Well, you do a little bit. I remember that you worked in a pet store at that was a credential for your knowledge of exotice pets and what not, and several other things. Anyway. I don’t have a problem with that. I see nothing wrong with establishing your credentials. Doing so doesn’t really come off as dickish except if the next thing you do is attack somebody else for their lack of credentials. Then it comes off as real snobby asshole.
Well, not to be ironic or anything but the the above does kind of look like the establishing of a credential (I realize that this is one of those rhetorical ironies like saying “You deny everything!” you, of course reply “I do not!” thus proving my point.)
Let me apologize then. I’m not accusing you of doing anything, habitually. I’m just saying that in this one specific incident it seems to me that you came off as being of a dick in your heavy handedness, and a bit of a pretentious snob.
I agree. It was unusual. It’s why I decided to comment in spite of our history and I’m glad that you appear to take what I said at face value.
Dude, pay attention: No-one else thought Reality Chuck was being arrogant-ignorant.
I’m done with this; your self-absorption and egomania on this issue borders on the pathological. I look forward to seeing you in non-idiot mode in some other thread real soon.
lissener
One of the things that really bug me about your posts and can make you seem like a real jerk is the frequency of your posts.
Let’s look at the thread linked in the op.
You first post responding to Chuck is at 10:06am
you then post at
10:26 am
10:29 am
and again at
10:44 am
I think you would do better to compose your post completly. Look it over. Edit it. Then, hit the button.
However, I must point out that having heard more singers than another person, has no bearing on one’s ability to judge music or the musicality of music. How much do you know about singing itself? Can you hear when a person doesn’t hit a note? Being able to name a bunch of names, especially searching for one’s you know to be obsucre to most people, does not equal a great deal of knowledge about the quality of singing.
Another thing that makes you look like a ass is the fact that you are one.
All of your assertations that ‘I don’t mean to offend’, ‘that’s my personal reaction’ is total bullshit. You are an asshole.
I’m sorry but that’s my personal reaction, not ment to be insulting.
This is nonsense. We love people with knowledge. We hate people who use their knowledge like a weapon to belittle others, instead of using it to educate others.
I’m going to hold up this thread on jumpstarting a car as a shining example of how experts handle themselves in the face of “arrogant ignorance”. My contribution to that thread is nothing (i’m certainly not the expert), focus on 3 people in particular, DougC, Rick and GaryT.
DougC backs up a dumptruck full of incorrect information on jumpstarting and unloads it in a GQ thread. Information so bad that people could damage their cars if the advice were followed. He argued with Rick after Rick had performed an experiment using automotive test equipment to measure the effects of performing a jumpstart on a dead battery. He argued with two people who have 60+ years of professional automotive repair experience about one of the most basic tasks in auto repair.
He was still given more respect by those two experts than you gave to Chuck, and Chuck didn’t even argue with you. Rick and GaryT aren’t getting pitted for having informed opinions because they know how to act like gentlemen, even in the face of an ill informed, argumentative person. You and lissener don’t know how to act, you can’t control your emotions, which is why you get pitted.
lissener, if everyone in this thread is so ignorant-arrogant and nobody knows jack shit and everyone is just demonstrating their ignorance, why the hell have you posted here nine times already? (lissener might slip in a post or twelve between my count and when it gets posted. He gets quick when he’s fussy.) That was a rhetorical question (look it up), simply because I doubt you have a sensible answer.
Plus, look at the topic. Look at it. ‘Crooning bimboes of the past hundred years’ is hardly something to be proud of being an expert in, especially if you are over twelve. And you say you own how many CDs? No, don’t repeat it, we’re all capable of scrolling. (Another of those tricky rhetorical questions. You’ll get the hang of it.) I bet you never have to listen to any radio station that’s ever had anything approaching a professional DJ in the booth. Are the college kids on your favorite station as stoned as the college kids who work the campus radio over here? (This one you might think about answering.)
But those are just my personal reactions. I certainly don’t mean to offend any obsessive little junior mods.
This is beyond lame. Now the pitting has expanded to include lissener posting TOO MUCH in order to explain or defend himself? Is there a rule that if a doper is pitted they can only post so many times with a specific amount of time between each post? Someone ought to put that into the sticky. Pile-on=good. Pilonee posting too many times=bad. How fucked up is that?
