: Is it just me, or is this Liu's favorite phrase?
QUOTE
that is the sort of behaviour that puts many people from joining or staying here.
Keep telling yourself that, Liu.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| that is the sort of behaviour that puts many people from joining or staying here. |
Keep telling yourself that, Liu.
With so many other forums, why should anyone enter a cauldron of intimidation like here?
"Cauldron of intimidation"? Do I intimidate you?
QUOTE
It will end up being you, the gang, and the growd up intolerants, Grumpy AN Euler Trips. You can go on day trips together.
Thanks for the comparison to some actual scientists. It's good to know that some people consider me to be their equals, even if I already know it's just your complete lack of intelligence and knowledge that makes it seem that way.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants to Boneidol+Sep 7 2008, 02:49 AM)
I've read at least 6 different posts in which members who rarely participate here claimed to have left due to the cranks.
I've yet to see a single one in which a member claims to dislike this forum because of the FM, and then actually leaves.
Liar.
Hi MjP!
Do those who stay DESPITE 'not liking' what SOME self-styled "members" of the so-called "FM" 'sometimes DO/SAY count, mate? hehehe.
Like me, for instance...I stay; and just deal with any childishness and malice aforethought that comes my way from time to time.
I deal with such things in the usual way: as a grown up deals with any children who ALSO 'sometimes' annoy AS WELL AS 'sometimes' DELIGHT! hehehe.
.....ie, I castigate as necessary, praise as appropriate.......and otherwise ignore any childish taunts and 'nasty' playground attitude/behaviour until it becomes untenable in the name of science/humanity.
Other than that, I reckon Physorg is the MOST WELL-ROUNDED and USEFUL forum of its kind on the net.
My opinion, of course. Others have to decide for themselves and act accordingly.
Cheers and good luck and good thinking, everyone!
RC.
.
I've yet to see a single one in which a member claims to dislike this forum because of the FM, and then actually leaves.
Liar.
Hi MjP!
Do those who stay DESPITE 'not liking' what SOME self-styled "members" of the so-called "FM" 'sometimes DO/SAY count, mate? hehehe.
Like me, for instance...I stay; and just deal with any childishness and malice aforethought that comes my way from time to time.
I deal with such things in the usual way: as a grown up deals with any children who ALSO 'sometimes' annoy AS WELL AS 'sometimes' DELIGHT! hehehe.
.....ie, I castigate as necessary, praise as appropriate.......and otherwise ignore any childish taunts and 'nasty' playground attitude/behaviour until it becomes untenable in the name of science/humanity.
Other than that, I reckon Physorg is the MOST WELL-ROUNDED and USEFUL forum of its kind on the net.
My opinion, of course. Others have to decide for themselves and act accordingly.
Cheers and good luck and good thinking, everyone!
RC.
.
QUOTE (Harzburgite+Sep 7 2008, 01:25 PM)
I wonder how many psychology undergraduates are conducting field studies of everyone's behaviour here. It is fascinating to observe a set of persons,, supposedly interested in science, with many claiming some form of scientific background - even if it is only highschool - engaged in infantile playground tactics.
Wonderful.
Awwww, Harzburgite!....you let the 'observerving cat' (the obverse of Schroedinger's cat, hehehe) out of the bag/box!
Shucks, what will I do NOW for the rest of this 'other 'project' I had going? hehehe.
Never mind, there's plenty others to be going on with. Thank goodness...or your innocent 'disclosure' would have been the end of that. hehehe.
Cheers Harz!....but remember to be more careful and circumspect in future...."Loose lips sink sinks"...and science/psychology/social 'projects' too! hehehe.
RC.
.
Wonderful.
Awwww, Harzburgite!....you let the 'observerving cat' (the obverse of Schroedinger's cat, hehehe) out of the bag/box!
Shucks, what will I do NOW for the rest of this 'other 'project' I had going? hehehe.
Never mind, there's plenty others to be going on with. Thank goodness...or your innocent 'disclosure' would have been the end of that. hehehe.
Cheers Harz!....but remember to be more careful and circumspect in future...."Loose lips sink sinks"...and science/psychology/social 'projects' too! hehehe.
RC.
.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 7 2008, 02:58 PM)
No you wouldn't. You would rather toss off on negging campaigns and intimidation.
You got that right
Why?
We may never know, but he seems to enjoy his little power trips
You got that right
Why?
We may never know, but he seems to enjoy his little power trips
I can't be bothered
pathetic earthlings
pathetic earthlings
QUOTE (Zarkov+Sep 8 2008, 08:25 AM)
I can't be bothered
pathetic earthlings
Do you have your scripts written locally or are they shipped in from Beta Arcturus?
pathetic earthlings
Do you have your scripts written locally or are they shipped in from Beta Arcturus?
QUOTE (oomchu+Sep 7 2008, 05:18 PM)
This place isn't moderated, otherwise the porn spam posts would be deleted. The crackpots are fine, if people ignored them they would go away. The worst are the creationists that keep showing up. It makes little sense to have a forum about creation/evolution considering creationism isn't science.
Reality Check is a moderator here oomchu, so it is him who lets all this happen for some reason
Reality Check is a moderator here oomchu, so it is him who lets all this happen for some reason
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Sep 8 2008, 01:52 AM)
Quote me some proof then, asswipe
You've accused me of lying many many many times. Prove it.
It's been proved asswipe. I have every faith that you won't be teaching any music students what you have tried to pass off as true here.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 8 2008, 11:23 AM)
It's been proved asswipe.
Liar.
Funny, I gave a lesson just last night...
Liar.
QUOTE
I have every faith that you won't be teaching any music students what you have tried to pass off as true here.
Funny, I gave a lesson just last night...
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Sep 8 2008, 12:54 PM)
Liar.
Funny, I gave a lesson just last night...
Matt the Pratt, wants to be a big fish in a small bowl. Sweet really.
So, you teach people that Melodic minor is W H W W W W* H ?
You should be banned from teaching then.
Funny, I gave a lesson just last night...
Matt the Pratt, wants to be a big fish in a small bowl. Sweet really.
So, you teach people that Melodic minor is W H W W W W* H ?
You should be banned from teaching then.
bonehead
And you would teach them that the Merkaba is a magical mystery tour ride you can spot from space.
Priceless!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE
So, you teach people that Melodic minor is W H W W W W* H ?
You should be banned from teaching then
You should be banned from teaching then
And you would teach them that the Merkaba is a magical mystery tour ride you can spot from space.
Priceless!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 8 2008, 12:58 PM)
Matt the Pratt, wants to be a big fish in a small bowl. Sweet really.
Liu the shrew wants to rely on unqualified insults instead of logical arguments. Sweet really.
You teach them that retrograde inversion is the same as tonal inversion, that it was invented in the 20th century, as a part of "12 tone row theory", and that is was not fully explored until you came along?
You teach them that the ratio BDW gave you for the ditonic comma is invalid, you teach them that the jazz minor is not the ascending melodic minor, and that the melodic minors were created in order to appease the catholic church, and not because they are more natural than the harmonic minor?
I teach my students the truth. If that includes such minutae of musical history as "The harmonic minor was once often called the true melodic minor, and some musicians still refer to it as such" then I am being thorough, instead of being dead wrong, as in your case.
Liu the shrew wants to rely on unqualified insults instead of logical arguments. Sweet really.
QUOTE
So, you teach people that Melodic minor is W H W W W W* H ?
You should be banned from teaching then.
You should be banned from teaching then.
You teach them that retrograde inversion is the same as tonal inversion, that it was invented in the 20th century, as a part of "12 tone row theory", and that is was not fully explored until you came along?
You teach them that the ratio BDW gave you for the ditonic comma is invalid, you teach them that the jazz minor is not the ascending melodic minor, and that the melodic minors were created in order to appease the catholic church, and not because they are more natural than the harmonic minor?
I teach my students the truth. If that includes such minutae of musical history as "The harmonic minor was once often called the true melodic minor, and some musicians still refer to it as such" then I am being thorough, instead of being dead wrong, as in your case.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Sep 8 2008, 01:53 PM)
Liu the shrew wants to rely on unqualified insults instead of logical arguments. Sweet really.
You teach them that retrograde inversion is the same as tonal inversion, that it was invented in the 20th century, as a part of "12 tone row theory", and that is was not fully explored until you came along?
You teach them that the ratio BDW gave you for the ditonic comma is invalid, you teach them that the jazz minor is not the ascending melodic minor, and that the melodic minors were created in order to appease the catholic church, and not because they are more natural than the harmonic minor?
I teach my students the truth. If that includes such minutae of musical history as "The harmonic minor was once often called the true melodic minor, and some musicians still refer to it as such" then I am being thorough, instead of being dead wrong, as in your case.
What a pile of pooo Matt the Pratt. From one guitar teacher here you have my scorn for caring more about your little bouts with your opponents than the truth. That's ok though, I doubt too many musicians and music forums will be treated to your rubbish.
So, for the record, Melodic Minor never was and never will be W H W W W W* H. Stick that in your ego and add it to your fear of being a failure buttlicker.:-))
That goes for the rest of your pretensions.
You teach them that retrograde inversion is the same as tonal inversion, that it was invented in the 20th century, as a part of "12 tone row theory", and that is was not fully explored until you came along?
You teach them that the ratio BDW gave you for the ditonic comma is invalid, you teach them that the jazz minor is not the ascending melodic minor, and that the melodic minors were created in order to appease the catholic church, and not because they are more natural than the harmonic minor?
I teach my students the truth. If that includes such minutae of musical history as "The harmonic minor was once often called the true melodic minor, and some musicians still refer to it as such" then I am being thorough, instead of being dead wrong, as in your case.
What a pile of pooo Matt the Pratt. From one guitar teacher here you have my scorn for caring more about your little bouts with your opponents than the truth. That's ok though, I doubt too many musicians and music forums will be treated to your rubbish.
