Hmm, Paula. I'll speak to you directly.
I'm sorry I offended you by taking issue with your premise and conclusions. I didn't realize [and from my perspective, it's not] that the analysis of something has as a prerequisite that it first be a life-changing matter....or else analysis isn't warranted, useful, helpful, enlightening, or anything else. Life-enhancing things that appeal can still be analyzed and hold up under it.
You felt strongly enough about people analyzing Leonard's work that you initiated a thread regarding it. The examples you used, in my humble opinion, did not support what you were saying. So, I responded with my reasons why, as well as some examples of my own to support what I was saying.
Leonard's work draws on a wide variety of sources, surprizingly at times, even for the simplest of lines. Other people's analyses has been very enlightening and enriching for me as to the complexity and meaning that lies beneath much of Leonard's work. I personally don't feel that the ditty you mentioned should preclude serious analysis of the majority [to allow for a few other, not so serious songs/poems] of the remainder of his work. Even so, the not-so-serious ones can hold up under the process.
As to your ability to express yourself, I agree that you are quite able without my assistance. However, in the course of any healthy discussion, the things that people say do get addressed. I have personally found that discussion has sometimes led to me changing my opinions. However, not simply because a person has made a comment. If they can support it, I have no problem considering it. Taking it at face value [when I disagree with the face value of the comment], however, my opinion has no reason to change.
Fortunate for me, I'm not attempting Leonard Cohen excellence. Likewise, when I responded to you, I didn't agree with what you'd said or your concepts. From my perspective, the examples you chose did not hold up. I did have the option of just making sarcastic, flippant, dismissive, or bypassing remarks regarding what you'd said, but I would rather try to engage in an actual discussion. So I try. If you're not game, so be it. However, I won't insult you in response as a result.
All good things,
Lizzytysh
Why do you feel you have to analysis LC's music so much
There you go getting the wrong end of the stick again. Liz you have not offended me. You have irritated me slightly simply because you are of the school of thought "why use one word when a hundred will do".
I really enjoy debating a point unfortunately you would rather labour it.
But as I do enjoy an argument please do not take offence please feel free to unleash any venom you may wish with the sure knowledge you really cannot offend me
I really enjoy debating a point unfortunately you would rather labour it.
But as I do enjoy an argument please do not take offence please feel free to unleash any venom you may wish with the sure knowledge you really cannot offend me
Paula,
You are speaking to the wrong person when it comes to "unleash venom." I hear more in your few sentences than you could muster in 1,000 of mine. Perhaps had you used a few more words in your initial post asking why do we want to analyze Leonard's music so much; and that in his rhyming, like all other poets, he tends to use filler [paraphrase not a direct quote] ~ I would have understood what your "true" point was and taken it from there. Your words at face value ~ as well as after I re-read them to be sure I understood ~ left much to be desired, and I had no choice but to disagree.
Discussion ~ not argument ~ was what was being attempted to no avail. An exchange of ideas and perspectives; sticking to the topic, without diverting to other ones, as well as to personal attacks directed to everyone else but me, yet about me. These tactics do not align with an ethical exchange of ideas, at least in the discussion and debate world. The end of the stick I picked up was the sharp one.
You still sound angry to me, Paula.
All good things,
~Lizzytysh
You are speaking to the wrong person when it comes to "unleash venom." I hear more in your few sentences than you could muster in 1,000 of mine. Perhaps had you used a few more words in your initial post asking why do we want to analyze Leonard's music so much; and that in his rhyming, like all other poets, he tends to use filler [paraphrase not a direct quote] ~ I would have understood what your "true" point was and taken it from there. Your words at face value ~ as well as after I re-read them to be sure I understood ~ left much to be desired, and I had no choice but to disagree.
Discussion ~ not argument ~ was what was being attempted to no avail. An exchange of ideas and perspectives; sticking to the topic, without diverting to other ones, as well as to personal attacks directed to everyone else but me, yet about me. These tactics do not align with an ethical exchange of ideas, at least in the discussion and debate world. The end of the stick I picked up was the sharp one.
You still sound angry to me, Paula.
All good things,
~Lizzytysh
Kush,
I didn't say I didn't like the song. I said I have yet to hear it. I did say, however, that if the title is any indication, figuring out what the song is about wouldn't take much analysis.
