Village Idiots and a Sound Mind

[Musicology]

It is not so much that we have been ignorant and grossly misinformed on virtually everything. It is much worse. It is that we of a basically sound mind (by virtue of having common sense between our ears) have never been encouraged to open the curtains to allow criticism and cross-examination of what we are taught and of what we believe.

'If the village idiot says the bell has fallen from the steeple, and comes dragging the bell behind him, well....'

(Preface to book on the money/banking system - 'Creature from Jekyll Island' - G. Edward Griffin)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRNRXpjSmJw

[Vonny]

It is not so much that we have been ignorant and grossly misinformed on virtually everything. It is much worse. It is that we of a basically sound mind (by virtue of having common sense between our ears) have never been encouraged to open the curtains to allow criticism and cross-examination of what we are taught and of what we believe.

I haven't watched the videos, but I'm with you 100%.

Eventually, I'll watch some of these videos.

[Vonny]

I didn't know you well, but this seems a loss to me. :frown5:

I don't understand why it was so important to certain people to eliminate you.

[Gorki]

I agree. It's not about being cynical. Cynicism and criticism. A cynic is a person whose outlook is scornfully and often habitually negative. A critic tries to throw light on things which are objectionable.
I feel that most people in the world are either damn nincompoop, absent minded fellows,who are utterly blind in their approach or are as cynical as hell. People must be shrewd and clever with sound judgment and must not behave like village idiots.

[Gladys]

Even, or rather especially, among intellectuals there is an overwhelming tendency, for a multiplicity or reasons, for sheep to follow sheep. The lone voice of dissension is usually wrong, or substantially wrong, or perhaps the sole witness to the truth.

I too find the perennial mocking of the views of Musicology a lame response to divergent and courageous thinking.

[stlukesguild]

Gladys, let's get real here and look at this courageous "thinking":

Robert would have us believe that Mozart, Haydn, and early Beethoven composed nothing of any worth. Rather, the whole of their oeuvres were produced by some consortium or vast conspiracy involving the Catholic Church, the Freemasons, the Illuminati or some such nonsense. He would have us believe that the masterminds behind this conspiracy were so brilliant that they were able to create the illusion of each of these composers maturing stylistically and they were able to compose works for each individual composer that is stylistically unique (ie. Mozart's work doesn't sound the same as Haydn's). He has named composers as the probable creators of these masterpieces... composers who never composed anything under their own name as good as that which he would have us believe they composed for Mozart. He would then have us believe that this vast conspiracy has escaped the whole of Musical academia... including the true musicologists who would certainly be sure of gaining a cushy professorship at a fine college if they could prove that just one of Mozart's or Haydn's major works was indeed composed by another.

But this is not enough. Robert would have us believe that a similar conspiracy exists behind the literary works attributed to Shakespeare and Goethe; he would have us believe that the Moonlanding was similarly manufactured/faked, and he has put forth arguments as to the intentional staging of 911 and the destruction of the World Trade Towers. These are but a few of his pet "conspiracy theories".

Such does not amount to divergent... let alone "courageous" (I almost spit out my drink at that:smilielol5:) "thinking". Lunacy comes closer to the mark. The fact that so many dismiss Robert's comments suggests that there are more members at LitNet with some modicum of rational, logical, thinking ability than some of the responses to the "Are you normal?" thread suggest.

[Vonny]

I knew that Musicology's conspiracies were ridiculous -the specific conspiracies he came up with anyway.

For instance, the moonlanding being faked. I reject this conspiracy because I know somehow that the moonlanding occurred. Where I live this is a favorite conspiracy among Christians because they want to discredit science, and they want everyone to believe that evolution is a farce and that the earth is 4,000 years old.

But,

Stluke: He would have us believe that the masterminds behind this conspiracy were so brilliant that they were able to create the illusion...

The question for me is, would they do it if they could? Do they have motivation to create a conspiracy? Are they committed to being ethical and moral? Is it their priority to provide us with correct information even if it would go against their agenda?

Take this one, for example -

"...he has put forth arguments as to the intentional staging of 911 and the destruction of the World Trade Towers."

The important thing to me isn't whether or not this specific incident was a conspiracy.

For me, the question is, "Does the motivation exist to do something like this?" And, "Would it provide the catalyst that would lead to an outcome they desire?"

The question isn't, "Did it happen?" or "Could it happen?" The question for me is, "Would they do it if they could?"


And if we are all well-conditioned to look right past all signs of something like that because we would be recognized as insane or stupid, and become a :smilielol5: laughing-stock if we did see a conspiracy, then if a conspiracy did occur, no one would recognize it; certainly no one would ever report it.


And is it impossible that a conspiracy could occur? If one did happen would it be okay to notice it?


Some horrible things are going on in our world that could possibly lead to our extinction, so I think it isn't irrelevant to ask, "Oh my God, what's really going on?"


Personally if I see clear signs of a conspiracy, I'm going to say, - "That looks like a conspiracy to me. Call me stupid." - For instance the campaign to convince us that we need way more stuff than we need, which I see as a form of a conspiracy. Call me crazy, but I have no credit card debt or any kind of debt. I have a savings. ...conservative with a little "c" here.

[XQZ]

That depends by what you mean by debt, Vonny. If the U.S. owes 9 trillion dollars and the population by last December is 311625221 - then you owe the rest of the world 28,880 dollars

[Vonny]

That depends by what you mean by debt, Vonny. If the U.S. owes 9 trillion dollars and the population by last December is 311625221 - then you owe the rest of the world 28,880 dollars


Yeah, I know. We can laugh all the way to the bank, can't we?


That's why when Musicology said things such as, "People have their heads stuck in the sand like birds," I knew he wasn't an idiot.


I don't know about the conspiracies he came up with, which have to do with music, and so forth, maybe he was just being entertaining.


But he wasn't stupid. And I think maybe he was so upset at what's going on today that he was willing to sacrifice himself.


I think he was being bizarre, trying to get our attention. He wanted people to open their minds and start thinking.

[Lokasenna]

Even, or rather especially, among intellectuals there is an overwhelming tendency, for a multiplicity or reasons, for sheep to follow sheep. The lone voice of dissension is usually wrong, or substantially wrong, or perhaps the sole witness to the truth.

I too find the perennial mocking of the views of Musicology a lame response to divergent and courageous thinking.

Allow me to add my two cents.

I've no problem with 'divergent and courageous thinking', as you put it - though like StLuke I'm inclined to believe that Robert's ideas are wrong.

My main issue with him was not the quality or direction of his theories, but the fact that he was unfailingly unpleasant. Right from his first appearance on the forum, any attempt to enter into a constructive debate (surely a key aspect of divergent and courageous thinking?) was answered with a torrent of abuse. It was really vile.

So, yes, I mocked him. But my reason for doing so was that I was simply returning the sentiment. I'm sure most people who mocked him on here feel the same way. Perhaps it is a flaw in my personality, but I cannot simply sit there and take abuse - I will answer it, and I believe that I have the right to answer it.

