udo said:

.

In this specific case the issue is more like: I am unfamiliar with google and google's abilities, I also cannot think about where such info might be found, etc than about simply helping with a question that one cannot easily find an answer to.

That's not their thought process and you know it. The fact that you have to misrepresent their thought process to justify your venom is telling.

As I'm sure you know, these people presumably know what Google is and how to use it. They simply prefer to get the information by engaging people in conversation. That's a relfection of their personality, not their intelliegence. It's a completely valid way to learn.

lurker316 said:

Wow, you totally avoided my question.

.

The issue is:

Do not bother us with the simple, trivial stuff.

Is that so hard to grasp?

Is that so hard to understand?

udo said:

lurker316 said:

Wow, you totally avoided my question.

.

The issue is:

Do not bother us with the simple, trivial stuff.

Is that so hard to grasp?

Is that so hard to understand?

You keep restating the premise of your position as though it's self-explanatory, but it's not. And restating your premise is not the same thing as explaining your premise.

You're having trouble grasping this, so I'll state it again: Googling a question and asking the Org a question are the same process -- you type a question into the internet and read a response written by another person.

In other words, in both cases you're getting the info that was written by a second-party.

The only difference is when you post your question on a forum the response you get is interactive/conversational. That's it. There is no other difference.

I've asked you several times to explain why or how this is stupid and lazy, but you keep dodging the question. Here, I'll help you get started on a response. All you have to do is fill in the blank:

"Acquiring knowledge through an interactive conversation (as opposed to reading a pre-drafted answer) it stupid and lazy because.... [Udo or Bart, please insert your reasoning here]."

[Edited 7/6/19 21:14pm]

So here's the question. If we find out that they did find a multi-track and this mix was just done by an engenieer and is not the original tracking of it. is that cool, and would you care if theis was done again?

johnnieb said:

So here's the question. If we find out that they did find a multi-track and this mix was just done by an engenieer and is not the original tracking of it. is that cool, and would you care if theis was done again?

I do care, at the very least, if that is the case, and they are creating new mixes from these masters, where Prince had nothing to do with it, there needs to be a disclaimer stating that.

If this cinematic mix is not a Prince mix of this track, it sets a very bad precedent for things going forward.

I would of course rather they only release music that Prince officially created and mixed. They have thousands of songs to choose from, so I don't quite understand why they would feel the need to take such liberties. Every time they do this, it is 1 less REAL mix from Prince that we could have gotten and didn't.

Someone could always hit up Susan Rogers or Wendy & Lisa, they might now if it is legit or not.

[Edited 7/6/19 23:03pm]

udo said:

lurker316 said:

You're having trouble grasping this, so I'll state it again: Googling a question and asking the Org a question are the same process

.

Perhaps the same process but with a different implementation.

An implementation involving more than one human causes isues with some.

dodger said:

Who is ‘us’?

.

I am not alone.

.

You have to laugh at some of the high and mighty internet tough guys on here who think it is beneath them to read a question.

.

You show us an interpretation of what I wrote.

I did not explain my position as 'high and mighty internet tough guys'.

Looking around me some very obvious people might accrue more online time than I do, on their 'smart' phones and such.

Or do you pose that they are being 'social'?

Knowing how to find answers on the internet using a search machine of some sorts is basic (!) knowledge and skill.

Even my mother (aged 70+) has this skill.

udo said:

lurker316 said:

You're having trouble grasping this, so I'll state it again: Googling a question and asking the Org a question are the same process

.

Perhaps the same process but with a different implementation.

An implementation involving more than one human causes isues with some.

"An implemenation involving more than human" is a convoluted way of saying "two people having a dialogue/conversation".

Which means you're finally agreeing with me -- the only difference between Googling a question and asking the Org is that posting on the Org inolves two people having a dialogue/conversation.

You argue that having a conversation to acquire info "causes issues with some". What issues? Saying it "causes issues" is a restatment of your premise; it's not an explanation of your premise. Please stop restating it and take a stab at explaining it.

Let me ask you for the fourth time: Why is acquring info by means of an interactive dialogue (or in your words, "an implementation involving more than one human") stupid or lazy?

***

(For the record, I do want to point out that both implementations involve more than one human. If you Google a query the response you read will have been written by a second person. For example, your Google results may point you to PrinceVault, and all the info you read on that website was written by a second human. The difference isn't in the number of people involved -- the difference is that with Google the second human wrote the response in the past and didn't direct it at you personally -- i.e. it's not an interactive dialogue.)

[Edited 7/7/19 6:22am]

lurker316 said:

You argue that having a conversation to acquire info "causes issues with some". What issues?

.

You noticed Bart?

.

Saying it "causes issues" is a restatment of your premise; it's not an explanation of your premise. Please stop restating it and take a stab at explaining it.

.

People need to stop being lazy and find trivial info by themselves.

I have no issue with bart so theose that do have can explain their issues with Bart better.

