[raydan]

...and Dayseed, CKA does NOT have a free spell checker, but maybe your browser does.

[Dayseed]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Read into what you please. Says more about you than it does about me.

No dumb-dumb, it doesn't say more about me. I'm starting to suspect you don't really think before you post.

$1:

Oh, waddaya know--the last resort of the intellectually bankrupt: let's criticize spelling. You know who criticizes spelling? Riiiight...this guy...

No, it's not the last resort of the intellectually bankrupt. Posting other people's pictures as representative of your "wit" is though.

Highlighting your poor spelling just details for anybody reading that you're sloppy on the big points and sloppy on the small points and that I notice all of your deficiencies. I'm just that good!

Man, pointing out your shortcomings is both fun and easy!

$1:

Really, I wasn't under the impression that quoting Walt Whitman meant that I claimed I was Walt Whitman. Anyways, old Walt was commenting on human nature in general, and how we contradict ourselves. He used the terms "I" and "my," to be sure, but--and you'd know this if you'd been paying attention in class--earlier in the poem Song of Myself he states "it is you talking just as much as myself…I act as the tongue of you."

Oh dumb-dumb you're not doing well here, are you? Had you had more curiosity than to read past the first sentence, you would have seen the thrust of the paragraph was that you're trying to sweep away your inadequacies by painting yourself akin to a gifted poet.

Now, didums Zipperfish read past that nasty first sentence? Only time will tell!

I'm betting no.

$1:

Consider yourself pwned.

Thanks Xbox Live teeny-bopper! Perhaps you'd also care to throw in "epic fail"? The problem is, when old fart cultural derelicts like yourself start using the term, the cool kids have moved on.

It's called the cutting edge. And no, that's not a reference to your rapier wit. Hey, you cut that quote out! I'll take that as a point scored for me.

$1:

No need to thank me, it's what I do.

But I will thank you not to do what you do so poorly in public.

$1:

You wouldn't see your hypocrisy if it was dancing on a table in front of you in a pink tutu. The obnoxiously arrogant, in my experience, have limited capacity for self-reflection.

I'm glad you're experienced at being obnoxiously arrogant, but you didn't point out anything I've done that's hypocritical. Oh well, it's not like you've been married to evidence for any of your posts. Remember when you said the CBSC didn't understand the context of the song, but then when I asked how you justified mean disdain in the term "little faggot with the earring" as proper context you just bitched off?

I do. And now so does everybody else reading this!

$1:

Now who's projecting? If you read back a few posts you will see that--as per your usual modus operandi--when challenged even trivially you immediately start screeching and flinging feces like some purple-assed outraged baboon. I think your post history bear this out.

Actually, no I don't read that at all. Perhaps you care to point it out with some evidence? Or wouldums that break your streak of evidence-free posts?

Also, it's not like purple-asses actually added anything to baboon. Yet, you sought your own counsel and decided to type it out. Ewwwwwww. Your counsel has a fool for a client.

$1:

I said the song enriched me, and it does. Bowdlerizing the song does indeed curtail my enjoyment of it.

Yet you said the enriching part was wholly unaffected by any sort of editing for terrestrial radio-play. You have all the consistency of Glee here. Plus, as you seem so fond of omitting, you can go ahead and listen to your precious lyric any time you choose! It's not banned! Go on, get the full-monty version of the song and feel great about yourself!

$1:

"Irony is wasted on the stupid."

And irony from the stupid is a waste.

$1:

This is fun!

I know I'm enjoying vivisecting you for everybody to watch!

Come on, let's see your next train-wreck post so I can have a go at it!

Here are some suggestions you and your unfashionable lexicon can use!

You could try "Facepalm!" with a picture of somebody slapping their own face. It's about as tired as pwned, but hey, beggars can't be choosers. You could try to be retro and use "Well, isn't that conveeeeeenient" but nobody likes Dana Carvey and it isn't distant enough yet. Hey, what about a demotivational poster? That's a good witless standby. If you were hipper and knew what 20 somethings were doing, you could post a picture of somebody drenched in slushie!

