chessparov
New member
To err is human, but to forgive is canine.
Chris
Chris
Stephen Paul's tunes
- Thread starter MrZekeMan
- Start date
littledog said:
I actually have to agree with that one, ironically. Although most of what he said was directed against me, I have to give credit to good writing when I see it. And from a gramatical and stylistic point of view, Zeke is a skilled writer and debater.
I do think he could work on his substance, but that will come in time. Style is probably 90% of it in this day and age, and he's got that part of it down.
For example, I loved this one: "A drunk monkey could ascertain that you are full of feculence."
lol. Then there the Lucy Van Pelt and "Stuart Smalley's daily affirmation" stuff which was, again, very clever and funny; I laughed my ass off.He kind of lost me in a few places, though. For example, he seemed to have a hard time wrestling with the whole "boling down" thing. I noticed he was rather in awe over how someone's ideas have to some how boil down to one thing in order to indeed boil down (confused), or to be easily understood. Based on the supposition that something has to boil down to one thing in order to be simple, then I'd say his argument is valid.
But I give people more credit than that. I don't think we're that simple. It was no small feat of yours constructing such an impressive mountain out of what is otherwise a modest ant hill or two. And some colorful and entertaining language was certainly used in the process. This particular argument (On the other hand) or whatever IS still very simple and boils down to a few basic concepts:
1) Someone posts a song in the mic forum. In so doing, one has to assume that it is going to be open for critique. Some will like it, and others won't. That is the beauty of art and music and people.
2) A few guys post some positive things in it's favor. Things to the effect of "Nice song," "Love the sound of the microphone," "Thanks for posting," etc. - or at least that general type of thing.
3) Another guy comes along, who doesn't hold it in as high of a light as the original poster, and he expresses his general displeasure in not so many words.
4) Original poster doesn't like the things that the other guy said, takes an offensive stance and launches a couterattack. All the while his other mouth is trying to say that he has no problems with people not liking his work and posting negative things.
Where this gets out of hand, to me, is again a very simple idea: I don't like people trying to tell me it's somehow wrong to post a negative comment towards something. Be it a person's song, a microphone, their personality, their marketing tactics, etc. I get very defensive when people try to do this, in case you haven't noticed. I don't attack you for liking who you like. Don't attack me for not liking who and what I don't like. I have my reasons as you have yours.
And if you want to make it in to something bigger than it is, then perhaps you could practice your own daily affirmations: "I like who and what I like, and it's okay if others don't."
Hopping in your psychoanalist's chair is an interesting diversion, but still a diversion. The best and safest card for you to play was when you brought up my history of negative criticisms towards certain other people on this board (namely Alan Hyatt). A politically popular and safe move -- but still rather simplistic and chicken-shit. Again, you're trying to distract attention to something unrelated . . . and again trying to make a simple dedution that "Chessrock had some problems with someone else on this board, so therefore he must simply enjoy arguing and stirring up trouble just for the sake of being controversial" or whatever other deductions you are trying to make of all of this.
None of these deductions hold any weight. And although I see the pattern you are trying to establish here, it just doesn't float.
If I were simply the type who liked to randomly stir up shit with people, there's an awful lot of supportive comments I've made that go unaccounted for.
Not to mention the fact that I've obviously spoken very highly of Brent Casey, Dan Kennedy, Harvey Gerst, LittleDog, Pipeline, and many others here who have shown themselves to be nothing other than gracious, genuine, unselfish people who obviously come here to contribute to this community. Those whom I attack, including and especiallyStephen Paul, have had a history of contributing very little in contrast, and much more towards their own agendas, or in Stephen's case, just basically spreading their negativity and bringing us all down.
For this reason, I have formed my opinion of Stephen Paul. My only dealings with him have been on this board, and they have not been pleasant. The behavior he has displayed on this board has not been that of a caring, compassionate human being. Rather they have been the self-centered, egotistical ramblings of an overly-defensive, bitter and sad human being. He has some apologizing to do to a lot of people on this board before I'm going to hand out even as much as a token morsel of a good word in his general direction.
