Flamewar or Hoax? You Decide...

Subject: Re: [I] Where's Uncle Sam?
From: Daniel Proost
Date: 04 Jul 2000

we might not have as many musical highlights
in our history as the uk does, but we certainly don't have an
all time low like the Cartoons either[1]. The Cartoons are
Swedish or Danish iirc.

[1] With the possible exceptions of Vanessa and the
Rotterdam Termination Source.

---

From: Martin Wisse
Date: 07 Jul 2000

*cough*2unlimitedt-spoon*cough*

Can I change nationality now please?

I am not becoming Swedish though. As if Abba wasn't bad enough, they
inflicted Ace of Bass *shudder* onto a defenseless world...

---

Subject: [I] Cloggie Tunes?
From: karen
Date: 08 Jul 2000

now don't forget Europe, with their flowing locks, belting out 'The
Final Countdown'

"we're heading for Venus
But still we stand tall,
I've got a big...' or something like that IIRC.

OTOH...

In the Dutch corner we do have a mixed bag of cultural delights:

Teach-In, with the delightful euro-cruncher "Ding a dong"

And wasn't Daryll Ann of a Dutch persuasion?

Then there are the linguistic curiosities. Osdorp Posse - rapping in
Dutch. Nice try but sadly my ears cannot fully appreciate the gravel
with the hip-hop.

Never really took to Two unlimited either.

I suppose I have to grant you UDS (parent to Rage Against the Machine?)
as and The Ex (what *were* they going to do with the loot from that
spermbank??). And of course the unforgettable ZZ^H^HHerman Brood ;]

I'll refrain from comment on Golden Earring...

---

From: Jens Ayton

ObPterryRef: but "tonker" doesn't rhyme with "Venus", does it?¨

---

From: PolloDiablo

Don't forget George Baker (Little Green Bag is brilliant, the rest is
awful), and the Dolly Dots. At least they could sing in English,
unlike Katja Schuurmans. I swear someone had to read the lyrics to me
before I understood that "Ssssspeesje" was supposed to be "Spaceship"
and "Biewi <pause> tjoe" "be with you"....
I'm not saying my pronunciation is perfect - but then again I'm not singing
for all the world to hear and laugh at.

Okay thanks for letting me rant, had to get that off my chest.

---

From: Andy Davison

Herman Brood's OK as are Golden Earring but the Dutch also gave us the great
Jan Akkerman for which I'll excuse almost anything :)

---

From: Orjan Westin

Don't forget Peace, Love & Pitbulls, although their singer was Swedish. I
also think Front 242 are Dutch, BICBW.

Nothing wrong so far...except the Dutch are getting something of a musical caning. But then, we can all take a joke, can't we?

From: Leo Breebaart

> Teach-In, with the delightful euro-cruncher "Ding a dong"

I've always loved that song. Irresistible fluff.

The Dutch version is absolutely the best, because it has, and I know this
will be difficult to believe, lyrics that make *even less sense* than the
English ones ("Tikketikketak en dan bim bam bom"...)

Around the same time, there was also Pussycat with 'Mississippi' -- a number
one song in the UK, I'll have you know.

> And wasn't Daryll Ann of a Dutch persuasion?

Yep. Still are, as far as I know.

> Never really took to Two unlimited either.

Ah, but how do you feel about the Vengaboys? They're Dutch, too.

I think that on the whole, I'd prefer 2 Unlimited. At least Ray Slijngaard,
the world's worst rapper (I mean, *Vanilla Ice* was a better rapper than
Slijngaard), always brought a smile to *my* face.

(Actually, the question of the Vengaboys' nationality is slightly more
complex than I make out above, because they *claim* to be an
'international' band with each member originating from a different, exotic
country. But that's just official mythology. Their home base is definitely
the Netherlands; the songs, music and production are all masterminded by
Dutch ex-disc-jockey Wessel van Diepen; and I still suspect (but can't
prove) that most, if not all, of the Vengapersons themselves are wholly
Dutch as well).

> I'll refrain from comment on Golden Earring...

<fx: raises eyebrow> There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Golden
Earring!

Ah...was that a mild note of irritation, Leo? The point is jumped upon - at first playfully....

From: Eric Jarvis
Date: 09 Jul 2000

> I'll refrain from comment on Golden Earring...

they were...

no, I think you're right, no comment is best...Jan Akkerman
too...no comment

but weren't Gruppo Sportivo of the Dutch persuasion? they were
fantastic

"...I shot my manager,
Because he didn't pay my royalties,
Hey! record company,
Gonna have a hit like Bob Marley"

yep...personally I consider them to be a major creative influence
on me...hmm, did I get that right?...hmm...nope...of course it
should read...

yep...personally I consider them to be quite good and very funny
at times

...and then, not so playfully as karen utilises one of the primary Usenet baits - sarcasm laid on with a shovel. A second helping is added for Leo's innocuous observation regarding a nationality issue and she scores the third point (remember: three is always a good number), by going for the final, ridiculous, retort. It rarely fails

From: karen
Date: 16 July 2000

>Around the same time, there was also Pussycat with 'Mississippi' -- a number
>one song in the UK, I'll have you know.

