From: cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy)
Subject: Re: Fam Dolglgurg (Was: Huh? (Was: How old am I?))
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 13:59:59 GMT
Organization: A Suffusion of Yellow

In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug12120051@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
|> <In article <1992Aug11.151419.5719@dg-rtp.dg.com> cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy) writes:
|> <   ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes: 
|> <   | <In article <1992Aug9.213309.2862@dg-rtp.dg.com> cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy) writes:
|> <   | <   ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes: 
|> <   | <   | 
|> <   | <   | [Some old sodkicker fusses about youngblondemung not knowing
|> <   | <   |  who Dan Fogelberg is. I asks:]
|> <   | 
|> <   | <   You asks? I'd'a thunk you *knowed* by now.
|> <   | 
|> <   | 	Nope. Got better thangs to do than try to figger
|> <   | 	out what hasbeen you is writin' about.
|> 
|> <   So, why did you *just* post something asking me again who he is?
|> 
|> 	Because I had not read any answer from you?

So you chose to followup to the post twice. Any particular reason?

|> 	Y'know, Jing, when I ask a question it's usually
|> 	so's I can get an informational answer. 

Well good!  That's why most people ask questions.  I'm glad you've grasped
*that* concept, anyway.

|> 	Unfortunately for you, others have already responded
|> 	to the question.

Yes, I feel very put upon.  Incidentally, this should tell you the others
know what I'm talking about, and are only trying to enlighten you.

|> <   | 	Not even close, dude. Y'all back east don't
|> <   | 	talk to good, y'know?
|> 
|> <Damn, gotta get the updated revision of my "English/Clueless" dictionary.
|> 
|> 	Please do at your earliest convenience. Your "clueless"
|> 	text is most difficult.
|> 
|> 	Consider writing in English, won't you?

You include a phrase like "don't talk to good" and ask *me* to write in
English?

You know, I once got into a very long discussion with Messrs. Banta and
Miller about the use of slang and personal attacks and how it weakens their
arguments, but I believe that I have discovered the source of much of their
inspiration.

You're an idiot.  Further evidence below.

|> <   | 	Gee, if he keeps it up another decade or so, Flang
|> <   | 	Bingleblort might have as long a "composing/singing"	
|> <   | 	career as, oh, Wayne Newton...and probably many of
|> <   | 	the same fans. You know, the spandex-pants-and-
|> <   | 	blue-hair brigade?
|> 
|> <   Yeah, the Stones, or the Grateful Dead, or any of another dozen artists
|> <   of the era who are still around.  
|> 
|> 	Gee, Jing, din't you just write in another post that 
|> 	Dingldorgle hasn't been heard from for 17 years? 

No, I don't think I did.  I said that his first hit was 17 years ago, his 
last one was 8 years ago.  When I said "this was 17 years ago", it was
in response to your reference of "this generation".

Pay attention.

|> 	And din't someone else fess up that he was "a 70's
|> 	artiste"? 

Yep.  He was also an '80's artist.

|> 	Now, just *when* did the Rolling Stones first cut records?
|> 	Seems to me that the Stones & the Dead are quite a bit
|> 	*older* than Dorfendung, which means they ain't from
|> 	the same era, unless you are using "era" in geological
|> 	terms.

Huh?  Why do you go from "hasn't been heard from since" to "when they 
*first* cut records"?  Those dates are years apart, for *all* of the
groups mentioned. If career "A" goes from 1960 to 1990, and career "B"
goes from 1970 to 1980, then the two careers are from the same era, for
at least part of the time.

And, as always, you completely missed the point.  You were obviously trying
to make some humorous allusion to "artists" such as Wayne Newton and 
"easy listening", and attempting an incredibly weak argument that the length
of the career has something to do with that.  I was simply pointing out
other artists who do not fit in the "spandex-pants-and-blue-hair-brigade"
that have had lengthy careers.