No matter what’s been said IN THIS THREAD, I re-read the other thread and don’t think that either one of us said anything IN THAT THREAD that deserves a pitting or pile-on. The people who made blanket statements might deserve a pitting, but you’ll notice that neither one of us bothered. So, I conclude, some people have a hard-on for lissener and no matter what he does, it’s bad, because people will read into whatever he writes with their own prejudices, assigning “tones” and meanings that were never intended.
You’re probably one of those morons who make up Desert Island Disc lists and fill it will bands like Metallica and Ratt, and don’t include a single female artist, not realizing or caring that you’ve just consigned yourself, hypothetically-speaking, to LIVING THE REST OF YOUR LIFE NEVER HEARING A FEMALE VOICE. I used to think, “that’s so gay” (as in “homosexual,” not “bad” which is a usage that I despise) but then I realized that even most homosexuals wouldn’t want to live out their life never hearing a woman’s voice in any context. So yeah, it’s not gay. It’s creepy.
And as i said, i have never once before, to my knowledge, participated in a thread like this as a critic of lissener. And i think that the people who goaded him when he returned to the boards were bieng dicks. If it makes you feel better to think that all the criticism in this thread is the result of some irrational vendetta, knock yourself out, but wishing it don’t make it so.
Also, with your reference to intentions, you seem to have a problem appreciating the fact that one can sound condescending and arrogant without meaning to sound condescending and arrogant. I, and others in this thread, have already conceded that lissener may have intended no offence at all; but if this is the case, it might be worth asking why so many people seem to find his delivery so annoying and patronizing. If half the people i interacted with on a regular basis told me that i come off like a jackass in conversation, i’d at least start wondering if it might be prudent to make some adjustments.
Whoa, now it gets weird. What are you talking about please? What’s a desert island disc list? Plus, why would you think “LIVING THE REST OF YOUR LIFE NEVER HEARING A FEMALE VOICE” is gay? I thought you were a music genius. Don’t you know that Barbara Streisand and Cher are gay?
And no, I don’t have a hard-on for lissener and I don’t read into whatever he writes with my own prejudices, assigning “tones” and meanings that were never intended. This is the first and only time I’ve ever thought anything negative about him and it was solely because of THAT POST. Now, simmer down.
As an ignorant person, that list would be far more useful to me than being told that I’m ignorant. More useful still, would be specific information. Your posts 32 and 39 in the linked thread mention specific musicians by name, and that’s helpful.
Best of all would be specific, courteous refutations. When someone says that “[Crooning] is a dead form of music,” you fight ignorance much more effectively by quoting that line and saying something like, “Actually, there’s a vibrant community of folks keeping this form alive and enriching it–check out these three musicians, or this list of recommended CDs, or this website for some samples.”
When you do that, people learn from you.
When you tell people that they’re ignorant, they don’t.
No, I was not saying that he posted too much. Just too many times. It comes off as him ranting with each new post being, “And ANOTHER THING…” It also comes off that he is pissed and can’t let the subject go. I only recomended that he put it all in one post. That he should organize his thoughts better.
As far as his ‘tone’ that simply isn’t there. It is there.
That as plenty of ‘tone’ to it. Are you tone deaf?
It’s meant to be a mild pitting, but I’m a bit surprised at what seems to me like willful ignorance on the part of the pitee. As others have said, there’s almost no way that RealityChuck’s postings in that thread could be considered arrogant, unless you consider the fact that he has what he feels is a valid opinion arrogance.
Arrogance there? Nope. His feelings about The Four Seasons, and a list of examples of singers who support his opinion.
The response from Equipoise who says about “people” (a.k.a. Chuck) don’t listen to enough music and are ignorant to reality when it comes to music. Arrogance? Yeah, maybe a bit, or at least unfounded ire.
The, “oh, you’re ignorant… not that there’s anything wrong with that” backpeddling to somehow make the insult ok. You’re a stupid idiot, but then again, aren’t we all?
A fairly calm, concise response by Chuck, again, other than continuing to stand by his opinion (after being countered by nothing than accusations of ignorance), I don’t see how this is arrogant at all.
And we get into more of the “you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about, but I do. Of course, it’s not your fault that you don’t know much, but you should realise that compared to me you don’t.”
Arrogant? Absolutely.
And it continues through the rest of the thread.
The idea that RealityChuck was somehow being arrogant is being spun out of whole cloth, perhaps based on a knee-jerk reaction to anyone who has an opinion based on mainstream music? I don’t know, but the fact that you can continue to claim that there was arrogance in that thread coming from anywhere other than yourself is baffling.