[Vonny]

Allow me to add my two cents.

I've no problem with 'divergent and courageous thinking', as you put it - though like StLuke I'm inclined to believe that Robert's ideas are wrong.

My main issue with him was not the quality or direction of his theories, but the fact that he was unfailingly unpleasant. Right from his first appearance on the forum, any attempt to enter into a constructive debate (surely a key aspect of divergent and courageous thinking?) was answered with a torrent of abuse. It was really vile.

So, yes, I mocked him. But my reason for doing so was that I was simply returning the sentiment. I'm sure most people who mocked him on here feel the same way. Perhaps it is a flaw in my personality, but I cannot simply sit there and take abuse - I will answer it, and I believe that I have the right to answer it.


Okay, I'm glad he's gone then. I didn't realize that he was truly abusive! At first this was what I saw, but then I thought that I had misread it and he was just being dramatic.

It will take me longer to figure out what's going on here with this forum.


I am entirely against personal abuse. This to me comes before what "they" are doing with conspiracies, or whatever. Enough said.

[Emil Miller]

In some ways I am sorry that Musicology has gone, because apart from the circumlocutory and therefore seemingly unending posts about Mozart, he did introduce other threads which were sometimes very amusing. Once he managed to get past Mozart, they came thick and fast as though they had been waiting to break out all along. The belief that the universe revolves around the Earth and his repeated reference to Bach's music clearly indicated a religious motivation for his ideas and they may similarly motivate other proponents of so-called conspiracy theories which they have every right to hold. Nevertheless, he did try the patience of the moderators and upset some members by his attitude and thereby brought about his own exclusion from the forum.

In saying that, there are some peculiar elements to the Moon landings and as for 9/11, let George W Bush have the last word: 'Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories....'

And let Mandy Rice-Davies have the final word on GWB: "Well he would say that wouldn't he?"

[stlukesguild]

Stluke- He would have us believe that the masterminds behind this conspiracy were so brilliant that they were able to create the illusion...

Vonny-The question for me is, would they do it if they could? Do they have motivation to create a conspiracy? Are they committed to being ethical and moral? Is it their priority to provide us with correct information even if it would go against their agenda?

OK. Is there an agenda? What could be gained by faking Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven's music... creating these 3 giants of music history? Robert wanted us to believe that is was to create a great German/Austrian music industry that would take the dominance of classical music away from Italy and place it within the German Empire. The reality is that the German states were already producing the greatest body of classical music prior to Mozart: J.S Bach and Handel were the two greatest composers of the Baroque and in their own present a rather unassailable due... but we might add to theseJohann PachelbelMichael Praetorius, Heinrich Schutz, Samuel Scheidt, Johann Schein, Sylvius Weiss, Dietrich Buxtehude, Heinrich Biber, Jan Zelenka, George Telemann, Johann Hasse, and a good many more... all among the leading composers before Mozart.

But then let's accept Robert's notion that the Germans wished to dominate music even further. My first question would be, "does the end justify the effort". The effort need to pull off such a conspiracy and maintain it until today would have been quite challenging... and costly to maintain. And for what? To control what music industry? The money involved in the composition of music at that time was negligible at best. Even today, the money involved in classical music pales next to that of popular music. I would be more likely to believe that Elvis and John Lennon's death's were staged as part of a conspiracy to promote their record sales.

Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that Robert was unable to prove his argument and repeatedly avoided tackling any question that seriously challenged his theory. We repeatedly asked:

* How is it that a group of composers could compose a body of music that maintains enough stylistic coherence that it could be recognized as Mozart's or Haydn's?

* How did this group of composers write a body of music that maintained the stylistic elements of the individual composer (ie. Mozart's music doesn't sound like Haydn's) while still exhibiting the growth and maturity of the individual composers? This is surely brilliant. A conspiracy that composes a body of music for Mozart in which the early works are immature while the later one are absolutely stunningly brilliant.

* How is it that the composers who were the supposed ghostwriters of Mozart's and Haydn's music never wrote anything under their own name that was near as good?

* How is it that no musical experts or musicologists takes any of this seriously when it would assure him or her of a cushy professorial position for life if it were only partially true?

* How is it that Robert doesn't question the musical genius of Bach, Monteverdi, Schubert, Wagner, etc...?

In response to any of these questions, rather than address the doubts of non-experts (just think what a musicologist with access to real documentation might achieve) Robert ignored the questions and instead bombarded us with pages of supposed quotes (often in French or Italian) which he cut and paste from whatever sources, and then challenge us, in a rather condescending manner to prove these quotes wrong... to prove that Mozart did write this or that particular piece. The fact that the burden of proof lies upon the individual who challenges accepted history completely evaded him.

Take this one:

"...he has put forth arguments as to the intentional staging of 911 and the destruction of the World Trade Towers."

The important thing to me isn't whether or not this specific incident was a conspiracy.

For me, the question is, "Does the motivation exist to do something like this?" And, "Would it provide the catalyst that would lead to an outcome they desire?" The question isn't, "Did it happen?" or "Could it happen?" The question for me is, "Would they do it if they could?"

Why are the facts not important to you? Isn't what COULD have happened and how it might play into the hands of others rather secondary to what DID happen? Certainly, the US government COULD have staged 911. Yes, it would have played well into the fear-mongering that the Neo-Cons thrive on and into the swinging public opinion toward an invasion of the Middle-East in order to control the oil. But then again, the US government COULD have staged Pearl Harbor, and the British and American governments COULD have acted in tandem in sinking the Lusitania in order to push American public sentiment toward the war against the Germans in WWI.

There is a difference, however, between burying one's head in the sand, and looking for boogey-man under every bed. Divergent thinking demands that one think critically... that one honestly weigh the facts on either side of a dispute. This is where Robert's arguments were dishonest. He had no intention at getting at the truth... weighing the facts. Any contrary fact or doubt was swept aside and the individual voicing such was taken to task for burying his or her head in the sand, like an ostrich; compared to sheep or lemmings, whose intelligence was repeatedly called into doubt.

And is it impossible that a conspiracy could occur? If one did happen would it be okay to notice it?

Certainly conspiracies are always POSSIBLE. Critical thinking, however, demands that we not assume something as fact simply because it COULD HAVE HAPPENED.

Personally if I see clear signs of a conspiracy, I'm going to say, - "That looks like a conspiracy to me. Call me stupid." - For instance the campaign to convince us that we need way more stuff than we need, which I see as a form of a conspiracy.

Is that a conspiracy... or is that simply what individuals and corporations do... attempt to convince us that we want/need their products. Ultimately, I don't NEED more than food, shelter, and a few other basics. But I want my books, art, music... my car, occasional visits to the opera, the art museums, etc... I don't think there's a conspiracy there because those who are providing the goods and services I want are quite open about the fact that they want to sell me... you... and others their product/service.

...let George W Bush have the last word: 'Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories....'