So, for the record, Melodic Minor never was and never will be W H W W W W* H. Stick that in your ego and add it to your fear of being a failure buttlicker.:-))
That goes for the rest of your pretensions.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 8 2008, 02:28 PM)
From one guitar teacher here you have my scorn for caring more about your little bouts with your opponents than the truth.
Does that mean you're admitting to the multitude of lies you've told and mistakes you've made which have been exposed here?
Does that mean you're admitting to the multitude of lies you've told and mistakes you've made which have been exposed here?
QUOTE (Grumpy+Sep 8 2008, 01:39 PM)
bonehead
And you would teach them that the Merkaba is a magical mystery tour ride you can spot from space.
Priceless!!!
Grumpy
No I wouldn't you corrupt B@stard. I would refer them to a person that has said that. What I would do is what I have done, log data and not be scared to include all the implications. Which is what is coming up on youtube soon.
As for your protige asslicking student wannabee Matt the Pratt, he is absolutely wrong , is being wrong on purpose just to win points here, and is an example on how to be lacking in real integrity. Being mistaken is one thing, but being corrupt is another. You grumpy are the latter, and you can sit there on your chair and froth as much as you like, because your love isn't for science as much as it is for your belief system.
And you would teach them that the Merkaba is a magical mystery tour ride you can spot from space.
Priceless!!!
Grumpy
No I wouldn't you corrupt B@stard. I would refer them to a person that has said that. What I would do is what I have done, log data and not be scared to include all the implications. Which is what is coming up on youtube soon.
As for your protige asslicking student wannabee Matt the Pratt, he is absolutely wrong , is being wrong on purpose just to win points here, and is an example on how to be lacking in real integrity. Being mistaken is one thing, but being corrupt is another. You grumpy are the latter, and you can sit there on your chair and froth as much as you like, because your love isn't for science as much as it is for your belief system.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Sep 8 2008, 02:36 PM)
Does that mean you're admitting to the multitude of lies you've told and mistakes you've made which have been exposed here?
What lies Matt the Pratt? The ones you pretend I made? Send me a list and I'll correct them one by one.
Oh the Retrograde Inversion instead of Tonal Inversion. Big deal. Take a series of notes and apply the four possible functions in 12-tone row theory, one of which is RI. As I've used terms like reversing the formula, and mirroring a scale, I used RI instead of Tonal inversion. Wow big deal Pratt. Nothing like as fundamentally flawed as your insistance at given a wrong formula for a very popular scale.
I don't mind debates. But debating with someone prepared to lie in order to win an argument is pathetic, and that would be you.
What lies Matt the Pratt? The ones you pretend I made? Send me a list and I'll correct them one by one.
Oh the Retrograde Inversion instead of Tonal Inversion. Big deal. Take a series of notes and apply the four possible functions in 12-tone row theory, one of which is RI. As I've used terms like reversing the formula, and mirroring a scale, I used RI instead of Tonal inversion. Wow big deal Pratt. Nothing like as fundamentally flawed as your insistance at given a wrong formula for a very popular scale.
I don't mind debates. But debating with someone prepared to lie in order to win an argument is pathetic, and that would be you.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 8 2008, 02:45 PM)
What lies Matt the Pratt? The ones you pretend I made? Send me a list and I'll correct them one by one.
Are you denying that such a list has ever been provided to you? That's another lie...
Except that retrograding something means reversing the temporal relationship.
It means that C E F E D C becomes C D E F E C.
Tonal inversion, which is what your 'mirroring' technique entails, produces C Ab G Ab Bb C.
C Ab G Ab Bb C and C D E F E C are two completely different phrases.
To apply retrograde inversion to the original phrase would be to invert the tonal relationship, then invert the temporal relationship. It would produce C Bb Ab G Ab C.
You are wrong. I have explained this to you multiple times before, yet you've refused to acknowledge it, despite briefly correcting your use of the terminology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_inversion
Except that retrograding something means reversing the temporal relationship.
It means that C E F E D C becomes C D E F E C.
Tonal inversion, which is what your 'mirroring' technique entails, produces C Ab G Ab Bb C.
C Ab G Ab Bb C and C D E F E C are two completely different phrases.
To apply retrograde inversion to the original phrase would be to invert the tonal relationship, then invert the temporal relationship. It would produce C Bb Ab G Ab C.
You are wrong. I have explained this to you multiple times before, yet you've refused to acknowledge it, despite briefly correcting your use of the terminology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_inversion
Retrograde Inversion is a musical term that literally means "Backwards and Upside down". This is a technique used in music specifically in Serialism where the inversion and retrograde techniques are performed on the same tone row at the same time.
I'm still waiting for an explaination of why you claimed not to have ever been a member of this board before your current screen name when you being a sockpuppet was a point in a 'debate' you were involved in.
You lied in order to win the argument. By your own logic, you are pathetic.
Are you denying that such a list has ever been provided to you? That's another lie...
QUOTE
Oh the Retrograde Inversion instead of Tonal Inversion. Big deal. Take a series of notes and apply the four possible functions in 12-tone row theory, one of which is RI. As I've used terms like reversing the formula, and mirroring a scale, I used RI instead of Tonal inversion. Wow big deal Pratt. Nothing like as fundamentally flawed as your insistance at given a wrong formula for a very popular scale.
Except that retrograding something means reversing the temporal relationship.
It means that C E F E D C becomes C D E F E C.
Tonal inversion, which is what your 'mirroring' technique entails, produces C Ab G Ab Bb C.
C Ab G Ab Bb C and C D E F E C are two completely different phrases.
To apply retrograde inversion to the original phrase would be to invert the tonal relationship, then invert the temporal relationship. It would produce C Bb Ab G Ab C.
You are wrong. I have explained this to you multiple times before, yet you've refused to acknowledge it, despite briefly correcting your use of the terminology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_inversion
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Oh the Retrograde Inversion instead of Tonal Inversion. Big deal. Take a series of notes and apply the four possible functions in 12-tone row theory, one of which is RI. As I've used terms like reversing the formula, and mirroring a scale, I used RI instead of Tonal inversion. Wow big deal Pratt. Nothing like as fundamentally flawed as your insistance at given a wrong formula for a very popular scale. |
Except that retrograding something means reversing the temporal relationship.
It means that C E F E D C becomes C D E F E C.
Tonal inversion, which is what your 'mirroring' technique entails, produces C Ab G Ab Bb C.
C Ab G Ab Bb C and C D E F E C are two completely different phrases.
To apply retrograde inversion to the original phrase would be to invert the tonal relationship, then invert the temporal relationship. It would produce C Bb Ab G Ab C.
You are wrong. I have explained this to you multiple times before, yet you've refused to acknowledge it, despite briefly correcting your use of the terminology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_inversion
Retrograde Inversion is a musical term that literally means "Backwards and Upside down". This is a technique used in music specifically in Serialism where the inversion and retrograde techniques are performed on the same tone row at the same time.
QUOTE
I don't mind debates. But debating with someone prepared to lie in order to win an argument is pathetic, and that would be you.
I'm still waiting for an explaination of why you claimed not to have ever been a member of this board before your current screen name when you being a sockpuppet was a point in a 'debate' you were involved in.
You lied in order to win the argument. By your own logic, you are pathetic.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Sep 8 2008, 03:38 PM)
Are you denying that such a list has ever been provided to you? That's another lie...
Except that retrograding something means reversing the temporal relationship.
It means that C E F E D C becomes C D E F E C.
Tonal inversion, which is what your 'mirroring' technique entails, produces C Ab G Ab Bb C.
C Ab G Ab Bb C and C D E F E C are two completely different phrases.
To apply retrograde inversion to the original phrase would be to invert the tonal relationship, then invert the temporal relationship. It would produce C Bb Ab G Ab C.
You are wrong. I have explained this to you multiple times before, yet you've refused to acknowledge it, despite briefly correcting your use of the terminology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_inversion
I'm still waiting for an explaination of why you claimed not to have ever been a member of this board before your current screen name when you being a sockpuppet was a point in a 'debate' you were involved in.
You lied in order to win the argument. By your own logic, you are pathetic.
That's peanuts. I'm talking about you pretending about a most fundamental a scale as Melodic minor, just so you could throw confusion on the original question I posed you. Halted at the first hurdle by a Matt the Pratt special.
Then I'm dissappointed with you for pretending that I have claimed to have invented mirroring. I am more dissappointed by the way you weasled out of not knowing 6* 9:8 ratios exceed the octave by a P. Comma, reverting to the well known (millions of web pages verifying) 12 perfect 5ths example.
I offered you on plenty occassion to come to a music theory forum where you can present your case there. But you made the weakest of excuses, because you know they'll mop the floor with you about your giving the wrong formula for Melodic minor, and then lying through your M Pants about it.
Now you criticise me for not owning up to being a previous member here, when you and your pals have lied about who your were previously.
You're a tosser. I feel sorry for you.
Except that retrograding something means reversing the temporal relationship.
It means that C E F E D C becomes C D E F E C.
Tonal inversion, which is what your 'mirroring' technique entails, produces C Ab G Ab Bb C.
C Ab G Ab Bb C and C D E F E C are two completely different phrases.
To apply retrograde inversion to the original phrase would be to invert the tonal relationship, then invert the temporal relationship. It would produce C Bb Ab G Ab C.
You are wrong. I have explained this to you multiple times before, yet you've refused to acknowledge it, despite briefly correcting your use of the terminology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_inversion
I'm still waiting for an explaination of why you claimed not to have ever been a member of this board before your current screen name when you being a sockpuppet was a point in a 'debate' you were involved in.
You lied in order to win the argument. By your own logic, you are pathetic.
That's peanuts. I'm talking about you pretending about a most fundamental a scale as Melodic minor, just so you could throw confusion on the original question I posed you. Halted at the first hurdle by a Matt the Pratt special.
