papaaisaway said:

So this isn't an isolated incident. This is what MM does. Got it.

GNS said:

Yeah, it basically goes like this. I come in and tell the truth, but I do it in a forceful way. People get personally offended and emotional. Emotion clouds judgement so you find my detractors usually totally miss every point from then onwards. Unfortunately, they go on baring grudges and are unable to look objectively at anything I say ever again. They're basically responding to the messenger, not the message. The last part of the story is the part you can't see, which is basically me laughing my ass off. Anyway, nice to meet you. Welcome to the org.
[Edited 8/27/08 12:03pm]

midnightmover said:

midnightmover said:

And, what "truth" did you tell on this thread?

midnightmover said:

the thing is, in this case, i like your theory, though i never heard anyone talking about that.
The thing is, you spice your words with personal attacks or affronts that are really unnecessary.But for me my sympathy was over when I realised you make jokes about the Holocaust. As once mentioned I'm a Jew and I took that one comment completey personal. That one and other comments would eb enough for me to ban you. I'm not the oen to judge, but I don't need someone who thinks he's funny and thought provocative.

*
[Edited 8/28/08 5:35am]

graecophilos said:

Okay, let's get this straight right now. I have NEVER joked about the holocaust. Ever. I was joking about a Gloria Gaynor song which I said was a travesty. I said it was second only to the holocaust in terms of 20th century disasters. That was a quip about a song, not about the holocaust. I simply referred to the holocaust in the comment. There's a big difference between that and "making jokes about the holocaust". Big difference.

GNS said:

Dude, you really are not qualified to assess the "truth" of what I said, since it's clear you didn't understand a word of it. Let me break it down for you one more time.

In January 1985 millions of little girls were just getting to know and love Madonna. Those little girls made her a superstar. Everyone else loathed her. She was seen as talentless yes, but she was also seen as cynical and exploitative. The comment you always heard was that she "used sex". The comments were right on the money. She used it in her performances and she used it to advance her career behind the scenes too. One of her most famous quotes at the time was "I saw losing my virginity as a career move". She would quite openly talk about using her "charms" to manipulate people. It was well known she slept her way up the ladder. Her big hit at the time, "Material Girl" seemed to revel in this and celebrate it. It was basically about using men for self advancement. This was what Madonna was all about. Looking out for number one and having no shame. Nevermind talent, nevermind integrity. This meant there was much resentment toward her at the time. And of course "Material Girl" (as the title indicates) was also an anthem for materialism.

Once you understand all this then you begin to understand why having the "material girl" at the "We Are The World" session would have been unthinkable. She represented the complete antithesis of everything they were singing about. Now, if you can put your personal feelings aside for a moment, you will see that what I'm saying makes perfect sense. Your question has been answered.
[Edited 8/28/08 10:48am]

midnightmover said:

First off, let's get this straight:
I have no PERSONAL feelings about somebody I've never met, and with whom I've had any encounter with was on a Prince message board talking about Madonna. Get over yourself.

Secondly, I don't need anyone to explain the musical climate in 1985. I was there to witness it like everybody else at the time. While it's true Madonna wasn't *insert sarcasm* the harbinger of artistry she is today, so too were alot of the folks there that night. Believe me, I UNDERSTAND how folks felt (and feel) about Madonna. But your "truth" seems to be just the THEORY you've adopted and relayed to anybody who'd asked your OPINION.

Peep game:
truth Audio Help /truθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trooth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation,
–noun, plural truths Audio Help /truðz, truθs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[troothz, trooths] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation.
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9. agreement with a standard or original.
10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
11. Archaic. fidelity or constancy.
—Idiom
12. in truth, in reality; in fact; actually: In truth, moral decay hastened the decline of the Roman Empire.
[Origin: bef. 900; ME treuthe, OE tréowth (c. ON tryggth faith). See true, -th1]

—Related forms
truthless, adjective
truth·less·ness, noun

—Synonyms 1. fact. 2. veracity. 7. sincerity, candor, frankness. 10. precision, exactness.
—Antonyms 1. falsehood. 2, 4, 7. falsity.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)





And here's what you came with:
the·o·ry Audio Help /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
[Origin: 1590–1600; < LL theōria < Gk theōría a viewing, contemplating, equiv. to theōr(eǐn) to view + -ia -y3]

—Synonyms 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)



I'll concede and say that everybody else's replies can be considered theories, but I believe them to hold water over yours due to statements of FACT in previous posts on this board. Got a source? No? Well then...

Your skirt has been lifted.

GNS said:

Wow, all those words and it's clear that you still haven't even grasped my basic point. You still seem to think Madonna's artistry is the issue. Dude, did you read a single word of my post?

