"RichL" <rpleavitt@yahoo.com> wrote in a message
>>>> Aside from that, there is some segment of people that claim to like
>>>> or "get" an artist, because they are trying to create an impression
>>>> of themselves.
>>> Couldn't it just be because they do ... get it?
>> Yup... it sure could be. As you may have noted, by reading what I
>> wrote; "there is some segment of people" ... meaning this is a group
>> of people, not all people. The people who fit into that group are
>> those who match the characteristics of that group. If they fail to
>> meet those characteristics, they do not belong to that group.
> Totally incoherent.
> "People belong to a group unless they don't"?
No.
"People don't belong to a group unless they do."
When I talk about a dislike for moron posers, I am not including anyone who
isn't a moron poser in that group.
I may have mentioned this before, but it isn't rocket science. Your spitting
and sputtering over points not made is more than a bit moronic.
>> Actually, the people I was ragging on are those who don't actually
>> get it, but feel the need to say they do. I suggested this same group
>> is the type who needs to wear their clothing labels on the outside.
> Which is a totally irrational reach on your part. You're making an
> assumption, and simply by stating it outright you assume that you have
> reached some sort of truth.
Spitting and sputtering isn't working. Try English. I was ragging on a group
of people. There was nothing being reached for. Of all the people being
discussed, I spent some time ragging on a particular segment.
I said this before, but I'll try using smaller words and shorter sentences.
See if you can grasp this;
People who like Zappa - fine
People who don't like Zappa - fine
People who are indifferent - fine
People who "Get it" - fine
People who think Zappa sucks - fine
People who think Zappa was a god - fine
People who think Zappa was a genius - fine
People who are posers - Morons.
Simple enough for you?
> What you have done is fooled yourself. But not us.
I suspect you were a fool long before I got here.
>> From meeting and talking to thousands of people over my lifetime. Are
>> you honestly telling me you've never met anyone who felt the need to
>> wear their clothing labels on the outside? You've never heard of
>> designer label clothes? You've never heard of a poser? Everyone
>> you've talked to over the course of your entire life has been an
>> honest, straight up, pillar of society?
>>
>> Bullshit.
> Which has nothing whatsoever with Zappa except that you've attempted to
> connect it. It's an attempt to force a stereotype, but you've failed
> miserably because you've shown no connection whatsoever.
Damn Beavis... you were so close, and still managed to miss it.
Yes! It has nothing to do with Zappa. I think posers are morons - no matter
on which topic they are posing.
>> Hopefully this isn't news to you, but there are millions of people
>> who exist outside of Usenet.
> Most of whom appear to me to be capable of reasoning on a much higher
> plane than you do.
I'm not alone then. It seems this newsgroup is plagued by those who are
deficient in reasoning skills.
Who is the king in that area, you or Less? Should I have filed an
application?
>> Just read it and take it at face value. There are *some* people who
>> are posers. Period. *Some* of these people who fall into that group,
>> may like Frank Zappa, or claim to, and some may not. It has nothing
>> to do with Zappa.
> So why even bring it up except to fraudulently imply that there is some
> sort of connection between "posers" and Zappa?
Because there are some posers who claim to "get it" in regard to Zappa. As a
result of this discussion, I mentioned I think such posers are morons.
You have two eyes and one mouth. I suggest you attempt to use them in that
ratio. You've been so busy spitting and sputtering over nothing. Had you
simply read, *and* comprehended what I said, you'd not have your panties all
in a bunch over nothing.
