Musical Homophobia - or The Homophobia Histories

[ahinton]

Who're you calling a puff?

Good question! - although his observations seem more flaky to me...

[Beef Oven!]

What? Who's done that, then? Nothing in the new UK law makes any difference to the conduct, entitlement and human rights of heterosexuals.


Not for anyone determined to try to make it appear difficult at all costs, I suppose, no...

You're doing that Dalek thing again! Pack it in!

[ahinton]

You're doing that Dalek thing again! Pack it in!

Whatever that may be, you observed upthread (or somewhere) you you seem to think that I do that allthe time, so why repeat your reference to it now? In any case, I dealt with that earlier by telling you that I can have no influence on how you hear anything.

What I did, on the contrary, was to make the point (and I've not been alone in this) that the new legislation has prevented and discouraged nothing and thus disadvantaged no one; if you genuinely believe tht I'm wrong in so saying (which it would not seem unreasonable to assume is the case), then please explain how anyone's human rights have been adversely affected by its passing.

[scottycelt]

... it is clear that several people besides me have questioned scotty on his - er - occasional reticence in providing straight answers to clear questions.

Yes, the usual 'mob mentality' suspects. Where's amsey, btw? His absence here has been particularly noted.

Ahinton, I'm still waiting to see your straight answer to my clear question on how on earth you manage to find the time to spend on your music composition. You inferred that I wouldn't really want to know, but I did expect a straight and full answer from you of all the keen, if clearly somewhat unsuccessful, answer-spotting members?

Any chance of one? No avoidance/evasion please!

Actually, on second thoughts ...

[ahinton]

Yes, the usual 'mob mentality' suspects. Where's amsey, btw? His absence here has been particularly noted.

So when two or three members are gathered together in thy name and happen to take a similar viewpoint, that's illustrative of a 'mob mentality' is it? Well, one learns something new every day!

Ahinton, I'm still waiting to see your straight answer to my clear question on how on earth you manage to find the time to spend on your music composition. You inferred that I wouldn't really want to know, but I did expect a straight and full answer from you of all the keen, if clearly somewhat unsuccessful, answer-spotting members?

I sought to infer nothing of the kind, actually; what I did instead was ask you if you really wanted a day-to-day blow-by-blow account of how much thinking time and how much writing time I devote to composing and, if so, over what period of time but you didn't answer that. Your question is, however, a difficult one to answer accurately and authoritatively because I do not keep detailed data, as though in some kind of diary form, for the precise amounts of thinking and writing time that I have spent on any particular day; suffice it, then, to answer your current question as to "how on earth [I] manage to find the time to spend on...music composition" I would have to say, "quite easily, thank you" - and in any case, I do not have to "find" time, since time is already there. Naturally, I do spend considerably more time on such work on some days than on others.

Now whether I have to "find" what I write - in the Busonian sense of composers being diviners rather than creators per se - might be another issue but it would be a quite different one on which you have asked me nothing, so I will not even attempt to venture an answer!

I hope that this clears up your question.

Oh and, by the way, just for the sake of trying to keep matters on topic, I hasten to assure you that you'll find no evidence of the thread topic in my work, as I'm sure you would already have realised (which is probably why you didn't think to ask) - and, incidentally, you might (or might not) be pleased to know that, unlike a certain Mr Kennedy, "I can do the job without grass"...

[scottycelt]

So when two or three members are gathered together in thy name and happen to take a similar viewpoint, that's illustrative of a 'mob mentality' is it? Well, one learns something new every day!


I sought to infer nothing of the kind, actually; what I did instead was ask you if you really wanted a day-to-day blow-by-blow account of how much thinking time and how much writing time I devote to composing and, if so, over what period of time but you didn't answer that. Your question is, however, a difficult one to answer accurately and authoritatively because I do not keep detailed data, as though in some kind of diary form, for the precise amounts of thinking and writing time that I have spent on any particular day; suffice it, then, to answer your current question as to "how on earth [I] manage to find the time to spend on...music composition" I would have to say, "quite easily, thank you" - and in any case, I do not have to "find" time, since time is already there. Naturally, I do spend considerably more time on such work on some days than on others.

Now whether I have to "find" what I write - in the Busonian sense of composers being diviners rather than creators per se - might be another issue but it would be a quite different one on which you have asked me nothing, so I will not even attempt to venture an answer! I hope that this clears up your question.

Oh and, by the way, just for the sake of trying to keep matters on topic, I hasten to assure you that you'll find no evidence of the thread topic in my work, as I'm sure you would already have realised (which is probably why you didn't think to ask)...

