Sebastian
Multiple post, sorry.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Amazon
Sebastian wrote: "No, it's not unreasonable. But to think there were loads of variables involved and to believe things may have been a lot different under different circumstances (namely, Fred being a full-time solo artist, thus devoting his best material to it, and looking for top-notch session musicians, or mastering his piano and guitar technique to accompany himself more appropriately, etc) is not unreasonable either. You've got your opinion and I've got mine. There's nothing wrong with that." I never said there was anything wrong with that.
"And what did happen is that Fred the Queen member and Fred the solo artist weren't in equal conditions, as the former was a side of him he devoted almost half of his life to, while the second was a one-off nine-month session done during breaks from Works promotion and touring. As such, IMO, it's not fair to assert the former was 'better' or 'worse' than the latter, as there's insufficient uncontamined evidence for it." I disagree, however perfectly reasonable.
" "Uh, I never said that Queen was simply Freddie and Brian."
"And I never said you said Queen was simply Freddie and Brian." Really? So when I said that "Killer Queen was incredible, but I don't think it would have been quite as good with Brian", and you responded with "Brian's not the only one whose input on that track was great. John did a wonderful job too, and so did Roger. Queen's a hell of a lot more than Fred and the doctor", you said it for what reason? Your meanig is perfectly clear.
" "What I did was make a point"
"So did I. So why is your point a 'good' one and mine has to be deemed pendatic and unnecessary?" Because the point of what I said was that certain Queen songs, which Freddie wrote, were wonderful, but IMO would not have been as good without Brian/Roger/John. You informed me that Queen was more than Freddie and Brian.
" "which you overlooked because you wanted to make some pedantic (and unneeded) comment."
"No, what's pedantic and unneeded is for you to pretend you know what I wanted. You can't read minds, so it's completely uncalled for. You may regard the comment as pendantic (even if it's not), or unnecessary (even if for some people it raises an important detail), but you cannot know if what I wanted was to be this or that." I can never know what you want, however I can make logical deductions based on what you wrote. If you didn't think that I had said that Queen was just Freddie and Brian, why tell me that it was more than them?
" "Except you ARE being overly literal."
"That's subjective. Why are my subjective opinions 'pendantic and unneeded' while yours are OK? It's either a case of double standards, or maybe the one who's extremely literal, pendatic and unneeded is you." Very mature. You were being overly literal becuse you were debating the meaning of the word alone, when the discussion was about Freddie as a solo artist versus as a member of a group.
"By the way, I offer to you a very simple solution: if you read a comment from me that you may regard as unvalid, unneeded or whatever, then consider it a tongue-in-cheek remark or a figure of speech. Unless of course, you are being extremely literal." I wish I could do that, but with you, I don't think that's possible.
"But to bring up this thing half a month after I'd written my last message is way off IMO." I can't help with the timing. I only finished with it recently (as I have other stuff to do in my life.) Rather than trash it, like I had done with some other posts that I had written long after the discussions had finished, I decided to post it. I also recently finished another, longer, post on another discussion (with you) which had finished a while ago, but because of the timing, I'm still debating whether to post it, message it or trash it.
"Not to mention the ridiculous 'I know what you want' attitude." Oh please. My attitude is not ridiculous. It is based on what you write.
"But you:
1. Cannot and will not convince me to think otherwise (just like I cannot, will not and do not want to
convince you of anything)." That was never my intention.
"2. Cannot and will not make me approach any topic differently (just like I cannot, will not and do not
want to convince you of anything)." Forgive me if I express my annoyance at some of the things that you say. Sorry, Sebastian, but if you say something that incredibly annoys me, I will mention it.
"3. Have absolutely no reason to pretend you know what I want." Oh, please. Nobody knows what you want, but people can make logical deductions based on what you write.
" "Whether or not these artists work alone according to your standards is irrelevent."
Actually, it is relevant. IMO, of course. Do you agree? Fine. Do you disagree? Fine." It is not relevent, because we were debating about whether or not Freddie is a better group member than a solo artist.
" But you:" Why don't you just write down the same stock response to all of my comments? It might save us both alot of time and effort.
" "Oh, and if you want to be obsessively pedantic"
"I think the one who brings up a topic after half a month is the one closer to be obsessive, pendantic and obsessively pedantic." How mature of you, as usual, to throw back I said to you at me.
"Good for you. People do have different opinions. Neither yours is more valid than mine nor mine is more valid than yours. We can agree to disagree. But you:" Yet another stock response.
"While you're absolutely right and your examples are way better than mine, I do wonder: is it OK for you to correct me but if I suggest you a different wording of an idea would work better I'm just 'pedantic'?" I can't answer unless you give me a specific example. However, I don' t think that noting being a group member and a solo artist as not the same thing as being a surgeon and a poet is being pedantic.
"Great for you. People do have different opinions. Neither yours is more valid than mine nor mine is more valid than yours. We can agree to disagree. But you:" Another stock response.