Brian... the primary reason that I would immediately reject a conspiracy involving G.W. Bush and 911 is the fact that he was simply too stupid to have thought of it, too stupid to have pulled it off, and too much of a smirking buffoon to have gotten away with it without having to let the cat out of the bag.

[Vonny]

In saying that, there are some peculiar elements to the Moon landings and as for 9/11, let George W Bush have the last word: 'Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories....'

And let Mandy Rice-Davies have the final word on GWB: "Well he would say that wouldn't he?"


Emil, this part of your post is exactly what I was trying to say.


And also, I want to say this. If a person is abusive, I think it's best not to mock or banter or engage with that person, because that confuses the issue. This can turn into what appears on the surface to be mutual abuse where you end up taking half of the blame. This I have learned after many years of experience.

It's best just to say: "This person is abusive." Or if you're not sure, you can ask: "Is this person being abusive?" I remove myself from anyone who is abusive - The only exclusion being my mother. To her I repeat like a broken record, "It is very difficult for me withstand your emotional abuse." And I leave it at that.

Also, it is not a flaw in anyone's personality to refuse to sit there and take abuse.

I know a woman/girl who is 23 years old. A guy hooked up with her because he wants to be supported while he goes through college. This is clear to me. (Actually, I don't talk with her anymore because she changed jobs, but I know that she is still with him.) I would overhear her phone calls with him, and also she talked with me about it. This guy wanted to be out with his buddies and spend very little time with her. He wanted to be out camping and hiking and hunting and he didn't want her to go with him. So how did he stop her from going? He told her that she was too fat to keep up with the guys! She couldn't go because she was too fat and slow to keep up! And she wasn't that much overweight! This really, really hurt her feelings and she would cry to him about it, but he wouldn't say anything reassuring to her. This girl Kristin had had a very doting father, and she simply could not recognize that this guy was abusing and using her! She couldn't spot it. ...His tactic was simply that the easiest way for him to get rid of her (while at the same time get her to pay for the outing with his friends) was to convince her that it was her fault that she couldn't go with them. This guy convinced her that he was better than she was, and it made her want to keep him all the more. In a few years there will be nothing left of Kristin's spirit. She won't know who she is anymore. But the flaw I see in her is that she really wanted this guy based on his appearance. His tough-guy image, his beard, and so forth was more important to her than how he treated her.

And sometimes when you're being abused you have to stand up for your rights. (For me, this doesn't usually do any good, so I just try to leave the situation. And I always ask myself, "Is this a battle worth fighting?") It's best to ask yourself, "What is the most effective way to handle this?" Usually staying composed and keeping your responses very brief and deliberate is the best way. It's best to avoid making statements that they can contradict or throw back at you in any way.



Stluke: I've just written this and I see that you've replied to me, so I'll return and respond more completely in an edit.

Just a couple of things now that I see from your post: Yes, George W. was very stupid but he was a puppet. And who knows, maybe he did let the cat out of the bag but it slipped past us because we underestimated him, thinking he was only stupid.

Also, why is it that in every supermarket all of the sugary junky cereals are on the bottom shelves in line with little kids' vision. Maybe the right word isn't conspiracy, exactly.

Okay, regarding Pearl Harbor. I believe there is a possibility that the intelligence/surveilance was there and there may have been some time to warn the troops. I think it's a question we have to ask. What did happen? Now, I'm a fan of FDR. But he really wanted to enter the war. He was looking for a way in. It was in our country's interest to be a part of the war so that we could be a part of the peace, as far as how to divide Europe without everything falling to the Soviet Union. So it's possible that FDR, or whoever the power was, (probably FDR because he wasn't a joke like GWB) looked the other way when he saw this coming. But I'm sure he didn't foresee the disaster that it would become. He thought it would be only a skirmish. I'm not saying this is what happened, but it's a possibility.

And why am I a fan of FDR when it's possible he may have done some of these things? I don't know.

I understand that Musicology was dishonest and abusive now. I didn't know anything about him really.

And the facts do matter, but first you have to open your mind and ask, "What may have actually occurred?"

And I'm always looking for boogeymen. If it weren't for spiders, especially the horrible Hobo Spider species, I'd have my mattress on the floor.

Finally, Stluke, I want to say that I do not have your critical thinking skills :lol: I freely acknowledge this. So it's a good thing you're here, even if I initially missed the humor in that remark you made to me!

[Venerable Bede]

Okay, regarding Pearl Harbor. I believe there is a possibility that the intelligence/surveilance was there and there may have been some time to warn the troops. I think it's a question we have to ask. What did happen? Now, I'm a fan of FDR. But he really wanted to enter the war. He was looking for a way in. It was in our country's interest to be a part of the war so that we could be a part of the peace, as far as how to divide Europe without everything falling to the Soviet Union. So it's possible that FDR, or whoever the power was, (probably FDR because he wasn't a joke like GWB) looked the other way when he saw this coming. But I'm sure he didn't foresee the disaster that it would become. He thought it would be only a skirmish. I'm not saying this is what happened, but it's a possibility.

I have never been able to take a Pearl Harbor conspiracy seriously. Why would the US allow their navy to be destroyed right before a war that was all centered on naval combat?

[Emil Miller]

...let George W Bush have the last word: 'Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories....'

Brian... the primary reason that I would immediately reject a conspiracy involving G.W. Bush and 911 is the fact that he was simply too stupid to have thought of it, too stupid to have pulled it off, and too much of a smirking buffoon to have gotten away with it without having to let the cat out of the bag.

I have to agree with you but, at the risk of seeing yet another of Musicology's threads closed, I was thinking of the power behind the throne and his extremely profitable connections with Halliburton and in particular those concerning Iraq. Of course, it might all just be coincidence but on the other hand it might not.

[Vonny]

I have never been able to take a Pearl Harbor conspiracy seriously. Why would the US allow their navy to be destroyed right before a war that was all centered on naval combat?

I'm not saying this is what happened Venerable Bede. It's probably like the Moonlanding, something that doesn't need questioning because we know what happened.

Mostly, I have no idea what I'm talking about. Sometimes I feel that I'm just here driving Stlukes to begin anti-psychotic medications himself.

Since I've come to LitNet I realized, "Wow, it would be really nice to know something." Maybe one day I can learn something, when I reach the point where everything I read or hear doesn't become all jumbled in my head.

[stlukesguild]

why is it that in every supermarket all of the sugary junky cereals are on the bottom shelves in line with little kids' vision. Maybe the right word isn't conspiracy, exactly.

That's just marketing. The same reason that products like milk and bread... things we might need to pick up in the middle of the week... are placed the farthest from the entrance forcing the customer to walk through the whole store and past endless displays. Its also the same reason candy is placed at the check out in hope of the impulse purchase.

Okay, regarding Pearl Harbor. I believe there is a possibility that the intelligence/surveilance was there and there may have been some time to warn the troops. I think it's a question we have to ask. What did happen? Now, I'm a fan of FDR. But he really wanted to enter the war... I'm not saying this is what happened, but it's a possibility.