This is of course a recommendation to go straight to your 'must-buy'
list...
>Ah, but how do you feel about the Vengaboys? They're Dutch, too.

With my hands of course. You are suggesting I go listen again?

>(Actually, the question of the Vengaboys' nationality is slightly more
>complex than I make out above,

Fascinating.
Have to say they were missing from the list because I had somehow
managed to let them slip from my upper consciousness, entirely
forgetting that they are to the forefront of others'.

>There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Golden
>Earring!

Ah yes, that'll doubtless be a reference to that classic Dutch hit:
"Dong-Dong-Di-Ki-Di-Gi-Dong".

Feel free to educate me in its merits, plainly I have missed them
somehow...

An invitation to a civilised discussion...or a challenge to justify a personal opinion? Leo chooses the latter.

From: Leo Breebaart
Date: 18 July 2000

> Ah yes, that'll doubtless be a reference to that classic Dutch hit:
> "Dong-Dong-Di-Ki-Di-Gi-Dong".

The Beatles sang "Obla di obla da", Elvis Costello has covered "Bama lama
bama loo", and The Police did "De do do do, de da da da". I do hope we're
not trying to argue that artistic merit can be deduced from song titles,
are we?

The Earring have existed for over 35 years in virtually the same lineup.
Thanks to consistently decent songwriting, continuous touring, and two
hugely successful mid-nineties 'unplugged' albums, they are now almost more
popular than they ever were -- this is really several avenues removed from
the more Status Quo-like "we'll keep playing our old songs over and over
again until we keel over" types of musical longevity.

"Dong Dong Diki Digi Dong", way back in 1968, may not have been their best
effort (but then, neither was "Obla di obla da" for the Beatles), and in
fact I'll readily admit that the Golden Earring have never been
earthshakingly innovative or influential, but among their 29 albums and 73
singles so far there is quite a bit of material that deserves a wider
audience than just a Dutch one, and the suggestion that their music belongs
in the same category as that of the Vengaboys or 2 Unlimited is really
quite unfair.

Having seen the gauntlet taken up, an opinion justified and a point well made, karen ignores the counter-argument and changes her stance.

From: karen

Pah!

"Obla di obla da" is a another good example of a song, mediocre at best,
remembered for its silly title rather than any particular merit. Because
that is the most memorable thing about it.

The title simply makes a poor song vaguely memorable. It also makes it
an easy target I'll grant but not an invalid one. Lousy songs can have
good titles - doesn't make them good songs.

>The Earring have existed for over 35 years in virtually the same lineup.

So have my parents.

>Thanks to consistently decent songwriting,

"Decent" - thats a bit damning with faint praise innit?

> continuous touring, and two
>hugely successful mid-nineties 'unplugged' albums,

Which I have more interest in that much else of their output I'll grant
you. Along with "Kill Me Ce Soir" and the cover of The Byrds "Eight
Miles High". Don't go for the early psychedelic stuff in the slightest.
Live stuff mebbe.

>they are now almost more
>popular than they ever were

So are the Venga boys.

I do hope we're not trying to argue that artistic merit can be deduced
from sales, are we?

>this is really several avenues removed from
>the more Status Quo-like "we'll keep playing our old songs over and over
>again until we keel over" types of musical longevity.

Never said they were playing the same old song - well except for Radar
Love...

>"Dong Dong Diki Digi Dong", way back in 1968, may not have been their best
>effort (but then, neither was "Obla di obla da" for the Beatles), and in
>fact I'll readily admit that the Golden Earring have never been
>earthshakingly innovative or influential,

Exactly!

I don't care about influential but I do care about innovation. They are
*middling*. That's my big problem with them. I wouldn't classify them as
'one hit wonders' (because it is the one song everyone remembers) but I
found so little real variation and innovation. They may not be as
repetitive as a Quo but...

Give me experimenters any time. I may not like everything they do but
they are never boring and when they score they are /so/ much /better/
than 'decent'.

Now I actually saw Golden Earring about [mumble] years ago - but it
wasn't when they supported The Who on their European tour :P. At the
time they were a good live band but not one I'd ever buy to take home -
precisely because of that 'decent' factor. They were pretty good live,
(no idea what they are like now this must have been 20 years ago at a
festival or somesuch) but the music itself was only 'OK'.

>but among their 29 albums and 73
>singles so far there is quite a bit of material that deserves a wider
>audience than just a Dutch one,

eg?
I'll bet I have heard more of their albums than the average Brit but I
certainly haven't heard 29. In fact there are a couple of live albums
I'd say were better - but that was precisely because they were a live
act which never really transferred fully. Maybe that is why I have more
time for the unplugged stuff - captures more of that notion perhaps.