Try to stay focused on the subject, won't you?

|> 	Furthermore, I hear cuts from the Stones and the Dead
|> 	on the radio all the time....the fact that I *did* 
|> 	*not* *know* who Dung Fungleborg is sorta points
|> 	up just how long-lasting his "art" is, now don't it?
|> 
|> <Let's see where today's groups are in
|> <9 years.  Not only will the youth of that time be saying "Who is
|> <   Metallica?", but the people who are listening to them *today* will either
|> <   have forgotten or will be too embarrassed to admit that they actually
|> <   listened to them.
|> 	All probably true. So what? How does the lousy quality
|> 	of Metallica prove diddly squat about the "greatness"
|> 	of Fand Bolbeborn?

Nothing.  *You're* arguments are all focused around the length of someone's
career as it applies to their "art", which is sort of like an argument
focusing on the age of red wine as it applies to the gustatorial pleasures
of Twinkies.

Now let me explain this to you.  One has nothing whatsoever to do with the
other.  I made the mistake of trying to bring the discussion down to your
level, and now realize that you don't understand your own logic any more
than anyone else does.  Henceforth, if you need definitions of any of the
big words that I may use, just let me know and I'll pass them along.

|> <   | 	I'm sure that some of his "greatest
|> <   | 	hits" are available still, on CD's with titles
|> <   | 	like "Dentist Office Greatest Hits" and "Favorite
|> <   | 	Tunes of the Elevator", right?
|> 
|> <   Peeve: People who form opinions about things, attempt (in their own
|> <   little nugatory fashion) to blast them, after admitting that they know
|> <   absolutely nothing about them.
|> 
|> Peeve: people who are fans of losers and won't admit that they are.

Peeve: People who think that their own narrow definition of what's good makes
everything else fall into the category of "loser".

|> <   | <I've never been a *huge* fan of his
|> <   | <myself, because I went through a phase in which *any* artist that ever
|> <   | <got airplay on a pop station was beneath contempt, in my opinion, and because
|> <   | <he did mostly ballads and love songs 
|> <   | 
|> <   | 	HAH! I'm right and you're not! Ding Krommmlblort
|> <   | 	is one of them "sensitive" PreNewAge whiny dorks.
|> <   | 	I bet his stuff gets a LOT of airplay on the "mellow
|> <   | 	sound" or "gentle rock" or whatever the NewAge name
|> <   | 	for EZ Listening is.
|> 
|> <   Yeah, just like Peter, Paul and Mary, the Turtles, the Mamas and the Papas,
|> <   and a bunch of other no-talent, no-names that you've probably never heard
|> <   of.
|> 
|> 	EARTH TO JING!
|> 	EARTH TO JING!
|> 
|> 	Are you implying that Don Finglegorp was a
|> 	"colleague" of PPM, the Turtles and the Mamas
|> 	and the Papas????

Have you *ever* recognized a point other than the one on your head?  No,
I'm implying that you can hear all of these groups on "soft rock" stations,
and by your definition above, that makes them all "'sensitive' PreNewAge
whiny dorks".

What are the entrance requirements at NMSU?  There are other people from
that august institution that post here that actually seem to be able to
maintain a consistent flow in a discussion.  Is there a special program
there for reasoning impaired?

|> 	If so, that means that either Dang Fangleblrg was a
|> 	recording artiste in the 1960's or Cass Elliott
|> 	was recording music 17 years ago......
|> 
|> 	Either one of which indicates you should "check
|> 	your medication"....and your calendar.

Perhaps you should have waited for the answer above before you made this
leap of logic as a conclusion.  Using the "arguments" that you're using,
I could conclude that because I read about Abraham Lincoln and Martin
Luther King in the same history book, that makes them contemporaries of
each other.

Does NMSU offer an "Intro to Logic 101" course?  I'd strongly recommend it
before you get out into the real world and have to explain to people why
you have all of those notes written on the back of your hands.

|> <   | MEGAOBPEEVE: Easy Listening, Part II. Music for OLD people.
|> <   | 
|> <   | 	Music for old hippies to listen to, while they wonder
|> <   | 	where their Rogaine is. Music for ex-Boston fans
|> <   | 	to listen to while they sip the one glass of white
|> <   | 	whine (no, I did NOT misspell!) or one can of "lite"
|> <   | 	beer the Old Lady will let them have...and wonder 
|> <   | 	if they can get it up tonight (or this week).
|> 
|> <   Another Rogaine reference? 
|> 
|> 	Yup. A generic one, addressed to "OCCUPANT". 
|> 	
|> 	Did you see your name on it?
|> 
|> 	No? 
|> 
|> 	Then how come you feel that letter is for you?