Then I'm dissappointed with you for pretending that I have claimed to have invented mirroring. I am more dissappointed by the way you weasled out of not knowing 6* 9:8 ratios exceed the octave by a P. Comma, reverting to the well known (millions of web pages verifying) 12 perfect 5ths example.
I offered you on plenty occassion to come to a music theory forum where you can present your case there. But you made the weakest of excuses, because you know they'll mop the floor with you about your giving the wrong formula for Melodic minor, and then lying through your M Pants about it.
Now you criticise me for not owning up to being a previous member here, when you and your pals have lied about who your were previously.
You're a tosser. I feel sorry for you.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 8 2008, 04:11 PM)
That's peanuts.
Of course: You dismiss your own errors and lies while harping on and on about what you percieve to be mine.
I answered the question accurately given the admitted misunderstanding I had concering it the first time, then even more accurately the second time.
I also specifically acknowledged that "true melodic minor" is more commonly known as "harmonic minor."
We both know that I did, so why are you lying about it?
Once again, I find myself schooling you on music theory. I've bolded the relevant portions, again.
Finally (and this is a tidbit of knowledge I've been holding back, in order to see if you'd ever pick up on it, but alas: you haven't), the 'melodic minor' (in my experience, the most proper wording when referring to both the ascending and descending forms is "modern melodic minor") has two distinct forms. One ascending and one descending. To say that 'the melodic minor is W H W W W W H' without acknowledging that it descends differently is highly incorrect and quite dishonest, if you know as much about music as you claim to. The 'melodic minor' that you continually refer to descends identically to the natural minor, which is W H W W H W W.
The Jazz minor is the same as the ascending melodic minor, and is notably different from the 'melodic minor' in that it descends through the same intervals as it ascends, without reverting to the natural minor. Therefore, each time you said that the melodic minor is W H W W W W H, you were wrong, as that formula only accurately describes a jazz minor, unless the mention of descending as the natural minor is made. (You never made this mention.)
Had you said "jazz minor" instead of "melodic minor" the first time, I would never have misunderstood your question. Had you said "jazz minor" instead of "melodic minor" in all your arguments against my position, you might have had something resembling a point, assuming I'd said the "jazz minor" follows the pattern I gave.
However, this is not the case. You have consistantly attributed the jazz minor's formula to the 'melodic minor' in an attempt to 'prove' I lied about something. You have also continually quote mined my post to make it appear as such.
I answered the question accurately given the admitted misunderstanding I had concering it the first time, then even more accurately the second time.
I also specifically acknowledged that "true melodic minor" is more commonly known as "harmonic minor."
We both know that I did, so why are you lying about it?
Once again, I find myself schooling you on music theory. I've bolded the relevant portions, again.
Finally (and this is a tidbit of knowledge I've been holding back, in order to see if you'd ever pick up on it, but alas: you haven't), the 'melodic minor' (in my experience, the most proper wording when referring to both the ascending and descending forms is "modern melodic minor") has two distinct forms. One ascending and one descending. To say that 'the melodic minor is W H W W W W H' without acknowledging that it descends differently is highly incorrect and quite dishonest, if you know as much about music as you claim to. The 'melodic minor' that you continually refer to descends identically to the natural minor, which is W H W W H W W.
The Jazz minor is the same as the ascending melodic minor, and is notably different from the 'melodic minor' in that it descends through the same intervals as it ascends, without reverting to the natural minor. Therefore, each time you said that the melodic minor is W H W W W W H, you were wrong, as that formula only accurately describes a jazz minor, unless the mention of descending as the natural minor is made. (You never made this mention.)
Had you said "jazz minor" instead of "melodic minor" the first time, I would never have misunderstood your question. Had you said "jazz minor" instead of "melodic minor" in all your arguments against my position, you might have had something resembling a point, assuming I'd said the "jazz minor" follows the pattern I gave.
However, this is not the case. You have consistantly attributed the jazz minor's formula to the 'melodic minor' in an attempt to 'prove' I lied about something. You have also continually quote mined my post to make it appear as such.
Then I'm dissappointed with you for pretending that I have claimed to have invented mirroring.
You implied it several times.
You are assuming that BDW didn't know that your ratio could produce it. In fact, he specifically acknowledged that it could. You on the other hand, explicitly claimed that the post in which he gave an accurate description of it somehow proved he didn't know what it was.
You are assuming that BDW didn't know that your ratio could produce it. In fact, he specifically acknowledged that it could. You on the other hand, explicitly claimed that the post in which he gave an accurate description of it somehow proved he didn't know what it was.
I offered you on plenty occassion to come to a music theory forum where you can present your case there. But you made the weakest of excuses, because you know they'll mop the floor with you about your giving the wrong formula for Melodic minor, and then lying through your M Pants about it.
You can classify my reasons for not doing it however you wish, but you can't change the fact that I have agreed to do so once you demonstrate some integrity.
Quote even a single example of any of the FM lying about who they are. Just one. It doesn't even need to be me.
You're lying again because the FM are almost invariably honest: We don't need to lie to make points.
You're a tosser. I feel sorry for you.
Hey, be nice you two.
Of course: You dismiss your own errors and lies while harping on and on about what you percieve to be mine.
QUOTE
I'm talking about you pretending about a most fundamental a scale as Melodic minor, just so you could throw confusion on the original question I posed you. Halted at the first hurdle by a Matt the Pratt special.
I answered the question accurately given the admitted misunderstanding I had concering it the first time, then even more accurately the second time.
I also specifically acknowledged that "true melodic minor" is more commonly known as "harmonic minor."
We both know that I did, so why are you lying about it?
Once again, I find myself schooling you on music theory. I've bolded the relevant portions, again.
Finally (and this is a tidbit of knowledge I've been holding back, in order to see if you'd ever pick up on it, but alas: you haven't), the 'melodic minor' (in my experience, the most proper wording when referring to both the ascending and descending forms is "modern melodic minor") has two distinct forms. One ascending and one descending. To say that 'the melodic minor is W H W W W W H' without acknowledging that it descends differently is highly incorrect and quite dishonest, if you know as much about music as you claim to. The 'melodic minor' that you continually refer to descends identically to the natural minor, which is W H W W H W W.
The Jazz minor is the same as the ascending melodic minor, and is notably different from the 'melodic minor' in that it descends through the same intervals as it ascends, without reverting to the natural minor. Therefore, each time you said that the melodic minor is W H W W W W H, you were wrong, as that formula only accurately describes a jazz minor, unless the mention of descending as the natural minor is made. (You never made this mention.)
Had you said "jazz minor" instead of "melodic minor" the first time, I would never have misunderstood your question. Had you said "jazz minor" instead of "melodic minor" in all your arguments against my position, you might have had something resembling a point, assuming I'd said the "jazz minor" follows the pattern I gave.
However, this is not the case. You have consistantly attributed the jazz minor's formula to the 'melodic minor' in an attempt to 'prove' I lied about something. You have also continually quote mined my post to make it appear as such.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm talking about you pretending about a most fundamental a scale as Melodic minor, just so you could throw confusion on the original question I posed you. Halted at the first hurdle by a Matt the Pratt special. |
I answered the question accurately given the admitted misunderstanding I had concering it the first time, then even more accurately the second time.
I also specifically acknowledged that "true melodic minor" is more commonly known as "harmonic minor."
We both know that I did, so why are you lying about it?
Once again, I find myself schooling you on music theory. I've bolded the relevant portions, again.
Finally (and this is a tidbit of knowledge I've been holding back, in order to see if you'd ever pick up on it, but alas: you haven't), the 'melodic minor' (in my experience, the most proper wording when referring to both the ascending and descending forms is "modern melodic minor") has two distinct forms. One ascending and one descending. To say that 'the melodic minor is W H W W W W H' without acknowledging that it descends differently is highly incorrect and quite dishonest, if you know as much about music as you claim to. The 'melodic minor' that you continually refer to descends identically to the natural minor, which is W H W W H W W.
The Jazz minor is the same as the ascending melodic minor, and is notably different from the 'melodic minor' in that it descends through the same intervals as it ascends, without reverting to the natural minor. Therefore, each time you said that the melodic minor is W H W W W W H, you were wrong, as that formula only accurately describes a jazz minor, unless the mention of descending as the natural minor is made. (You never made this mention.)
Had you said "jazz minor" instead of "melodic minor" the first time, I would never have misunderstood your question. Had you said "jazz minor" instead of "melodic minor" in all your arguments against my position, you might have had something resembling a point, assuming I'd said the "jazz minor" follows the pattern I gave.
However, this is not the case. You have consistantly attributed the jazz minor's formula to the 'melodic minor' in an attempt to 'prove' I lied about something. You have also continually quote mined my post to make it appear as such.
Then I'm dissappointed with you for pretending that I have claimed to have invented mirroring.
You implied it several times.
QUOTE
I am more dissappointed by the way you weasled out of not knowing 6* 9:8 ratios exceed the octave by a P. Comma, reverting to the well known (millions of web pages verifying) 12 perfect 5ths example.
You are assuming that BDW didn't know that your ratio could produce it. In fact, he specifically acknowledged that it could. You on the other hand, explicitly claimed that the post in which he gave an accurate description of it somehow proved he didn't know what it was.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I am more dissappointed by the way you weasled out of not knowing 6* 9:8 ratios exceed the octave by a P. Comma, reverting to the well known (millions of web pages verifying) 12 perfect 5ths example. |
You are assuming that BDW didn't know that your ratio could produce it. In fact, he specifically acknowledged that it could. You on the other hand, explicitly claimed that the post in which he gave an accurate description of it somehow proved he didn't know what it was.
I offered you on plenty occassion to come to a music theory forum where you can present your case there. But you made the weakest of excuses, because you know they'll mop the floor with you about your giving the wrong formula for Melodic minor, and then lying through your M Pants about it.
