Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 23:32:22 GMT -5
Are you high-class, Sydney? There are types of question the possible answer to which can be not "yes" or "no" but either silence or anything.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 18, 2017 3:17:31 GMT -5
I don't agree. You have not specified by [ ] you would advocate cutting out two-thirds of Radio 3's broadcast time, despite having been asked more than once, just as you have been asked other questions that so far remain unanswered. Will you please answer them? Thank you in advance. I also believe that a mere 8 hours per day taken up with what you advocate here would mean that the proportion as well as the quantity of music broadcast on Radio 3 would be vastly less than it is now. Member H has a curious method of debate. First he copies the answer to it, and then, demanding an answer, he asks the question the answer to which he has just copied. In this particular case my answer was: Perhaps I should recast it: Eight hours daily will be ENOUGH for such people; being who they are they are sure to have things to do other than listening to the wireless. Try to wrap your mind around the word "ENOUGH" Mr. H! Try to wrap yours around the carefully and conveniently omitted words " in my opinion"! - an opinion not shared by many, if indeed any, others; is there and has there ever been evidence of mass protest at the fact that R3's a 24/7 channel like almost all others? The point here is that you simply state such an opinion but offer no reason whatsoever as to why you hold it. And what in any case do you mean by "being who they are"? What, for example, do all R3 listeners have in common that identifies for you that none would wish for more than one-third of what's now on offer from that channel? How in any case do you know what all R3 listeners are? - have you met and spoken to them all? One particular consideration of which your indefensible (and certainly so far undefended) assertion takes no account is that many R3 listeners work and the working hours of some might well include, or even coincide altogether with, the 8 hour maximum broadcasting slot that you would advocate allocating to R3. Since most people cannot - nor should they be expected to - listen to R3 while working, the channel's listener base would inevitably decrease as a direct consequence of this massive cutback; would you see that as a good thing? Since very few people work a 24 hour day (other than, on occasion, certain members of the medical profession), R3's current 24/7 broadcasting arrangements at least allow everyone who wants to listen to the channel some time in which to do so. Lastly, I was guilty of a typo in the post from which you quoted, in which the passage concerned should have read "You have not specified why [not "by"] you would advocate cutting out two-thirds of Radio 3's broadcast time"; apologies for any confusion caused by this error.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 18, 2017 3:19:37 GMT -5
Are you high-class, Sydney? There are types of question the possible answer to which can be not "yes" or "no" but either silence or anything. "The type s"? kleines c asked you one question only in that post! You have not answered it but mere logic alone determines that you are incorrect in claiming that the answer to it can be neither "yes" nor "no".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2017 8:43:05 GMT -5
You have not answered it, but mere logic alone determines that you are incorrect in claiming that the answer to it can be neither "yes" nor "no". Of course we have answered it. We have pointed out that to answer with silence is the only possible high-class answer. To answer with a "yes" or with a "no" or in fact with any other spoken response cannot be a high-class reaction; the meaning of all those ("yes", "no", anything else) must be "no". We wonder do we not whether Mr. H. understands that; he is so literally minded. Most Nipponese would.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 18, 2017 10:01:57 GMT -5
You have not answered it, but mere logic alone determines that you are incorrect in claiming that the answer to it can be neither "yes" nor "no". Of course we have answered it. We have pointed out that to answer with silence is the only possible high-class answer. To answer with a "yes" or with a "no" or in fact with any other spoken response cannot be a high-class reaction; the meaning of all those ("yes", "no", anything else) must be "no". We wonder do we not whether Mr. H. understands that; he is so literally minded. Most Nipponese would. Neither you nor anyone else covered by your first person plural reference here has answered it; indeed, by "pointing out that to answer with silence" is the only way to address the question concerned is an admission of unwillingness, not inability, to answer it, no more, no less. Your addition of further reference to the likewise persistently undefined term "high-class" serves only to exacerbate this absence of meaningful response. This attitude - be its origin coyness, truculence, a desire to dissemble or whatever else - sadly typifies your omission to provide responses to reasonable questions; I have put several such questions to you which remain unanswered, not least in respect of your references to men only at R3 and the massive curtailment of R3's broadcasting hours that you would advocate, but you have yet to demonstrate sufficient politeness to answer them, which is at best most disappointing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2017 10:10:17 GMT -5
Let me clarify the answer, ahinton. Yes, Sydney is high-class. I am low-class.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 18, 2017 10:21:08 GMT -5
Let me clarify the answer, ahinton. Yes, Sydney is high-class. I am low-class. Would you mind now doing members the courtesy of revealing whose answer that is, i.e. yours or Sydney's, not least because Sydney himself has not provided any such answer here? Many thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2017 10:33:37 GMT -5
Sydney has pointed out that to answer with silence is the only possible high-class answer; to answer that I am low-class is one of many low-class answers. Can you identify any class, ahinton?
