Commisérations

[ahinton]

Like you, I have absolutely no idea what the man believes, Mr Hinton

Why "like me"? I wrote "I agree that it was somewhat OTT, [but] why do you suppose it to be "faux"? Do you think that he believes the opposite of what he said?" I would not have thought this to imply an assumption on my part that AN was anything less than genuine and sincere in what he expressed, however garrulous his means of doing so were...

[Lat-Literal]

That's not only an old joke but also an unlikely surmise given that this particular PB is self-evidently not French; OK, nor's Franck (as has already been pointed out,) but I imagine that even Mr Neil at full throttle would not have thought that PB is French...

That said, I wonder what the real Pierre Boulez must feel about what happened (assuming that he is well enough to be aware of it)...

Isn't she?

Suppose you'll be suggesting that French Frank isn't French next!

[P. G. Tipps]

Why "like me"? I wrote "I agree that it was somewhat OTT, [but] why do you suppose it to be "faux"? Do you think that he believes the opposite of what he said?" I would not have thought this to imply an assumption on my part that AN was anything less than genuine and sincere in what he expressed, however garrulous his means of doing so were...

I've already answered your question, so I assume you simply missed it?

'Faux' = artificial, contrived.

Whatever he privately believes, Neil's ranting public contribution was certainly that!

[ahinton]

I've already answered your question, so I assume you simply missed it?

'Faux' = artificial, contrived.

Whatever he privately believes, Neil's ranting public contribution was certainly that!

No, I didn't miss it; what you've now revealed is your reason for using the word "faux", i.e. that AN's chosen means of expression was "faux" (artificial, contrived) whilst not necessarily at the same time indicative that he didn't believe what he was saying.

[jean]

Excruciating.

Why?

We already know that these Islamist fundamentalists hold all manifestations of Western culture in total contempt - as they do everyone else's too, witness their destruction of the Afghan Buddhas and the silencing of the musicians of Mali.

All this piece of bombast will achieve is to confirm them in their belief that, actually, they are winning.

(I'm not sure it will even convince the rest of us of what a cultured fellow Neil is.)

[Lat-Literal]

We already know that these Islamist fundamentalists hold all manifestations of Western culture in total contempt - as they do everyone else's too, witness their destruction of the Afghan Buddhas and the silencing of the musicians of Mali.

All this piece of bombast will achieve is to confirm them in their belief that, actually, they are winning.

(I'm not sure it will even convince the rest of us of what a cultured fellow Neil is.)

Yes.

As soon as the errors began to be highlighted on this forum, I realised that it had almost certainly not been written by him.

And sadly that raises more questions about the BBC and its ability to work to its earlier standards.

Basic research re Franck etc and - given the Boulez - whatever happened to the Pronunciation Unit?

I still believe that IS as a proportion of the global population is the equivalent to a man and a dog in a crowded public house.

[P. G. Tipps]

No, I didn't miss it; what you've now revealed is your reason for using the word "faux", i.e. that AN's chosen means of expression was "faux" (artificial, contrived) whilst not necessarily at the same time indicative that he didn't believe what he was saying.

Yes, that's what I said in my original post by indicating that I (like you) have really no idea what Neil believes. He is simply a TV journalist aiming to gain attention, and his apparent success in that at least cannot be denied.

The whole 'rant' was so obviously scripted by someone else that it sounded horribly and unconvincingly ... well ... 'faux'?

At least it certainly did to me!

[Lat-Literal]

Yes, that's what I said in my original post by indicating that I (like you) have really no idea what Neil believes. He is simply a TV journalist aiming to gain attention, and his apparent success in that at least cannot be denied.

The whole 'rant' was so obviously scripted by someone else that it sounded horribly and unconvincingly ... well ... 'faux'?

At least it certainly did to me!

Well, it can't have been anyone in the Government or the Senior Civil Service as their mouthpiece is LBC.

[ahinton]

We already know that these Islamist fundamentalists hold all manifestations of Western culture in total contempt - as they do everyone else's too, witness their destruction of the Afghan Buddhas and the silencing of the musicians of Mali.

All this piece of bombast will achieve is to confirm them in their belief that, actually, they are winning.

Whilst of course I agree with your first paragraph, I don't see the logic of the second even if a degree of "methinks that he protesteth too much" influences a personal reaction to it; how does this rant (and I accept that it sounds like one) confirm in anyone's belief - IS's or anyone else's - that IS is "winning"? IS itself is unlikely to have heard it in any case and will have convinced themselves that they're "winning" irrespective of anything anyonein any case, AN or no AN.

I'm not sure it will even convince the rest of us of what a cultured fellow Neil is

Er, no - especially not wiv pranounciashun like 'is, it won't! And why the puzzling emphasis on Saint-Saëns?...

[P. G. Tipps]

... Er, no - especially not wiv pranounciashun like 'is, it won't! ...

That is clearly an 'Ingerlish' pronunciation and Mr Neil, for all his many irritations, is widely believed to be 'Scotch'.

[french frank]

Many prominent journalists are paid to express their personal opinions, loudly (and often controversially). It's what they do.

AN's major point is what jean said in her first sentence. I daresay he does hold the view, strongly, that what we see is mindless destruction of any culture which isn't that of IS - music, architecture, religion. French culture is close to our own, and if he needed someone to fill in the detail about Boolay and Plonk that doesn't really invalidate what he wanted to say. And saying it is part of the freedom of speech that journalists like him seek to uphold. Those, for me, are the important points.

[jean]

Whilst of course I agree with your first paragraph, I don't see the logic of the second even if a degree of "methinks that he protesteth too much" influences a personal reaction to it; how does this rant (and I accept that it sounds like one) confirm in anyone's belief - IS's or anyone else's - that IS is "winning"?

Their purpose is to destroy what we care about, because they regard it as evil.

How then can they not feel satisfaction when we remind them of just how important these things are to us?

Do you suppose the Puritans stopped to think when someone pointed out to them the beauty of the stained glass they were engaged in smashing?

[jean]

...And saying it is part of the freedom of speech that journalists like him seek to uphold...

Undoubtedly! But most of them have the good sense not to.

[ahinton]

Their purpose is to destroy what we care about, because they regard it as evil.

How then can they not feel satisfaction when we remind them of just how important these things are to us?

Again, I agree with your first paragraph but, as to your second, as I said, I rather doubt that IS will have heard the rant or that it would have given them any especial satisfaction even if they had because they care not a jot for what anyone else thinks, not only about themselves but about anything else. IS is self-evidently hell bent on the kind of midless destruction of which FF writes, although some of their more extreme members include their own culture in what it seeks to destroy on the grounds that all umanity is flawed, not just Western humanity.

Do you suppose the Puritans stopped to think when someone pointed out to them the beauty of the stained glass they were engaged in smashing?

No, I do not - but then IS is similarly unlikely to think about what AN said (if they've heard it) when they carry out their next act of terrorism.

[jean]

No, I do not - but then IS is similarly unlikely to think about what AN said (if they've heard it) when they carry out their next act of terrorism.

So what on earth was the point of saying it?