But you still haven't answered my question, ahinton!

Anyway, I do recognise that you have given me an answer even if it wasn't the one with full details that I so desperately wanted ... <winkeye>

[ahinton]

But you still haven't answered my question, ahinton!

I most certainly answered, quite clearly, your second one in which you'd asked how I find time to compose.

Anyway, I do recognise that you have given me an answer even if it wasn't the one with full details that I so desperately wanted ... <winkeye>

Yes, I'm sure that you did! Were I to ask you how much time you spend reading Catholic theology and attending Church, I doubt that you'd be able to provide a precise answer either - but I'm not, so don't worry about that!

Anyway, I'm not sure what place my music has on this particular thread; are you?

[scottycelt]

I most certainly answered, quite clearly, your second one in which you'd asked how I find time to compose.


Yes, I'm sure that you did! Were I to ask you how much time you spend reading Catholic theology and attending Church, I doubt that you'd be able to provide a precise answer either - but I'm not, so don't worry about that!

Anyway, I'm not sure what place my music has on this particular thread; are you?

It's no more out of place than members of this forum gossiping away like old fishwives about how others never give them the answers they demand!

Why don't our few answer-challenged members simply send PMs between themselves and then get all the easy, agreeable answers they wish?

[Beef Oven!]

Whatever that may be, you observed upthread (or somewhere) you you seem to think that I do that allthe time, so why repeat your reference to it now? In any case, I dealt with that earlier by telling you that I can have no influence on how you hear anything.

What I did, on the contrary, was to make the point (and I've not been alone in this) that the new legislation has prevented and discouraged nothing and thus disadvantaged no one; if you genuinely believe tht I'm wrong in so saying (which it would not seem unreasonable to assume is the case), then please explain how anyone's human rights have been adversely affected by its passing.

Well, I could have done what many of my peers did and simply had a common-law arrangement. But I wanted something more. Something unique and special - a marriage based on conjugal, procreational principles. That no longer exists. Marriage is now simply a partnership. I can see no reason why this cannot be considered part of the ever-increasing portfolio of human rights the world's citizens carry about these days.

[jean]

But you still haven't answered my question, ahinton!

Anyway, I do recognise that you have given me an answer even if it wasn't the one with full details that I so desperately wanted ...

You needn't go on about people not answering questions, scotty - I've said I do now accept that you've given an answer to my question about what 'minors' need to be protected from by the Russian law, and your answer is this:

...the law is about promotion. Russian teachers telling kids that homosexuality should be on an equal social par with heterosexuality...

Social equality for gay people it is, then. That's the dangerous and corrupting idea.

I won't ask any more.

[Mr Pee]

in any case, I do not have to "find" time, since time is already there.

Good grief....

[jean]

`If you knew Time as well as I do,' said the Hatter, `you wouldn't talk about wasting it. It's him.'

`I don't know what you mean,' said Alice.

`Of course you don't!' the Hatter said, tossing his head contemptuously. `I dare say you never even spoke to Time!'

`Perhaps not,' Alice cautiously replied: `but I know I have to beat time when I learn music.'

`Ah! that accounts for it,' said the Hatter. `He won't stand beating. Now, if you only kept on good terms with him, he'd do almost anything you liked...'

[ahinton]

Well, I could have done what many of my peers did and simply had a common-law arrangement. But I wanted something more. Something unique and special - a marriage based on conjugal, procreational principles. That no longer exists. Marriage is now simply a partnership. I can see no reason why this cannot be considered part of the ever-increasing portfolio of human rights the world's citizens carry about these days.

Marriage between people of the opposite sex has never been compulsorily about "conjugal, procreational principles"; how insensitive is such an idea to those heterosexual couples who are unable to have children or those who do not wish to do so? The principal point, however, is that "what you want" still exists and remain intact and unaffected by legislation; a marriage is what you want it to be.

[ahinton]

Good grief....

Is that not a contradiction in terms as well as an irrelevance? If so (as I suspect to be the case), you've succeeded in killing two birds of your own making with one stone of ditto. Well, whoopti-doo.

[Beef Oven!]

Marriage between people of the opposite sex has never been compulsorily about "conjugal, procreational principles"; how insensitive is such an idea to those heterosexual couples who are unable to have children or those who do not wish to do so? The principal point, however, is that "what you want" still exists and remain intact and unaffected by legislation; a marriage is what you want it to be.

The staggeringly overwhelming majority of married people can and do have children.

Sensitivity is completely irrelevant (although I really sympathise with people who want to have children but can't).

Marriage has (hitherto) never been about social justice.