> I will ignore the genius comment, but to say that Hitler didn't kill people is completely and totally wrong.
No, it's not: an orchestral conductor isn't playing the instruments, even if what he or she does is even more important. Same case here: Hitler didn't kill, although he ordered literally millions of murders which is, as you imply, even more criminal. But he didn't kill.
> Sebastian, you're often quite pedantic
Actually, I'm not. I [i]am[/i] concerned with points that other people would find trivial, but that's merely an effect of people being different and liking different things.
> Hitler was a genocidal murderer.
And a way better (worse) one than Page as guitarist.
> End of story.
Not really... there are loads of things that haven't been cleared up about that era, loads of uncovered secrets, etc. Without them seeing the light, the 'end of story' is still light years away.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with Holly2003.
Sebastian, here are the facts. Hitler ordered the deaths of millions of people. He wanted to kill Jews, and upon assuming power, he made it a reality.
If he hadn't gone to power, there is an excellent chance that those people would still be alive. Did he kill them with his own bare hands? No, but he is still a murderer! In a court of law, he would be tried on 12 million counts of murder, and would be treated exactly as if he had pulled the trigger himself. You can be concerned with whatever points you want, but if you insist that Hitler was not a murderer or that he didn't kill, when he was both a murderer and killed, it simply shows your ignorance.
Furthermore, considering the organisational records kept, there are actually very little things we know about The Holocaust.
Amazon · Member since
Zebonka12 wrote: "It was already a masterpiece. If he'd been putting Heartbreaker style vocals on it, it would not have made any sense. It would be like Bonzo doubling the tempo or Page solo-ing during the lyrics." I don't know about Heartbreaker style lyrics, but I do think that Plant should have been deeper and more aggressive. If he had done so, I think it could have been an absolute masterpiece. As it is, I think it's a minor masterpiece, and due entirely to the instrumentation.
Sebastian · Member since
> Hitler ordered the deaths of millions of people.
Of course he did. Did I say otherwise?
> He wanted to kill Jews, and upon assuming power, he made it a reality.
Not really. He wanted to have Jews killed (not the same), and upon assuming power, he made it a reality. His dream was for the race to be 'cleansed', not for him to commit the murders. And by the way his dictatorship resulted in the death of loads of non-Jewish people, including African immigrants or descendents, homosexuals, etc.
> If he hadn't gone to power, there is an excellent chance that those people would still be alive.
There you're quite off: first of all, many of those people would be over 80 by now , and comparatively very few people actually make it to that age. Also, consider diseases, other wars, accidents, etc. Of course (before you jump into some ridiculous conclusion), I'm not at all defending the nazis or saying that it was ok because they'd die some day anyway.
Your sentence could be rephrased to 'if he hadn't gone to power, there is an excellent chance that the vast majority of those people wouldn't have been murdered'. And that would be correct. What Hitler did was wrong, and it affected the lives of millions of people, not only Jewish, but also people from virtually every ethnic group who in one way or another suffered the consequences. If you say he killed (figuratively), you're right; if I say he didn't actually kill (which isn't [i]at all[/i] denying the brutality of his actions), I'm also right; if you say my statement is 'totally and utterly wrong', then you're the one who's 'absolutely and utterly wrong' because, as I wrote earlier, being a genocide (which is totally wrong and criminal and unfair) and not having actually killed people (i.e. not being the perpetrator) aren't mutually exclusive.
And they aren't: Hitler didn't kill people, but he was the orchestrator of millions of murders.
> Did he kill them with his own bare hands? No, but he is still a murderer! In a court of law, he would be tried on 12 million counts of murder
Yes, and if you learnt to read (or bothered to do it before calling me an ignorant), I [i]did [/i]refer to the legal point in one of my replies.
> You can be concerned with whatever points you want, but if you insist that Hitler was not a murderer or that he didn't kill
I didn't insist that he was not a murderer, I insisted (and still do) that the statements 'he was a mass murderer' and 'he didn't kill people' aren't mutually exclusive. And they aren't.
> it simply shows your ignorance.
Yes, if I did that, it would be the case. But I:
* Stated that what he did was equally wrong... actually, it's even worse, because those who did the killings were (some of them at least) doing it because they were threatened too, or because they'd been naively following a nasty ideal, etc.
* Stated that from a legal POV, being an accessory before the fact and a mastermind is treated equally as if he'd been the perpetrator.