I was conceding to Paula, for the sake of the continuation of the attempted discussion, that a "frivolous ditty" [still not saying that it's "crap/filler"] does not preclude serious analysis of the majority of a serious writer's body of work. Actually, I'm quite certain that there might be something in it that I might like.
All good things,
Lizzytysh
I didn't say I didn't like the song. I said I have yet to hear it. I did say, however, that if the title is any indication, figuring out what the song is about wouldn't take much analysis.
I was conceding to Paula, for the sake of the continuation of the attempted discussion, that a "frivolous ditty" [still not saying that it's "crap/filler"] does not preclude serious analysis of the majority of a serious writer's body of work. Actually, I'm quite certain that there might be something in it that I might like.
All good things,
Lizzytysh
-
Guest
Liz
You are tying your self in knots. on the one hand you say dghwho is a ditty and on the other hand you are saying you have never heard of it you then tell Kush you are certain it is a good song. Please do not feel you need to concede anything in order to appease me in some way.
Feel free to have your own opinions. By the way Liz I am in no way angry I enjoy the thrill of the chase
You are tying your self in knots. on the one hand you say dghwho is a ditty and on the other hand you are saying you have never heard of it you then tell Kush you are certain it is a good song. Please do not feel you need to concede anything in order to appease me in some way.
Feel free to have your own opinions. By the way Liz I am in no way angry I enjoy the thrill of the chase
Well, there we go again, Paula. I see them as quite different. I see arguments as easily tending toward the irrational [with different rules ~ or lack thereof] and discussion being much more rational and civilized [making every effort to stay within certain bounds of civility]. Perhaps we would do better by defining our terms first.
The thrill of the chase lacks thrill for me anymore. I'd rather just talk and achieve some genuine communication.
Knots: Nope. No ties. Simply moving about the room for different perspectives.
(A) If you'll reference my original comment, you'll see that I placed frivolous ditty in quotes for the sake of example, and stated that "even" a "frivolous ditty" and generalized when I referred to serious writer, which Leonard definitely is.....however, my comment had to do with any serious writer and their body of work. Most of them I am guessing write something frivolous now and then. As I've already said, I was allowing for it possibly being that. Perhaps "crap/filler" is actually a step up [or down] from that, but the principle still applies.
(B) I certainly did not say that I have never heard of it. I said I have yet to hear it. Huge difference, Paula.
(C) I certainly did not say to Kush that I am "certain it is a good song." I said "I'm quite certain [not even know] that there might be some thing in it that I might like." Huge difference. Don't know how I could have gotten any more qualifiers into one sentence.
(D) Conceding the perspective of your premise, "for the sake of the continuation of the attempted discussion" ~ and using that as the basis for making my point ~ in no way constitutes attempting to "appease" you in some way. Totally different concept. It was merely a way to get on with things, by momentarily accepting it on your terms, and proceeding from there.
(E) Trust me when I tell you that my opinions will, indeed, remain my own ~ to have, to hold, and to express ~ forevermore. I've yet to ask anyone for that freedom. So, your extending permission, as [ahem] nice as that may be
, is superfluous.
(F) Given the above, perhaps if you read my Posts for content and meaning, prior to responding, we would do better in the communication department. Geesh! If nothing else, I would have thought you'd have at least accurately picked up on my already having my own opinions.
(G) You're tying yourself in knots, Paula, trying to make it appear that I am.
All good things,
Lizzytysh
The thrill of the chase lacks thrill for me anymore. I'd rather just talk and achieve some genuine communication.
Knots: Nope. No ties. Simply moving about the room for different perspectives.
(A) If you'll reference my original comment, you'll see that I placed frivolous ditty in quotes for the sake of example, and stated that "even" a "frivolous ditty" and generalized when I referred to serious writer, which Leonard definitely is.....however, my comment had to do with any serious writer and their body of work. Most of them I am guessing write something frivolous now and then. As I've already said, I was allowing for it possibly being that. Perhaps "crap/filler" is actually a step up [or down] from that, but the principle still applies.
(B) I certainly did not say that I have never heard of it. I said I have yet to hear it. Huge difference, Paula.
(C) I certainly did not say to Kush that I am "certain it is a good song." I said "I'm quite certain [not even know] that there might be some thing in it that I might like." Huge difference. Don't know how I could have gotten any more qualifiers into one sentence.