Let me know, I don't mind helping you out to keep this going.

[Lemmy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I'm pretty sure that Jack White had a similar impression of Jimmy Page, which made it all the more magic when his jaw dropped like that.

White isn't the cleanest player either. Nor is the Edge for that matter. Not that I didn't enjoy the film, but I'd have picked a different trio to exemplify 3 generations of guitarists.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Jimmy Page was sloppy because he wanted to be, not because he had to be.

That's what folks say about me when I mash a chord, start soloing a half-step from key or get out of time with my rhythm section. "Wow! That guy plays like Jimmy Page" isn't a compliment.

[EyeBrock]

I'm still just getting over the fact that the intro to Jump was a synthesiser. A dream crushed by andy.....sob....

[Zipperfish]

Lemmy Lemmy:

White isn't the cleanest player either. Nor is the Edge for that matter. Not that I didn't enjoy the film, but I'd have picked a different trio to exemplify 3 generations of guitarists.

Definitely not Jack White. But the Edge? He's pretty particular. Who would you consider uber-clean? Myself, I'd probably go with Randy Rhoads. Used to double-track his own solos--floored the engineers.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

That's what folks say about me when I mash a chord, start soloing a half-step from key or get out of time with my rhythm section. "Wow! That guy plays like Jimmy Page" isn't a compliment.

Well, I'd argue that you don't get to be the top session guitarist in London by being sloppy. Some of the stuff that sounds sloppy is actually isn't, in my humble opinion. For instance the starting ascending lick in solo for Black Dog is actually a rather precise off-time riff. Or, in the case of the descending lick after the solo in Good Times, Bad Times (one of the first solos I learned) is fast and crisp.

But to each his own. I'm a huge Jimmy Page fan, so quite biased in that regard.

[Zipperfish]

$1:

No, it's not the last resort of the intellectually bankrupt. Posting other people's pictures as representative of your "wit" is though.

Highlighting your poor spelling just details for anybody reading that you're sloppy on the big points and sloppy on the small points and that I notice all of your deficiencies. I'm just that good!

Man, pointing out your shortcomings is both fun and easy!

People with "big points" don't need to reduce themselves to screeching, feces-flinging and pointing out spelling errors.

$1:

Oh dumb-dumb you're not doing well here, are you? Had you had more curiosity than to read past the first sentence, you would have seen the thrust of the paragraph was that you're trying to sweep away your inadequacies by painting yourself akin to a gifted poet.

Now, didums Zipperfish read past that nasty first sentence? Only time will tell!

I'm betting no.

Yeah, afraid your missing the forest for the trees here, my pompous primate friend. The point I was originally trying to make is that self-contradiction is part of the human condition, that we're all guilty of hypocricy at some level or another and that, therefore, the charge of hypocrite is not as stinging a rebuke as you may have hoped.

These are some of the "big points" you alluded to earlier. You might have caught them if you'd spent a little more time trying to distill meaning from the discussion instead of just looking for spelling mistakes.

$1:

Thanks Xbox Live teeny-bopper! Perhaps you'd also care to throw in "epic fail"? The problem is, when old fart cultural derelicts like yourself start using the term, the cool kids have moved on.

It's called the cutting edge. And no, that's not a reference to your rapier wit. Hey, you cut that quote out! I'll take that as a point scored for me.

Definite point for you. I admit to being an old fart and honestly, I don't think I could even pronounce pwned. However, I thought the word summed up nicely how, in arguing against my use of Walt Whitman quotes, you were summarily hoisted by your own petard. Actually, I don't really know what a petard is either. Probably like a wedgie or something.

$1:

But I will thank you not to do what you do so poorly in public.

You're right, I shouldn't take credit for your self-wedgie.

$1:

I'm glad you're experienced at being obnoxiously arrogant, but you didn't point out anything I've done that's hypocritical. Oh well, it's not like you've been married to evidence for any of your posts. Remember when you said the CBSC didn't understand the context of the song, but then when I asked how you justified mean disdain in the term "little faggot with the earring" as proper context you just bitched off?

I do. And now so does everybody else reading this!