>and the suggestion that their music belongs
>in the same category as that of the Vengaboys or 2 Unlimited is really
>quite unfair.

And I did that where precisely?? Because they are mentioned in the same
post? By that logic you are bracketing them with Costello, The Beatles
and The Police. That's appropriate?
*furrfu*

Leo, having had his carefully crafted argument ignored, begins to lose his temper and attempts to force the point home.

From: Leo Breebaart
Date: 19 July 2000

> "Obla di obla da" is a another good example of a song, mediocre at best,
> remembered for its silly title rather than any particular merit.

So? "De do do do" is hardly Sting's signature entry into the Rock Legends
Hall of Fame either.

You made a disparaging insinuation about the Golden Earring *as a band*,
and when challenged, you cited *one song* with a silly title, and provided
no other information. Unless you assume that everyone reading here has the
same extensive knowledge of the Earring that you appear to have, the
implication was clearly that we were supposed to think less of the Earring
because of that silly title, and mentally put them in the same category as
some of the other sub-par Dutch groups that were mentioned in your original
post.

*My* point was that silly song titles (or even silly songs) should not be
used to ridicule the act as a whole without further justification. You have
provided some of that justification now, but you didn't in your first
article. The fact that "Obla di" is in fact a mediocre Beatles song as well
doesn't invalidate my point at all: it actually *strengthens* it. So nyer.

> The title simply makes a poor song vaguely memorable. It also makes it
> an easy target I'll grant but not an invalid one. Lousy songs can have
> good titles - doesn't make them good songs.

It *does* make it an invalid target if you give no other information. Good
songs can have lousy titles -- doesn't make them lousy songs. That
statement is just as true as yours, and without additional data, no-one can
legitimately decide in which category any given song belongs.

> "Decent" - thats a bit damning with faint praise innit?

Only if you insist on reading it that way. If I were to say that you write
decent Usenet articles, would you seriously consider that to be damning
with faint praise?

> I do hope we're not trying to argue that artistic merit can be deduced
> from sales, are we?

Hey, 50.000.000 Elvis fans can't be wrong.

> I don't care about influential but I do care about innovation. They are
> *middling*. That's my big problem with them.

Whatever you say, Ms Rand. We can't *all* be Radiohead, you know (for which
I give thanks daily, believe me).

> I found so little real variation

I don't think you have looked very hard, then. Sure, they're a
meat-and-potatoes kind of rock band, and they have a very recognisable
sound, but stylistically they're all over the place. 'Paradise in Distress'
sounds nothing like 'Twilight Zone' sounds nothing like 'Bombay' sounds
nothing like 'Quiet Eyes' sounds nothing like 'Another 45 miles to go'.

> Give me experimenters any time. I may not like everything they do but
> they are never boring

Piffle. Even accounting for the subjective nature of the concept 'boring',
counter-examples are so numerous, I would hardly know where to begin
(although XTC's 'The Somnambulist' comes to mind as an excellent first
choice).

It is obvious that Leo's temper is beginning to fray. At this point karen could have chosen one of two possible options. She could have decided that the discussion was rapidly turning into an argument and have opted to leave the thread entirely. The thread could have returned to it's, previously, lighter incarnation and tempers settled again.

However, in this instance, she opts for Plan B - to continue a battle whose only purpose is to prove one poster's superiority over another. She begins by by changing her stance, yet again, thus creating further confusion on the grounds that a confused opponent remains on the defensive. She also takes the time to carefully quote extracts from Leo's previous posts which appear to support her current arguments but, conversely, she implies that he has been trolling.

Note, also, her effective use of Usenet Strategy #32:
Ensure that you occupy the intellectual high ground by using highly restrained and overly polite language and making references to obscure information whilst, simultaneously, drawing attention to any lapse on the part of your opponent

From: karen

>"De do do do" is hardly Sting's signature entry into the Rock Legends
>Hall of Fame either.

So you agree with me then - "Dong-Dong-Di-Ki-Di-Gi-Dong" is indeed a
mediocre song remembered for its title rather than any particular merit,
and consequently my example was chosen well?

>You made a disparaging insinuation about the Golden Earring *as a band*,
>and when challenged, you cited *one song* with a silly title, and provided
>no other information.

Nope. You said In article <8k71sh$9l4$1@falcon.pds.twi.tudelft.nl>

"There is absolutely nothing wrong with Golden Earring"

A fluffy and nebulous statement with no supporting arguments or
citations.

I then said:

"Ah yes, that'll doubtless be a reference to that classic Dutch hit:
'Dong-Dong-Di-Ki-Di-Gi-Dong'.

Feel free to educate me in its merits, plainly I have missed them
somehow..."

Which was naturally the only reasonable counter post to such vagueness,
since it you failed to open up the opportunity for sensible debate or
review. A request for some minimal degree of supporting argument by
citing one song which I deem to be mediocre in the extreme and
requesting your critical analysis of said piece, as I naturally assumed
I must have missed some vital point which may only resonate in Dutch
ears.