"And what did happen is that Fred the Queen member and Fred the solo artist weren't in equal conditions, as the former was a side of him he devoted almost half of his life to, while the second was a one-off nine-month session done during breaks from Works promotion and touring. As such, IMO, it's not fair to assert the former was 'better' or 'worse' than the latter, as there's insufficient uncontamined evidence for it." I disagree, however perfectly reasonable.
" "Uh, I never said that Queen was simply Freddie and Brian."
"And I never said you said Queen was simply Freddie and Brian." Really? So when I said that "Killer Queen was incredible, but I don't think it would have been quite as good with Brian", and you responded with "Brian's not the only one whose input on that track was great. John did a wonderful job too, and so did Roger. Queen's a hell of a lot more than Fred and the doctor", you said it for what reason? Your meanig is perfectly clear.
" "What I did was make a point"
"So did I. So why is your point a 'good' one and mine has to be deemed pendatic and unnecessary?" Because the point of what I said was that certain Queen songs, which Freddie wrote, were wonderful, but IMO would not have been as good without Brian/Roger/John. You informed me that Queen was more than Freddie and Brian.
" "which you overlooked because you wanted to make some pedantic (and unneeded) comment."
"No, what's pedantic and unneeded is for you to pretend you know what I wanted. You can't read minds, so it's completely uncalled for. You may regard the comment as pendantic (even if it's not), or unnecessary (even if for some people it raises an important detail), but you cannot know if what I wanted was to be this or that." I can never know what you want, however I can make logical deductions based on what you wrote. If you didn't think that I had said that Queen was just Freddie and Brian, why tell me that it was more than them?
" "Except you ARE being overly literal."
"That's subjective. Why are my subjective opinions 'pendantic and unneeded' while yours are OK? It's either a case of double standards, or maybe the one who's extremely literal, pendatic and unneeded is you." Very mature. You were being overly literal becuse you were debating the meaning of the word alone, when the discussion was about Freddie as a solo artist versus as a member of a group.
"By the way, I offer to you a very simple solution: if you read a comment from me that you may regard as unvalid, unneeded or whatever, then consider it a tongue-in-cheek remark or a figure of speech. Unless of course, you are being extremely literal." I wish I could do that, but with you, I don't think that's possible.
"But to bring up this thing half a month after I'd written my last message is way off IMO." I can't help with the timing. I only finished with it recently (as I have other stuff to do in my life.) Rather than trash it, like I had done with some other posts that I had written long after the discussions had finished, I decided to post it. I also recently finished another, longer, post on another discussion (with you) which had finished a while ago, but because of the timing, I'm still debating whether to post it, message it or trash it.
"Not to mention the ridiculous 'I know what you want' attitude." Oh please. My attitude is not ridiculous. It is based on what you write.
"But you:
1. Cannot and will not convince me to think otherwise (just like I cannot, will not and do not want to
convince you of anything)." That was never my intention.
"2. Cannot and will not make me approach any topic differently (just like I cannot, will not and do not
want to convince you of anything)." Forgive me if I express my annoyance at some of the things that you say. Sorry, Sebastian, but if you say something that incredibly annoys me, I will mention it.
"3. Have absolutely no reason to pretend you know what I want." Oh, please. Nobody knows what you want, but people can make logical deductions based on what you write.
" "Whether or not these artists work alone according to your standards is irrelevent."
Actually, it is relevant. IMO, of course. Do you agree? Fine. Do you disagree? Fine." It is not relevent, because we were debating about whether or not Freddie is a better group member than a solo artist.
" But you:" Why don't you just write down the same stock response to all of my comments? It might save us both alot of time and effort.
" "Oh, and if you want to be obsessively pedantic"
"I think the one who brings up a topic after half a month is the one closer to be obsessive, pendantic and obsessively pedantic." How mature of you, as usual, to throw back I said to you at me.
"Good for you. People do have different opinions. Neither yours is more valid than mine nor mine is more valid than yours. We can agree to disagree. But you:" Yet another stock response.
"While you're absolutely right and your examples are way better than mine, I do wonder: is it OK for you to correct me but if I suggest you a different wording of an idea would work better I'm just 'pedantic'?" I can't answer unless you give me a specific example. However, I don' t think that noting being a group member and a solo artist as not the same thing as being a surgeon and a poet is being pedantic.
"Great for you. People do have different opinions. Neither yours is more valid than mine nor mine is more valid than yours. We can agree to disagree. But you:" Another stock response.
Amazon
I accidentally double-posted.
Amazon
I accidentally triple-posted.
Amazon
I accidentally posted for a fourth time.
Sebastian
> I never said there was anything wrong with that.
I never said you said there was anything wrong with that.
> I disagree, however perfectly reasonable.
Good for you.
> So when I said that ... and you responded with ..., you said it for what reason? Your meanig is perfectly clear.