I my mite-brained friend, I didn't say that the CBSC didn't understand the context of the song, I said they didn't consider it. As for evidence, how about the actual ruling by the CBSC wherein they state, and I quote:

CBSC Ruling CBSC Ruling:

The Panel is not, however, of the view that the Clause [applicability of the contextual consideration] will generally be of application in the case of a song, in which the exposition of a context is less likely to be present.

Oh don't you love it when a plan comes together. There you've gone and hoisted yourself by your petard again. Zip "bitched off", sez Dayseed, and didn't provide evidence and then, not only do I provide evidence, but I provide evidence from the most unimpeachable source--the actual ruling of the CBSC hand-wringers--and evidence that completely destroys your context argument.

Man that's gotta hurt.

$1:

Actually, no I don't read that at all. Perhaps you care to point it out with some evidence? Or wouldums that break your streak of evidence-free posts?

See above re: evidence. I suppose now that you've been soundly trounced on that front, it's back to the old purple-ass baboon screeching and feces-flinging, right?

$1:

Yet you said the enriching part was wholly unaffected by any sort of editing for terrestrial radio-play. You have all the consistency of Glee here. Plus, as you seem so fond of omitting, you can go ahead and listen to your precious lyric any time you choose! It's not banned! Go on, get the full-monty version of the song and feel great about yourself!

The enriching "part" of the song? A song is more than just a particular riff or lyric--although given your difficulties grasping Whitman's poetry this insight into the nature of art may be wasted on you. Some people don't mind watching airplane movies. I find them annoying because they've been sanitized. I like my art unbleeped. Personal preference really. Given the overwhelming negative response to ths decision, I'm hardly alone in that thinking.

$1:

And irony from the stupid is a waste.

OK, that's actually pretty good.

$1:

I know I'm enjoying vivisecting you for everybody to watch!

Come on, let's see your next train-wreck post so I can have a go at it!

Here are some suggestions you and your unfashionable lexicon can use!

You could try "Facepalm!" with a picture of somebody slapping their own face. It's about as tired as pwned, but hey, beggars can't be choosers. You could try to be retro and use "Well, isn't that conveeeeeenient" but nobody likes Dana Carvey and it isn't distant enough yet. Hey, what about a demotivational poster? That's a good witless standby. If you were hipper and knew what 20 somethings were doing, you could post a picture of somebody drenched in slushie!

Let me know, I don't mind helping you out to keep this going.

[/quote]

The everybody watching thing seems to be important to you. You mention it several times. How sad.

[Dayseed]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

People with "big points" don't need to reduce themselves to screeching, feces-flinging and pointing out spelling errors.

Gary Roberts had a particular style of game where he smashed down the opposing players AND put the puck in the net. I don't need to conform to your either/or contrived duality.

$1:

Yeah, afraid your missing the forest for the trees here, my pompous primate friend. The point I was originally trying to make is that self-contradiction is part of the human condition, that we're all guilty of hypocricy at some level or another and that, therefore, the charge of hypocrite is not as stinging a rebuke as you may have hoped.

Oh I see. So your intellectual collapses are really nothing more than your own limited cognitive ability as a human? Having your hypocrisy highlighted is just a giggling reminder you're alive? Suit yourself.

If failure makes you feel like a winner, win away.

$1:

These are some of the "big points" you alluded to earlier. You might have caught them if you'd spent a little more time trying to distill meaning from the discussion instead of just looking for spelling mistakes.

Haven't you been reading dumb-dumb? I've found all sorts of your errors! Not just spelling mistakes, but hideous collapses too.

$1:

Definite point for you. I admit to being an old fart and honestly, I don't think I could even pronounce pwned. However, I thought the word summed up nicely how, in arguing against my use of Walt Whitman quotes, you were summarily hoisted by your own petard. Actually, I don't really know what a petard is either. Probably like a wedgie or something.

I'm not here to educate you on passe l33t-speak. But pointing out that you were trying to excuse a collapsed argument by shuffling over to Walt Whitman's view of hypocrisy doesn't have anything to do with the rest of your above quote.