> Unless you assume that everyone reading here has the
>same extensive knowledge of the Earring that you appear to have,

Au contraire I was inviting you to offer the case for the defence secure
in the knowledge that probably few here would have *your* extensive
knowledge of adnd enthusiasm for the 29 albums and 73 singles. They
would be anticipating your review to enable them to decide which albums
to rush out and buy. Indeed I made it clear that *I* hadn't heard all 29
albums and again requested some actual information.

[Entirely by the way which of the 29 albums *did* you regard as worth
parting with guilders for? I'll take that as a yardstick if it makes
life easier for you]

>the implication was clearly that we were supposed to think less of the
>Earring because of that silly title, and mentally put them in the same
>category as some of the other sub-par Dutch groups that were mentioned
>in your original post.

Only if you insist on reading it that way. I don't recall classifying
all the bands in the original post as sub-par [is that a golfing term
btw?]. In fact I went out of my way to cite several bands which did not
fit the classification to whit I said:

"I suppose I have to grant you UDS (parent to Rage Against the Machine?)
as and The Ex (what *were* they going to do with the loot from that
spermbank??). And of course the unforgettable ZZ^H^HHerman Brood ;]"

*Then* I refrained from comment on the Golden Earring. Because indeed I
have not heard all the 29 albums and 73 singles, but haven't felt moved
by anything I *had* heard to part with ukp for it.

Go read those posts...

Now you could be paranoid on behalf of the Dutch music industry or of
course you could be trolling here...

>*My* point was that silly song titles (or even silly songs) should not be
>used to ridicule the act as a whole without further justification. You have
>provided some of that justification now, but you didn't in your first
>article.

Really? A request for information on a the merits of a song = ridiculing
the entire bands output? Gosh. Wild extrapolations 'r us. Of course you
could have explained the merits of that song instead but you chose not
to and even agreed that it was not one of the bands best efforts.

>The fact that "Obla di" is in fact a mediocre Beatles song as well
>doesn't invalidate my point at all: it actually *strengthens* it. So nyer.

How? 'Nyer' is not the most compelling argument I have heard this year.
Hardly the example to set on a family newsgroup.

>> The title simply makes a poor song vaguely memorable. It also makes it
>> an easy target I'll grant but not an invalid one. Lousy songs can have
>> good titles - doesn't make them good songs.

>It *does* make it an invalid target if you give no other information. Good
>songs can have lousy titles -- doesn't make them lousy songs.

I said otherwise where exactly?

>That
>statement is just as true as yours, and without additional data, no-one can
>legitimately decide in which category any given song belongs.

*Precisely* - therefore one requests additional information...

>Only if you insist on reading it that way.

Gosh there is a reannual echo in here.

>If I were to say that you write decent Usenet articles, would you
>seriously consider that to be damning with faint praise?

Damned right I would! I'll be generous and put it down to 'second
language' syndrome shall I?

>Hey, 50.000.000 Elvis fans can't be wrong.

Citations? Critical analysis? Casual statements regarding Elvis music
without additional data, without which no-one can legitimately decide
the validity of your statement?

>Whatever you say, Ms Rand. We can't *all* be Radiohead, you know (for which
>I give thanks daily, believe me).

Well if you'd rather be Tom Jones' 'Sex Bomb' and leave me Radiohead
thats just fine by me.

But the point is we don't all have to be Radiohead. We just need the
ears to listen to them. We don't even need to see them in the flesh -
modern technology enables us to have the world's music at our finger
tips and choose what we deem to be the best. If you prefer the middling
and the predictable thats a choice you are free to make. Just keep well
away from Super Furry Animals in that case. Or Joe Jackson's "Blaze of
Glory".

>I don't think you have looked very hard, then.

As I said I haven't listened to all 29 albums. Only a mere dozen at
most. Mostly if a band hasn't hooked me after that much I'll push them
down the TODO list in favour of more promising acts.

>Sure, they're a meat-and-potatoes kind of rock band, and they have a
>very recognisable sound,

Yes I heard the same comments made about Status Quo.

Also in the legendary interview with Abba by Valerie Singleton where she
actually asked them if they were happy that all their songs sounded the
same. A pregnant pause followed, before the statement was modified to
'very recognisable sound'. Or was it 'characteristic sound'. Don't
recall and I am digressing again.

> but stylistically they're all over the place. 'Paradise in Distress'
>sounds nothing like 'Twilight Zone' sounds nothing like 'Bombay' sounds
>nothing like 'Quiet Eyes' sounds nothing like 'Another 45 miles to go'.

Well by my reckoning that straddles about 15 years, technical
instrumentation differences and a change in line up so I'd expect *some*
variation. Not even Quo sounded the same for that long after inception.