I’d just like to re-emphasize that nothing I said, here or in the other thread, was intended to suggest that Chuck’s opinion was less correct than mine; I fully understand that many people do not like female vocalists (not that this is his position; only that I acknowledge a range of opinions on the subject). I only meant to point out that it was uninformed. Again, I shared my experience of the subject not to make my opinion more valid–which I did not express in that context–but to put the possible range of informedness in perspective. If you think I’m lying about that, fine, whatever. But my “tone” aside, it should be pretty clear that I was carefully distinguishing between how informed Chuck’s opinion was, and whether it was “right” or not, which I did not–and would not–address.
The more you repeat this, the more clearly it seems that you’re avoiding what the majority of people actually have an “issue” with - that the format of your reply:
… was presented in fashion that was not only perceived as arrogant, but could actually be considered counterproductive. I know that by the time I got to the end of the second paragraph, whatever point you were going to make had lost credibility. You might very well be right about that point, and that counts for something, obviously. That said, it probably serves you to know that in order to increase the value of what you are saying, it could be communicated in a better way. It is this point, which you’re failing to acknowledge, that has caused this thread to continue on the way it has.
Dude, establishing credentials on a factual issue is different. Even though I avoid doing that most of the time too, it’s at least reasonable. I would never expect my “credentials” to certify my opinion, on a matter of opinion. which is what I’m being accused of . Even on factual matters, if I can’t offer a third-party cite, I try to make it clear that I am not offering incontrovertible fact, but an informed view on a factual matter. That is the extent to which I have offered my credentials. If I have time to find a cite, I don’t mention my “credntials” at all, because I know it’s asking for a pile on. The fact that I worked in a pet store for eight years, and had thousands of man-hours selling dog food to thousands of other dog owners, and discussing their experiences with them, and had personally tried at least a dozen different brands on my own dogs–how does mentioning those facts in a thread about dog foods make me a dick? If it does, then I just give up.
Again, if someone is gonna spout arrogantly about a subject they know nothing about, I’m probably gonna react to that. Especially if it’s something I DO know something about, obviously. Cracks me up that Chuck spouting ignorantly gets a pass, but me going “Chuck’s spouting ignorantly”–and then daring to back up that assertion–gets a pile on. What. Ever.
So . . . what’s your point here? By telling you how often I DON’T offer my credentials, that makes me someone who makes a habit out of offering my credentials? I really should just stay out of this, sit back and let you swallow your own tail.
I’m of two minds: who cares? and: Show me the heavy handed. I tempered my tone pretty rigorously. I’m know for my tone deafness, so there’s a big margin for error, but I would really like to see the phrase that said “heavy handed” to you. Considering what I COULD have said; what my emotional reaction is to people who are so dismissive of things they’ve obviously made no effort to learn anything about. It’s a pet peeve. Considering that, I was remarkably moderate in my reaction. In my expert opinion.
“I only joined the pile on to point out how unjustified it was.”
To clarify, this is what struck me as arrogant. No question I could have been reading too much into it, but this is what I was reacting to.
To me this says, “There are not many women who were great singers.” THis is a baldly ignorant statement, in my opinion. This is an expression of an extremely limited worldview, and possibly indicative of very narrow experience on the subject. To say further that “Joni Mitchell, Joan Baez, Tori Amos are ***the few ***that come to mind,” emphasis added, is further indication, to me, of a limited experience of the subject. To speak so definitively, and dismissively, while indicating a narrowness of experience, is what I was reacting to.
Now, if he’d said, “Yeah I know, Kate Bush, Debbie Harry, Chrissie Hynde, Polly Jean Harvey, et al., heard em, don’t like em,” I’d never have batted an eye. I get that some people don’t like some vocalists, and while I would not have shared that opinion, I would not have read it as arrogant, or ignorant.
The thing is, you could react to it without, well, reacting to it. You could have said, “Have you listened to Kate Bush, Debbie Harry, Chrissie Hynde, Polly Jean Harvey? In my opinion, they’re fantastic singers. Here are a few links to snippets of their music; what do you think?”
That would share your breadth of experience without being insulting. It would enrich the conversation. And nobody would perceive you as arrogant for making specific suggestions–on the contrary, they’d view you as a valuable resource for knowing about and recommending good female vocalists.