Look, if you're having a stroke or something, get a kid to text 911 for you.

$1:

But I will thank you not to do what you do so poorly in public.

$1:

You're right, I shouldn't take credit for your self-wedgie.

I left my quote just so everybody could see your response in context. Aaaaaaaand I leave it at that.

$1:

I my mite-brained friend, I didn't say that the CBSC didn't understand the context of the song, I said they didn't consider it. As for evidence, how about the actual ruling by the CBSC wherein they state, and I quote:

CBSC Ruling CBSC Ruling:

The Panel is not, however, of the view that the Clause [applicability of the contextual consideration] will generally be of application in the case of a song, in which the exposition of a context is less likely to be present.

Oh don't you love it when a plan comes together. There you've gone and hoisted yourself by your petard again. Zip "bitched off", sez Dayseed, and didn't provide evidence and then, not only do I provide evidence, but I provide evidence from the most unimpeachable source--the actual ruling of the CBSC hand-wringers--and evidence that completely destroys your context argument.

Um, no it doesn't. True, I'm guilty of being too lazy to go back and actually dig up your original quote about context and I paraphrased it here. Yup, I screwed up "understood" with "consider". Your actual post was:

$1:

You'd think that, given this, the CBSC would have considered the context within which the term "faggot" was being used, but alas, no. Had they considered it, they might have discovered what almost every else knew about the song--that the term was being used by a characters in the song who themsleves were being lampooned because of their vulgarity and intolerance.

My point was that you were trying to stave off editing because of the context of the song, which bluntly is an envious bigot spouting disdain. I asked how context rescued the song from your oft-repeated bowdlerization.

From that you bitched off.

$1:

Man that's gotta hurt.

Does it hurt getting bit in the ass for being lazy? Yeah, actually it does.

$1:

See above re: evidence. I suppose now that you've been soundly trounced on that front, it's back to the old purple-ass baboon screeching and feces-flinging, right?

Boy you love yourself the purple-ass talk. And I don't see how your failure to provide evidence for your own assertions is in any way related. I guess you need all the outs you can give yourself, huh?

$1:

The enriching "part" of the song? A song is more than just a particular riff or lyric--although given your difficulties grasping Whitman's poetry this insight into the nature of art may be wasted on you.

Says the guy who missed the body electric reference. Plus, I asked you what you found enriching. All on your own you identified it. Had there been more to it, you could have said so. But you didn't. I noticed what you liked/enjoyed/appreciated about the song was completely unaffected by the edit for one particular broadcast medium. It undercut your point that art was being trampled.

$1:

Some people don't mind watching airplane movies. I find them annoying because they've been sanitized. I like my art unbleeped. Personal preference really. Given the overwhelming negative response to ths decision, I'm hardly alone in that thinking.

And here you had the germ of a point against editing the song, but you pissed it away by ramming your own head up your ass and inhaling all the musty fumes. You're probably extra-pissed your own ass wasn't purple.

By trying to point out that the art was ruined by the editing, a foolish argument given that there a ton of other songs out there similarly edited, you could have made a proper point that the point of editing in the first place is to conform to societal standards.

If there's but one complaint against an overwhelming avalanche of disapproval, doesn't that speak volumes that society doesn't feel this constitutes a slur? Especially since the song is 25 years old and well out of public consciousness?

I thought you were going that way, which is why I baited you with protecting the minority from the majority, but you missed the point by a mile trying to figure out a way to show your age with some bad nomnom references.

$1:

OK, that's actually pretty good.

Thanks. Your post wasn't a train wreck at all. I hope that catching me being lazy will inspire you to keep going. Too many people give up too easily.

$1:

The everybody watching thing seems to be important to you. You mention it several times. How sad.

Of course everybody watching is important. Otherwise, the very same thing could be accomplished via PM, which neither of us has bothered to do. Either we're both too lazy to click a few buttons or we both appreciate an audience.

[Bodah]

[Zipperfish]

Dayseed Dayseed:

If failure makes you feel like a winner, win away.