FDR was very close with Winston Churchill and certainly wished to play a more active role in supporting the English in the European theater of WWII. I don't think we can say, however, that he wanted to enter the war. The United States was completely unprepared for war. The German army was vastly superior in terms of training, experience, equipment and leadership. The Japanese had a better trained and experienced army and air-force, far superior airplanes (the P-40 "Flying Tiger" and the F4F "Wildcat" were garbage in comparison to the vastly more maneuverable and faster Japanese Mitsubishi "Zeros"), and a larger navy. As the Venerable Bede suggests, the very idea of willingly sacrificing our entire Pacific Fleet of battleships as part of a conspiracy is beyond ludicrous. Had the Japanese rallied an invasion force the entire West Coast of the US would have been incredibly vulnerable. The only thing that saved our *** was the fact that there was such a distance between both Japan and Germany and the US making the US a safe haven to rapidly construct and mobilize a vast war machine.

And I'm always looking for boogeymen. If it weren't for spiders, especially the horrible Hobo Spider species, I'd have my mattress on the floor.

:smilielol5:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

...let George W Bush have the last word: 'Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories....'

Brian... the primary reason that I would immediately reject a conspiracy involving G.W. Bush and 911 is the fact that he was simply too stupid to have thought of it, too stupid to have pulled it off, and too much of a smirking buffoon to have gotten away with it without having to let the cat out of the bag.
:smilielol5::iagree:

And Musicology was a troll, pure and simple. It wasn't his theories that got him banned; it was his attitude. Still, I miss him. He was hilarious.

[G L Wilson]

And Musicology was a troll, pure and simple. It wasn't his theories that got him banned; it was his attitude. Still, I miss him. He was hilarious.

It seems that no-one spoke to him reasonably, therefore don't think for an instant that you are squeaky clean.

[Calidore]

It seems that no-one spoke to him reasonably, therefore don't think for an instant that you are squeaky clean.

On the contrary, some did. Didn't matter much, though.

[G L Wilson]

On the contrary, some did. Didn't matter much, though.

The man knew that he would be singled out for his beliefs, and how right was he? As to abuse, if I punch you in the head - that's abuse!

[Vonny]

It seems that no-one spoke to him reasonably, therefore don't think for an instant that you are squeaky clean.

I get what you're saying G L, and I really do. Actually, I did speak to him reasonably.


But I realized that squeaky clean is a Christian trait that has been deeply instilled into my bones.

And the Bible says nothing about cleanliness is next to Godliness.

And I think Jesus said it's not the inside of the bowl being clean we need to worry about? Or was it the outside?

It's Saturday night (I think) and I know better than to come here when I've been drinking.

I have to admit, I still prefer the clean stuff.

And please, no punching.

[stlukesguild]

It seems that no-one spoke to him reasonably, therefore don't think for an instant that you are squeaky clean.

How does one "reasonably" speak to someone who is unreasonable if not irrational?

[OrphanPip]

FDR was very close with Winston Churchill and certainly wished to play a more active role in supporting the English in the European theater of WWII. I don't think we can say, however, that he wanted to enter the war. The United States was completely unprepared for war. The German army was vastly superior in terms of training, experience, equipment and leadership. The Japanese had a better trained and experienced army and air-force, far superior airplanes (the P-40 "Flying Tiger" and the F4F "Wildcat" were garbage in comparison to the vastly more maneuverable and faster Japanese Mitsubishi "Zeros"), and a larger navy. As the Venerable Bede suggests, the very idea of willingly sacrificing our entire Pacific Fleet of battleships as part of a conspiracy is beyond ludicrous. Had the Japanese rallied an invasion force the entire West Coast of the US would have been incredibly vulnerable. The only thing that saved our *** was the fact that there was such a distance between both Japan and Germany and the US making the US a safe haven to rapidly construct and mobilize a vast war machine.


FDR had deliberately antagonized the Japanese, likely with the intention of getting involved in the war, which he had trouble organizing popular support around. He probably didn't expect the Japanese to retaliate on such a scale. The US was already actively involved in escorting and providing military support to the Allies, and had already worked out war plans with the Allies prior to the Pearl Harbor attack.

He was probably hoping for something more along the line of losing a single vessel, like the sinking of the Lusitania during WWI, that could be used to rally popular support.

[G L Wilson]

It seems that no-one spoke to him reasonably, therefore don't think for an instant that you are squeaky clean.

How does one "reasonably" speak to someone who is unreasonable if not irrational?

Well, you don't junk him up with juice and drop him off to sleep for one thing. You have silenced a voice for now but tomorrow it might be a book in a fire, and then a person. Don't think that it couldn't happen, it very well could.

[Vonny]

FDR had deliberately antagonized the Japanese, likely with the intention of getting involved in the war, which he had trouble organizing popular support around. He probably didn't expect the Japanese to retaliate on such a scale. The US was already actively involved in escorting and providing military support to the Allies, and had already worked out war plans with the Allies prior to the Pearl Harbor attack.

He was probably hoping for something more along the line of losing a single vessel, like the sinking of the Lusitania during WWI, that could be used to rally popular support.

Not sure how relevant this is, (or how true) but I've heard the U.S. can't really take credit for winning WWII. The Soviets had a HUGE army, and they just bombarded and bombarded Germany on its eastern side. The Soviets would've probably smashed the Germans before long.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It seems that no-one spoke to him reasonably, therefore don't think for an instant that you are squeaky clean.

Where did I say I was squeaky clean? Quit making assumptions. It's no surprise you'd defend him, though. You two have much in common.

[stlukesguild]

G L Wilson-It seems that no-one spoke to him reasonably, therefore don't think for an instant that you are squeaky clean.

SLG-How does one "reasonably" speak to someone who is unreasonable if not irrational?

Well, you don't junk him up with juice and drop him off to sleep for one thing. You have silenced a voice for now but tomorrow it might be a book in a fire, and then a person. Don't think that it couldn't happen, it very well could.

You can't really be that clueless. You have been here less than a month while the debates with Robert/Musicology have been going on for over a year if not quite a bit longer. Robert came here after having been banned at nearly every online music forum (I knew him from several music sites years before he arrived at LitNet) on the web as a result of promoting his Mozart Conspiracy theory and then insulting anyone who challenged him as being close-minded, blind, ignorant, having their head buried in the sand, etc...

He survived here so long because the administration and moderators are quite lenient. No one here attacked or sought to ban Robert, although I and several other members did challenge his theory. Perhaps you assume that daring to question of debate another individual is somehow the same as "silencing a voice" or "burning a book". Really... that was a pathetic analogy, and a rather insulting one for someone who hasn't the slightest idea what the hell the entire debate with Robert entailed.

Initially, the majority of the members here (as well as several members coming from various music sites to put forth their view on the debated issue) challenged Robert's theories in the most polite manner. Robert, however, repeatedly ignored any of our questions which might have thrown a degree of doubt upon his position, and instead bombarded us with aimless documentation, challenged us to prove what is accepted history (Do I need to "prove" that the world is round to one (Robert) who believes it to be flat?). When pressured upon a given point of fact, he would become snide, sarcastic, and abusive.