I said it because Queen weren't only Freddie and Brian. That's ALL I meant. By the way, if I say '2+2=4' it doesn't mean I'm criticising Gordon Brown's government. And if I say 'Roger has blond hair' it doesn't mean I'm implying you cannot pilot a 747.
> Because the point of what I said was that certain Queen songs, which Freddie wrote, were wonderful, but IMO would not have been as good without Brian/Roger/John. You informed me that Queen was more than Freddie and Brian.
I did not 'inform (you)'. I posted a comment I thought (and still think) was valid, and I didn't post it at you directly.
> I can never know what you want, however I can make logical deductions based on what you wrote. If you didn't think that I had said that Queen was just Freddie and Brian, why tell me that it was more than them?
Well, because it's not mandatory. I can write 'a bunny is a mammal' without that being related to my views on Liza Minelli's teeth.
> Very mature. You were being overly literal becuse you were debating the meaning of the word alone, when the discussion was about Freddie as a solo artist versus as a member of a group.
So is it OK for you to bring points about what I allegedly want or not (which has nothing to do with whether Fred was or wasn't better group member than solo artist), and bring points about whether I thought you said Queen were F+B (which has nothing to do with whether Fred was or wasn't better group member than solo artist), but it's not OK for me to go off-topic? Double standards.
> I wish I could do that, but with you, I don't think that's possible.
So why bother replying to me? There are loads of people who don't agree with me but respect my views (or anybody's who may differ with their own), and can have healthy debates; there are also loads of people who don't agree with me and simply stay clear from anything I write (scrolling down is not that hard, is it?. You could choose one of those options instead of wasting your valuable time with someone who, according to you, 'is impossible'.
> I can't help with the timing. I only finished with it recently (as I have other stuff to do in my life.)
Good for you. And if you feel like resurrecting a 10-YO thread, good for you (and I do mean it, since there are some 10-YO topics which could use some bumping now that new things have come to light).
> I also recently finished another, longer, post on another discussion (with you) which had finished a while ago, but because of the timing, I'm still debating whether to post it, message it or trash it.
It's completely your choice.
> Oh please. My attitude is not ridiculous. It is based on what you write.
If you want respect, you've got to give it too. I haven't speculated on what you want or don't want, and as such, I deserve the same.
> Forgive me if I express my annoyance at some of the things that you say. Sorry, Sebastian, but if you say something that incredibly annoys me, I will mention it.
Which means I also have the right to call your attitude 'ridiculous' if it strikes me as so. Which means I've also got the right to reply to your messages if they're including or implying a direct attack or offence to me. Which means I've also got the right to copy and paste a reply if it's exactly the same.
> Oh, please. Nobody knows what you want, but people can make logical deductions based on what you write.
Sure, and as so, I also have the right to call your attitude 'ridiculous' if it strikes me as so. Which means I've also got the right to reply to your messages if they're including or implying a direct attack or offence to me. Which means I've also got the right to copy and paste a reply if it's exactly the same.
> It is not relevent, because we were debating about whether or not Freddie is a better group member than a solo artist.
Does it mean I shouldn't write about anything different? If so, then why are you writing about what I want (which is not related to it), what I allegedly implied you said about F+B (which is not related to it) or whether I use stock answers or not? Are you the only one who's got the right to go off-topic?
> Why don't you just write down the same stock response to all of my comments? It might save us both alot of time and effort.
Why don't you just ignore all my responses? It might save us both a lot of time and effort.
> How mature of you, as usual, to throw back I said to you at me.
How mature of you, as usual, to judge other's attitudes as if you were beyond that.
> Yet another stock response.
For yet another stock comment.
> I can't answer unless you give me a specific example. However, I don' t think that noting being a group member and a solo artist as not the same thing as being a surgeon and a poet is being pedantic.
And I don't think doing what I do is pedantic. So there you have it: we may disagree about the meaning and usage of the word, and that's fine since semantics are not an exact science. However, it would be totally ridiculous and pointless for you to:
* Pretend to know what I want.
* Pretend to get me to act as you want me to.
* Point out off-topic comments from me as wrong or invalid or pedantic, etc. when you've made the same yourself.
> Another stock response.
For another stock comment.
I never said you said there was anything wrong with that.
> I disagree, however perfectly reasonable.
Good for you.
> So when I said that ... and you responded with ..., you said it for what reason? Your meanig is perfectly clear.
I said it because Queen weren't only Freddie and Brian. That's ALL I meant. By the way, if I say '2+2=4' it doesn't mean I'm criticising Gordon Brown's government. And if I say 'Roger has blond hair' it doesn't mean I'm implying you cannot pilot a 747.
> Because the point of what I said was that certain Queen songs, which Freddie wrote, were wonderful, but IMO would not have been as good without Brian/Roger/John. You informed me that Queen was more than Freddie and Brian.
I did not 'inform (you)'. I posted a comment I thought (and still think) was valid, and I didn't post it at you directly.
> I can never know what you want, however I can make logical deductions based on what you wrote. If you didn't think that I had said that Queen was just Freddie and Brian, why tell me that it was more than them?