Let me ask you for the fourth time: Why is acquring info by means of an interactive dialogue (or in your words, "an implementation involving more than one human") stupid or lazy?

.

When the info is trivial to find it is by definition lazy to ask someone to do the work for you.

.

Why is that so hard to grasp?

Even from barts posts it is easy to read the problem he sees.

Yet people only trhow a hissy fit about the way he expresses things instead of focussing on the actual message, the info.

That, focussing on the way Bart expresses himself, is a very weak thing to do.

If you cannot say anything about the info then you mus attack the person because 'they were not nice to me!!! I chose to feel offended' or somesuch.

I see that in my real life too, and I hate it.

udo said:

lurker316 said:

You argue that having a conversation to acquire info "causes issues with some". What issues?

.

You noticed Bart?

.

.

People need to stop being lazy and find trivial info by themselves.

I have no issue with bart so theose that do have can explain their issues with Bart better.

Let me ask you for the fourth time: Why is acquring info by means of an interactive dialogue (or in your words, "an implementation involving more than one human") stupid or lazy?

.

When the info is trivial to find it is by definition lazy to ask someone to do the work for you.

.

Why is that so hard to grasp?

Even from barts posts it is easy to read the problem he sees.

Yet people only trhow a hissy fit about the way he expresses things instead of focussing on the actual message, the info.

That, focussing on the way Bart expresses himself, is a very weak thing to do.

If you cannot say anything about the info then you mus attack the person because 'they were not nice to me!!! I chose to feel offended' or somesuch.

I see that in my real life too, and I hate it.

It's hard to grasp because it doesn't appear to be logical, and because you're not even attempting to explain it with anything other than superficial rhetoric.

Whether I find my answer on PrinceVault or find it on PrinceOrg, I am reading information that was researched by another person and typed into the internet by another person. In other words, both rely on a second human to do the work! The only difference is the second person who researched and typed the info on PrinveVault did so in the past and was not engaging me directly.

And yet, according to your logic: It's "smart" to read informtion that was researched and typed into the internet by a contributor on PrinceVault ... But it's stupid to read information that was gleaned off-the-top-of-head and typed by a member on PrinceOrg...

Bottom line, it doesn't matter whether the info is trivial or complicated, well-known or obscure. Whatever level of info you're seeking, it is legitimate to acquire that info through interative means (i.e. by having dialogue).

You wanna know what's "very weak"? Calling people "stupid" because they like to get info (trival or otherwise) through conversation.

For those who want to order from Tower Records the link to the album is here.

There is an explanation in English about the site here.

They have other goodies like Versace too.

lurker316 said:

Whether I find my answer on PrinceVault or find it on PrinceOrg, I am reading information that was researched by another person and typed into the internet by another person.

.

Sure.

But I see it as asking a machine (aka 'google') instead of asking 'yo, prince.org, what place did that kiss song end at in the uk?'.

lurker316 said:

You wanna know what's "very weak"? Calling people "stupid" because they like to get info (trival or otherwise) through conversation.

.

You are putting words in my mouth or something.

I am not against conversation (or doing this on this forum), but about the right subjects.

Not interrupted by lazy questions that anyone can easily find the asnwer to except them.

The example you gave about finding info typed by others is also missing a certain point:

The info was put there so that stupid questions did not have to be asked anymore.

Instead, the info was to be found in a few select locations.

So the human did the work only once, to be assisted by the googles and such.

Over here, the questions keep coming. (as Bart noted...)

udo said:

lurker316 said:

You wanna know what's "very weak"? Calling people "stupid" because they like to get info (trival or otherwise) through conversation.

.

You are putting words in my mouth or something.

I am not against conversation (or doing this on this forum), but about the right subjects.

Not interrupted by lazy questions that anyone can easily find the asnwer to except them.

The example you gave about finding info typed by others is also missing a certain point:

The info was put there so that stupid questions did not have to be asked anymore.

Instead, the info was to be found in a few select locations.

So the human did the work only once, to be assisted by the googles and such.

Over here, the questions keep coming. (as Bart noted...)

Wait... you're not against conversations "about the right subject"? That's the most concieted thing I've read all day.

I appreciate that you're finally trying to articulate your position with a bit more sophistication and detail, rather than relying on emotional and superficla rhetoric.

In this response you're differentiating info gleaned form PrinceVault versus info gleaned from the Org by stating that the info on PrinceVault is written once (which is what I was getting at when I said it was static -- I was surprised you challenged that when I thought it was one point you and i would agree on... again, there might be a slightly better word, but we are both making the same point).

So it seems you're gripe is that a person on The Org needs to type something for a second time. First of all, most Orgers don't mind doing that. It's okay that you don't like doing so, but that doesn't make the question stupid.