Twilight Zone from 'Cut' was successful in the US - right? As I recall
it was one of the better albums I heard, but still not enough to buy it.
I think "stylistically all over the place" is wildly over egging the
proverbial pudding. "Paradise in Distress" I struggle to recall at all
but neither of the others made an impact as particularly distinctive
sounds. I'd opt for Ce Soir or the cover of Eight Miles High I think
personally.

Out of curiosity what did you think of them as a live act??

>Piffle. Even accounting for the subjective nature of the concept 'boring',

You are too generous dear...

>counter-examples are so numerous, I would hardly know where to begin
>(although XTC's 'The Somnambulist' comes to mind as an excellent first
>choice).

XTC's "Somnambulist" is from their excellent album "The Black Sea". That
one album shows more variety and imagination than the totality of what I
have heard of Golden Earring.

That particular track stands out stylistically from that album even,
with its nod towards Debussy's use of the open tone scale and in
particular his prelude 'Cathedral Engloutie' which is a fairly sublime
piano piece - you may know it.

Of course "Black Sea" may not be to your taste but in a head to head
between XTC and Golden Earring I'll take the former's "Are you receiving
me" over the latter's any day of the week. YMMV.

At this point, other, more moderate, subscribers to the thread attempt to pour oil on the increasingly troubled waters by introducing, initially, a tone of rationality....

From: Eric Jarvis
Date: 20th July 2000

> Give me experimenters any time.

and there we possibly have the crux of the whole thing

people's musical taste can be basically neophobic or
neophilic...all you need to do to understand that is check how
many people have bought albums by both Bryan Adams and Death In
Vegas...know anyone who has?

personally I love hearing something that doesn't resemble
anything I've ever heard before...unless an album is utterly
outstanding I can't really cope with listening to it more than 10
times...yet I know that most people want familiarity in
music...they are looking for it to trigger emotions and memories
and familiarity helps with that...whereas I'm looking to be taken
somewhere new, or in some cases to be reminded of when I was
taken somewhere new

it is not possible for karen (or I) to agree with Leo about the
merits of Golden Earring...simply because the band don't push the
envelope...there is no reason why they should, what they do works
fine for a lot of people (probably a majority) and it is done
with energy and care and some emotional commitment...but it will
never reach karen (or I) as ever being much more than well made
muzak because it doesn't go somewhere new

it doesn't necessarily relate to tastes outside of music...I know
some people who love experimental theatre who have the mot
appallingly banal tastes in music, and people who create utterly
strange and cutting edge music who are afraid of the very idea of
computers

or

Golden Earring don't have any soul

maybe a combination of the above :)

....and, then, a note of humour in an effort to lighten the atmosphere.

From: Martyn Clapham

This has been bugging me ever since this thread started.

Is it just me or did other people see the subject and think it was about
music for clog-dancers?

---

From: Medusa
Date: 21 July 2000 19:20:29 +0100

Yep, I thought that too <G>

Unsifilised Taff Wot I am
->:-)

However, neither of these ploys works. Leo, still "game", for a fight, ignores them. He makes use of the "-ism Rule":
If you appear to be losing an argument, accuse your opponent of a vaguely appropriate -ism (eg. racism, ageism, feminism) and make general threatening noises. Accusations of trolling are often effective.
He also uses recriminations of feigned intellectualism and preferential treatment to counter any possible gaps in his own knowledge of the subject being discussed. And finally, he shows that he isn't afraid of lowering the tone to demonstrate that he is "A Man Of The People" championing the common cause against the elite.

From: Leo Breebaart

> "There is absolutely nothing wrong with Golden Earring"
> A fluffy and nebulous statement with no supporting arguments or
> citations.

Yes, because it was a challenge, not an essay. You conveniently omit *your*
first mention of the Earring, just as "fluffy and nebulous", in article
<GSYioeFRVmZ5EwVA@goodgulf.demon.co.uk>, where you wrote:

>> I'll refrain from comment on Golden Earring...
The sneer is clear, and the lack of supporting arguments on *your* part is
what's truly reprehensible.

*You* introduced the Earring into the conversation, *you* are the accuser
here, it's entirely *your* obligation to justify yourself. Suggesting that
it is instead those with a differing opinion who are not allowed to express
such opinions without "supporting arguments or citations", is misleading at
best and downright disingenuous at worst.

> Now you could be paranoid on behalf of the Dutch music industry or of
> course you could be trolling here...

If anything here smells of trollish behaviour, it has to be the act of
continuously posting anti-Dutch articles to a newsgroup well-known to be
frequented by a relatively large number of Dutch subscribers. Hate speech
against the Dutch or the Dutch culture is not welcome on afp.

In fact, I would strongly suggest that you put an immediate stop to this
deliberately inflammatory behaviour. We are starting to grow tired of it,
and I can assure you that if you persist your xenophobic trolling, we have
ways of making you regret it.

> >If I were to say that you write decent Usenet articles, would you
> >seriously consider that to be damning with faint praise?

