|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.120.18.199
In Reply to: RE: Let's be fair and factual. That was my "suggestion" posted by Analog Scott on November 16, 2015 at 13:51:35
Follow Ups:
did you read the post or just the header?
Did you read mine and the post it was responding to? Once again your excitement to argue is causing you to misread and/or imagine things.
If you're going to make a claim about something I said, use a quote.
Dave
It's no wonder you don't see the humor in Chris's posts. Clearly you are missing the humor in mine.
Are you saying that your suggestion that I wasn't being fair and factual was an attempt at humor?
Dave
First layer. Parody. Posts are structured and delivered as to mimic typical argumentative forum posts so i am making fun of that sort of thing on these forums in general.
second layer. Shock humor/absurdist humor silly humor. The content itself was absurd and silly. And was presented to emphasize that.
third layer. Irony. The posts are also ironic because along with being silly, shocking/offensive if taken at face value and absurd....they are also factual.
Hope that helps. But i hate explaining humor since it kills all the funny.
Fair and factual.
You said to Chris..."Whatever your intentions are, it doesn't change the content of your posts.
And suggesting women performers wish to be called "hotties" most definitely equates to cat calls."
Fact. **I** was the one who asserted that young classical musicians prefer to be called hotties and hot instead of babes. Not Chris.
Fairness. It is technically unfair to criticize someone for saying something they did not say
The layer of humor...Parody
Me structuring a response to that mistake on your part in the typical fashion of audio asylum forum arguments. It was not a serious critic of your misattribution of my assertion that young classical musicians prefer to be called hot or hotties rather than babes.
Same thing goes for me criticizing you for your anti construction worker comments. That was pure parody. I'm not really worried that you may have offended the "many" construction workers following this thread. Nor am I worried about sexist attitudes towards construction workers.
Hope that helps.
Hope you can see the humor injected into this post as well.
Thank you for using the quote. You'll notice that it doesn't include words that suggest I was claiming that Chris said that, because I didn't. You read that into it all by yourself because you are so anxious to argue.
Dave
"Thank you for using the quote. You'll notice that it doesn't include words that suggest I was claiming that Chris said that, because I didn't."
Gosh, you did say that in a direct response to one of Chris's posts. If you weren't saying it to Chris who did you think you were saying to? By the way, that question is directed at you Dave Smith. apparently that level of specificity is needed for your understanding even when directly responding to your posts.
"You read that into it all by yourself because you are so anxious to argue."
Anxious to argue? I have already explained to you twice that those posts were parodies of typical audio asylum forum arguments and not actual arguments.
I just have to ask though (and for the record this question is for you, David Smith, just for the sake of clarity {and humor that you probably won't get [again (that includes these multiple brackets of sub explanations)]}) Who were you addressing this comment to if it wasn't Chris?
Your words directly posted to Chris's previous post.
"as you seemed to find out with bald2's mention of "kiddie porn". Whatever your intentions are, it doesn't change the content of your posts.
And suggesting women performers wish to be called "hotties" most definitely equates to cat calls."
Who is the "you" in that comment if it isn't Chris? Why mention that "And suggesting women performers wish to be called "hotties" most definitely equates to cat calls." if you were not attributing that comment to Chris?
For the record the above questions are for you, David Smith. Just for the sake of clarity. (for the record this statement of clarity is for the sake of sarcasm {a form of humor})
Like I said, I knew trying to explain these things to you would be a waste of time.
This comment is for Chris if he happens to be reading these posts.
Are you counting the layers?
If you lost track of that I can't imagine what it must be like to follow the layers of bizarre rationalizations David is laying down in trying to somehow deny that he appeared to have mis-attributed the use of the word "hotties" to you.
All that over a joke he didn't even get....
If you lost track of that I can't imagine what it must be like to follow the layers of Bullshit David is laying down in trying to somehow deny that he appeared to have mis-attributed the use of the word "hotties" to you
If you read the below post, written by Chris, you will find the following words that he wrote;
"For someone to equate this with the cat-calls of construction workers clearly shows that that person doesn't have a clue about the relative direction from which these behaviors originate."
to which I responded in my post by saying
"And suggesting women performers wish to be called "hotties" most definitely equates to cat calls."