You can classify my reasons for not doing it however you wish, but you can't change the fact that I have agreed to do so once you demonstrate some integrity.
QUOTE
Now you criticise me for not owning up to being a previous member here, when you and your pals have lied about who your were previously.
Quote even a single example of any of the FM lying about who they are. Just one. It doesn't even need to be me.
You're lying again because the FM are almost invariably honest: We don't need to lie to make points.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 8 2008, 04:11 PM)
You're a tosser. I feel sorry for you.
Hey, be nice you two.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Sep 8 2008, 04:35 PM)
Of course: You dismiss your own errors and lies while harping on and on about what you percieve to be mine.
I answered the question accurately given the admitted misunderstanding I had concering it the first time, then even more accurately the second time.
I also specifically acknowledged that "true melodic minor" is more commonly known as "harmonic minor."
We both know that I did, so why are you lying about it?
Once again, I find myself schooling you on music theory. I've bolded the relevant portions, again.
Finally (and this is a tidbit of knowledge I've been holding back, in order to see if you'd ever pick up on it, but alas: you haven't), the 'melodic minor' (in my experience, the most proper wording when referring to both the ascending and descending forms is "modern melodic minor") has two distinct forms. One ascending and one descending. To say that 'the melodic minor is W H W W W W H' without acknowledging that it descends differently is highly incorrect and quite dishonest, if you know as much about music as you claim to. The 'melodic minor' that you continually refer to descends identically to the natural minor, which is W H W W H W W.
The Jazz minor is the same as the ascending melodic minor, and is notably different from the 'melodic minor' in that it descends through the same intervals as it ascends, without reverting to the natural minor. Therefore, each time you said that the melodic minor is W H W W W W H, you were wrong, as that formula only accurately describes a jazz minor, unless the mention of descending as the natural minor is made. (You never made this mention.)
Had you said "jazz minor" instead of "melodic minor" the first time, I would never have misunderstood your question. Had you said "jazz minor" instead of "melodic minor" in all your arguments against my position, you might have had something resembling a point, assuming I'd said the "jazz minor" follows the pattern I gave.
However, this is not the case. You have consistantly attributed the jazz minor's formula to the 'melodic minor' in an attempt to 'prove' I lied about something. You have also continually quote mined my post to make it appear as such.
You implied it several times.
You are assuming that BDW didn't know that your ratio could produce it. In fact, he specifically acknowledged that it could. You on the other hand, explicitly claimed that the post in which he gave an accurate description of it somehow proved he didn't know what it was.
You can classify my reasons for not doing it however you wish, but you can't change the fact that I have agreed to do so once you demonstrate some integrity.
Quote even a single example of any of the FM lying about who they are. Just one. It doesn't even need to be me.
You're lying again because the FM are almost invariably honest: We don't need to lie to make points.
Doesn't matter how much you want to squirm. You started off by saying Melodic minor was actually W H W W W W* H. That was in order to gain the kinda "I'm correcting you" ground. The reason you won't take up my offer to settle this at a music theory forum is because you know it is wrong.
I've written plenty of tunes that utilize ascending and descending melodic minor scales, harmonic minor scales, hybrid scales, chord scales, Neapolitan major, double harmonic minor, and the rest. I have nothing to prove to you.
Your formula does not apply to ascending nor descending, nor Jazz minor. You simply spelled out the Harmonic minor scales, and won't own up to the error.
And as for your FM are honest, HARRRRRRRRRRR!!! priceless indeed. You guys need to get a real life.
Unlike the post you made at Sapos about being BDW and probably deleted, the posts here won't be deleted. So, Matt, come to a music theory forum, if you think you are so right. wouldn't you like the chance to shwo me up and school me where it matters? You choose and forum, and make the first post.
I answered the question accurately given the admitted misunderstanding I had concering it the first time, then even more accurately the second time.
I also specifically acknowledged that "true melodic minor" is more commonly known as "harmonic minor."
We both know that I did, so why are you lying about it?
Once again, I find myself schooling you on music theory. I've bolded the relevant portions, again.
Finally (and this is a tidbit of knowledge I've been holding back, in order to see if you'd ever pick up on it, but alas: you haven't), the 'melodic minor' (in my experience, the most proper wording when referring to both the ascending and descending forms is "modern melodic minor") has two distinct forms. One ascending and one descending. To say that 'the melodic minor is W H W W W W H' without acknowledging that it descends differently is highly incorrect and quite dishonest, if you know as much about music as you claim to. The 'melodic minor' that you continually refer to descends identically to the natural minor, which is W H W W H W W.
The Jazz minor is the same as the ascending melodic minor, and is notably different from the 'melodic minor' in that it descends through the same intervals as it ascends, without reverting to the natural minor. Therefore, each time you said that the melodic minor is W H W W W W H, you were wrong, as that formula only accurately describes a jazz minor, unless the mention of descending as the natural minor is made. (You never made this mention.)
Had you said "jazz minor" instead of "melodic minor" the first time, I would never have misunderstood your question. Had you said "jazz minor" instead of "melodic minor" in all your arguments against my position, you might have had something resembling a point, assuming I'd said the "jazz minor" follows the pattern I gave.
However, this is not the case. You have consistantly attributed the jazz minor's formula to the 'melodic minor' in an attempt to 'prove' I lied about something. You have also continually quote mined my post to make it appear as such.
You implied it several times.
You are assuming that BDW didn't know that your ratio could produce it. In fact, he specifically acknowledged that it could. You on the other hand, explicitly claimed that the post in which he gave an accurate description of it somehow proved he didn't know what it was.
You can classify my reasons for not doing it however you wish, but you can't change the fact that I have agreed to do so once you demonstrate some integrity.
Quote even a single example of any of the FM lying about who they are. Just one. It doesn't even need to be me.
You're lying again because the FM are almost invariably honest: We don't need to lie to make points.
Doesn't matter how much you want to squirm. You started off by saying Melodic minor was actually W H W W W W* H. That was in order to gain the kinda "I'm correcting you" ground. The reason you won't take up my offer to settle this at a music theory forum is because you know it is wrong.
I've written plenty of tunes that utilize ascending and descending melodic minor scales, harmonic minor scales, hybrid scales, chord scales, Neapolitan major, double harmonic minor, and the rest. I have nothing to prove to you.
Your formula does not apply to ascending nor descending, nor Jazz minor. You simply spelled out the Harmonic minor scales, and won't own up to the error.
And as for your FM are honest, HARRRRRRRRRRR!!! priceless indeed. You guys need to get a real life.
Unlike the post you made at Sapos about being BDW and probably deleted, the posts here won't be deleted. So, Matt, come to a music theory forum, if you think you are so right. wouldn't you like the chance to shwo me up and school me where it matters? You choose and forum, and make the first post.
Basically Matt, when are you going to admit that W H W W W W* H is the harmonic minor scale formula, and you were wrong? That every musician worldwide knows that formula as Harmonic minor.? That there is no true Mel Minor about it?
Then maybe the Doc will admit he was just supporting his pal when he agreed with you.
Then maybe the Doc will admit he was just supporting his pal when he agreed with you.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 8 2008, 04:52 PM)
Doesn't matter how much you want to squirm. That was in order to gain the kinda "I'm correcting you" ground.
Still dismissing the glaringly obvious (to me, anyways, maybe not so much to those who don't read our arguments, or those who don't have an education in music theory) errors you make in order to focus on my 'errors', I see.
And then I immediately after (the very next sentence) pointed out that the scale I was referring to is more commonly known as the harmonic minor.
And then I immediately after (the very next sentence) pointed out that the scale I was referring to is more commonly known as the harmonic minor.
The reason you won't take up my offer to settle this at a music theory forum is because you know it is wrong.
You're lying again. How could you possibly know my motivations?
I've given the answer to the question of why I won't take this argument to another forum. I've given two answers, actually. To sit here and claim I'm lying simply because it supports your position to believe I'm lying is highly dishonest.
Is that your example of one of us lying? You know, providing a single example would have proven you right. Why didn't you do that, I wonder?
Most likely, because you know you are lying through your teeth, and you know that any 'example' you quote can be easily demonstrated to be truthful.
And as for your FM are honest, HARRRRRRRRRRR!!! priceless indeed. You guys need to get a real life.
You just dont know honesty when you see it spui
Still dismissing the glaringly obvious (to me, anyways, maybe not so much to those who don't read our arguments, or those who don't have an education in music theory) errors you make in order to focus on my 'errors', I see.
QUOTE
You started off by saying Melodic minor was actually W H W W W W* H.
And then I immediately after (the very next sentence) pointed out that the scale I was referring to is more commonly known as the harmonic minor.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You started off by saying Melodic minor was actually W H W W W W* H. |
And then I immediately after (the very next sentence) pointed out that the scale I was referring to is more commonly known as the harmonic minor.
The reason you won't take up my offer to settle this at a music theory forum is because you know it is wrong.
You're lying again. How could you possibly know my motivations?
I've given the answer to the question of why I won't take this argument to another forum. I've given two answers, actually. To sit here and claim I'm lying simply because it supports your position to believe I'm lying is highly dishonest.
QUOTE
And as for your FM are honest, HARRRRRRRRRRR!!! priceless indeed. You guys need to get a real life.
Is that your example of one of us lying?
You know, providing a single example would have proven you right. Why didn't you do that, I wonder?Most likely, because you know you are lying through your teeth, and you know that any 'example' you quote can be easily demonstrated to be truthful.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 8 2008, 04:52 PM)
And as for your FM are honest, HARRRRRRRRRRR!!! priceless indeed. You guys need to get a real life.
You just dont know honesty when you see it spui
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Sep 8 2008, 04:59 PM)
Still dismissing the glaringly obvious (to me, anyways, maybe not so much to those who don't read our arguments, or those who don't have an education in music theory) errors you make in order to focus on my 'errors', I see.