Second of all, the info on PrinceVault doesn't only appear once on the internet. Lots of people have typed it many times on many sites, so it's not really a once time thing -- meaning your differentiation is imperfect.

lurker316 said:

Second of all, the info on PrinceVault doesn't only appear once on the internet. Lots of people have typed it many times on many sites, so it's not really a once time thing -- meaning your differentiation is imperfect.

.

Huh?

Info being on the net multiple times should make it easier to find said info without asking on the org.

You not taking that into account says something here.

I never claimed to be perfect.

And as you know all humans are prone to failure in certain ways.

Is that the reason you continue to divert from the subject of this thread?

.

I do kinda like the Cinematic Mix but am in doubt if Prince would have liked it enough to be released.

.

PS: admitting you are human and prone to failure should make you more adorable, likable, and all that.

Some people on here act like the folks who have all of the bootlegs in their possession- 'I ain't gonna share any of my toys with y'all!!!'. Instead of simply answering a simple question POLITELY (or simply ignoring the post) some would rather pounce upon the poster of the question and waste so much time and space arguing back and forth. Yes, Google is our friend- we get it (and Google isn't always correct). But the attitudes need to go- if you don't want to answer a question then don't waste 15 minutes of back and forth posts stating why you don't want to answer the question. You want some of us to get thicker skins? How about you get rid of the attitude, swarminess, etc. Just because someone isn't using the 'F' words in their repiles anymore doesn't make them Prince Charming- the swarminess is still there. In short- just don't bother answering the 'silly' questions when they pop up here. Easy enough, right?

[Off topic snip - luv4u]

alberto20 said:

Bart did ask some stupid questions in his alt.prince days, so it's the pot calling the kettle black.

.

Of course people cannot grow (up) into a more mature being.

Also, over time your perception might change and your expectations might change along this process.

As the age of the average prince fan increases the expectations and perceptions should change as well.

So expecting a more mature audience/community/forum/etc is nothing out of the ordinary.

.

Being sensitive to the shape of the mesage versus the actual information in the message is for people that choose to feel offended in a certain way. They feel like a victim instead of being in control.

I guess that DSM V must have a subtype for these cases.

.

So your conclusion is a bit simplistic and not realistic.

.

My Cinematic Mix should be in the mail, BTW. (but we have the mp3...)

Love the Cinematic mix and the One night alone live version too.

FUNKNROLL said:

When was the last time Bart added real value to any discussion?

That comment amazes and confuses me - because I think that Bart's comments are usually highly informative (as he does his research before posting something). And sometimes witty. And he does not stray away from discussions. And yes, one could wish he could be a bit more patient sometimes and not post the "go to Google" comments - but so what... ban him? REALLY?

Krid said:

FUNKNROLL said:

When was the last time Bart added real value to any discussion?

That comment amazes and confuses me - because I think that Bart's comments are usually highly informative (as he does his research before posting something). And sometimes witty. And he does not stray away from discussions. And yes, one could wish he could be a bit more patient sometimes and not post the "go to Google" comments - but so what... ban him? REALLY?

I agree with you, Krid.

And:

Everyone here fills this place with respect and harmony except for Bart?

I don't think so.

On a lighter note....

Seeing as this isn't released for the rest of the world, and isnt available on the official Prince YT Channel....... could someone kindly upload this mix for others to hear?

That way we can argue if the OP has any credibility or if Bart deserves a banning.

Thanks in advanced.

BlueShakooo said:

Krid said:

That comment amazes and confuses me - because I think that Bart's comments are usually highly informative (as he does his research before posting something). And sometimes witty. And he does not stray away from discussions. And yes, one could wish he could be a bit more patient sometimes and not post the "go to Google" comments - but so what... ban him? REALLY?

I agree with you, Krid.

And:

Everyone here fills this place with respect and harmony except for Bart?

I don't think so.

.

Me too. If it comes down to choosing between Bart, who gives a lot of info and is not very diplomatic in his preference that people should do some research before they ask others to do their homework for them, and the people that want to ban Bart because they feel Bart's opinion infringes on their right to keep asking the same questions over and over and therefore making this forum less informative for all... I'll choose the side of Bart and others like him.

.

I may prefer a more civil tone, but all the whinging about his tone is a lot more annoying to me.

.

Retorical question, should be ban everyone that asks for Bart to be banned?

[Posting of org note contents in the forums is against site rules snip - luv4u]

• Respect others' privacy and belongings.
  Don't post orgNotes, e-mails or other private correspondence in public forums. Don't make private information about other users, public. Don't take avatar or other graphics and use them as your own, or as the basis for your own, without permission.

alberto20 said:

Guess what's in my PM box?

.

Sharing PMs is a nono.

I will mention this to the mods.

There is no special wording in there, nothing offensive and such but you do not garasp the reason why I went this way at all.

.

Did you buy the Mix?

[Move on folks. Thread is getting side tracked. Keep on topic.

Openly attacking another member(s) in an open forum is not a good thing, please refrain from doing so. Thanks]