Well, because it's not mandatory. I can write 'a bunny is a mammal' without that being related to my views on Liza Minelli's teeth.
> Very mature. You were being overly literal becuse you were debating the meaning of the word alone, when the discussion was about Freddie as a solo artist versus as a member of a group.
So is it OK for you to bring points about what I allegedly want or not (which has nothing to do with whether Fred was or wasn't better group member than solo artist), and bring points about whether I thought you said Queen were F+B (which has nothing to do with whether Fred was or wasn't better group member than solo artist), but it's not OK for me to go off-topic? Double standards.
> I wish I could do that, but with you, I don't think that's possible.
So why bother replying to me? There are loads of people who don't agree with me but respect my views (or anybody's who may differ with their own), and can have healthy debates; there are also loads of people who don't agree with me and simply stay clear from anything I write (scrolling down is not that hard, is it?. You could choose one of those options instead of wasting your valuable time with someone who, according to you, 'is impossible'.
> I can't help with the timing. I only finished with it recently (as I have other stuff to do in my life.)
Good for you. And if you feel like resurrecting a 10-YO thread, good for you (and I do mean it, since there are some 10-YO topics which could use some bumping now that new things have come to light).
> I also recently finished another, longer, post on another discussion (with you) which had finished a while ago, but because of the timing, I'm still debating whether to post it, message it or trash it.
It's completely your choice.
> Oh please. My attitude is not ridiculous. It is based on what you write.
If you want respect, you've got to give it too. I haven't speculated on what you want or don't want, and as such, I deserve the same.
> Forgive me if I express my annoyance at some of the things that you say. Sorry, Sebastian, but if you say something that incredibly annoys me, I will mention it.
Which means I also have the right to call your attitude 'ridiculous' if it strikes me as so. Which means I've also got the right to reply to your messages if they're including or implying a direct attack or offence to me. Which means I've also got the right to copy and paste a reply if it's exactly the same.
> Oh, please. Nobody knows what you want, but people can make logical deductions based on what you write.
Sure, and as so, I also have the right to call your attitude 'ridiculous' if it strikes me as so. Which means I've also got the right to reply to your messages if they're including or implying a direct attack or offence to me. Which means I've also got the right to copy and paste a reply if it's exactly the same.
> It is not relevent, because we were debating about whether or not Freddie is a better group member than a solo artist.
Does it mean I shouldn't write about anything different? If so, then why are you writing about what I want (which is not related to it), what I allegedly implied you said about F+B (which is not related to it) or whether I use stock answers or not? Are you the only one who's got the right to go off-topic?
> Why don't you just write down the same stock response to all of my comments? It might save us both alot of time and effort.
Why don't you just ignore all my responses? It might save us both a lot of time and effort.
> How mature of you, as usual, to throw back I said to you at me.
How mature of you, as usual, to judge other's attitudes as if you were beyond that.
> Yet another stock response.
For yet another stock comment.
> I can't answer unless you give me a specific example. However, I don' t think that noting being a group member and a solo artist as not the same thing as being a surgeon and a poet is being pedantic.
And I don't think doing what I do is pedantic. So there you have it: we may disagree about the meaning and usage of the word, and that's fine since semantics are not an exact science. However, it would be totally ridiculous and pointless for you to:
* Pretend to know what I want.
* Pretend to get me to act as you want me to.
* Point out off-topic comments from me as wrong or invalid or pedantic, etc. when you've made the same yourself.
> Another stock response.
For another stock comment.
kosimodo
Had the pleasure of seeing both. :)
And Brian did positivly suprise me. A great artist.
And Brian did positivly suprise me. A great artist.
kosimodo
Had the pleasure of seeing both..
Brian did positivly suprise me, a great artist.
Brian did positivly suprise me, a great artist.
Winter Land Man
Too many arguments going on. It's all going off topic.
C'mon, have some decency, make up/make love (Mike Love if you prefer), and get sweaty.
C'mon, have some decency, make up/make love (Mike Love if you prefer), and get sweaty.
Amazon
" "I disagree, however perfectly reasonable."
"Good for you. " Uh, okay, my mistake.
"I said it because Queen weren't only Freddie and Brian. That's ALL I meant. By the way, if I say '2+2=4' it doesn't mean I'm criticising Gordon Brown's government. And if I say 'Roger has blond hair' it doesn't mean I'm implying you cannot pilot a 747." " I did not 'inform (you)'. I posted a comment I thought (and still think) was valid, and I didn't post it at you directly." You know what, you can say whatever you want; any reasonable person would have come to the conclusion that I had. Just think about this; if in a post about the 1958 World Cup, you said that Pele and Garrincha were incredible, and I said that the 1958 Brazil World Cup winning team was more than Pele and Garrincha, do you really believe that I would have made the comment withour responding to your comment directly? Even if I hadn't, it would still be a reasonable assumption for you to make (and quite honestly, I can't imagine why I would say it except in response to what you said).