And then I immediately after (the very next sentence) pointed out that the scale I was referring to is more commonly known as the harmonic minor.
You're lying again. How could you possibly know my motivations?
I've given the answer to the question of why I won't take this argument to another forum. I've given two answers, actually. To sit here and claim I'm lying simply because it supports your position to believe I'm lying is highly dishonest.
Is that your example of one of us lying? You know, providing a single example would have proven you right. Why didn't you do that, I wonder?
Most likely, because you know you are lying through your teeth, and you know that any 'example' you quote can be easily demonstrated to be truthful.
Ok then, one more time. It started about here, I said:
Obviously the other form is to flatten the 6th and 7th degrees of the scale when descending. You obviously know that too. But you came back with this:
Obviously the other form is to flatten the 6th and 7th degrees of the scale when descending. You obviously know that too. But you came back with this:
The formula for a melodic minor scale is W H W W H W* H (W* is an augmented 2nd).
The notes you give are for an ascending melodic minor in A, not a true melodic minor. (otherwise known as a harmonic minor)
Well PROVE IT then. Because as far as every other musician is concerned you just gave the Harmonic minor formula and said the notes I'd given are not a true melodic minor. Unless musicians have been wrong all these centuries, you better prove your statement.
I could ask every theorist and teacher if the notes I gave were that of the melodic minor and they would agree they were. Every web site I've found agrees. Why is it different with you? Of course it is the ascending melodic minor. The true melodic minor. The descending is merely the Aeolian mode. No whiff of harmonic minor.
History never called the melodic minor the harmonic minor and the harmonic minor the true melodic minor. One scale was divised for harmony, and the other for melody.
When you turn up to a jam and the pianist tells you he wants you to play A Meloidic Minor over his tune, you'd better play A B C D E F# G# A. And nowadays it is rare that the Aeolian is palyed descending. And quit with the history speil, or they'll kick you outta the jam wise guy.
And then I immediately after (the very next sentence) pointed out that the scale I was referring to is more commonly known as the harmonic minor.
You're lying again. How could you possibly know my motivations?
I've given the answer to the question of why I won't take this argument to another forum. I've given two answers, actually. To sit here and claim I'm lying simply because it supports your position to believe I'm lying is highly dishonest.
Is that your example of one of us lying?
You know, providing a single example would have proven you right. Why didn't you do that, I wonder?Most likely, because you know you are lying through your teeth, and you know that any 'example' you quote can be easily demonstrated to be truthful.
Ok then, one more time. It started about here, I said:
QUOTE
A B C D E F# G# A = A Melodic Minor scale
There is your notes for one of the two forms. Inverting the steps required to make that scale is just the first step. You need the second form that many composers used to descend a given melody with, invert the steps of that scale again, view the results and try to work out a new mirror scale from it all.
There is your notes for one of the two forms. Inverting the steps required to make that scale is just the first step. You need the second form that many composers used to descend a given melody with, invert the steps of that scale again, view the results and try to work out a new mirror scale from it all.
Obviously the other form is to flatten the 6th and 7th degrees of the scale when descending. You obviously know that too. But you came back with this:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A B C D E F# G# A = A Melodic Minor scale There is your notes for one of the two forms. Inverting the steps required to make that scale is just the first step. You need the second form that many composers used to descend a given melody with, invert the steps of that scale again, view the results and try to work out a new mirror scale from it all. |
Obviously the other form is to flatten the 6th and 7th degrees of the scale when descending. You obviously know that too. But you came back with this:
The formula for a melodic minor scale is W H W W H W* H (W* is an augmented 2nd).
The notes you give are for an ascending melodic minor in A, not a true melodic minor. (otherwise known as a harmonic minor)
Well PROVE IT then. Because as far as every other musician is concerned you just gave the Harmonic minor formula and said the notes I'd given are not a true melodic minor. Unless musicians have been wrong all these centuries, you better prove your statement.
I could ask every theorist and teacher if the notes I gave were that of the melodic minor and they would agree they were. Every web site I've found agrees. Why is it different with you? Of course it is the ascending melodic minor. The true melodic minor. The descending is merely the Aeolian mode. No whiff of harmonic minor.
History never called the melodic minor the harmonic minor and the harmonic minor the true melodic minor. One scale was divised for harmony, and the other for melody.
When you turn up to a jam and the pianist tells you he wants you to play A Meloidic Minor over his tune, you'd better play A B C D E F# G# A. And nowadays it is rare that the Aeolian is palyed descending. And quit with the history speil, or they'll kick you outta the jam wise guy.
Not even Wikipedia agrees with you M Pants. No mention of true harmonic minor. You better go and correct it eh?
[QUOTE]The natural minor scale is the same as the Aeolian mode, but music in the minor scale in the common practice period of Western music usually uses a leading tone a semitone below the tonic: the chord built on the dominant (fifth scale degree) is almost always a major triad, at least at cadence points; consequently the seventh degree of the scale must be raised with an accidental. Hence music using the "natural" seventh degree, called the subtonic, sounds ancient, folkloric or modal to Western ears.
Harmonic and melodic minor
The above considerations of chordal harmony led to the harmonic minor scale, the same as the natural minor but with a chromatically raised seventh degree. For example, in the key of A minor, the harmonic minor scale is:
A B C D E F G# A'[/QUOTE]
That would be your W H W W W W* H. No one mention of true melodic minor here.
[QUOTE]The harmonic minor is also occasionally referred to as the Mohammedan scale as its upper tetrachord resembles a common Arabic maqam.
The interval between the sixth and seventh degrees of this scale (in this case F and G sharp) is an augmented second. While some composers, notably Mozart, have used this interval to advantage in melodic composition, other composers, having felt it to be an awkward leap, particularly in vocal music, considered a whole step between these two scale degrees more conducive to smooth melody writing, so either the subtonic seventh was used or the sixth scale degree raised. Traditionally, music theorists have called these two options the ascending melodic (also known as heptatonia seconda) and descending melodic minor scales, the latter being simply the natural minor, the former being identical in its upper tetrachord to the major scale:
A B C D E F# G# A' and then
A G F E D C B A' respectively (Aeolian)
Composers have not been consistent in using these in ascent and descent melodies. Just as often, composers choose one form or the other based on whether one of the two notes is part of the most recent chord (the prevailing harmony). Particularly, to use the triad of the relative major - which is very common - since this is based on the third degree of the minor scale, the raised seventh degree would cause an augmented triad; composers thus frequently require the lowered seventh degree, that which is found in the natural minor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_scale[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The natural minor scale is the same as the Aeolian mode, but music in the minor scale in the common practice period of Western music usually uses a leading tone a semitone below the tonic: the chord built on the dominant (fifth scale degree) is almost always a major triad, at least at cadence points; consequently the seventh degree of the scale must be raised with an accidental. Hence music using the "natural" seventh degree, called the subtonic, sounds ancient, folkloric or modal to Western ears.
Harmonic and melodic minor
The above considerations of chordal harmony led to the harmonic minor scale, the same as the natural minor but with a chromatically raised seventh degree. For example, in the key of A minor, the harmonic minor scale is:
A B C D E F G# A'[/QUOTE]
That would be your W H W W W W* H. No one mention of true melodic minor here.
[QUOTE]The harmonic minor is also occasionally referred to as the Mohammedan scale as its upper tetrachord resembles a common Arabic maqam.
The interval between the sixth and seventh degrees of this scale (in this case F and G sharp) is an augmented second. While some composers, notably Mozart, have used this interval to advantage in melodic composition, other composers, having felt it to be an awkward leap, particularly in vocal music, considered a whole step between these two scale degrees more conducive to smooth melody writing, so either the subtonic seventh was used or the sixth scale degree raised. Traditionally, music theorists have called these two options the ascending melodic (also known as heptatonia seconda) and descending melodic minor scales, the latter being simply the natural minor, the former being identical in its upper tetrachord to the major scale:
A B C D E F# G# A' and then
A G F E D C B A' respectively (Aeolian)
Composers have not been consistent in using these in ascent and descent melodies. Just as often, composers choose one form or the other based on whether one of the two notes is part of the most recent chord (the prevailing harmony). Particularly, to use the triad of the relative major - which is very common - since this is based on the third degree of the minor scale, the raised seventh degree would cause an augmented triad; composers thus frequently require the lowered seventh degree, that which is found in the natural minor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_scale[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
I'm glad you guys are not having a major argument.
(Sorry, did that fall flat? I'm just a little keyed up at the moment.)
(Sorry, did that fall flat? I'm just a little keyed up at the moment.)
QUOTE (Harzburgite+Sep 8 2008, 05:37 PM)
I'm glad you guys are not having a major argument.
(Sorry, did that fall flat? I'm just a little keyed up at the moment.)
Very sharp! The whole here is greater than the parts.
(Sorry, did that fall flat? I'm just a little keyed up at the moment.)
Very sharp! The whole here is greater than the parts.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 8 2008, 05:20 PM)
Well PROVE IT then. Unless musicians have been wrong all these centuries, you better prove your statement.
There you go. I clearly and unambigiously identified the scale I gave as a 'true melodic minor', which is otherwise known as a harmonic minor.
There you go. I clearly and unambigiously identified the scale I gave as a 'true melodic minor', which is otherwise known as a harmonic minor.
Because as far as every other musician is concerned you just gave the Harmonic minor formula and said the notes I'd given are not a true melodic minor.
That is correct, so long as you view the phrase as ' "true melodic minor" ' instead of ' "true" melodic minor'.
It's an issue of semantics, Liu. You claiming I said that W H W W H W* H is what you call a 'melodic minor' (which I would refer to as a 'modern melodic minor') is supported only by a skewed interpretation of the semantics involved in my post.
Wrong. They would say it was the 'ascending melodic minor' or the 'jazz minor'.
Wrong. They would say it was the 'ascending melodic minor' or the 'jazz minor'.