In spite of all this he remained a member here at LitNet, as I noted, for a year or longer until recently he burst forth with an entire range of new conspiracy theories: that the Moonlanding was staged, that Goethe and Shakespeare wrote nothing that was attributed to them, that the earth was flat, that the vapor trails of jet airlines are actually chemical trails made by military jets spreading mind-controlling chemicals over us, that 911 was staged by the US government, etc... etc... Eventually his conspiracy theories and his blatant lies caught up with him. Robert claimed to have studies music at a major British music school but then it was found that the school denies that he was ever a student let alone a graduate. He then insisted that he meant another school... which it turns out never existed. A great many of the Wikipedia articles on Mozart or various other composers that he sited as proof of his argument turn out to have been written by him and rapidly removed by the Wiki editorial staff. Repeatedly Robert was discovered inventing a new persona... another member... who would act as Robert's cheerleader ("Brilliant Robert... how insightful!...")

No one "silenced" Robert. His own behavior led to his being banned from LitNet, but undoubtedly he posting his endless rants on Mozart elsewhere on the net. A simple Google search employing the terms "Robert Newman Mozart" will turn up an endless array of his ramblings.

[G L Wilson]

Well, he sounds as mad as a hatter. I wonder what his story is like. Oh, that's right, I can't hear it because he is banned! You may think that you are a saint in all this, stlukesguild, but I smell a rat; in fact, several.

[Calidore]

Well, he sounds as mad as a hatter. I wonder what his story is like. Oh, that's right, I can't hear it because he is banned! You may think that you are a saint in all this, stlukesguild, but I smell a rat; in fact, several.

Of course you can, via the Google search he suggested. Also, Robert/Musicology's threads here (including this one) haven't been deleted. Don't take anyone's word for it; read for yourself. Stlukesguild speaks sooth.

The main problem wasn't Robert's out-there theories, but the fact that he refused to engage in honest debate; rather, he bullied and bludgeoned like a propagandist, ignoring specific evidence of his mistakes put right in front of his eyes while claiming to have lots of facts and evidence that he never produced. Being given the former or asked for the latter resulted in sarcasm or outright abuse, depending on his mood.

The only question, which he alone knows the answer to (if he does), is whether he's being deliberately dishonest for whatever reason, or whether he's truly incapable of seeing anything contradicting his mindset, as a color-blind person is incapable of seeing red and green.

Regardless, banning is much more often a defensive act, as now, than offensive. If you can't help someone, you can at least protect your own.

[iamnobody]

Whatever happened to, "Just ignore it if you don't like"-Serious Cat?

[G L Wilson]

Of course you can, via the Google search he suggested. Also, Robert/Musicology's threads here (including this one) haven't been deleted. Don't take anyone's word for it; read for yourself. Stlukesguild speaks sooth.

The main problem wasn't Robert's out-there theories, but the fact that he refused to engage in honest debate; rather, he bullied and bludgeoned like a propagandist, ignoring specific evidence of his mistakes put right in front of his eyes while claiming to have lots of facts and evidence that he never produced. Being given the former or asked for the latter resulted in sarcasm or outright abuse, depending on his mood.

The only question, which he alone knows the answer to (if he does), is whether he's being deliberately dishonest for whatever reason, or whether he's truly incapable of seeing anything contradicting his mindset, as a color-blind person is incapable of seeing red and green.

Regardless, banning is much more often a defensive act, as now, than offensive. If you can't help someone, you can at least protect your own.

Now he is a danger to life and liberty, is he? He seems like a harmless old crank to me, it's the silent ones that are usually dangerous.

[Vonny]

Of course you can, via the Google search he suggested. Also, Robert/Musicology's threads here (including this one) haven't been deleted. Don't take anyone's word for it; read for yourself. Stlukesguild speaks sooth.

The main problem wasn't Robert's out-there theories, but the fact that he refused to engage in honest debate; rather, he bullied and bludgeoned like a propagandist, ignoring specific evidence of his mistakes put right in front of his eyes while claiming to have lots of facts and evidence that he never produced. Being given the former or asked for the latter resulted in sarcasm or outright abuse, depending on his mood.

The only question, which he alone knows the answer to (if he does), is whether he's being deliberately dishonest for whatever reason, or whether he's truly incapable of seeing anything contradicting his mindset, as a color-blind person is incapable of seeing red and green.

Regardless, banning is much more often a defensive act, as now, than offensive. If you can't help someone, you can at least protect your own.

You know, I had no idea of this until yesterday. I still can't believe I went around defending him. Sometimes I don't see the big picture. The first time I saw him attack, I saw it for what it was, but after that I got confused.

I absolutely agree that someone with this behavior should be banned, and should have been banned after the first... or certainly the second... outburst.

[G L Wilson]

You know, I had no idea of this until yesterday. I still can't believe I went around defending him. Sometimes I don't see the big picture. The first time I saw him attack, I saw it for what it was, but after that I got confused.

I absolutely agree that someone with this behavior should be banned, and should have been banned after the first... or certainly the second... outburst.

Verbal abuse doesn't count as abuse in my book. The West has been Christian for far too long.

[Vonny]

Verbal abuse doesn't count as abuse in my book. The West has been Christian for far too long.

Oh boy, I'll practice some impulse control. But I won't walk away from this one.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Now he is a danger to life and liberty, is he? He seems like a harmless old crank to me, it's the silent ones that are usually dangerous.
Where did he say he was a danger to life and liberty? Quit making things up. Also, I like how you accuse him of making a hyperbolic argument (which he didn't even make) after your book and person burning comment. :smilielol5:

I think we may have another troll on our hands. :nod:

[stlukesguild]

Verbal abuse doesn't count as abuse in my book.

Your book is irrelevant. The only book that counts in this matter is that of the user agreement and forum rules of this site which clearly prohibit the use of verbal abuse. Even outside of the context of this forum you may do well to recognize that verbal abuse IS abuse.

Where did he say he was a danger to life and liberty? Quit making things up. Also, I like how you accuse him of making a hyperbolic argument (which he didn't even make) after your book and person burning comment.:smilielol5:

Yes... he is edging ever closer to transgressing Godwin's Law which results in a complete loss of the debate and an undermining of the individual's reputation for a grasp of reason and rational thought:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

:hand:

[Gladys]

It seems that no-one spoke to him reasonably, therefore don't think for an instant that you are squeaky clean.


And Musicology was a troll, pure and simple. It wasn't his theories that got him banned...

But if he wasn't a troll! Then, Musicology like all others deserves our respect and courtesy in spite of his vanishingly improbable theories - and improbable does not always mean wrong. Since LitNet represents a wide range of backgrounds and beliefs, polite tolerance of others ought to be the norm. I did notice that some were responding to him with growing impatience or worse, which was bound to provoke unwise retaliation sooner or later. Why do some continue to post, aggressively, when a thread is so clearly lacking in substance?