Finally, a concession speech. Geez, I was wondering how long you were going to stumble around the ring, spitting your teeth out like broken Chiclets. If it's any consolation, you're hardly the first to fall victim to my rapier-like intellect and scintillating wit. Really, you were out of your weight-class to start with.

$1:

I'm not here to educate you on passe l33t-speak. But pointing out that you were trying to excuse a collapsed argument by shuffling over to Walt Whitman's view of hypocrisy doesn't have anything to do with the rest of your above quote.

Look, if you're having a stroke or something, get a kid to text 911 for you.

Well, granted, the Walt Whitman thing was aimed a little high. With you, I probably should have stuck with Mr. T or something. Foo'.

$1:

Um, no it doesn't. True, I'm guilty of being too lazy to go back and actually dig up your original quote about context and I paraphrased it here. Yup, I screwed up "understood" with "consider". Your actual post was:

Oh great comeback: "No it doesn't". John Cleese would be proud. I suppose I didn't really leave you much room though. I mean, I should have praised you for pausing, however momentarily, from your screeching and feces-flinging, to try to put forth an actual argument. Unfortunately, you didn't bother reading the actual decision by the CBSC and simply assumed I hadn't either. Bad assumption. RESULT: Hoisted by your own petard. The panel stated explicitly that they did not consider context. Game, set and match.

$1:

Says the guy who missed the body electric reference. Plus, I asked you what you found enriching. All on your own you identified it. Had there been more to it, you could have said so. But you didn't. I noticed what you liked/enjoyed/appreciated about the song was completely unaffected by the edit for one particular broadcast medium. It undercut your point that art was being trampled.

I suppose with your view of art--e.g. that Macbeth would be just fine if a hippopotamus dropped on Lady Macbeth's head halfway through Act II, because that's not the "enriching" part of the play anyway. I have a more holistic appreciation. A picture with a scratch on it can still be enjoyed, but your eye is always drawn back to the scratch. And in this case, the scratch is deliberate. Put there by a bunch of politically correct namby-pambies to pander to those with delicate sensitivities like yourself.

$1:

By trying to point out that the art was ruined by the editing, a foolish argument given that there a ton of other songs out there similarly edited, you could have made a proper point that the point of editing in the first place is to conform to societal standards.

Societal standards? What the heck is that supposed to mean? One person in 30 million complained. Response--as shown by evidence I've posted throughout this topic--has been overwhelmingly against this. What standard? The standard that politically correct hand-wringers have some kind of inalienable right not to be offended? Standards should have some reflection of societal attitudes, and societal attitudes, based on surveys conducted and feedback in the media, indicate that the vast majority of people had no problem with this song at all.

$1:

Of course everybody watching is important. Otherwise, the very same thing could be accomplished via PM, which neither of us has bothered to do. Either we're both too lazy to click a few buttons or we both appreciate an audience.

Yes I imagine for all the audience watching out there, this is like the main event: Tyson versus Pee-Wee Herman.

[Lemmy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Definitely not Jack White. But the Edge? He's pretty particular. Who would you consider uber-clean? Myself, I'd probably go with Randy Rhoads. Used to double-track his own solos--floored the engineers.

The Edge is very simplistic. I like his playing, don`t get me wrong. It's rich on style, but it's certainly not virtuoso. Rhodes was a genius; a true Mozart-like protege. If he'd lived, people would be saying "Eddie who?". His death was, IMHO, the greatest tragedy in the history of guitar. I can only imagine what may have come. Other players that I'd put in the uber-clean category include my three favourite players: Doyle Bramhall III, whom I regard as the very finest guitar player alive, Alex Lifeson and Jeff Beck. Off the top of my head, other rock guitarists, of varying styles, that I consider clean players include Matthias Jabs, Gary Moore, Steve Stevens, Billy Gibbons, Ritchie Blackmore, Robbie Kreiger, Neal Schon & Don Felder.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well, I'd argue that you don't get to be the top session guitarist in London by being sloppy. Some of the stuff that sounds sloppy is actually isn't, in my humble opinion. For instance the starting ascending lick in solo for Black Dog is actually a rather precise off-time riff. Or, in the case of the descending lick after the solo in Good Times, Bad Times (one of the first solos I learned) is fast and crisp.