" "I can never know what you want, however I can make logical deductions based on what you wrote. If you didn't think that I had said that Queen was just Freddie and Brian, why tell me that it was more than them?"
"Well, because it's not mandatory. I can write 'a bunny is a mammal' without that being related to my views on Liza Minelli's teeth." Nothing is mandatory. However, if we were discussing Liza, and you mentioned a bunny, one would think that was pretty weird. Nonetheless, In this case, you made a comment about the members of Queen, and it is perfectly reasonable to deduce that it was in direct response to what I said. Otherwise, what's the point? You mentioned that your comment was valid. and that you didn't post it to me directly. Well, why did you post it? I'm genuinely asking you.
" "Very mature. You were being overly literal becuse you were debating the meaning of the word alone, when the discussion was about Freddie as a solo artist versus as a member of a group."
"So is it OK for you to bring points about what I allegedly want or not (which has nothing to do with whether Fred was or wasn't better group member than solo artist) and bring points about whether I thought you said Queen were F+B (which has nothing to do with whether Fred was or wasn't better group member than solo artist), but it's not OK for me to go off-topic? Double standards." No, it's not double standards at all. Firstly, nobody is telling you what youn want or not. One can however reasonably presume what you mean based on what you write. If you write it in a discussion, I will respond to it, and I noted that you didn't so much as respond to what I was saying as make a point about something I had never said.
The thing about the 'alone' discussion is that we spent a tremendous amount of time defining what alone is, when the whole thing started because I compared the solo work of Freddie and Brian to their group work. It's like if we had a discussion about the best footballers in the world, which you started, and I spent much of the time debating whether or not soccer is really football. Instead of responding to your statement that Maradona was the greatest, I entered a definitional debate. I might care whether Maradona was a soccer player or footballer, but it's not relevent to what you said. The same goes for me and what alone means.
" So why bother replying to me? There are loads of people who don't agree with me but respect my views (or anybody's who may differ with their own), and can have healthy debates; there are also loads of people who don't agree with me and simply stay clear from anything I write (scrolling down is not that hard, is it?. You could choose one of those options instead of wasting your valuable time with someone who, according to you, 'is impossible'." Sebastian, you can turn this into a 'she doesn't respect me or other differing views', except that this not what this about. The truth is I do respect you (although I'm not sure if you respect me, but no matter), and I enjoy having debates with you, but debating with you isn't always so healthy. This post of yours is an example why.
" "I also recently finished another, longer, post on another discussion (with you) which had finished a while ago, but because of the timing, I'm still debating whether to post it, message it or trash it."
"It's completely your choice." I'll think about it. However quite frankly, I don't think it's worth it. You will never admitt that you're wrong, and if it's going to be like this discussion, it's not worth the trouble.
"If you want respect, you've got to give it too. I haven't speculated on what you want or don't want, and as such, I deserve the same." Interpreting what people say is not the same as speculating on what they want or don't want, and respect has othing to do with this. If I misinterpeted you, explain why, but don't make this into my telling you *what you want. Also, you could cease misinterpreting others.
*Unless, my telling you want you want or don't want does not mean mis/inerpreting you, in which case, I have no idea what you're talking about.
""Forgive me if I express my annoyance at some of the things that you say. Sorry, Sebastian, but if you say something that incredibly annoys me, I will mention it."
"Which means I also have the right to call your attitude 'ridiculous' if it strikes me as so." Go for it.
" Which means I've also got the right to reply to your messages if they're including or implying a direct attack or offence to me." No-one has said you didn't have the right. In fact, contrary to what you might think, your rights to do almost anything on this site has (I imagine, since I haven't been here as long as you have) never been threatened. I don't think that 'rights' are really an issue here.
" Which means I've also got the right to copy and paste a reply if it's exactly the same." And I have the right to express my annoyence.
"Sure, and as so, I also have the right to call your attitude 'ridiculous' if it strikes me as so. Which means I've also got the right to reply to your messages if they're including or implying a direct attack or offence to me. Which means I've also got the right to copy and paste a reply if it's exactly the same." No comment.
"Good for you. " Uh, okay, my mistake.
"I said it because Queen weren't only Freddie and Brian. That's ALL I meant. By the way, if I say '2+2=4' it doesn't mean I'm criticising Gordon Brown's government. And if I say 'Roger has blond hair' it doesn't mean I'm implying you cannot pilot a 747." " I did not 'inform (you)'. I posted a comment I thought (and still think) was valid, and I didn't post it at you directly." You know what, you can say whatever you want; any reasonable person would have come to the conclusion that I had. Just think about this; if in a post about the 1958 World Cup, you said that Pele and Garrincha were incredible, and I said that the 1958 Brazil World Cup winning team was more than Pele and Garrincha, do you really believe that I would have made the comment withour responding to your comment directly? Even if I hadn't, it would still be a reasonable assumption for you to make (and quite honestly, I can't imagine why I would say it except in response to what you said).
