There is something in psychology referred to as "projection". Several times over the last several pages of this thread I have had that word on the tip of my tongue because it is what I have felt the OP often did in his attempts at rebuttals of my opinions and comments. I did not use the word because I felt it would be too provocative. I guess that in my mind things have reached a new low in the civility scale so as to make the use of that word not seem as inappropriate; how unfortunate. I have absolutely no problem with rebuttals of my opinions; I welcome them. What I do have a problem with is the gratuitous and thoughtless "jabs" that are so clearly a simple and deliberate need to be contrarian so as to "show" some sense of "authority", and that unfortunately hamper his own thread’s potential. That is the extent of my "having trouble" with it; beyond that, I respect anyone’s desire to come across as idiotic. Two observations that are emblematic of this constant conflic (and, I point them out again only in the hope that when an issue is recognized it may be resolved):
The "Grand Poobah" comment: I have made it very clear that I have no interest in being considered any such thing, and from my point of view, the idea that I would feel "threatened" by a challenge to that supposed mantel is, well.....I will let the substance of my comments about music do the rest of the explaining. However, re "projection": to me it’s obvious who’s slide show is making the most "noise". Then there is the issue of substance (or lack of):
I made two comments, respectively, about two things that I thought were fatal flaws in the Crosby article. One, I conceded that it was, while important to me (spelling), pretty insignificant overall; the other, very significant and potentially the subject of an interesting exchange of ideas. Do I need to point out which of my two comments received commentary?
The "Grand Poobah" comment: I have made it very clear that I have no interest in being considered any such thing, and from my point of view, the idea that I would feel "threatened" by a challenge to that supposed mantel is, well.....I will let the substance of my comments about music do the rest of the explaining. However, re "projection": to me it’s obvious who’s slide show is making the most "noise". Then there is the issue of substance (or lack of):
I made two comments, respectively, about two things that I thought were fatal flaws in the Crosby article. One, I conceded that it was, while important to me (spelling), pretty insignificant overall; the other, very significant and potentially the subject of an interesting exchange of ideas. Do I need to point out which of my two comments received commentary?