I rarely responded to him because his theories seemed to provide so little in the way of substantial evidence. While interested in the musical history of Mozart, I found nothing worthy of a response as I followed Musicology's several threads on the subject. If nothing else, he was entertaining.

As for the growing attack on G L Wilson, I have found his terse posts unusually thought provoking. If he is a troll, he's certainly a clever one!

[Calidore]

Now he is a danger to life and liberty, is he? He seems like a harmless old crank to me

I believe, and believe I implied, the latter. I certainly didn't state or imply the former.



I think we may have another troll on our hands.



Yes... he is edging ever closer to transgressing Godwin's Law which results in a complete loss of the debate and an undermining of the individual's reputation for a grasp of reason and rational thought:


Jeez, guys, can I appeal to you both as a fellow Midwesterner to chill, please? (I don't know where you're from, G.L., but you too). Musicology's venom shouldn't outlast his presence.

[billl]

The only question, which he alone knows the answer to (if he does), is whether he's being deliberately dishonest for whatever reason, or whether he's truly incapable of seeing anything contradicting his mindset, as a color-blind person is incapable of seeing red and green.

Regardless, banning is much more often a defensive act, as now, than offensive. If you can't help someone, you can at least protect your own.

I think the "Oxford Christmas Display" thread sheds a little light on this.

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49298&page=1

If anyone isn't familiar, or has forgotten, take a look at the OP, skim though the arguing about whether the story is real or not, what the source might be, how each side is being ridiculous, and so on--in short a flame war--then check post number 81.

Consider, finally, if this was a reasonable way to debate an issue that might very well be worth at least a few posts back and forth. Wonder, if you wish, about whether Musicology might have been intentionally toying with people, or whether he might have had in fact had some sort of "problem". (And, might there be no difference?) Finally, check post number 84, and see how Musicology responded to the situation.

Troll, mind-f***er, or mentally ill person--Does it matter what Musicology was? I think it's fair to say that someone running a site (or someone trying to be a good-faith participant in discussions there) might conclude that such a person wouldn't be the best thing for an online forum, although Musicology was tolerated for quite some time.

[Vonny]

Musicology was tolerated here for quite some time, but it was a mistake if someone was being hurt, such as Lokasenna, which is what I understand from his two cents.

It shouldn't be tolerated because often a person who is receiving the abuse doesn't recognize the abuse. They only sense that they are being hurt somehow. And if an abused person doesn't understand what's happening they may not respond in the way we think they should, so they could do something to bring on more wrath. It's very easy to blame the victim.

No one should chill on that.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Gladys, that's a big "if," and since I do in all and complete sincerity think he was a troll, he doesn't deserve anything. Plus, as had been said time and time again, it wasn't his theories that pissed people off, it was how he interacted with others.

And I'm as chill as chill can be. :nod: What would indicate otherwise? I mean, G. L. is starting to exhibit troll behavior. It's just an observation.

[Vonny]

Gladys, that's a big "if," and since I do in all and complete sincerity think he was a troll, he doesn't deserve anything. Plus, as had been said time and time again, it wasn't his theories that pissed people off, it was how he interacted with others.

And I'm as chill as chill can be. :nod: What would indicate otherwise? I mean, G. L. is starting to exhibit troll behavior. It's just an observation.


Yes, it's a good idea to keep an eye out for those bogeymen.

[billl]

Ah, good. Next page.

[Vonny]

Ah, good. Next page.

Is this sarcasm? It's hard for me to identify some of this strange behavior.

billl, I think I remember you from one of the first threads I posted on, on this forum.

[G L Wilson]

Yes, it's a good idea to keep an eye out for those bogeymen.

And they usually turn out to be bogeymen too, all bluster and not a lot of bite. I was wrong about verbal fisticuffs being not all that bad, within forum rules it is completely out of bounds and it is relatively unseemly to boot. But all I know is that it takes two to tango, and the old guy being a fool was probably too rigid to stay the distance with a pack of hyenas whose only purpose on this forum for a time was to bring him down. Tell me that it didn't happen with this pattern pack mentality which is now so well established in sociology, I dare you. Lies and deceit, lies and deceit. Some people play the game so well, it almost convinces me.


Is this sarcasm? It's hard for me to identify some of this strange behavior.

billl, I think I remember you from one of the first threads I posted on, on this forum.

Vonny, Billl was only being stupid, he meant no harm. Stay with us, Vonny, you are travelling well.

[Vonny]

And they usually turn out to be bogeymen too, all bluster and not a lot of bite. I was wrong about verbal fisticuffs being not all that bad, within forum rules it is completely out of bounds and it is relatively unseemly to boot. But all I know is that it takes two to tango, and the old guy being a fool was probably too rigid to stay the distance with a pack of hyenas whose only purpose on this forum for a time was to bring him down. Tell me that it didn't happen with this pattern pack mentality which is now so well established in sociology, I dare you. Lies and deceit, lies and deceit. Some people play the game so well, it almost convinces me.


Bogeymen scare me.

[G L Wilson]

Bogeymen scare me.

They scare me too but I don't let the fear get to me. You mustn't fear so much all the time, Vonny, it is unhealthy. You can beat it, Vonny. Courage, courage. Speak your mind, Vonny. Courage, courage.

[Gladys]

But all I know is that it takes two to tango, and the old guy being a fool was probably too rigid to stay the distance with a pack of hyenas whose only purpose on this forum for a time was to bring him down.

Such colourful language, once again, but I am inclined to agree.


My main issue with him was not the quality or direction of his theories, but the fact that he was unfailingly unpleasant. Right from his first appearance on the forum, any attempt to enter into a constructive debate (surely a key aspect of divergent and courageous thinking?) was answered with a torrent of abuse. It was really vile.


Plus, as had been said time and time again, it wasn't his theories that pissed people off, it was how he interacted with others.

Musicology had been increasingly subject to sarcastic barbs from a few members, simultaneously across a number of threads. That his ideas are quite improbable is scarcely justification for blatant sarcasm. Only a saint would have kept his head in that situation. And I'm sure that Lokasenna, and others equally temperate, have copped gratuitous flack from him as a side effect of this sustained attack.

I feel sorry for him, and for the moderators who felt obliged to ban him. He's less a bogeyman than one who has decidedly eccentric views but lacks the resilience to ignore sarcastic attack.


I don't understand why it was so important to certain people to eliminate you.

You had it right the first time, Vonny!

[Emil Miller]

It is interesting that the ghost of not so dearly departed Musicology still haunts Litnet well after he abandoned the posts regarding his idée fixe of Mozart. Some of these subsequent posts have been almost as surreal as those of Musicology himself and might lead to the thread being closed if they continue, but whether we view him as being a persecuted voice in the wilderness or an irascible and unreasonable contributor, there isn't any doubt that he was given a very long rope with which to hang himself; in fact some members, including myself, appealed to the moderators to intervene in his absurdly protracted Mozart threads because they had become tediously predictable. Initial discussion of Mozart was challenging and relatively polite but there are few things more exasperating than constantly being referred back to the initial premise without reasonable evidence to back it up and that's why sarcasm and ridicule crept into the threads. Of course, the short answer was to simply ignore it anyway but it effectively took over the the sub-forum and prevented others from posting more genuine items.