Every web site I've found agrees.
I've seen quite a few that don't. Trippy found a reference or two to what I'm talking about, and he's got no musical education worth speaking of.
Those two terms are not synonymous.
Those two terms are not synonymous.
The descending is merely the Aeolian mode. No whiff of harmonic minor.
I never once claimed the descending was the harmonic minor. Straw-man.
On the first part, I never called the melodic minor the harmonic minor, nor claimed that anyone ever properly did so. Straw-man #2.
You are wrong. Historically, after the development of the melodic minors, but before the ending of catholic condemnation of music in the minor or harmonic minor scales, the harmonic minor was quite often termed the "true melodic minor." due to the fact that it was from the harmonic minor that the melodic minors were created.
On the first part, I never called the melodic minor the harmonic minor, nor claimed that anyone ever properly did so. Straw-man #2.
You are wrong. Historically, after the development of the melodic minors, but before the ending of catholic condemnation of music in the minor or harmonic minor scales, the harmonic minor was quite often termed the "true melodic minor." due to the fact that it was from the harmonic minor that the melodic minors were created.
When you turn up to a jam and the pianist tells you he wants you to play A Meloidic Minor over his tune, you'd better play A B C D E F# G# A.
When I turn up to jam and tell another educated musician to play "the A melodic minor" he'll ask me "which one?" to which he'll expect a response of either "the harmonic minor/the true melodic minor", "the modern melodic minor" or "the jazz minor".
If I played merely in the scale you gave, I would be playing the jazz minor, which is not the same as the modern melodic minor.
Actually, my knowledge of music history has gotten me invited to many jam sessions, and never once gotten me barred.
BS BS BS. Can't you read the link I just sent in?
And Trippy is an idiot who is just sticking up for his wittle pal Matty. Or he can send in any link he claims to have found.
I'm not suggesting you don't have a knowledge of music theory. I'm suggesting you are a lying brat in this case. You have the evidence plonked under your very nose, and you still don't want to admit you are wrong. It's a physorg thing I know. It won't happen where it matters, which is cool. Kids will be kids.
QUOTE
The notes you give are for an ascending melodic minor in A, not a true melodic minor. (otherwise known as a harmonic minor)
There you go. I clearly and unambigiously identified the scale I gave as a 'true melodic minor', which is otherwise known as a harmonic minor.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The notes you give are for an ascending melodic minor in A, not a true melodic minor. (otherwise known as a harmonic minor) |
There you go. I clearly and unambigiously identified the scale I gave as a 'true melodic minor', which is otherwise known as a harmonic minor.
Because as far as every other musician is concerned you just gave the Harmonic minor formula and said the notes I'd given are not a true melodic minor.
That is correct, so long as you view the phrase as ' "true melodic minor" ' instead of ' "true" melodic minor'.
It's an issue of semantics, Liu. You claiming I said that W H W W H W* H is what you call a 'melodic minor' (which I would refer to as a 'modern melodic minor') is supported only by a skewed interpretation of the semantics involved in my post.
QUOTE
I could ask every theorist and teacher if the notes I gave were that of the melodic minor and they would agree they were.
Wrong. They would say it was the 'ascending melodic minor' or the 'jazz minor'.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I could ask every theorist and teacher if the notes I gave were that of the melodic minor and they would agree they were. |
Wrong. They would say it was the 'ascending melodic minor' or the 'jazz minor'.
Every web site I've found agrees.
I've seen quite a few that don't. Trippy found a reference or two to what I'm talking about, and he's got no musical education worth speaking of.
QUOTE
Of course it is the ascending melodic minor. The true melodic minor.
Those two terms are not synonymous.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Of course it is the ascending melodic minor. The true melodic minor. |
Those two terms are not synonymous.
The descending is merely the Aeolian mode. No whiff of harmonic minor.
I never once claimed the descending was the harmonic minor. Straw-man.
QUOTE
History never called the melodic minor the harmonic minor and the harmonic minor the true melodic minor. One scale was divised for harmony, and the other for melody.
On the first part, I never called the melodic minor the harmonic minor, nor claimed that anyone ever properly did so. Straw-man #2.
You are wrong. Historically, after the development of the melodic minors, but before the ending of catholic condemnation of music in the minor or harmonic minor scales, the harmonic minor was quite often termed the "true melodic minor." due to the fact that it was from the harmonic minor that the melodic minors were created.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| History never called the melodic minor the harmonic minor and the harmonic minor the true melodic minor. One scale was divised for harmony, and the other for melody. |
On the first part, I never called the melodic minor the harmonic minor, nor claimed that anyone ever properly did so. Straw-man #2.
You are wrong. Historically, after the development of the melodic minors, but before the ending of catholic condemnation of music in the minor or harmonic minor scales, the harmonic minor was quite often termed the "true melodic minor." due to the fact that it was from the harmonic minor that the melodic minors were created.
When you turn up to a jam and the pianist tells you he wants you to play A Meloidic Minor over his tune, you'd better play A B C D E F# G# A.
When I turn up to jam and tell another educated musician to play "the A melodic minor" he'll ask me "which one?" to which he'll expect a response of either "the harmonic minor/the true melodic minor", "the modern melodic minor" or "the jazz minor".
If I played merely in the scale you gave, I would be playing the jazz minor, which is not the same as the modern melodic minor.
QUOTE
And nowadays it is rare that the Aeolian is palyed descending. And quit with the history speil, or they'll kick you outta the jam wise guy.
Actually, my knowledge of music history has gotten me invited to many jam sessions, and never once gotten me barred.
QUOTE
There you go. I clearly and unambigiously identified the scale I gave as a 'true melodic minor', which is otherwise known as a harmonic minor.
BS BS BS. Can't you read the link I just sent in?
And Trippy is an idiot who is just sticking up for his wittle pal Matty. Or he can send in any link he claims to have found.
I'm not suggesting you don't have a knowledge of music theory. I'm suggesting you are a lying brat in this case. You have the evidence plonked under your very nose, and you still don't want to admit you are wrong. It's a physorg thing I know. It won't happen where it matters, which is cool. Kids will be kids.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 8 2008, 05:35 PM)
Not even Wikipedia agrees with you M Pants. No mention of true harmonic minor.
That's a major contradiction... How can it disagree with me if it makes no mention of the subject I am talking about, only subjects which are intergral to it?
No matter how many times you keep making this claim, it won't change what I wrote, dumbass...
No matter how many times you keep making this claim, it won't change what I wrote, dumbass...
And Trippy is an idiot who is just sticking up for his wittle pal Matty. Or he can send in any link he claims to have found.
He PMed them to me. One of them was one of the same links I considered giving to you, until I decided there was no point, as you've clearly demonstrated your contempt for the truth many times.
Yet you claimed that me saying I said something which you quoted as me saying was BS...
Odd...
Yet you claimed that me saying I said something which you quoted as me saying was BS...
Odd...
You have the evidence plonked under your very nose, and you still don't want to admit you are wrong.
You have not presented any evidence whatsoever that the phrase "True melodic minor" does not refer to the harmonic minor. All you've done is demonstrate your own failure to grasp the subject by misunderstanding the difference between a modern melodic minor and a jazz minor, your dishonesty by quote mining and ignoring any mention of your own lies repeatedly, and your desperation by clinging
to an argument based on semantics.
I wager you that you will NEVER produce one. Nor will you ever bring your speil to a real music forum.
You may have succeeded in having me burnt at the stake a few centuries ago, with your false accusations. But now your mind games are limited to the odd unmoderated forum and Joint.
That's a major contradiction... How can it disagree with me if it makes no mention of the subject I am talking about, only subjects which are intergral to it?
QUOTE
BS BS BS.
No matter how many times you keep making this claim, it won't change what I wrote, dumbass...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| BS BS BS. |
No matter how many times you keep making this claim, it won't change what I wrote, dumbass...
And Trippy is an idiot who is just sticking up for his wittle pal Matty. Or he can send in any link he claims to have found.
He PMed them to me. One of them was one of the same links I considered giving to you, until I decided there was no point, as you've clearly demonstrated your contempt for the truth many times.
QUOTE
I'm suggesting you are a lying brat in this case.
Yet you claimed that me saying I said something which you quoted as me saying was BS...
Odd...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm suggesting you are a lying brat in this case. |
Yet you claimed that me saying I said something which you quoted as me saying was BS...
Odd...
You have the evidence plonked under your very nose, and you still don't want to admit you are wrong.
You have not presented any evidence whatsoever that the phrase "True melodic minor" does not refer to the harmonic minor. All you've done is demonstrate your own failure to grasp the subject by misunderstanding the difference between a modern melodic minor and a jazz minor, your dishonesty by quote mining and ignoring any mention of your own lies repeatedly, and your desperation by clinging
to an argument based on semantics.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Sep 8 2008, 05:48 PM)
That's a major contradiction... How can it disagree with me if it makes no mention of the subject I am talking about, only subjects which are intergral to it?
Ok Matt I get it. Tossing off with the Clintonesq logic again. Well, Ferk Off then you silly boy.
Ok Matt I get it. Tossing off with the Clintonesq logic again. Well, Ferk Off then you silly boy.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 8 2008, 05:53 PM)
Ok Matt I get it. Tossing off with the Clintonesq logic again. Well, Ferk Off then you silly boy.
Clintonesque logic?
The wiki article does not address the phrase "true melodic minor." How could it possibly then prove that the phrase is an invention of mine?
You continually dismiss any logic or source which disagrees with you, yet you continually accuse me of dishonesty.
As I've pointed out before, the best case you could hope to prove is that the phrase "true melodic minor" is much more esoteric than I have indicated it to be, which is possible. But rather than work that position, you choose to claim I am lying, in order to try to win an argument. You're engaging in the very behavior you claim to find "pathetic."
Clintonesque logic?
The wiki article does not address the phrase "true melodic minor." How could it possibly then prove that the phrase is an invention of mine?