" "I can never know what you want, however I can make logical deductions based on what you wrote. If you didn't think that I had said that Queen was just Freddie and Brian, why tell me that it was more than them?"
"Well, because it's not mandatory. I can write 'a bunny is a mammal' without that being related to my views on Liza Minelli's teeth." Nothing is mandatory. However, if we were discussing Liza, and you mentioned a bunny, one would think that was pretty weird. Nonetheless, In this case, you made a comment about the members of Queen, and it is perfectly reasonable to deduce that it was in direct response to what I said. Otherwise, what's the point? You mentioned that your comment was valid. and that you didn't post it to me directly. Well, why did you post it? I'm genuinely asking you.
" "Very mature. You were being overly literal becuse you were debating the meaning of the word alone, when the discussion was about Freddie as a solo artist versus as a member of a group."
"So is it OK for you to bring points about what I allegedly want or not (which has nothing to do with whether Fred was or wasn't better group member than solo artist) and bring points about whether I thought you said Queen were F+B (which has nothing to do with whether Fred was or wasn't better group member than solo artist), but it's not OK for me to go off-topic? Double standards." No, it's not double standards at all. Firstly, nobody is telling you what youn want or not. One can however reasonably presume what you mean based on what you write. If you write it in a discussion, I will respond to it, and I noted that you didn't so much as respond to what I was saying as make a point about something I had never said.
The thing about the 'alone' discussion is that we spent a tremendous amount of time defining what alone is, when the whole thing started because I compared the solo work of Freddie and Brian to their group work. It's like if we had a discussion about the best footballers in the world, which you started, and I spent much of the time debating whether or not soccer is really football. Instead of responding to your statement that Maradona was the greatest, I entered a definitional debate. I might care whether Maradona was a soccer player or footballer, but it's not relevent to what you said. The same goes for me and what alone means.
" So why bother replying to me? There are loads of people who don't agree with me but respect my views (or anybody's who may differ with their own), and can have healthy debates; there are also loads of people who don't agree with me and simply stay clear from anything I write (scrolling down is not that hard, is it?. You could choose one of those options instead of wasting your valuable time with someone who, according to you, 'is impossible'." Sebastian, you can turn this into a 'she doesn't respect me or other differing views', except that this not what this about. The truth is I do respect you (although I'm not sure if you respect me, but no matter), and I enjoy having debates with you, but debating with you isn't always so healthy. This post of yours is an example why.
" "I also recently finished another, longer, post on another discussion (with you) which had finished a while ago, but because of the timing, I'm still debating whether to post it, message it or trash it."
"It's completely your choice." I'll think about it. However quite frankly, I don't think it's worth it. You will never admitt that you're wrong, and if it's going to be like this discussion, it's not worth the trouble.
"If you want respect, you've got to give it too. I haven't speculated on what you want or don't want, and as such, I deserve the same." Interpreting what people say is not the same as speculating on what they want or don't want, and respect has othing to do with this. If I misinterpeted you, explain why, but don't make this into my telling you *what you want. Also, you could cease misinterpreting others.
*Unless, my telling you want you want or don't want does not mean mis/inerpreting you, in which case, I have no idea what you're talking about.
""Forgive me if I express my annoyance at some of the things that you say. Sorry, Sebastian, but if you say something that incredibly annoys me, I will mention it."
"Which means I also have the right to call your attitude 'ridiculous' if it strikes me as so." Go for it.
" Which means I've also got the right to reply to your messages if they're including or implying a direct attack or offence to me." No-one has said you didn't have the right. In fact, contrary to what you might think, your rights to do almost anything on this site has (I imagine, since I haven't been here as long as you have) never been threatened. I don't think that 'rights' are really an issue here.
" Which means I've also got the right to copy and paste a reply if it's exactly the same." And I have the right to express my annoyence.
"Sure, and as so, I also have the right to call your attitude 'ridiculous' if it strikes me as so. Which means I've also got the right to reply to your messages if they're including or implying a direct attack or offence to me. Which means I've also got the right to copy and paste a reply if it's exactly the same." No comment.
Amazon
""It is not relevent, because we were debating about whether or not Freddie is a better group member than a solo artist. "
"Does it mean I shouldn't write about anything different? If so, then why are you writing about what I want (which is not related to it), what I allegedly implied you said about F+B (which is not related to it) or whether I use stock answers or not? Are you the only one who's got the right to go off-topic?" If you truly believe that my responding to your comment about the members of Queen and my commenting on your use of stock responses is the same as your debating the meaning of the word 'alone'; we clearly have a different perception of reality.
" "Why don't you just write down the same stock response to all of my comments? It might save us both alot of time and effort."
"Why don't you just ignore all my responses? It might save us both a lot of time and effort. " There is only one person on this board I'm ignoring. I would rather not ignore you (or anyone else, apart from that one person), although if you want to ignore me, that of course is up to you. Note though that I'm not the one who started this discussion, so if you want to 'save time and effort', you are perfectly entitled to not respond to me in future.