* Didn't [i]in any moment[/i] insist on any sort of alleged innocence whatsoever.
If you read what I wrote between your previous post and this one, and still didn't comprehend that, then it shows YOUR ignorance.
If you didn't read what I wrote between both moments and simply started writing accusations without knowing the full story (in this case, what I wrote and didn't write) then, again, it shows YOUR ignorance.
If you thought/think I was saying he was innocent just because I commented that he didn't actually kill people, then it shows YOUR ignorance. Again, one can be guilty, a genocide, a mass murderer... and still not kill people. Those two statements aren't mutually exclusive.
> Furthermore, considering the organisational records kept, there are actually very little things we know about The Holocaust.
Which again shows that your 'end of story' claim is wrong.
john bodega · Member since
To me there are two Steve Vai's. There is the unlistenable wanker from the 80's, and then there is the matured, more tasteful (at the very least, far more interesting) Vai from later years. He mightn't be to my tastes but he has written some great pieces. Regrettably it took a while for me to sift through the earlier junk, which is bloody embarrassing to listen to.
Holly2003 · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]
I take it poster 3 is me? Why not address me directly instead of being such an ass about it? Instead of simplifying, you've distorted our exchange. Intentionally? If so = dull. Life's too short.
I did not call you an idiot but no, you were not correct. Saying "Hitler is a mass murderer" is fine because it's an information short cut. The person who said it assumes we're all familiar with Hitler and we know what he did. There's no need for that person to have to say it any other way just to pass your pedantry test.
[/QUOTE]
No, poster 3 is not you. Poster 3 is a fictional character I picked for the example I set, as are poster 1 and 2.
And I didn't say 'saying "Hitler is a mass murderer"' wasn't fine. I do say it now: that sentence is wrong, because Hitler died, hence, he's not a mass murderer, regardless of whether he was one before or not. Let's see what happened:
I wrote:
'Hitler didn't kill people. He ordered loads of killings, which is not the same thing.'
And I stand by it.
Amazon then wrote that ' to say that Hitler didn't kill people is completely and totally wrong'. And I wrote 'No, it's not'. And I also stand by it, because it's not 'completely and totally wrong', as he didn't kill people. He killed a person (unless of course he actually pulled the trigger for more individuals than himself).
I'm not criticising the figurative or literal use of language (Amazon is, BTW, in that post), nor I'm in any way offending Amazon, his/her personality or his/her ability (or lack thereof) to learn. You (you, Holly2003), on the other hand, are, which is indeed completely imbecile on your side seeing that:
* You don't know me.
* You completely missed the point I was making.
And by the way, I'm not calling you an imbecile, I [i]am [/i]saying, though, that saying I can't learn from others based on what you've read on an on-line forum (where I've, many times, acknowledging learning from others) is imbecile. Not the person, but the act.
So, to sum up:
* If you see Hitler as a mass murderer, you've got all the right to. In legal terms, it's enough that he was the mastermind and an accessory before the fact.
* However, if I write 'Hitler didn't kill people', it's not 'completely and totally wrong', as he didn't, actually, kill people, besides himself (AFAIK).
* If I make a mistake (and I've done so, many many times), I've got no problem in accepting it. However, if I'm right about something, I don't mind being a broken record about it and I don't mind defending my point. If you (a general 'you', not as in 'you, Holly2003') are annoyed by that, you can, as I pointed out earlier, refrain from reading.
* If I've got any problem with you (you, Holly2003), I'll address it to you (you, Holly2003) directly. As I wrote earlier, 'Poster 3' is a fictional representation. If you sensed any resemblance, it's your problem, not mine. And by the way I haven't got a pedantry test, as I'm not pedantic.
[/QUOTE]
What a load of bollocks.
john bodega · Member since
Hitler did kill people, he was in WW1!
Wiley · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
I hate Don Quixote.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, come one... someone take this post and over-analize it like he does. :D
I do enjoy most of Seb's posts but agree about some of the criticism he gets.
He does like to argue for the sake of arguing and he does go off in tangents based on semantics, disregarding other people's posts for not using the exact words.
I'm sure he understands people find that annoying and he simply doesn't care.
He's entitled to his opinion and considering the majority of his posts are good contributions to the forum, he'll never be considered a troll. He tries, though :D.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Funky Horsie wrote: [/b]
No
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for your thought-provoking contribution to the discussion.
Matias Merçeauroix · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Funky Horsie wrote: [/b]
No
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for your thought-provoking contribution to the discussion.