No matter what their reputation or accomplishments, I think we still need to hold one another accountable for our words. If Sir Paul McCartney himself came on this board and insulted us all and generally spread a heaping of negativity, I would say the same thing: I don't care what you've done or what you've accomplished. If it walks like an ass hole, talks like one, etc. then guess what?
My interest in Stephen Paul's accomplishments is indeed genuine. I want to know more about this person, because I do want to be proven wrong. I've seen a very negative side to him, so I'm looking for some justification to not hate the guy's guts. I have listened to Recording Engineer's statements about his contributions to microphone design, diaphragm thickness, etc, despite what little I know about electronics. I'm hoping that I can one day come to the conclusion that "This guy has done so much, directly and indirectly, for my recordings and Audio production in general, that I forgive him for having a bad day on this board."
So far, I'm on the fence.
Last edited:
Chess:
I remember that episode you're talking about. However, you shouldn't judge people for one episode of ranting no matter how offensive. It's just the www.
BTW, I'm looking forward to getting your rant posted on Mojo Pie. It's a classic.
Steve
www.piemusic.com
I remember that episode you're talking about. However, you shouldn't judge people for one episode of ranting no matter how offensive. It's just the www.
BTW, I'm looking forward to getting your rant posted on Mojo Pie. It's a classic.
Steve
www.piemusic.com
littledog said:
Are you kidding? I don't even know what inane pecadillos or Cranial Rectosis even are ! ! !
And mind you, I merely posted his mild comments he directed right to us. The rest I didn't understand any more, but they sure sounded pretty bad!
Bottom line is I don't think SP holds the members of this board in very high intellectual regard.
chessrock said:
Bottom line is I don't think SP holds the members of this board in very high intellectual regard.
Yeah, well, what have I ever done to deserve it? Bottom line: who really cares? Henry Ford was one of the biggest racist anti-semitic assholes that ever lived. Doesn't mean I won't drive a car.
But thanks for being honest enough to admit that your disdainful comments about Stephen's accomplishments were based purely on personal dislike and have nothing to do with any real world experience with his technologies.
MrZekeMan
New member
So, fluff without substance, eh? At the risk of continuing a discussion that never should have happened in the first place, I will comment.chessrock said:
I'm with you so far. But I will add, in posting the link, I in no way was operating under the assumption that every one would find his music appealing.chessrock said:
BOOM!!! Welcome to Fantasy Island. Smiles everyone. . .chessrock [/i] [B]2) A few guys post some positive things in it's favor. Things to the effect of "Nice song said:
. . . Smiles. (in my best Ricardo M. voice)
You're just some poor shmuck who gave his opinion about a song, and had to suffer cruel persecution at the hands of a close-minded brutal hero worshiper. Is that the package your trying to sell?
Allow me to extend to you an invitation to go back and reread this thread. It's not like it's not available for all to see.
No one ever took exception to your not liking his music. Exception was taken to your bizarre, off-the-wall "spam crusade" comment. And, exception was taken to your attempt to disparage the man's accomplishments in microphone technology.
You keep clinging to this fabricated version of events like a pair of bluejeans clinging to J-Lo's butt. Do you think if you keep repeating this counterfactual version of what happened that someone will eventually believe you? I promise you I will keep pointing out the misrepresentation, as you keep echoing it over and over and over, ad nauseam.chessrock said:
Go reread the thread. In my initial response to you, I highlighted the reasons why I liked his tunes. I acknowledged that some here might not be of the same opinion, and stated I was okay with that. Clearly, and conspicuously, I took exception to your bizarre "spam crusade" statement, and to your comment about his "(supposed) genius with microphones." Nothing more, nothing less. It's a matter of public record, go look.
Now please let me go ahead and write your next response for you, and save you the time:
WAHHHH!!! WAHHHH!!!, It's not fair for you to tell me I can't like a song.
Please go reread my original response to you. Please point to the place where I stated it was wrong for you to make your statements. Let me refresh your memory. I stated that I didn't understand your spam comment. (which incidentally you've never clarified) And I asked you a question in reference to your "supposed genius" comment. I repeat it now: "Do you have some kind of problem with giving credit where credit is due?" (to which you feigned ignorance of any contribution the guy's made) You reciprocated with your rambling, "how can you expect me to like what you like diatribe", and have held on to it ever since, like a tick holding on to a hound dog. When will you let go?chessrock said:
The exchange that has insued has been an exchange of your making.
WAHHHH!!! WAHHHH!!!Let me make all the negative comments towards people's songs, microphone's, personalities, marketing tactics, etc. But, whatever you do, don't even think about making a comment back to me about my personality, likes and dislikes, tactics, or applesauce idiocy.chessrock said:
I think I'm going to puke.chessrock said:
I never mentioned Alan Hyatt. You just did, didn't you?chessrock said:
If there is a political mood here, of who's doing is it? Is it one that you have created by your own actions?chessrock said:
WAAAHHHH!! WAAAAHHHH!!!! I've run my mouth a lot in the past, but I shouldn't have to live with the consequences.
Advice: Learn to own your problems, and not blame them on someone else, or a political climate.
We're all anxiously awaiting the day when you can bestow this great honor upon him.chessrock said:
Unquestionably, you are our hope for world peace. Indeed, when you, in all your wonderful benevolence are able to bestow this great accolade upon him, humanity will finally be over the hump. Mankind will finally have turned the corner, and certainly, the world will have turned over a new leaf. The 28 million people who have died of aids will come back to life. The millions of people who starve to death every year will finally have plenty of food to eat. The million children who are forced into child prostitution every year will be released and their innocence restored to them.
Keep marching forward little trooper. We know you can do it. We know you can find forgiveness in your heart for Stephen Paul if you just pursue it. Educate yourself about his accomplishments, and forgive him for having a bad day on this board. Entomb your resentment forever, and let that interment bring forth the dawn of a new day. Our fate is in your hands.
Hey Zeke! Nice rant. I don't have a lot of time to comment, but I liked the Ricardo M. stuff. Good stuff. Just a few critiques, though, and they're fairly minor:
1) You sound very emotionally invested in this, so you don't seem as credible when you try to apply logical reasoning . . . especially when you follow some of your otherwise good points up with exclamations like "WAH WAH" in all capital letters.
Makes you seem like you're bitter and/or hostile as opposed to calm, cool, and collected, funny, etc. Plus the humor sounded kinda' forced this time around. See "J-Lo's but "comment. Sounds forced; like you inserted it after the fact because you thought some colorful metaphors would add depth to your argument. Ditto for the "tick" and "hound dog" statement (That must have been inserted after your fourth draft). -- like you were trying just as hard to entertain in order to win people's support as opposed to just stating your case and letting the humor come naturally.
In either case, I did think your argument had a lot more substance this time, but the style was as cheesy as a fondu stick, to put it in Zeke terms. Maybe it's just because I have an idea of how many drafts you did (and the subsequent technical troubles with the delete key or whatever it was).
2) At the very end, you kind of stray from your argument. Like it goes from Zeke makes logical argument > Zeke kind of loses it, trying to discredit chessrock by implying he has an inflated ego and what not. And that one gets old, too. Calling assholes out on their asshole tendencies does not an arrogant person make. All it means is that they don't like assholes. You're the one guilty of inflating my importance -- by arguing so fervently and creatively against me, you give my words greater validity, not to mention a higher podium and a longer shelf life than they probably deserve.
I think I'm much more Zeke-important than I am self-important, which is flattering, but probably not altogether necessary.
My reason for posting the "spam crusade" comment is because that particular site that you linked to has built-in incentives (some financial) for the amount of dowloads a particular song or artist receives. And I apologize for accusing you directly, but others have been guilty in the past of encouraging others on the web to "support" his and similar mp3 sites simply for the incentives. I again apologize for assuming you were resurrecting it for the same reasons. I see now it is rather because you just love Stephen Paul and want to have his babies.
Similarly, I apologize if my post came accross as being disrespectful to St. Stephen Paul's accomplishments. I guess what threw things off was inserting the word "(supposed)" before the word mic guru or whatever it was. You see, to me the word "supposed" means the guy supposedly has accomplishments (in the positive), of which I personally can't directly verify or vouch for (nor am I technically qualified to do); something I elaborated on.
I guess you took the word "supposed" differently. As if to imply that I was blatantly discrediting any of his accomplishments, as if they didn't exist or were faulty, or perhaps full of fluff, much like the lyrics in his music. So our argument now rests on one man's definition of the word "supposed" versus the other man's; or should I say one man's interperatation of it, which is all subjective anyway, thus rendering our entire argument the completely useless waste of time it truly was.
Cheers to you, my friend.
Good stuff. Just a few critiques, though, and they're fairly minor:1) You sound very emotionally invested in this, so you don't seem as credible when you try to apply logical reasoning . . . especially when you follow some of your otherwise good points up with exclamations like "WAH WAH" in all capital letters.
Makes you seem like you're bitter and/or hostile as opposed to calm, cool, and collected, funny, etc. Plus the humor sounded kinda' forced this time around. See "J-Lo's but "comment. Sounds forced; like you inserted it after the fact because you thought some colorful metaphors would add depth to your argument. Ditto for the "tick" and "hound dog" statement (That must have been inserted after your fourth draft). -- like you were trying just as hard to entertain in order to win people's support as opposed to just stating your case and letting the humor come naturally.
In either case, I did think your argument had a lot more substance this time, but the style was as cheesy as a fondu stick, to put it in Zeke terms.
Maybe it's just because I have an idea of how many drafts you did (and the subsequent technical troubles with the delete key or whatever it was). 2) At the very end, you kind of stray from your argument. Like it goes from Zeke makes logical argument > Zeke kind of loses it, trying to discredit chessrock by implying he has an inflated ego and what not. And that one gets old, too. Calling assholes out on their asshole tendencies does not an arrogant person make. All it means is that they don't like assholes. You're the one guilty of inflating my importance -- by arguing so fervently and creatively against me, you give my words greater validity, not to mention a higher podium and a longer shelf life than they probably deserve.
I think I'm much more Zeke-important than I am self-important, which is flattering, but probably not altogether necessary.
My reason for posting the "spam crusade" comment is because that particular site that you linked to has built-in incentives (some financial) for the amount of dowloads a particular song or artist receives. And I apologize for accusing you directly, but others have been guilty in the past of encouraging others on the web to "support" his and similar mp3 sites simply for the incentives. I again apologize for assuming you were resurrecting it for the same reasons. I see now it is rather because you just love Stephen Paul and want to have his babies.
Similarly, I apologize if my post came accross as being disrespectful to St. Stephen Paul's accomplishments. I guess what threw things off was inserting the word "(supposed)" before the word mic guru or whatever it was. You see, to me the word "supposed" means the guy supposedly has accomplishments (in the positive), of which I personally can't directly verify or vouch for (nor am I technically qualified to do); something I elaborated on.
I guess you took the word "supposed" differently. As if to imply that I was blatantly discrediting any of his accomplishments, as if they didn't exist or were faulty, or perhaps full of fluff, much like the lyrics in his music.
So our argument now rests on one man's definition of the word "supposed" versus the other man's; or should I say one man's interperatation of it, which is all subjective anyway, thus rendering our entire argument the completely useless waste of time it truly was.Cheers to you, my friend.
this particular member of the peanut gallery found zeke's post to be delightfully entertaining, and was not in the least put off by the use of capital letters.
by the way, there was another zeke around here for a while that was 16 years old - different guy. sorry for the confusion. I submit you'd be hard pressed to find a 16 year-old of any name who can write like that!
by the way, there was another zeke around here for a while that was 16 years old - different guy. sorry for the confusion. I submit you'd be hard pressed to find a 16 year-old of any name who can write like that!