You continually dismiss any logic or source which disagrees with you, yet you continually accuse me of dishonesty.
As I've pointed out before, the best case you could hope to prove is that the phrase "true melodic minor" is much more esoteric than I have indicated it to be, which is possible. But rather than work that position, you choose to claim I am lying, in order to try to win an argument. You're engaging in the very behavior you claim to find "pathetic."
QUOTE
He PMed them to me. One of them was one of the same links I considered giving to you, until I decided there was no point, as you've clearly demonstrated your contempt for the truth many times.
I wager you that you will NEVER produce one. Nor will you ever bring your speil to a real music forum.
You may have succeeded in having me burnt at the stake a few centuries ago, with your false accusations. But now your mind games are limited to the odd unmoderated forum and Joint.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 8 2008, 05:57 PM)
I wager you that you will NEVER produce one. Nor will you ever bring your speil to a real music forum.
I have already given you the conditions under which I will do both.
The moment you convince me that you have learned to accept being wrong and admit to your own dishonesty, I will produce the name of the textbook I initially got the phrase from, the link me and Trippy referred to, emails from various musicians (including a professional music teacher who is a member of the Music Teacher's National Association) attesting to the historical existence of the phrase, and my accurate usage of it and will go with you to a music forum where we can continue this discussion with some actual hope of resolution.
Until that point, I'm done accepting your challenges. I've a perfect track record for doing so thus far, while the two times (out of over 6 challenges that I've issued to you) you have tried to accept my challenges, you've failed. Accepting your challenges is pointless, and accomplishes nothing, since you've dismissed my responses every time (odd, considering that you implied that the ability to respond accurately would prove something).
I still hold to those conditions. The moment I think you are capable of being honest, I will give you everything you've asked for.
I have already given you the conditions under which I will do both.
The moment you convince me that you have learned to accept being wrong and admit to your own dishonesty, I will produce the name of the textbook I initially got the phrase from, the link me and Trippy referred to, emails from various musicians (including a professional music teacher who is a member of the Music Teacher's National Association) attesting to the historical existence of the phrase, and my accurate usage of it and will go with you to a music forum where we can continue this discussion with some actual hope of resolution.
Until that point, I'm done accepting your challenges. I've a perfect track record for doing so thus far, while the two times (out of over 6 challenges that I've issued to you) you have tried to accept my challenges, you've failed. Accepting your challenges is pointless, and accomplishes nothing, since you've dismissed my responses every time (odd, considering that you implied that the ability to respond accurately would prove something).
I still hold to those conditions. The moment I think you are capable of being honest, I will give you everything you've asked for.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Sep 8 2008, 06:07 PM)
I have already given you the conditions under which I will do both.
The moment you convince me that you have learned to accept being wrong and admit to your own dishonesty, I will produce the name of the textbook I initially got the phrase from, the link me and Trippy referred to, emails from various musicians (including a professional music teacher who is a member of the Music Teacher's National Association) attesting to the historical existence of the phrase, and my accurate usage of it and will go with you to a music forum where we can continue this discussion with some actual hope of resolution.
Until that point, I'm done accepting your challenges. I've a perfect track record for doing so thus far, while the two times (out of over 6 challenges that I've issued to you) you have tried to accept my challenges, you've failed. Accepting your challenges is pointless, and accomplishes nothing, since you've dismissed my responses every time (odd, considering that you implied that the ability to respond accurately would prove something).
I still hold to those conditions. The moment I think you are capable of being honest, I will give you everything you've asked for.
You pretentious little dipstick. Either send in your evidence, or STFU.
And also I don't really care about your obscure little phrase. Another example of you playing difficult. Kids like you at school were instantly avoided and laughed at because they were little know-alls. You tell them that a foot is 12 inches, and they would come back with "aaah, but which system are you talking about?". SLAP!
The sports teacher just gets on and measures the jump as 6 ft 3 inches, and fukk your alternative systems.
Post your evidence BDW/Mpants.
You and your fukking opponents and challenges., You are a man led by your ego. Until I met people like you here, i was doing rather nicely not caring about competing and dual minded scoffers. What's up with your poor wounded egos? Scared you're a failure deep down?
The moment you convince me that you have learned to accept being wrong and admit to your own dishonesty, I will produce the name of the textbook I initially got the phrase from, the link me and Trippy referred to, emails from various musicians (including a professional music teacher who is a member of the Music Teacher's National Association) attesting to the historical existence of the phrase, and my accurate usage of it and will go with you to a music forum where we can continue this discussion with some actual hope of resolution.
Until that point, I'm done accepting your challenges. I've a perfect track record for doing so thus far, while the two times (out of over 6 challenges that I've issued to you) you have tried to accept my challenges, you've failed. Accepting your challenges is pointless, and accomplishes nothing, since you've dismissed my responses every time (odd, considering that you implied that the ability to respond accurately would prove something).
I still hold to those conditions. The moment I think you are capable of being honest, I will give you everything you've asked for.
You pretentious little dipstick. Either send in your evidence, or STFU.
And also I don't really care about your obscure little phrase. Another example of you playing difficult. Kids like you at school were instantly avoided and laughed at because they were little know-alls. You tell them that a foot is 12 inches, and they would come back with "aaah, but which system are you talking about?". SLAP!
The sports teacher just gets on and measures the jump as 6 ft 3 inches, and fukk your alternative systems.
Post your evidence BDW/Mpants.
You and your fukking opponents and challenges., You are a man led by your ego. Until I met people like you here, i was doing rather nicely not caring about competing and dual minded scoffers. What's up with your poor wounded egos? Scared you're a failure deep down?
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 8 2008, 06:15 PM)
You pretentious little dipstick. Either send in your evidence, or STFU.
Send in your evidence that retrograde inversion was invented in the 20th century as part of "12 tone row theory".
Send in your evidence that tonal inversion and retrograde inversion are the same thing.
Send in your evidence that you were the first to truly explore tonal inversion.
Send in your evidence that you are not Liu, but a new member.
Send in your evidence that BDW doesn't know what a ditonic comma is.
Send in your evidence that your book doesn't address mathematics, but only music.
Send in your evidence that your book does not address music. (umm...)
Send in your evidence that we are all bullies.
Send in your evidence that we are all liars.
Send in your evidence that my interactions here are ego driven, and not driven by a desire for amusement.
Send in your evidence that I and BDW are the same person.
Send in your evidence that scientific theories rejected by the mainstream are commonly verified.
Send in your evidence that I don't understand physics as well as I claim to.
Send in your evidence that the FM have harmed anyone.
Send in your evidence that your book has practical applications in string theory.
Send in your evidence that science in the modern world is a 'fraud'.
Send in your evidence that science is not responsible for technological progress.
Send in your evidence that the scientific method is useless.
Send in your evidence that retrograde inversion was invented in the 20th century as part of "12 tone row theory".
Send in your evidence that tonal inversion and retrograde inversion are the same thing.
Send in your evidence that you were the first to truly explore tonal inversion.
Send in your evidence that you are not Liu, but a new member.
Send in your evidence that BDW doesn't know what a ditonic comma is.
Send in your evidence that your book doesn't address mathematics, but only music.
Send in your evidence that your book does not address music. (umm...)
Send in your evidence that we are all bullies.
Send in your evidence that we are all liars.
Send in your evidence that my interactions here are ego driven, and not driven by a desire for amusement.
Send in your evidence that I and BDW are the same person.
Send in your evidence that scientific theories rejected by the mainstream are commonly verified.
Send in your evidence that I don't understand physics as well as I claim to.
Send in your evidence that the FM have harmed anyone.
Send in your evidence that your book has practical applications in string theory.
Send in your evidence that science in the modern world is a 'fraud'.
Send in your evidence that science is not responsible for technological progress.
Send in your evidence that the scientific method is useless.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Sep 8 2008, 06:41 PM)
Send in your evidence that retrograde inversion was invented in the 20th century as part of "12 tone row theory".
Send in your evidence that tonal inversion and retrograde inversion are the same thing.
Send in your evidence that you were the first to truly explore tonal inversion.
Send in your evidence that you are not Liu, but a new member.
Send in your evidence that BDW doesn't know what a ditonic comma is.
Send in your evidence that your book doesn't address mathematics, but only music.
Send in your evidence that your book does not address music. (umm...)
Send in your evidence that we are all bullies.
Send in your evidence that we are all liars.
Send in your evidence that my interactions here are ego driven, and not driven by a desire for amusement.
Send in your evidence that I and BDW are the same person.
Send in your evidence that scientific theories rejected by the mainstream are commonly verified.
Send in your evidence that I don't understand physics as well as I claim to.
Send in your evidence that the FM have harmed anyone.
Send in your evidence that your book has practical applications in string theory.
Send in your evidence that science in the modern world is a 'fraud'.
Send in your evidence that science is not responsible for technological progress.
Send in your evidence that the scientific method is useless.
What a pile of rubbish yet again. Send in your friggin evidence that I've claimed to have been the first to truly explore tonal inversion. If you'd bothered to read you'd know I don't make those claims.
Now stop stalling dipstick, and either admit you are wrong, or send in that evidence of your own.
What you've just posted is cop out stuff. There is no "true melodic minor" phrase you have speiled on about is there? You're just a little liar are you not? And oh look, you didn't have to get into my original question to you, that was spawned over at sciforums, when you came a clippety clopping in.
My favourite one in your list has to be that I need to send in evidence that you are BDW. Very very cute sunshine. Even that was shoved under your nose but you refused to admit it. Geesus, wot a forum. Phew. Good job you can't do too much harm elsewhere.
people that aren't your mates here are begining to think you are a right fraud Matt. I knew that from months ago.
Send in your evidence that tonal inversion and retrograde inversion are the same thing.
Send in your evidence that you were the first to truly explore tonal inversion.
Send in your evidence that you are not Liu, but a new member.
Send in your evidence that BDW doesn't know what a ditonic comma is.
Send in your evidence that your book doesn't address mathematics, but only music.
Send in your evidence that your book does not address music. (umm...)
Send in your evidence that we are all bullies.
Send in your evidence that we are all liars.
Send in your evidence that my interactions here are ego driven, and not driven by a desire for amusement.
Send in your evidence that I and BDW are the same person.
Send in your evidence that scientific theories rejected by the mainstream are commonly verified.
Send in your evidence that I don't understand physics as well as I claim to.
Send in your evidence that the FM have harmed anyone.
Send in your evidence that your book has practical applications in string theory.
Send in your evidence that science in the modern world is a 'fraud'.
Send in your evidence that science is not responsible for technological progress.
Send in your evidence that the scientific method is useless.
What a pile of rubbish yet again. Send in your friggin evidence that I've claimed to have been the first to truly explore tonal inversion. If you'd bothered to read you'd know I don't make those claims.
Now stop stalling dipstick, and either admit you are wrong, or send in that evidence of your own.
What you've just posted is cop out stuff. There is no "true melodic minor" phrase you have speiled on about is there? You're just a little liar are you not? And oh look, you didn't have to get into my original question to you, that was spawned over at sciforums, when you came a clippety clopping in.
My favourite one in your list has to be that I need to send in evidence that you are BDW. Very very cute sunshine. Even that was shoved under your nose but you refused to admit it. Geesus, wot a forum. Phew. Good job you can't do too much harm elsewhere.
people that aren't your mates here are begining to think you are a right fraud Matt. I knew that from months ago.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Sep 8 2008, 06:41 PM)
Send in your evidence that retrograde inversion was invented in the 20th century as part of "12 tone row theory".
Send in your evidence that tonal inversion and retrograde inversion are the same thing.
Send in your evidence that you were the first to truly explore tonal inversion.
Send in your evidence that you are not Liu, but a new member.
Send in your evidence that BDW doesn't know what a ditonic comma is.
Send in your evidence that your book doesn't address mathematics, but only music.
Send in your evidence that your book does not address music. (umm...)
Send in your evidence that we are all bullies.
Send in your evidence that we are all liars.
Send in your evidence that my interactions here are ego driven, and not driven by a desire for amusement.
Send in your evidence that I and BDW are the same person.
Send in your evidence that scientific theories rejected by the mainstream are commonly verified.
Send in your evidence that I don't understand physics as well as I claim to.
Send in your evidence that the FM have harmed anyone.
Send in your evidence that your book has practical applications in string theory.
Send in your evidence that science in the modern world is a 'fraud'.
Send in your evidence that science is not responsible for technological progress.
Send in your evidence that the scientific method is useless.
And before that you can send in evidence that you are not a complete delusional godsucker cos we havent seen any yet, nobrot.
Send in your evidence that tonal inversion and retrograde inversion are the same thing.
Send in your evidence that you were the first to truly explore tonal inversion.
Send in your evidence that you are not Liu, but a new member.
Send in your evidence that BDW doesn't know what a ditonic comma is.
Send in your evidence that your book doesn't address mathematics, but only music.
Send in your evidence that your book does not address music. (umm...)
Send in your evidence that we are all bullies.
Send in your evidence that we are all liars.
Send in your evidence that my interactions here are ego driven, and not driven by a desire for amusement.
Send in your evidence that I and BDW are the same person.
Send in your evidence that scientific theories rejected by the mainstream are commonly verified.
Send in your evidence that I don't understand physics as well as I claim to.
Send in your evidence that the FM have harmed anyone.
Send in your evidence that your book has practical applications in string theory.
Send in your evidence that science in the modern world is a 'fraud'.
Send in your evidence that science is not responsible for technological progress.
Send in your evidence that the scientific method is useless.
And before that you can send in evidence that you are not a complete delusional godsucker cos we havent seen any yet, nobrot.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 8 2008, 07:17 PM)
And before that you can send in evidence that you are not a complete delusional godsucker cos we havent seen any yet, nobrot.
Anyone can make up a crap list. Anyone can gather around a bunch of yob pals and make up all sorts of crap. These things will be exposed more nowadays, because we have the medium for doing that. In the past all your little corruptions could be swept under the carpet. You'd better think again. You are exposed as not befitting the scientific attitude. People will want to know. And it will be science that benefits, not your little egos. Welcome to the age where the world is small enough to expose you. You'll have to dig a little hole and get your fill of cussing, because it won't work in public much longer, little NEONOM.
Anyone can make up a crap list. Anyone can gather around a bunch of yob pals and make up all sorts of crap. These things will be exposed more nowadays, because we have the medium for doing that. In the past all your little corruptions could be swept under the carpet. You'd better think again. You are exposed as not befitting the scientific attitude. People will want to know. And it will be science that benefits, not your little egos. Welcome to the age where the world is small enough to expose you. You'll have to dig a little hole and get your fill of cussing, because it won't work in public much longer, little NEONOM.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 8 2008, 06:51 PM)
What a pile of rubbish yet again. Send in your friggin evidence that I've claimed to have been the first to truly explore tonal inversion. If you'd bothered to read you'd know I don't make those claims.
Liar.
There you go.
You unambiguously claim that "no actual journey into the 'mirror side' itself had been undertaken" at the time you wrote your little book.
There you go.
You unambiguously claim that "no actual journey into the 'mirror side' itself had been undertaken" at the time you wrote your little book.
What you've just posted is cop out stuff.
Are you claiming you've provided the evidence of all the above?
Evidence is reproducable, or at the very least, verifiable.
For instance, anyone can read your book and see that the section I quoted above is in it. The 'evidence' you provided to support your claim that I'm BDW came from a biased source (newguy) who provided a broken link to verify it. There is no way to verify that BDW ever wrote that, hence: it's not evidence, but just another claim.
Evidence is reproducable, or at the very least, verifiable.
For instance, anyone can read your book and see that the section I quoted above is in it. The 'evidence' you provided to support your claim that I'm BDW came from a biased source (newguy) who provided a broken link to verify it. There is no way to verify that BDW ever wrote that, hence: it's not evidence, but just another claim.
people that aren't your mates here are begining to think you are a right fraud Matt. I knew that from months ago.
What a complete pile of it!
My feedback score was under 75% when you got here. It was also lower than 70.
Since you've gotten here, more people have expressed their approval of me than their disaproval, liar.
Your feedback started at 100%, with 1 positive when you got here. Where is it now? 42.42% with 32 more negs than positives. You have 14 unique positives. I have 41. Oooooooh, spooky mirror inversion, Liu? I'm what you could be if you were more honest.
Liar.
QUOTE
I was not aware that scales had been mirrored when I found out for myself in 1989. It was in 1993 that a new music colleague informed me of this fact. I purchased a book by Vincent Persichetti called Twentieth Century Harmony, and realized that only the first step had been performed when mirroring a scale, and that no actual journey into the ‘mirror side’ itself had been undertaken,
There you go.
You unambiguously claim that "no actual journey into the 'mirror side' itself had been undertaken" at the time you wrote your little book.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I was not aware that scales had been mirrored when I found out for myself in 1989. It was in 1993 that a new music colleague informed me of this fact. I purchased a book by Vincent Persichetti called Twentieth Century Harmony, and realized that only the first step had been performed when mirroring a scale, and that no actual journey into the ‘mirror side’ itself had been undertaken, |
There you go.
You unambiguously claim that "no actual journey into the 'mirror side' itself had been undertaken" at the time you wrote your little book.
What you've just posted is cop out stuff.
Are you claiming you've provided the evidence of all the above?
QUOTE
My favourite one in your list has to be that I need to send in evidence that you are BDW. Very very cute sunshine. Even that was shoved under your nose but you refused to admit it.
Evidence is reproducable, or at the very least, verifiable.
For instance, anyone can read your book and see that the section I quoted above is in it. The 'evidence' you provided to support your claim that I'm BDW came from a biased source (newguy) who provided a broken link to verify it. There is no way to verify that BDW ever wrote that, hence: it's not evidence, but just another claim.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My favourite one in your list has to be that I need to send in evidence that you are BDW. Very very cute sunshine. Even that was shoved under your nose but you refused to admit it. |
Evidence is reproducable, or at the very least, verifiable.
For instance, anyone can read your book and see that the section I quoted above is in it. The 'evidence' you provided to support your claim that I'm BDW came from a biased source (newguy) who provided a broken link to verify it. There is no way to verify that BDW ever wrote that, hence: it's not evidence, but just another claim.
people that aren't your mates here are begining to think you are a right fraud Matt. I knew that from months ago.
What a complete pile of it!
My feedback score was under 75% when you got here. It was also lower than 70.
Since you've gotten here, more people have expressed their approval of me than their disaproval, liar.
Your feedback started at 100%, with 1 positive when you got here. Where is it now? 42.42% with 32 more negs than positives. You have 14 unique positives. I have 41. Oooooooh, spooky mirror inversion, Liu? I'm what you could be if you were more honest.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 8 2008, 07:15 PM)
You and your fukking opponents and challenges., You are a man led by your ego. Until I met people like you here, i was doing rather nicely not caring about competing and dual minded scoffers. What's up with your poor wounded egos? Scared you're a failure deep down?
Lol, I was about to ask if boneidol was the new mental case of PhysOrg... but then I saw that he had 1100+ posts.
QUOTE (brent.tc+Sep 8 2008, 08:06 PM)
Lol, I was about to ask if boneidol was the new mental case of PhysOrg... but then I saw that he had 1100+ posts.
Look at his join date.
He's made that many posts in about a month and a half. 23.5 posts per day on average.
Keep that in mind whenever you see him telling others to get a life.
Look at his join date.
He's made that many posts in about a month and a half. 23.5 posts per day on average.
Keep that in mind whenever you see him telling others to get a life.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.