[G L Wilson]

It is interesting that the ghost of not so dearly departed Musicology still haunts Litnet well after he abandoned the posts regarding his idée fixe of Mozart. Some of these subsequent posts have been almost as surreal as those of Musicology himself and might lead to the thread being closed if they continue, but whether we view him as being a persecuted voice in the wilderness or an irascible and unreasonable contributor, there isn't any doubt that he was given a very long rope with which to hang himself; in fact some members, including myself, appealed to the moderators to intervene in his absurdly protracted Mozart threads because they had become tediously predictable. Initial discussion of Mozart was challenging and relatively polite but there are few things more exasperating than constantly being referred back to the initial premise without reasonable evidence to back it up and that's why sarcasm and ridicule crept into the threads. Of course, the short answer was to simply ignore it anyway but it effectively took over the the sub-forum and prevented others from posting more genuine items.

To be attacked by a pack of passive-aggressives, what a dreadful fate! He must have been out of his mind with worry, right to the end.

[Emil Miller]

To be attacked by a pack of passive-aggressives, what a dreadful fate! He must have been out of his mind with worry, right to the end.

This is unwarranted sarcasm, unlike that directed at Musicology because of his insistence that his views were right without justifiable evidence to support them. I don't think he was at all worried what others thought, he was too self-centered to allow for alternative thinking.

[MarkBastable]

Musicology like all others deserves our respect


Funny thing, respect. Having been given it for nothing, you then have to earn it.

Musicology frittered his away faster than we could replenish it, and eventually we stopped giving him any.

[billl]

I feel sorry for him, and for the moderators who felt obliged to ban him. He's less a bogeyman than one who has decidedly eccentric views but lacks the resilience to ignore sarcastic attack.


I think it is pretty plain if you look at his threads that the earliest barbs came from Musicology. People would try to engage him, but--through either "character eccentricity" or ill-intent, he would just dance around and mock people, rather than deal with real discussion.

Whether this is a good sort of participant in a forum is something that the people running the site have to consider.

His obsessions over Mozart always led me to believe that he wasn't simply a troll--those threads seemed to be not at all concerned with the rest of us, and ignoring them was fine. But, near the end, he started roping people into ridiculous things with a flurry of new threads, and then presenting participants with the following deal: agree with me, or go away as I mock you. They were crap discussions, but it was obvious that Musicology was having fun (or something).

Anyhow, what Musicology did to the members of the LitNet Forum in the Oxford Christmas Display thread is enough to pull the mask off of the idea that Musicology was some sort of persecuted man of ideas.

[stlukesguild]

But if he wasn't a troll! Then, Musicology like all others deserves our respect and courtesy in spite of his vanishingly improbable theories - and improbable does not always mean wrong. Since LitNet represents a wide range of backgrounds and beliefs, polite tolerance of others ought to be the norm. I did notice that some were responding to him with growing impatience or worse, which was bound to provoke unwise retaliation sooner or later. Why do some continue to post, aggressively, when a thread is so clearly lacking in substance?

I rarely responded to him because his theories seemed to provide so little in the way of substantial evidence. While interested in the musical history of Mozart, I found nothing worthy of a response as I followed Musicology's several threads on the subject. If nothing else, he was entertaining.

As for the growing attack on G L Wilson, I have found his terse posts unusually thought provoking. If he is a troll, he's certainly a clever one!

So Gladys, your concept of how we should behave here is that we should simply ignore anyone or any statement that we disagree with. Certainly LitNet would run far more smoothly then, but it would be reduced to a mere cheerleader camp:

"The DaVinci Code is the greatest book ever written!!!"

"Oh, golly gee! I so agree!!"

:puke:

[Vonny]

But if he wasn't a troll! Then, Musicology like all others deserves our respect and courtesy in spite of his vanishingly improbable theories - and improbable does not always mean wrong. Since LitNet represents a wide range of backgrounds and beliefs, polite tolerance of others ought to be the norm. I did notice that some were responding to him with growing impatience or worse, which was bound to provoke unwise retaliation sooner or later. Why do some continue to post, aggressively, when a thread is so clearly lacking in substance?

I rarely responded to him because his theories seemed to provide so little in the way of substantial evidence. While interested in the musical history of Mozart, I found nothing worthy of a response as I followed Musicology's several threads on the subject. If nothing else, he was entertaining.

As for the growing attack on G L Wilson, I have found his terse posts unusually thought provoking. If he is a troll, he's certainly a clever one!

So Gladys, your concept of how we should behave here is that we should simply ignore anyone or any statement that we disagree with. Certainly LitNet would run far more smoothly then, but it would be reduced to a mere cheerleader camp:

"The DaVinci Code is the greatest book ever written!!!"

"Oh, golly gee! I so agree!!"

:puke:


I agree Luke. If someone such as Lokasenna couldn't come here and interact without being abused, then I think it's the troll who should have gone much sooner than he did.


Allow me to add my two cents.

I've no problem with 'divergent and courageous thinking', as you put it - though like StLuke I'm inclined to believe that Robert's ideas are wrong.

My main issue with him was not the quality or direction of his theories, but the fact that he was unfailingly unpleasant. Right from his first appearance on the forum, any attempt to enter into a constructive debate (surely a key aspect of divergent and courageous thinking?) was answered with a torrent of abuse. It was really vile.

So, yes, I mocked him. But my reason for doing so was that I was simply returning the sentiment. I'm sure most people who mocked him on here feel the same way. Perhaps it is a flaw in my personality, but I cannot simply sit there and take abuse - I will answer it, and I believe that I have the right to answer it.


Here's Lokasenna's comment. I bolded part of it. Is Lokasenna lying?

As I said, a person who's had no experience with someone like this may not respond in the most effective manner. Then the victim is blamed.


How can this be okay? It's sad that in our society, so many people can no longer differentiate right from wrong.


There are plenty of sites that are just chaos, with nothing constructive going on. If that's what people want those sites are easy to find.

[stlukesguild]

In some ways I am sorry that Musicology has gone, because apart from the circumlocutory and therefore seemingly unending posts about Mozart, he did introduce other threads which were sometimes very amusing. Once he managed to get past Mozart, they came thick and fast as though they had been waiting to break out all along. The belief that the universe revolves around the Earth and his repeated reference to Bach's music clearly indicated a religious motivation for his ideas and they may similarly motivate other proponents of so-called conspiracy theories...