[/QUOTE]
What do you want me to answer? It's obvious that I'm arguing with a deaf person, I'm wasting my time.
---
@ Zebonka: Steve only released 1 album during the 80's, WTF are you talking about? And it is quite different from the stuff he did later. It has some pretty great tunes tho: The Attitude Song, Call It Sleep, Lovers Are Crazy, Bledsoe Blvd, etc. The good thing about Steve is he's always changing. Flex-able has nothing to do with Passion & Warfare, or Alien Love Secrets. Fire Garden is a masterpiece.
If you don't like a fantastic work like Fire Garden Suite and you call it overplayed... well, what can we say? Stick to mediocre bad-played shit like Zeppelin.
Sebastian · Member since
> What a load of bollocks.
No, it's not, except for the 'he didn't kill' bit because, as Zeb pointed out, he in fact did (and I, indeed, forgot about WW1). The rest I stand by: if you've got a problem with me thinking differently from you, then it's you who are pedantic, not me.
> Hitler did kill people, he was in WW1!
Very good point. I forgot about that.
> Oh, come one... someone take this post and over-analize it like he does. :D
Tastes can't be overanalysed, not in an objective manner as you cleverly pointed out in another thread (or was it this one?). If I'd said 'Don Quixote sucks', then you (or anybody else) would have all the right to refute. However, tastes are tastes: whether I hate a novel or not is entirely up to my personal taste.
> I do enjoy most of Seb's posts but agree about some of the criticism he gets.
And you've got all the right to do so.
> He does like to argue for the sake of arguing
Actually, I don't. I 'argue' when I find something worth arguing about.
> and he does go off in tangents based on semantics
Maybe sometimes, but I do it respectfully, not calling names to other people (which is something several other posters do without any provokation whatsoever).
> disregarding other people's posts for not using the exact words.
If I 'disregarded' other people's posts, I simply wouldn't read them. If I reply to them, it's because either the post or the poster, or both, are intelligent and there's no point IMO to simply 'leave it at that' just for fear of being called names.
> I'm sure he understands people find that annoying and he simply doesn't care.
I can't control what people like or don't like. Again, if someone doesn't like the way I write or the content I write about or the points I make, he or she can simply skip my posts and refrain from reading them. If a person (unless it's a troll) cares enough to reply, then I return the favour.
> He's entitled to his opinion and considering the majority of his posts are good contributions to the forum, he'll never be considered a troll. He tries, though :D.
No, I don't.
Regarding Vai's early work: it's genius!
john bodega · Member since
"Steve only released 1 album during the 80's, WTF are you talking about?" [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]I was more referring to his playing for other people, which is (at first glance) really what gives him a reputation (amongst SOME people) as a middly-meeing moron. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]As I was saying though, that's a misconception.[/QUOTE]
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Funky Horsie wrote: [/b]
What do you want me to answer? It's obvious that I'm arguing with a deaf person, I'm wasting my time.
[/QUOTE]
So if I don't worship Steve Vai and choose to respect Led Zeppelin, I'm deaf?
Good luck selling that point of view to anyone outside of a select few music snobs.
john bodega · Member since
Any listener will tell you that it's not Steve Vai that is the problem - it's his fans! Steve is a nice guy and a great writer. Like a lot of famous guitarists though, he seems to attract "all sorts".
Matias Merçeauroix · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Funky Horsie wrote: [/b]
What do you want me to answer? It's obvious that I'm arguing with a deaf person, I'm wasting my time.
[/QUOTE]
So if I don't worship Steve Vai and choose to respect Led Zeppelin, I'm deaf?
Good luck selling that point of view to anyone outside of a select few music snobs.
[/QUOTE]
Well... if you're just a guy listening to albums in his house, I don't think you'd give a fuck about Page being the worst guitar player ever.
But, on the other hand, if you ever dare to call yourself a decent musician, I think you should, at least, realize that he FUCKING SUCKS. If you choose to like his shit despite that, I don't think anyone would care but... being unable to notice his obvious lack of skills... now that's a problem.
Sebastian · Member since
Well, I respect your opinion, but I don't share it.
Just like there are many guitar players that were/are not in the slightest way influenced by Page but still play wonderfully, there are many guitarists who don't think Jimmy sucks, who actually admire him, and for whom things turned out OK (Brian included).
So, not everybody who dislikes (or is not interested in) Page is a snob, and not everybody who likes him is deaf.