""How mature of you, as usual, to throw back I said to you at me."
"How mature of you, as usual, to judge other's attitudes as if you were beyond that." Oh please.
""Yet another stock response."
" For yet another stock comment." Except it wasn't. It was the first time, I made that comment.
"* Pretend to get me to act as you want me to." I'm not telling you how to act. You can pretend that I am if you want though.
"* Point out off-topic comments from me as wrong or invalid or pedantic, etc. when you've made the same yourself." You can believe this if you want, you can believe whatever you want, since you clearly will anyway.
""Another stock response."
" For another stock comment." You got me. For the first time in who knows how long, I've used a stock comment.
"Does it mean I shouldn't write about anything different? If so, then why are you writing about what I want (which is not related to it), what I allegedly implied you said about F+B (which is not related to it) or whether I use stock answers or not? Are you the only one who's got the right to go off-topic?" If you truly believe that my responding to your comment about the members of Queen and my commenting on your use of stock responses is the same as your debating the meaning of the word 'alone'; we clearly have a different perception of reality.
" "Why don't you just write down the same stock response to all of my comments? It might save us both alot of time and effort."
"Why don't you just ignore all my responses? It might save us both a lot of time and effort. " There is only one person on this board I'm ignoring. I would rather not ignore you (or anyone else, apart from that one person), although if you want to ignore me, that of course is up to you. Note though that I'm not the one who started this discussion, so if you want to 'save time and effort', you are perfectly entitled to not respond to me in future.
""How mature of you, as usual, to throw back I said to you at me."
"How mature of you, as usual, to judge other's attitudes as if you were beyond that." Oh please.
""Yet another stock response."
" For yet another stock comment." Except it wasn't. It was the first time, I made that comment.
"* Pretend to get me to act as you want me to." I'm not telling you how to act. You can pretend that I am if you want though.
"* Point out off-topic comments from me as wrong or invalid or pedantic, etc. when you've made the same yourself." You can believe this if you want, you can believe whatever you want, since you clearly will anyway.
""Another stock response."
" For another stock comment." You got me. For the first time in who knows how long, I've used a stock comment.
Sebastian
> if in a post about the 1958 World Cup, you said that Pele and Garrincha were incredible, and I said that the 1958 Brazil World Cup winning team was more than Pele and Garrincha, do you really believe that I would have made the comment withour responding to your comment directly?
Honestly, I wouldn't think about the reasons you had to post the comment. I would either tell you that the team was indeed more or it wasn't. And I agree with you: it was much more than Pelé and Garrincha.
> Otherwise, what's the point?
The point is stating that the team's not just two people. Which is perfectly valid.
> The truth is I do respect you (although I'm not sure if you respect me, but no matter), and I enjoy having debates with you, but debating with you isn't always so healthy.
Which is why it's up to you whether to bother replying or not, especially if you don't think it's healthy.
> You will never admitt that you're wrong, and if it's going to be like this discussion, it's not worth the trouble.
I do admit I'm wrong and I've done so many times. So in this case your claim is axiomatically incorrect.
> There is only one person on this board I'm ignoring. I would rather not ignore you (or anyone else, apart from that one person), although if you want to ignore me, that of course is up to you.
You've given me no reason to ignore you. You've given me reason, however, to think you'd be much more comfortable ignoring me than not ignoring me. But of course, it's up to you.
> Note though that I'm not the one who started this discussion, so if you want to 'save time and effort', you are perfectly entitled to not respond to me in future.
Ditto.
Honestly, I wouldn't think about the reasons you had to post the comment. I would either tell you that the team was indeed more or it wasn't. And I agree with you: it was much more than Pelé and Garrincha.
> Otherwise, what's the point?
The point is stating that the team's not just two people. Which is perfectly valid.
> The truth is I do respect you (although I'm not sure if you respect me, but no matter), and I enjoy having debates with you, but debating with you isn't always so healthy.
Which is why it's up to you whether to bother replying or not, especially if you don't think it's healthy.
> You will never admitt that you're wrong, and if it's going to be like this discussion, it's not worth the trouble.
I do admit I'm wrong and I've done so many times. So in this case your claim is axiomatically incorrect.
> There is only one person on this board I'm ignoring. I would rather not ignore you (or anyone else, apart from that one person), although if you want to ignore me, that of course is up to you.
You've given me no reason to ignore you. You've given me reason, however, to think you'd be much more comfortable ignoring me than not ignoring me. But of course, it's up to you.
> Note though that I'm not the one who started this discussion, so if you want to 'save time and effort', you are perfectly entitled to not respond to me in future.
Ditto.
Amazon
Sebastian wrote:
"if in a post about the 1958 World Cup, you said that Pele and Garrincha were incredible, and I said that the 1958 Brazil World Cup winning team was more than Pele and Garrincha, do you really believe that I would have made the comment withour responding to your comment directly?"