Nowhere did I suggest he said it.
Get it now?
Dave
why did you bring that specific word, "hottie" up to Chris in a direct response to *his* post if you didn't think *he* said it?
Here is the entire exchange on the subject of "cat calls" between you and Chris
Chris: "Despite what you perceive as my "trying too hard", I assure you that my babe posts arise from a lighthearted attitude about the whole babe phenomenon in the classical music business. For someone to equate **this** with the **cat-calls** of construction workers clearly shows that that person doesn't have a clue about the relative direction from which these behaviors originate."
David: "as **you** (Chris) seemed to find out with bald2's mention of "kiddie porn". Whatever **your** (Chris's) intentions are, it doesn't change the content of **your** (Chris's) posts.
And suggesting women performers wish to be called "hotties" most definitely equates to cat calls.
"And even older women can look good too - it seems as if **you've** (Chris) forgotten my OP on this thread already! ;-)"
It's always about how they look for **you,**(Chris) one way or the other."
Seriously (And for the record I am not joking here), you are now trying to say that you arbitrarily slipped in the "hotties" subject in the dead middle of making very specific criticisms of things **Chris** says about "classical music babes" despite knowing that Chris never said that? Why would you do that? Do you really really believe that your response to Chris as quoted above does not look clearly like you were attributing the hotties comment to Chris?
This is starting to remind me of the "John Marks is a fraud" incident.
"why did you bring that specific word, "hottie" up to Chris in a direct response to *his* post if you didn't think *he* said it?"
Because HE brought up "catcalls", an obvious reference to my post to you.
"Seriously (And for the record I am not joking here), you are now trying to say that you arbitrarily slipped in the "hotties" subject in the dead middle of making very specific criticisms of things **Chris** says about "classical music babes" despite knowing that Chris never said that?"
There was no "slipping in", let's review - HE brought up my construction workers comment (arbitrarily..). He tried to suggest that it was in response to him, which it wasn't. He said, "for someone to equate *THIS* with catcalls...", "this" being his own comments, and I hadn't said that. So I reiterated what I HAD said because of his attempted distortion. I did leave a space on both sides of that comment to show it was separate from the others. You then come along and attempt the same distortion. NOWHERE did I suggest that he made that comment, despite both his attempt and yours to distort what I did say.
Dave
"Because HE brought up "catcalls", an obvious reference to my post to you."
How is it in ANY way an "obvious" reference to your post to me regarding the word hotties? Here is what Chris said when *he* brought up "Cat calls"
Chris: "Despite what you perceive as **my**(Chris) "trying too hard", I assure you that ***my babe posts***(Chris's BABE POSTS) arise from a lighthearted attitude about the whole babe phenomenon in the classical music business. For someone to equate ***this*** ("THIS" clearly, clearly a pronoun used for the established noun "BABE POSTS") with the cat-calls"
So what should actually be obvious to anyone with a reasonable grasp of the English language is that Chris is clearly talking about *his Babe posts* being equated with "Cat-calls." No mention whatsoever of "hotties" in Chris's post. A post that is clearly and unambiguously talking about *his babe posts* being equated with "cat-calls."
Soooo the question stands, why did *you* bring up "hotties" in your response to Chris if you were not attributing that to him? Clearly your explanation that Chris was referencing me talking about hotties is plainly wrong.
Is John Marks a fraud? ;-)
"So what should actually be obvious to anyone with a reasonable grasp of the English language is that Chris is clearly talking about *his Babe posts* being equated with "Cat-calls."
No shit!!!
As I said in the post directly above, that is exactly how I read it and because I DIDN'T say that I restated what I DID say (in reference to "hotties as opposed to his posts), because I objected to him attempting to put words in my mouth.
Dave
Here is the current argument you are having with yourself
David Smith version 1: "Because HE brought up "catcalls", an obvious reference to my post to you."
David Smith version 2: "No shit!!!" (aparent agreement with the following)"So what should actually be obvious to anyone with a reasonable grasp of the English language is that Chris is clearly talking about *his Babe posts* being equated with "Cat-calls."
just to help mediate this argument you are having with yourself and to make sure you understand you.... If Chris is specifically and clearly talking about **his babe posts** being equated with "cat-calls" he clearly is NOT referencing your post to me. That post makes no reference whatsoever to "hotties" and in fact my post about "hotties" actually was made about 3 hours **after** your post to me. There is no connection.