Brian... I somehow missed this earlier, but I do believe you are onto something here. His theory involved the notion that Mozart, Haydn, and young Beethoven's oeuvres were manufactured with the aid of the secular German aristocracy with the aim of establishing a German musical hegemony? To what aim? has always been the question. Considering your suggestion of religious aims we might discover that this was the period of the suppression of the Jesuits, a favorite of Robert's theories. Mozart and Haydn (and certainly Beethoven) represent the secularization of music that began to take place at this time. The leading musical forms in Italy were opera and secular motets and madrigals (not to suggest that religious music was non-existent, but it was waning in popularity). Ballet and opera were all the rage in Paris and in London... while the greatest religious composer, J.S. Bach, was almost forgotten. I can certainly see Robert imagining that only a conspiracy could have achieved this.

In one of my first responses to Robert in his initial thread, he challenged me to name any great composers of the era beyond Mozart and Haydn. I suggested C.P.E. Bach, Dittersdorf, Hummell, Stamitz, Boccherini, Salieri, Michael Haydn (Joseph's quite talented brother), Gluck, and Kraus. Robert replied that none of these composers, with the exception of Bach's son and Kraus had composed anything of any merit. This left me baffled at the time for all of them had indeed written some lovely music. Michael Haydn's masses are especially fine, and Gluck is probably the most important operatic composer after Handel and before Mozart. But it does make sense if one considers that all of these composers represent a move away from the religious sentiment of J.S. Bach, whose reputation will not be realized until later. Beethoven's great fugue in the 3rd Symphony was surely inspired by Bach which leads me to suspect that this is why Robert only dismissed the early Beethoven... although why he failed to recognize Mozart's emulation of Bach in the finale of the 41st Symphony I cannot tell.

Contrary to the comments of a few here who have but a part of the picture, there was no pack of hyenas out to get Robert. By and large his endless posts complete with documentation on Mozart were ignored by nearly everyone but Yanni, who put forth an mad theories in which a certain Grimm/Cocchi individual (somehow a distant relative of himself) invented nearly the whole of European culture including Mozart and Bach. When Robert was posting on Bach, and any number of other composers, he was fully lucid. I even learned of one lovely composer, Sylvius Weiss, from him. The rest of the time he was seen by most, it would seem, little more than a harmless crank. It was only when he became repeatedly disrespectful, insulting, and abusive that others began to retaliate.

Again, the notion of any pack mentality here is absurd for the simple reason that all of us who are being imagined as being of a like mind have had our own knock-down, drag-out debates with each other. One of the strengths here is that there are some very well-read, educated, and intelligent individuals here who are willing to put forth their own point of view and argue with others while still respecting them and usually avoiding verbal abuse. The only time most here become overly sarcastic or caustic is with members that we have known for a while and whom we know are quite capable of defending themselves verbally... or with new members who immediately come on too strong... intentionally provoking an argument.

[Vonny]

In some ways I am sorry that Musicology has gone, because apart from the circumlocutory and therefore seemingly unending posts about Mozart, he did introduce other threads which were sometimes very amusing. Once he managed to get past Mozart, they came thick and fast as though they had been waiting to break out all along. The belief that the universe revolves around the Earth and his repeated reference to Bach's music clearly indicated a religious motivation for his ideas and they may similarly motivate other proponents of so-called conspiracy theories...

Brian... I somehow missed this earlier, but I do believe you are onto something here. His theory involved the notion that Mozart, Haydn, and young Beethoven's oeuvres were manufactured with the aid of the secular German aristocracy with the aim of establishing a German musical hegemony? To what aim? has always been the question. Considering your suggestion of religious aims we might discover that this was the period of the suppression of the Jesuits, a favorite of Robert's theories. Mozart and Haydn (and certainly Beethoven) represent the secularization of music that began to take place at this time. The leading musical forms in Italy were opera and secular motets and madrigals (not to suggest that religious music was non-existent, but it was waning in popularity). Ballet and opera were all the rage in Paris and in London... while the greatest religious composer, J.S. Bach, was almost forgotten. I can certainly see Robert imagining that only a conspiracy could have achieved this.

In one of my first responses to Robert in his initial thread, he challenged me to name any great composers of the era beyond Mozart and Haydn. I suggested C.P.E. Bach, Dittersdorf, Hummell, Stamitz, Boccherini, Salieri, Michael Haydn (Joseph's quite talented brother), Gluck, and Kraus. Robert replied that none of these composers, with the exception of Bach's son and Kraus had composed anything of any merit. This left me baffled at the time for all of them had indeed written some lovely music. Michael Haydn's masses are especially fine, and Gluck is probably the most important operatic composer after Handel and before Mozart. But it does make sense if one considers that all of these composers represent a move away from the religious sentiment of J.S. Bach, whose reputation will not be realized until later. Beethoven's great fugue in the 3rd Symphony was surely inspired by Bach which leads me to suspect that this is why Robert only dismissed the early Beethoven... although why he failed to recognize Mozart's emulation of Bach in the finale of the 41st Symphony I cannot tell.

Contrary to the comments of a few here who have but a part of the picture, there was no pack of hyenas out to get Robert. By and large his endless posts complete with documentation on Mozart were ignored by nearly everyone but Yanni, who put forth an mad theories in which a certain Grimm/Cocchi individual (somehow a distant relative of himself) invented nearly the whole of European culture including Mozart and Bach. When Robert was posting on Bach, and any number of other composers, he was fully lucid. I even learned of one lovely composer, Sylvius Weiss, from him. The rest of the time he was seen by most, it would seem, little more than a harmless crank. It was only when he became repeatedly disrespectful, insulting, and abusive that others began to retaliate.

Again, the notion of any pack mentality here is absurd for the simple reason that all of us who are being imagined as being of a like mind have had our own knock-down, drag-out debates with each other. One of the strengths here is that there are some very well-read, educated, and intelligent individuals here who are willing to put forth their own point of view and argue with others while still respecting them and usually avoiding verbal abuse. The only time most here become overly sarcastic or caustic is with members that we have known for a while and whom we know are quite capable of defending themselves verbally... or with new members who immediately come on too strong... intentionally provoking an argument.


This is quite balanced and could be the final word on the subject... unless we have more trolls, stalkers and bogeymen among us.

[Scheherazade]

Since Musicology is not a member of this site anymore, it is pointless - and unfair - to keep discussing him and his posts as he will not be able to respond.

Even though it is not our policy to discuss why a member has been banned, I would like remind to everyone that no one on this Forum has been banned because of their views. People only receive infraction points and/or get banned because of the way they express their views. And they are given enough warnings before we take a final action on the matter.

Personal/inflammatory/offensive comments towards other members or beliefs have never been and never will be tolerated on this Forum.

With that, I will close this thread now. Hopefully, in six pages everyone has got everything they have been dying to share out of their chests.

Hopefully, there is another burning issue hidden somewhere for us to champion.


On a final note, I would like to add that those who feel sorry for the moderators for their actions should consider utilising their pity for worthier causes as this one moderator in particular sleeps with an easy conscience at nights as she firmly believes that she knows that only those who break the Forum rules get banned from the site.