(D) Conceding the perspective of your premise, "for the sake of the continuation of the attempted discussion" ~ and using that as the basis for making my point ~ in no way constitutes attempting to "appease" you in some way. Totally different concept. It was merely a way to get on with things, by momentarily accepting it on your terms, and proceeding from there.
(E) Trust me when I tell you that my opinions will, indeed, remain my own ~ to have, to hold, and to express ~ forevermore. I've yet to ask anyone for that freedom. So, your extending permission, as [ahem] nice as that may be
, is superfluous. (F) Given the above, perhaps if you read my Posts for content and meaning, prior to responding, we would do better in the communication department. Geesh! If nothing else, I would have thought you'd have at least accurately picked up on my already having my own opinions.
(G) You're tying yourself in knots, Paula, trying to make it appear that I am.
All good things,
Lizzytysh
Paula, Paula....whether my Posts are short or long, you either don't get them or simply pretend not to, so as to evade your projections onto me of not understanding what is said. Even a short post [mine to Kush] in the simplest of terms, you can't seem to understand or get right.
I've considered what my response might have been were I the original poster with what you said, and you had responded to me as I did to you. My response would have been very much along the lines of, "Wow! No kidding.....700? That's amazing. I guess maybe I'll have to rethink what I said. He surely wouldn't go to all that trouble for filler!" I don't expect you to know this to be the truth, or to take my word for it. The most important thing is that I do. I like new information and the insights it can bring.
There comes a time when it apparently becomes necessary to break it down when another person so clearly misses; misinterprets; twists; or only selectively hears, according to what one wishes, so as to justify their own, sarcastic repartee. Even with my short posting to Kush, you managed to turn it inside out.....and despite my detailing, for you, your erroneous thinking, you have only something negative toward me personally, to say in return....as you bypass, altogether, the original topic[s]. It's appearing that you're either not as mature or discerning as I'd originally thought you to be, or you're simply just not acting it. At the moment, I'm feeling amazed by your defensiveness and the extent to which you will go to avoid simply saying you've misunderstood something [or anything, perhaps]. Yet, you do so again. Connection failed.
Again, I'm not "defending" myself, but explaining [word for word] and A, B, C, D does not constitute violence.
Since the chase is what you love, I leave you to your mechanical rabbit. Many explanations, jumped tracks, and varied insults later, we're basically right where we began. At this point, I have to consider that your responses don't truly reflect what you've understood my words to say and mean, and that you're simply, merely playing a game. If that's not the case.....I'm sorry that true communication and understanding between us proves impossible.
Ah, well.....such is life.
All good things,
Lizzytysh
I've considered what my response might have been were I the original poster with what you said, and you had responded to me as I did to you. My response would have been very much along the lines of, "Wow! No kidding.....700? That's amazing. I guess maybe I'll have to rethink what I said. He surely wouldn't go to all that trouble for filler!" I don't expect you to know this to be the truth, or to take my word for it. The most important thing is that I do. I like new information and the insights it can bring.
There comes a time when it apparently becomes necessary to break it down when another person so clearly misses; misinterprets; twists; or only selectively hears, according to what one wishes, so as to justify their own, sarcastic repartee. Even with my short posting to Kush, you managed to turn it inside out.....and despite my detailing, for you, your erroneous thinking, you have only something negative toward me personally, to say in return....as you bypass, altogether, the original topic[s]. It's appearing that you're either not as mature or discerning as I'd originally thought you to be, or you're simply just not acting it. At the moment, I'm feeling amazed by your defensiveness and the extent to which you will go to avoid simply saying you've misunderstood something [or anything, perhaps]. Yet, you do so again. Connection failed.
Again, I'm not "defending" myself, but explaining [word for word] and A, B, C, D does not constitute violence.
Since the chase is what you love, I leave you to your mechanical rabbit. Many explanations, jumped tracks, and varied insults later, we're basically right where we began. At this point, I have to consider that your responses don't truly reflect what you've understood my words to say and mean, and that you're simply, merely playing a game. If that's not the case.....I'm sorry that true communication and understanding between us proves impossible.
Ah, well.....such is life.
All good things,
Lizzytysh
,