> Damned right I would!

You can put your mind at ease then: it was an entirely hypothetical
situation. Trust me.

> I'll be generous and put it down to 'second language' syndrome shall I?

Just another example in your long history of unprovoked sneers at the
address of Dutch, and by extension *all* non-native speakers on this
newsgroup. Wasn't it you who introduced the pejorative word 'Cloggie' in
the Subject of this thread as well? I rest my case.

You clearly have no interest in *real* discussion -- and I'm sure anyone
following our little exchange so far will by now have woken up and
recognised the silicon smell.

> Well by my reckoning that straddles about 15 years, technical
> instrumentation differences and a change in line up so I'd expect *some*
> variation.

Be careful that you don't bump into anything -- you're backpedalling so
fast here I think you can hardly see where you are going.

> That particular track stands out stylistically from that album even, with
> its nod towards Debussy's use of the open tone scale and in particular
> his prelude 'Cathedral Engloutie' which is a fairly sublime piano piece -
> you may know it.

Ah, it's going to be like that, eh? I suppose this is the kind of
patronising elitist attitude that was only to be expected from someone with
your e-mail address. Go take it to rec.music.classical where you will no
doubt find a willing audience of pseudo-intellectuals more interested in
talking about music as opposed to actually *listening* to and *enjoying*
it.

> Of course "Black Sea" may not be to your taste but in a head to head
> between XTC and Golden Earring

The Earring would *trounce* the arty-farty wusses in XTC, who don't even
*have* a drummer, let alone one as accomplished as Cesar Zuiderwijk.

XTC never had video clips with naked nuns in them, either. 'Nuff said.

karen continues with her primary offensive of creating confusion by, initially, introducing the topic of "What Constitutes Good Usenet Practice" - thus suggesting that Leo lacks her Usenet experience. The implication here is, of course, that he should bow to her obvious superiority in other areas too.

A number of jibes at his possible difficulty with English are sandwiched between an accusation of the very behaviour that she, herself, has been using (ie the wilful misinterpretion of previous posts) and some taunting regarding his previous threats. She repeatedly demands that he qualify, justify and support his words - a classic demonstration that the best method of defence, for a flame warrior, is attack.

Nor will she allow him to champion the "Common Cause" as she culminates her post with a demand that Leo apologises for offending the rest of the newsgroup whilst making some threatening noises of her own.

From: karen
Date: 22 Jul 2000

Entirely BTW its common practice on Usenet to leave a line between your
own text and that to which you are responding - it helps readability.
Even where there isn't much content to read.

I'd have thought the meaning was clear though even to the most
linguistically challenged - not having listened to 29 albums and 73
singles I was not commenting. Had I listened to a substantial proportion of their output I'd have happily commented at length. However I prefer
to know what I'm talking about rather than trawling together laboured
and pompous comments based on assumptions extrapolated from precious few
actual facts. However common a practice the later may be these days.

BTW you never answered my questions - how many *have* you parted with
money for and what did you think of them live?

>*You* introduced the Earring into the conversation, *you* are the accuser
>here, it's entirely *your* obligation to justify yourself. Suggesting that
>it is instead those with a differing opinion who are not allowed to express
>such opinions without "supporting arguments or citations", is misleading at
>best and downright disingenuous at worst.

ah yes - i recognise this as Usenet strategy #69. Seen it dozens of
times. Take someone's post, wilfully [or out of idiocy] misinterpret it
and then cite it back reinterpreted to suit yourself and demand support
for what was never the original argument any way.

Sorry - that one doesn't work with me. Seen it too often. Here too
fairly regularly. Or is this a new trick to you learned here?

>If anything here smells of trollish behaviour, it has to be the act of
>continuously posting anti-Dutch articles to a newsgroup well-known to be
>frequented by a relatively large number of Dutch subscribers. Hate speech
>against the Dutch or the Dutch culture is not welcome on afp.

Ah people now this is the slight variation on #69. Lets call it #69.5 as
it doesn't display sufficient originality to qualify as a full
additional strategem in its own right.

It works in a similar way but this time you accuse someone of doing or
saying something they haven't actually done and then demand they defend
themselves, in as aggressive manner as you reckon to get away with. And
of course if anyone calls you to task or points out the inaccuracies you
can just drop out fast or post some sort of abject apology because your
puppy broke a finger nail. How is your puppy Leo? Felling a bit queasy
by any chance?

You know folks the amazing thing here is that both #69 and #69.5
actually *work* with frightening regularity. Even the original posters
get caught by it when their own arguments and behaviours are distorted
they still feel the need to justify and explain a position which they
never held in the first place. strange.

>In fact, I would strongly suggest that you put an immediate stop to this
>deliberately inflammatory behaviour. We are starting to grow tired of it,
>and I can assure you that if you persist your xenophobic trolling, we have
>ways of making you regret it.

Oh please.
Go on - get me TOS'd from all my different connections then. All at once
please. I'm longing to see the justification, for instance, you write
for to Inuit.net.