Playing in the studio is one thing. Recreating it live is another. I've heard lots of live Zeppelin and none of it sounds very good, IMHO. "Black Dog" has a cool solo. Then there's "Heartbreaker", which clearly needed more takes. Personally, I think Page's best work is on "In Through the Out Door" and the two records with The Firm. Since you're a Zeppelin fan, check out Doug Boyle's work on Robert Plant's "Manic Nirvana" disc.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

But to each his own. I'm a huge Jimmy Page fan, so quite biased in that regard.

There's no bias in it. Art is subjective and I don't mean to sound didactic on the subject. To each his own, for sure. And playing clean isn't the end-all and be-all of guitar playing. Pete Townshend, who pretty much invented rock guitar, is one of my favourite players and he's every bit as sloppy as Page. My bigger beef with Page is the writing credits on Zeppelin tunes. I have a hard time respecting him when he claims to have written "Whole Lotta Love", etc.

[Zipperfish]

Bodah Bodah:

I imagine it must quite a thrill for you to witness my beautiful plumage fanned to full glory.

[Zipperfish]

Lemmy Lemmy:

The Edge is very simplistic. I like his playing, don`t get me wrong. It's rich on style, but it's certainly not virtuoso. Rhodes was a genius; a true Mozart-like protege. If he'd lived, people would be saying "Eddie who?". His death was, IMHO, the greatest tragedy in the history of guitar. I can only imagine what may have come. Other players that I'd put in the uber-clean category include my three favourite players: Doyle Bramhall III, whom I regard as the very finest guitar player alive, Alex Lifeson and Jeff Beck. Off the top of my head, other rock guitarists, of varying styles, that I consider clean players include Matthias Jabs, Gary Moore, Steve Stevens, Billy Gibbons, Ritchie Blackmore, Robbie Kreiger, Neal Schon & Don Felder.

Ah, you're a scholar on the subject. I've never even heard of Doyle Bramhall III. I'll look him up. I was actually going to list Jeff Beck as well. Matthias Jabs--definitely. Neil Schon--good call. Blackmore--crisp but always a little atonal for my tastes.

All the shredders belong in there too, but they get boring fast.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

There's no bias in it. Art is subjective and I don't mean to sound didactic on the subject. To each his own, for sure. And playing clean isn't the end-all and be-all of guitar playing. Pete Townshend, who pretty much invented rock guitar, is one of my favourite players and he's every bit as sloppy as Page. My bigger beef with Page is the writing credits on Zeppelin tunes. I have a hard time respecting him when he claims to have written "Whole Lotta Love", etc.

My favourite is David Gilmour. I loved how he'd build a solo (Time, for instance, or Shine on You Crazy Diamond). Randy Rhoads too. That first solo from Mr Crowley still sends shivers up my spine.

[Lemmy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I've never even heard of Doyle Bramhall III. I'll look him up....My favourite is David Gilmour.

LOL. Bramhall does Gilmour better than Gilmour. He played in Roger Waters' band in 1999-2000. Go buy Waters' "In the Flesh" DVD.

[Zipperfish]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I've never even heard of Doyle Bramhall III. I'll look him up....My favourite is David Gilmour.

LOL. Bramhall does Gilmour better than Gilmour. He played in Roger Waters' band in 1999-2000. Go buy Waters' "In the Flesh" DVD.

How about that. I've seen Waters twice live, and know Snowy White and Andy Fairweather Low, but not Bramhall. It hurts my head to watch play the thing upside down like that.

[Lemmy]

As long as we've highjacked the thread:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

How about that. I've seen Waters twice live, and know Snowy White and Andy Fairweather Low, but not Bramhall.

I love Snowy too. His Gold Top is a '68, which is next on my wish list. All of my Gold Tops have pick guards and my buddies tell me I'll never be cool like Snowy unless I rip the pick guards off, like Snowy's.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

It hurts my head to watch play the thing upside down like that.

It hurts my ego to watch a guy that NEVER misses.