You say you understand how people felt about her, which begs the question, what exactly are you disagreeing with? It's not an opinion that Madonna was seen as exploitative. It's a plain fact. It's not an opinion that her big hit at the time portrayed her as a selfish materialist. These are facts. Surely if you can see that then you should be able to see how that image ran contrary to everything "We Are The World" was about. I don't want to insult you, but if your comprehension is so poor that you can't even recognize that, then it's gonna be hard for me to refrain from getting insulting real soon. I don't want to go there, but it would just be nice if you could actually make the effort to understand my point before responding to it in future.

midnightmover said:

Or I'll just refrain from any contact with you whatsoever.

Yeah. That feels right.

GNS said:

I think that's the best thing for both of us. If you don't have your intellectual game together then you really should not be talking to me.

midnightmover said:

Annika said:

Hey, it may not be modest but it's true. Basic comprehension is the least I expect of anyone I talk to.

midnightmover said:

Expecting to receive more than you give is never a good idea.

laurarichardson said:

I'm seeing a pattern.

Also, anyone claiming to have a superior intellect wouldn't have to "refrain from getting insulting real soon". Feel free to have the last word. When coming from you, they're pointless anywho.

Annika said:

I said earlier how many orgers bare grudges and how this means they lose all objectivity when reading my posts. Thank you for proving my point. Your post has no relation to any facts. Please give one example of a lack of comprehension on my part. Just one..... Take your time..... Can't do it, can you? The reason you can't do it is because my comprehension is fine, but your personal feelings have blinded you. You're a textbook example of what I described earlier.

Why anyone would care to put such effort into why a talentless whore wasn't at one of the cheesiest moments in pop history is beyond me.

GNS said:

Huh? What are you saying, intelligent people can't get insulting? I think you're confusing civility with intelligence. Those are two very different qualities. Yet another example of how confused your thinking is.

midnightmover said:

Answer my questions first.

GNS said:

Didn't you say you were going to ignore me? Seems like you're having a hard time keeping your word.

lazycrockett said:

I asked a simple question, got an answer that was satisfactory within 7 or so, then had to start pandering to a self-righteous, confused person about what a "fact" that never proven. Not an effort so much as exercise in futility.

Really, I'm moving on.

midnightmover said:

Actually, I just have to look back to post 23 of this thread: Instead of answering a perfectly valid point that would put you at a slight disadvantage, you offer a reply full of condescending nothingness. The fact that you honestly can't seem to see how ridiculous your behaviour is only makes it funnier.

GNS said:

Naw, don't move on! You have to admit that this is kind of fun.

Annika said:

Please tell me what you think this "perfectly valid point" is.

midnightmover said:

If you honestly can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. I don't think I can break it down more than



However, I believe my original point was that you have comprehension issues, and you've just proved that rather neatly.

So thank you for that, and enjoy the rest of your evening!

Annika said:

Two things. Firstly the thing you've described is not an example of a lack of comprehension. Think about it. Secondly, please tell me what you think this "perfectly valid point" is. Don't be vague.

Annika said:

Two things. Firstly the thing you've described is not an example of a lack of comprehension. Think about it. Secondly, please tell me what you think this "perfectly valid point" is. Don't be vague.

Annika said:

LOL! Well, before I point out your embarrassing mistake I have to explain that the post you're responding to is incomplete due to a computer glitch on my end. If you look just above you'll see my full post. The first thing I point out there is that what you describe is not a comprehension issue which is what you claimed I made. So right there you've shown your own comprehension difficulties.

But secondly, and most hilariously, you've TOTALLY misread GNS's point. His point there was that Sheila E had only had one hit. Read it again. That is a point that had NOTHING to do with my argument. He was arguing with a straw man. He made the same mistake again when he said..... "While it's true Madonna wasn't *insert sarcasm* the harbinger of artistry she is today, so too were alot of the folks there that night." Again, that has NOTHING to do with what I said.
I suggest you read these things a bit more carefully in future. Should you require further clarification feel free to reply. I will be here.

midnightmover said:

Well, since you ask so nicely, I will put off bedtime for one more minute.

Allow me to recap what happened before post #23:

GNS: "Why was Madonna not in the WATW sessions?"
^ Question posed

Midnightmover: "Because Madonna represents selfishness and personal material wealth, the exact opposite of what WATW was supposed to be about."
^ Answer suggested

GNS: "Your argument fails: Shiela E was also there, and she represents the same basic idea as Madonna, only is less famous for it."
^ Criticism of suggested answer

Now, the next logical step in the debating flow would be a rebuttal to the criticism. Even if Midnightmover finds the criticism totally unfounded, he must still rebut it in order to show proper comprehension of it. Without this crucial step, his lack of understanding may be clearly inferred.

However, instead of a rebuttal, what we get is this:

Midnightmover: "Lolz you're an idiot and I wasn't talking to you anywayz."
^ Lack of comprehension inferred.

Now, if that wasn't clear enough, I think you're going to have to get someone to draw you a couple of pictures. Unfortunately, I am artistically challenged, so it won't be me.