Leo; "There's this woman says Some Dutch music isn't as good as some
other stuff, I am vewy upset about this and want her TOS'd"

isp: "Dutch music? Where does that come from then? Some submarine in the
Atlantic? Here read our AUP. Yes of course its in Inuit. What do mean
you don't understand Inuit - are you prejudiced or something? Sheesh,
people these days, all want the world recreated in their own image. Are
you familiar with the term 'Luser' in this submarine of yours?"

>it was an entirely hypothetical situation.
>Trust me.

Considering your apparent inability to read and understand the posts you
are following I find that a source of the most immense relief.

>Wasn't it you who introduced the pejorative word 'Cloggie' in
>the Subject of this thread as well? I rest my case.

Please feel free to list post numbers from all those historic posts in
which I have sneered at cloggies, complete with supporting text,
naturally.

You who chose to interpret the word 'Cloggie' as pejorative? Clearly I
was overly generous in my willingness to allow for unfamiliarity with
the nuances of the English Language. I could recommend so good books if
you feel it would help? There used to be a nice series about a boy and
girl called 'Peter and Jane'.

>You clearly have no interest in *real* discussion -- and I'm sure anyone
>following our little exchange so far will by now have woken up and
>recognised the silicon smell.

Why - are you having stomach trouble?
Would you like something for blood pressure? Heartburn? Wind?

>Be careful that you don't bump into anything -- you're backpedalling so
>fast here I think you can hardly see where you are going.

Well coming from someone who started by saying :

"There is absolutely nothing wrong with Golden Earring"

and then promptly described them as a 'meat and potatoes' band...

I'll just put it down to a Dutch obsession with twisting the subject to
bicycles at any opportunity shall I?

> I suppose this is the kind of
>patronising elitist attitude that was only to be expected from someone with
>your e-mail address. Go take it to rec.music.classical where you will no
>doubt find a willing audience of pseudo-intellectuals more interested in
>talking about music as opposed to actually *listening* to and *enjoying*
>it.

Which particular email address were you having trouble with dear? I
detect the whiff [is your stomach sill causing you trouble?] of the out
gunned resorting to personal abuse, grabbing at any possible straw. You
do a passable straw man at times I suppose.

Again we see a familiar Usenet strategem. Cover up your own ignorance by
accusing the other of "pseudo-intellectualism". No chance of you
defining that term I suppose? thought not. And of course you have now
made wild and unfounded allegations against the entire usenet community
which is rec.music.classical. I'd look for a new isp quick if I were
you.

Entirely BTW do you have a biscuit tin with the Haywain on it as well?

>The Earring would *trounce* the arty-farty wusses in XTC, who don't even
>*have* a drummer, let alone one as accomplished as Cesar Zuiderwijk.

[Sigh] Your willy will inevitably be bigger than mine... well for your
sake I hope so anyway.

But of course if you insist on arguing. XTC have the wit to use the
appropriate drummer for the appropriate piece. As for example they do on
Wasp Star, using Prairie Prince and Chuck Sabo on different types of
tracks. Because they actually produce different types of tracks. I'd
recommend you avoid it though - lyrics are probably a bit subtle for
you. You'd hate songs like "Standing in for Joe". If you understood
them.

A good band or musician will always want to bring in the best back up to
their writing and performance. That musician may be themselves or it may
be someone else. You'd have to be arrogant in the extreme to assume that
no external source could ever add to your own writing and production.

Do Golden Earring make their own tea as well?

>XTC never had video clips with naked nuns in them, either. 'Nuff said.

And they added which particular quality to the album? Of course we all
know about your obsession with nekkid women but nekkid nuns is a new low
point don't you feel? You have probably offended millions of Catholics
with your words of religious persecution and I feel mail to your isp
may be appropriate. At the very least you should apologise right now to
any members of the group whom you have offended.

Leo, tired of arguing with an ever shifting opponent, decides that the best avenue available to him is to killfile karen. Since this means that he will no longer see any of her posts, he will be able to join in discussions without losing his temper - an admirable and mature action. However, Leo is now so angry that this is insufficient. He wants to ensure that everyone knows that karen now occupies a position in his killfile, so he killfiles her publically. A final, textual, two fingers at his erstwhile opponent - safe in the knowledge that he will not see her response.

Does that still sound "admirable and mature"?

From: Leo Breebaart
Date: 23 Jul 2000

> Even where there isn't much content to read. [...]

> I'd have thought the meaning was clear though even to the most
> linguistically challenged [...]

> I prefer to know what I'm talking about rather than trawling together
> laboured and pompous comments based on assumptions extrapolated from
> precious few actual facts. [...]

> Take someone's post, wilfully [or out of idiocy] misinterpret it [...]

> Considering your apparent inability to read and understand the posts you
> are following [...]