So which David are you going with? Version 1 or version 2? At this point this is kind of like a rubix cube and I feel compelled to solve it.
I enjoy puzzles.
"That post makes no reference whatsoever to "hotties" and in fact my post about "hotties" actually was made about 3 hours **after** your post to me."
The post to you that I have been referring to all along was in response to your post mentioning "hotties", where I asked if you work in construction. Chris's post about catcalls was made after that one. So I have no idea what post you're talking about 3 hours before your "hotties" post, it has no relevance here whatever it is.
Dave
Why do you think he used the term "catcalls", which otherwise doesn't previously appear anywhere in this thread?
As I said, again...., I read that term in a post to me as a clear reference to my post to you, but with a distortion as my comment was not directed at him.
This is all such a stupid exercise, as I said a million posts ago I don't, wouldn't and didn't attribute "hotties" to him. That is my position and always has been. You'd like to argue in the hopes of suggesting that in one post I did actually do that, though none of my words suggest it, for who knows what satisfaction you get out of it. And you'll argue at least another 30 posts I'm sure. I will not stand for people distorting what I said whether it's you or Chris. I don't know how I could possibly be more clear, Chris seemed to accept that at the first post. If Chris's "catcalls" comment wasn't in reference to my post to you, I'd love to hear why he used that term, but I'd happily accept that he was telling me about someone ELSE equating his posts with catcalls, as odd as that would seem. In any case, I have no need for distorting anyone's words.
Such silliness.
Dave
That may very well be the way you meant it. It was hardly obvious to those of us who reside outside of your head.
Either way it was meant as a joke about who brought the word hotties into the conversation.
Sooooo much of this thread has been about making fun of the subject. If you are taking it all seriously I am genuinely sorry for the misunderstanding. I assure you that all of my comments have been meant to be fun, funny and in a few cases informative but none of them have been meant to be malicious towards you, other posters or women in general. I guess it is the nature of internet forums that such humor often falls between the cracks and posts are taken way too literally and waaaaaay too seriously.
I have no doubt that you are nice and decent guy who loves music as much as the rest of us and would be a cool dude to hang around with. I think maybe you and I and you and Chris just don't get each other in this format of communication.
Now as for my comment that the young good looking women I personally know who are classical musicians preferring to be called hotties or hot rather than babes I'd like to address a few points.
1. It was meant to be funny and ironic on it's face. Of course one might find it offensive if one is not getting that intention. I thought *that* was obvious. I guess it wasn't.
2. It is particularly ironic because it is also actually true. This is actually how they talk. It is current jargon among young folks these days. I assure you that telling a young attractive women that she is hot or calling her a hottie when done in the right context with the right level of personal familiarity is not degrading or objectifying. And most importantly it isn't taken that way by these young ladies. It's banter that actually happens without anyone being offended or feeling objectified. It is actually a compliment.
Believe me, the banter gets an awful lot more risque and downright offensive were it taken seriously. Calling one another hot or hottie is just scratching the surface compared to other things said in fun.
Regarding your "hotties" post I did not see previous use of that on this thread so yes, missed the reference/humor and my apologies for that.I think you are right about this form of communication.
As for part 2 I am familiar with women, including a number who are notable performers. I am also quite familiar with how they feel about discussions of their looks accompanying discussions of their playing, particularly those that are considered more attractive. Of course the context matters a great deal and a compliment is worlds different than repeated experiences of their looks being mentioned and attached to any comments about their playing or career, a la "babe thread". While they probably wouldn't take offense to playful use of the term "hottie" from a personal friend, guys on an internet forum, not so much.
I appreciate the post, as in most cases I think we could get along fine in person, it's odd that it's so much different on the internet.
Dave
Edits: 11/17/15 11/17/15 11/17/15
As explained by Key and Peele and the very talented writer Rich Talerico.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naleynXS7yo
Bling Binzy and D Struggle agree on one thing
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: