THE PAVILION ANNEX

[Mark Tiedemann]

Prince is both complex and simple. I like it all. I love and live for it all.

Smoke On The Water, is that idiocy?

Good example with Prince. Recall, I never said he was bad, just that I don't care for him. Personal taste is what it is, but I acknowledge the talent and quality.

Why would Smoke On The Water be idiocy? It was played to death and became a cliche, which is a wholly different matter.

[Steve Evil]

Smoke On The Water, is that idiocy?

Of course not. But don't forget, Blackmore also came up with some of the most complex riffs and solos of his day. Your guys seem to want all of one and none of the other. . .

[Ezra Lb.]

Not me. I want all of none and one of the other.

[Lori Koonce]

Leave it to someone who lives in the most contrary place in America to be our sole contrarian.

Love ya Ezra!

[FrankChurch]

How am I not a contrarian?

[Lori Koonce]

Frank

You aren't able to articulate WHY you take the views you do. Ezra does so with an eloquent manner I can only aspire to.

Ezra doesn't constantly contradict himself. He has a coherent point of view that is outside the norm.

You OTOH, have contradcted yourself so many times I've lost track. You don't post enough verbiage for me to comment on your eloquence.

[Steve Barber]

You don't post enough verbiage for me to comment on your eloquence.

This is the core, if you care to heed it, Frank. I've said this before as well: you're not doing much more than either delivering single thought balloons without details, or telling us to go read it/see it/hear it elsewhere.

I have no doubt you understand the issues, but your inability to explain your thoughts in detail gives a public impression you're parroting ideas rather than comprehending them yourself.

You have a recognizable point of view -- and have no problem stating it -- but you don't seem to be willing to defend it.

Repeating a thought ad nauseum isn't defending the logic behind the thought, it's simply repeating a meme. Your verbal acrobatics do you a disservice in this regard.

Just saying'.

[FrankChurch]

Low blow. I say stuff all the time, then I am ignored when I do.

I feel it is just fear of the ideas themselves.

[Mark Tiedemann]

Low blow. I say stuff all the time, then I am ignored when I do.

I feel it is just fear of the ideas themselves.

No, it is not. You scare me about as much as a dust bunny.

Yes, you say stuff all the time. Mostly, you are not ignored, you get a reaction. Often, you get just that---a reaction, not a response. That's because Barber is right, you put out soundbites and aphorisms and inuendo but once you do get a response, you move on to the next thing. The only time I ever saw you sustain a conversation, if we can call it that, is over that copyright issue, but even there you almost never (I don't want to say "never" because I didn't see ALL the back and forth) responded to counterargument. You were asked direct questions then and ignored them. If you feel you're ignored, look again---you get lots of attention. You don't ignore us, just what we say in reaction to your little gems.

As to your ideas---what ideas? You put forth Chomsky's et al but I'm not really sure I've seen one of your ideas.

[Ezra Lb.]

Lori you are very kind to say those things but basically I'm just trying to figure out what the hell's going on. When I hear about people who sound like they might know I go listen to what they have to say. Still don't know what's going on but I have learned a lot about what other people think is going on. One thing I have noticed is that there are a lot more people willing to provide me with an answer than there are people willing to ask questions. If skepticism means anything it means asking lotsa questions.

[Steve Barber]

Low blow. I say stuff all the time, then I am ignored when I do.

I feel it is just fear of the ideas themselves.

No...you don't. You may THINK you explain your points, but you really do not. With perhaps two exceptions in the last six months, not a single post of yours goes beyond a handful of sentences. (As noted, citing writers and links isn't making a cogent argument, it's letting other people do the work.)

Perhaps it is your perception that you're being informative, when our perception is that you are not being specific, which is the source of miscommunication.

[Lori Koonce]

Frank

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question on the Science vs Religion board.

If I wanted to know what the people you quote said, I'd have read them. You claim to be intelligent. One way to prove it is to tell us something in your own words.

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but why should I try engaging with a person who is no better than a parrot? Don't wanna get ignored, quit ignoring us. Simple.

[Lori Koonce]

Lori you are very kind to say those things but basically I'm just trying to figure out what the hell's going on. When I hear about people who sound like they might know I go listen to what they have to say. Still don't know what's going on but I have learned a lot about what other people think is going on. One thing I have noticed is that there are a lot more people willing to provide me with an answer than there are people willing to ask questions. If skepticism means anything it means asking lotsa questions.

You got an onygen tank dude? You're gonna need it for the pedestal your gonna be on....

But if I'm honest you and Penn Jillette share the honor of making me aware of the fact I'm a non believer. You both have a way of expressing yourselves that I find really easily understood. There is a lot more I could say but I don't want to embarrass you.

[FrankChurch]

Lori, you do know Penn doubts global warming?

[FrankChurch]

Did we scare off Finderdoug?