*plonk*

---

From: Eric Jarvis

now both of you stop it right now...straight to bed with no
supper for both of you

it's only music...I've been making the stuff for over twenty
years...and I still can't agree with myself about it, let alone
with anyone else

oh yeah...Bryan Adams is rubbish and Primal Scream are the best
band in the world ever

what? justify it?...I can't really...it's music...I can come up
with loads of words that basically boil down to "I know what I
like and have a large vocabulary"...it's fun to do...but as an
activity is about as serious as bog snorkelling

oh no! now I've upset the afp bog snorkellers

---

From: Mary Messall

And if you don't obey, you shall be forced to listen to each other's
record collections. <g> You've both been around ages, worked hard enough
to earn L-space email addies no less. Leo's surely read karen's FAQs,
karen's surely read Leo's APF: how can you think of each other as less
than the brilliant, witty, tasteful people we all know you both are. Go
on, fluff and make up.

Oh, yes, arguing is fun! The zingers, the think-fast desperation to
rationalize something you've always believed, the thrill of victory and
the agony of de-feet-in-your-mouth. Mind you, once it starts getting
personal, it's about as fun as bog snorkelling without a mask in the
sewage zone; both people come up dirty and sputtering. I have too much
first hand experience...

karen has the last word. It seems she's won. Or has she? Read on.....

From: karen

>And if you don't obey, you shall be forced to listen to each other's
>record collections. <g>

Sadly we mostly have. Sadly there is a horrible amount in common. XTC,
Elvis Costello, Ruben Blades and Super Furry Animals amongst them in
number [g] Bookshelves aren't much better... and so it goes on.

>You've both been around ages, worked hard enough
>to earn L-space email addies no less. Leo's surely read karen's FAQs,

He can't now he plonked me :^]
I can say what I like. so nyer.

>karen's surely read Leo's APF:

Wouldn't touch it - might catch something...

> how can you think of each other as less
>than the brilliant, witty, tasteful people we all know you both are. Go
>on, fluff and make up.

Keep going, a few thousand more lines like that. Ahem.

Yes we are being intensely childish aren't we? Shocking behaviour eh
what? Now point me to the one *silly* and petty tactic in that line of
bickering that hasn't been employed *very* effectively in a recent
thread on afp, in amongst all of the childish nonsense which has taken
place?

Oh dear Leo, evidently our image for being staid and boring rather than
the wild childs we are after the sun goes down [and the sun is always
going down somewhere right?] are getting in the way of a good argument.

Except of course - we didn't do a 'good' argument we made a game of
employing the tactics which have become all too common in debates here
and on other groups as well. *Every* *single* childish and illogical and
goalpost-moving tactic we used has been used here many times over in one
or more recent thread. Yes?

Its like this: yes we are real friends. We share a great many
interests. Yes we both have an intense passion for music. Yes we both
have an intense interest in Usenet in general and afp/lspace in
particular and we both get bugged and frankly frustrated by some of the
negative and bad feeling created in the nastier threads. It is *bad* for
a newsgroup. Period. Its always the same - poor logic, innuendo,
intolerance, petty personal abuse, *plonk*. Usually in that order. Often
with some quite unnecessary pedantic point scoring along the way. Its
just a great pity that a potentially vibrant virtual community with a
wide variety of intelligent and witty posters with *so* *much* to offer
gets deadened in the noise and all too often intimidated by it. Its just
kind of sad.

I think Golden Earring are mediocre and don't care for them. Leo thinks
they are middling but he thinks they are OK. We've talked about them
before. And its true that on the neophobe/neophile dimension I am
certainly more actively neophile - it provides much scope for argument
[g] Note argument != bickering/personal animosity. So yes we were having
a bit of fun parodying a number of posting styles here whilst running
through well worn arguments. No we were not entirely joking... Because
if it's bad behaviour by us - then its not exactly good from anyone else
innit? Of course we can do it better...:^]

It wasn't planned - just erupted spontaneously as you might say. So if
you are still worried - think on this. How well would *you* need to know
someone before playing that game without conferring?? Just how many
people has Leo publicly *plonked*? :]:] esmi do we qualify for the
timeline?

Does this mean we have to be grown-ups again now? Aw.shucks. Do we have
to shake hands and stuff too?

>Oh, yes, arguing is fun! The zingers, the think-fast desperation to
>rationalize something you've always believed, the thrill of victory and
>the agony of de-feet-in-your-mouth. Mind you, once it starts getting
>personal, it's about as fun as bog snorkelling without a mask in the
>sewage zone; both people come up dirty and sputtering.

Quite. My thoughts precisely. They're his too. If he tells you otherwise
I'll put him on my veggie burgers for the rest of the week.

;-)

So...own up! Were you fooled? Did this "flamewar" have a dreadfully familiar ring? Maybe this thread is worth remembering the next time you feel your temper starting to fray....

---

---

The L-Space Web is a creation of The L-Space Librarians
This mirror site is maintained by A.H.Davis