" Honestly, I wouldn't think about the reasons you had to post the comment. I would either tell you that the team was indeed more or it wasn't. And I agree with you: it was much more than Pelé and Garrincha."
I find that odd.
"Otherwise, what's the point?"
"The point is stating that the team's not just two people. Which is perfectly valid."
I then went on to say "You mentioned that your comment was valid. and that you didn't post it to me directly. Well, why did you post it? I'm genuinely asking you." It still stands. If your comment was not in response to me, why would you make such a comment to a fellow Queen fan? (I wouldn't make the soccer comment to a soccer fan.) It just seems odd to me.
"The truth is I do respect you (although I'm not sure if you respect me, but no matter), and I enjoy having
debates with you, but debating with you isn't always so healthy."
"Which is why it's up to you whether to bother replying or not, especially if you don't think it's healthy."
I've enjoyed quite a number of the music-based discussions we've had. As I said, there is only one person I never respond to, no matter what, and while I don't love this kind of discussion, and I don't want this to go on forever (obviously it looks like it's nearing its end), I'm not going to cease discussions with you, if that is what you mean.
"You will never admitt that you're wrong, and if it's going to be like this discussion, it's not worth the trouble."
"I do admit I'm wrong and I've done so many times. So in this case your claim is axiomatically incorrect."
All I'm going to say is that after this, I'm not going to bring up history agin; if you are interested, you can message me, otherwise I'll just leave it at what I said and which I stand by. I don't have any hidden agenda here. If you're interested, you can message me; if you're not, and don't message me, this will be my last word on this.
"if in a post about the 1958 World Cup, you said that Pele and Garrincha were incredible, and I said that the 1958 Brazil World Cup winning team was more than Pele and Garrincha, do you really believe that I would have made the comment withour responding to your comment directly?"
" Honestly, I wouldn't think about the reasons you had to post the comment. I would either tell you that the team was indeed more or it wasn't. And I agree with you: it was much more than Pelé and Garrincha."
I find that odd.
"Otherwise, what's the point?"
"The point is stating that the team's not just two people. Which is perfectly valid."
I then went on to say "You mentioned that your comment was valid. and that you didn't post it to me directly. Well, why did you post it? I'm genuinely asking you." It still stands. If your comment was not in response to me, why would you make such a comment to a fellow Queen fan? (I wouldn't make the soccer comment to a soccer fan.) It just seems odd to me.
"The truth is I do respect you (although I'm not sure if you respect me, but no matter), and I enjoy having
debates with you, but debating with you isn't always so healthy."
"Which is why it's up to you whether to bother replying or not, especially if you don't think it's healthy."
I've enjoyed quite a number of the music-based discussions we've had. As I said, there is only one person I never respond to, no matter what, and while I don't love this kind of discussion, and I don't want this to go on forever (obviously it looks like it's nearing its end), I'm not going to cease discussions with you, if that is what you mean.
"You will never admitt that you're wrong, and if it's going to be like this discussion, it's not worth the trouble."
"I do admit I'm wrong and I've done so many times. So in this case your claim is axiomatically incorrect."
All I'm going to say is that after this, I'm not going to bring up history agin; if you are interested, you can message me, otherwise I'll just leave it at what I said and which I stand by. I don't have any hidden agenda here. If you're interested, you can message me; if you're not, and don't message me, this will be my last word on this.
Rubbersuit
I find Brian Wilson overrated.
He was a great songwriter/producer but I don't get the cult of Brian.
He was prone to writing terrible sappy overproduced music. He also rarely had anything to "say" in his songs. He'll produce a magnum-opus about how it would be "nice to be married". (Ok I'm oversimplifying, but I've never listened to a Beach Boys song and had to think about it's meaning).
Having said that, the Beach Boys were the premier surf-pop band. I downloaded the boxset and cherry-picked 25 songs that will forever be on my MP3 player, but all this talk about musical genius for the ages.... I'm not convinced.
He was a great songwriter/producer but I don't get the cult of Brian.
He was prone to writing terrible sappy overproduced music. He also rarely had anything to "say" in his songs. He'll produce a magnum-opus about how it would be "nice to be married". (Ok I'm oversimplifying, but I've never listened to a Beach Boys song and had to think about it's meaning).
Having said that, the Beach Boys were the premier surf-pop band. I downloaded the boxset and cherry-picked 25 songs that will forever be on my MP3 player, but all this talk about musical genius for the ages.... I'm not convinced.
Pim Derks
Yeah indeed, Queen songs had so much depth.
Radio Ga Ga
Radio Goo Goo
Radio Blah Blah
I Want It All
I Want It All
And I Want It Now
Don't Stop Me Now
Cause I'm having a good time
We Will We Will Rock You
Radio Ga Ga
Radio Goo Goo
Radio Blah Blah
I Want It All
I Want It All
And I Want It Now
Don't Stop Me Now
Cause I'm having a good time
We Will We Will Rock You