|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to the question: yes, greatness is what we should be focusing on.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that's what was being argued in the article. That white men have been privileged over all others is indisputable Personally, I prefer being privileged over being disadvantaged any day, but that may be just me.
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to the question: yes, greatness is what we should be focusing on. No it isn't. Thus endeth the debate!
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to the question: yes, greatness is what we should be focusing on. No it isn't. Yes, it is. Thus endeth the debate! Whoops.
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I prefer being privileged over being disadvantaged any day, but that may be just me. Of course you do. Who wouldn't? But what does that have to do with this discussion (even the tangential discussion)? Preference is a moot point because people don't get to choose to be white males. (At least, not without spending a whole lot of money!) Yavar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I prefer being privileged over being disadvantaged any day, but that may be just me. Of course you do. Who wouldn't? But what does that have to do with this discussion (even the tangential discussion)? Hey, I sure was not the one who started to insert white male privilege into this discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I prefer being privileged over being disadvantaged any day, but that may be just me. Of course you do. Who wouldn't? But what does that have to do with this discussion (even the tangential discussion)? Hey, I sure was not the one who started to insert white male privilege into this discussion. I think I did, and I apologize. This was already a very interesting thread, minus all that talk. Very sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I prefer being privileged over being disadvantaged any day, but that may be just me. Of course you do. Who wouldn't? But what does that have to do with this discussion (even the tangential discussion)? Hey, I sure was not the one who started to insert white male privilege into this discussion. I think I did, and I apologize. This was already a very interesting thread, minus all that talk. Very sorry. Let's not make too much out it; I was obviously sarcastic anyway (I often am), and I think that's pretty obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
Let's not make too much out it; I was obviously sarcastic anyway (I often am), and I think that's pretty obvious. I wanted to apologize anyway, my friend. Back on topic (I think): I remember back when I was eleven I was a bit of a tomboy; I could talk to boys about comics, sci fi and horror movies, etc. We used to have a grading system between us that was overall pretty average: things would be (bad to good) "sucks, "okay", "pretty good', "really f"in good", "killer" and the non plus ultra: "Immortally Classic" (requiring a more hushed, reverently tone).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPZ sarcastic? NO! Excuse me while I go sit down in the corner and put on my (custom fit) dunce cap.
|
|
|
|
|
I said on another thread that labels tend to release the lesser scores of a great composer before they would release the greatest score by a less-known composer. That's an observation, not a critique. Labels have to make money to keep doing what they're doing, and that means some of Stanley Myers's best scores--The Raging Moon, Ulysses, No Way to Treat a Lady--are still unreleased. I'm sure they would be already out if the labels thought they could make money doing it, if the elements and rights were not issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|