PS Sydney's assumption, on topic, is that BBC Radio 3, or The Third as it once may have been, was high-class broadcasting to a high-class audience. I would beg to differ. BBC Radio 3 should appeal to all classes, whatever they may be?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 18, 2017 13:09:33 GMT -5
Sydney has pointed out that to answer with silence is the only possible high-class answer; to answer that I am low-class is one of many low-class answers. Can you identify any class, ahinton? No, since you ask (and I therefore recognise my duty to answer!) - but your still unanswered question was not about your own class or that to which you might perceive yourself to belong but to Sydney's and that to which he perceives himself to belong. Sydney's assumption, on topic, is that BBC Radio 3, or The Third as it once may have been, was high-class broadcasting to a high-class audience. I would beg to differ. BBC Radio 3 should appeal to all classes, whatever they may be? As to the first part, if he means high quality broadcasting but describes it instead as high- class ditto, fair enough in most cases except that it would have been better had he accordingly said as much; as to the second, I likewise beg to differ and agree with you at least to the extent that R3, even if it doesn't necessarily appeal at all times to all classes, whatever they may be, it should at least make due effort to address them, otherwise its listener statistics would likely be very small - even incalculably so, which would likely risk signalling its demise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2017 13:16:27 GMT -5
High-class.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 18, 2017 17:50:57 GMT -5
I'm sorry; to whom and/or what does this relate?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2017 2:23:42 GMT -5
I’d like to see a Radio 3 that was a playful, cheeky and disruptive force as well as a comforting one. This is an instructive example of why the females of our race should be removed to their own separate off-shore island.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 19, 2017 4:17:17 GMT -5
I’d like to see a Radio 3 that was a playful, cheeky and disruptive force as well as a comforting one. This is an instructive example of why the females of our race should be removed to their own separate off-shore island. ...a view that has evidently taken you almost three months to get around to expressing in response to the now understandably ex-member Charlotte and which patently flies in the face of all your somewhat more recent spurious and unconvincing arguments about your use of the terms "man" and "men" as signifying "men and women" rather than only males. Anyway, that aside, who in any case should remove them? - and from where? - everywhere in the world other than this "offshore island" itself? Which "offshore island" is of sufficient size and can boast sufficiently well developed infrastructure to offer immediate support to more than half the world's population of around 7.48bn? Why should anyone be charged with the breaking up of hundreds of millions of partnerships, married or otherwise, between men and women that such a segregative exercise would inevitably entail? What kind of specious and supererogatory nonsense is this? In any event, BBC Radio 3's sister channel Radio 4's flagship and long-running series Desert Island Discs has been presented by a woman for almost 30 years! (not that I've ever been invited to visit the island or even know its location, mind you...)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2017 8:29:32 GMT -5
What kind of specious and supererogatory nonsense is this? None. There are hardly any in the ninety-seven Biggles books you realize.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 19, 2017 9:43:56 GMT -5
What kind of specious and supererogatory nonsense is this? None. There are hardly any in the ninety-seven Biggles books you realize. I am unfamiliar with these "Biggles books" which were not of course "reali sed" (British English spelling) by me but by one William Earl Johns (who was English) but which have absolutely no conceivable connection with the topic of this thread. I can only presume that your post is intended to mean that there are hardly any women featured in any of these books (although please correct me if I have misinterpreted your meaning); well, so what? That's hardly my fault, since the content of those books was the sole responsibility of someone who died almost half a century ago within a year of BBC's Network Three / Third Programme morphing into its current Radio 3 and whose connection therewith, if any, has yet to be established (I have no idea if he ever even listened to the channel). To remind you, your wrote, in a long-delayed "response" to a post from ex-member Charlotte in the final week of last October, that you considered it to be "an instructive example of why the females of our race should be removed to their own separate off-shore island" and I responded that this was "...a view that has evidently taken you almost three months to get around to expressing in response to member Charlotte and which patently flies in the face of all your somewhat more recent spurious and unconvincing arguments about your use of the terms "man" and "men" as signifying "men and women" rather than only males", to which I added "Anyway, that aside, who in any case should remove them? - and from where? - everywhere in the world other than this "offshore island" itself? Which "offshore island" is of sufficient size and can boast sufficiently well developed infrastructure to offer immediate support to more than half the world's population of around 7.48bn? Why should anyone be charged with the breaking up of hundreds of millions of partnerships, married or otherwise, between men and women that such a segregative exercise would inevitably entail? What kind of specious and supererogatory nonsense is this?" As usual, of course, you have provided no response to any of this, preferring instead to make some oblique, obscure and utterly irrelevant reference to the works of said William Earl Johns. Moreover, your reference to "their own [my italics] separate offshore island" omits reference both to the current ownership of said island and to how said ownership might be transferred to all the world's women (which, given the impracticalities of such an arrangement, is admittedly hardly surprising). The increasing pile-up of unanswered questions has already gotten quite large; if you cannot and/or will not enter into discussions thereof by providing them for those among this forum's membership who might like to read them, that says all that needs to be said about your attitude to discussion here which all too often reads like "Sydney says something, it must be right because Sydney has said it and therefore no such discussion need ensue" - which, if the case, clearly does nothing to sprinkle the remotest degree of credibility over what you write when purporting to "address" such issues.
|
|