Well, gosh Wally, maybe it was because it was a followup to something *I*
posted.  Nothing too mysterious for most people to understand here.

|> < I would say that you're slipping here, but it's
|> <  really no more than anyone would expect from you.  Oh, and the ploy of an
|> <  ad-hominem attack is just as good as admitting that the wet paper bag you've
|> <  been trying to fight your way out of has gotten the best of you.
|> 
|> 	Funny, I don't recall directing the above text at
|> 	you....however, if you feel it applies to you,
|> 	well, strap on that Dr. Sholl's sandle, old shoe. 

Funny, the only two names I see at the top of this post are mine and yours.

Peeve: Little boys who duck and cover when they're caught standing next to the
broken lamp.

Gee Nosy, I hope you don't think the above line was directed at *you*.

|> <   | <while I was listening to "21st Century
|> <   | <Schizoid Man" through headphones while under the influence of something
|> <   | <that is yet another hot thread in this newsgroup right now. 
|> <   | 
|> <   | 	You were under the influence of a newbie from Mitre?
|> <   | 
|> <   | 	HOOOOOOEEEEEEE! That's a hot one!
|> 
|> <   Now *this* is funny!  
|> 
|> 	Of course it is!
|> 
|> <Who told you what to write here?
|> 
|> 	Sigh. I've explained before how these gems simply
|> 	are born from my Zeus-like brow.....

"Zeus-like" meaning "mythical" in this case, I presume.

|> <   | <Still, to 
|> <   | <refer to him as you did above is to do the man a gross injustice.
|> <   | 
|> <   | 	Not gross enough. He's just another one of them 70's
|> <   | 	whiners. Did he get a job with "Prarie Home Compartment"?
|> 
|> <   How do you know?  
|> 
|> 	How do I know what, that he's another 70's whiners?
|> 
|> 	Because I now have heard one of his "recordings"
|> 	offline...at the house of an individual who never
|> 	throws anything away.
|> 
|> 	Although he's tossing one record into the "flea market"
|> 	bin ASAP...
|> 
|> 	Guess which one?

So this tells me that you choose friends who, like yourself, confine the 
sum total of their taste to their mouths.  So what?

|> <   | ObPeeve: the 70's pseudofolkies that mutated into NewAge.
|> <   | 
|> <   | 	 Their albums usually had names like "DayBreak"
|> <   | 	 or "SunGlow" or some such crapola, usually	
|> <   | 	 with some oh-so-sensitive narrow-ranged tenor
|> <   | 	 whining while accompanied by a guitar, flute
|> <   | 	 and synthisizer. 
|> 
|> <   I can go along with this, except for the "synthisizer" [sic] part.
|> 
|> 	Synths have been around since the 1970's, Jing. 
|> 
|> 	You remember the 1970's; back when Darn Flowerpot
|> 	was popular?

Yeah, I also remember how to spell "synthesizer", Carpbrain.

Yet another point that you missed (see the reference to "You're an idiot",
above).

Assuming that someone in your special program of study may ever actually
have to write a paper, you might find this handy:

sic - (adv.) [L.] thus; it is so; in a quotation, used within brackets in
order to call attention to the fact that the quotation is literally given,
though containing an error or misstatement.

|> <Don't know what this has to do with the subject at hand, though.
|> 	It's rather obvious, if you can read and understand
|> 	simple sentences.

Sentences I have no problem with.  Logic that says that all "soft rock"
artists are now "pseudfolkies that mutated into NewAge" escapes me 
completely.

|> <   |          Bah, humbug. 
|> 
|> <   OOOhh!  A *literary* reference.
|> 
|> 	Yup. I often include them. Now, why didn't *you*
|> 	notice them before?

Because it's been years since I've read anything by Dr. Seuss.

+--------------------------------------------------+
|Dave Cochran, Data General Corporation, RTP, NC   |
|cochran@dg-rtp.dg.com                             |
+--------------------------------------------------+
|The meaning of the complement form of a switch    |
|can be determined by complementing the meaning    |
|of the switch.                                    |
|                     --Ada Reference Manual       |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.peeves