Background Noise
Assistant Cook
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2005
- Messages
- 15
Well, I was taking about dining and values of the consensual agreement on traditional rules and the values of less traditional rules, but the degradation of society? It’s OK; there is another topic I am fond of.
First, I would like to say that I am glad to get to the heart of the issue, and I am not surprised my remarks were expected.
Second regarding the LCD, I am fully aware of their limitations, but I feel the hallmark of an enlightened society is the tolerance of the ideas from LCD. If everyone continued to accept the views of the established mentality, progress in any intellectual endeavor would halt. The fact is, the LCD is defined by the dominate intellectual climate. All who do not agree, will be deemed intellectually inferior to the HCD (Highest common denominator?), thus become the LCD. Nasty business that.
My music taste runs the gambit; Bach sits next to Black Sabbath in my record collection. I do care about where rhythm, melody and composition meet, I just don’t believe that all possibilities of musical creativity have been explored. Look in any genera or time you wish you will find both good and bad music. Poor music prior to recording has been lost because no one liked it, but be certain it existed.
Traffic rules are a ridiculous example because of the ability to infringe upon the “right to life” of another individual, while dining has no such consequence. That’s all that deserves.
Regarding the numerous names you suggested that the alterative to “dining exemplifies (piggishness, slobbering, spilling and swilling). These value judgments based on your definition of “dining” reveal your intolerance. I merely suggested that there is another form of dining without the rules that you hold so dear. Do you feel that I am infringing on “sacred ground”? Am I not allowed to call my experience “dining” because you and the food illuminati won’t allow it?
I agree that there are minimum rules for all situations, including society. These rules should be based on consensual agreement determined by those in the situation, not edicts form those who believe themselves to be the HCD (Highest common denominator?).
This is not intended to flame, but to bring to light the true crux of the issue. I would appreciate continued conversation, with a less accusatory tone.
P.S. I just saw the disclaimer, was it an edit or did I miss it? I am not taking this personally, I understand that I am just one person of all that you are upset with.
First, I would like to say that I am glad to get to the heart of the issue, and I am not surprised my remarks were expected.
Second regarding the LCD, I am fully aware of their limitations, but I feel the hallmark of an enlightened society is the tolerance of the ideas from LCD. If everyone continued to accept the views of the established mentality, progress in any intellectual endeavor would halt. The fact is, the LCD is defined by the dominate intellectual climate. All who do not agree, will be deemed intellectually inferior to the HCD (Highest common denominator?), thus become the LCD. Nasty business that.
My music taste runs the gambit; Bach sits next to Black Sabbath in my record collection. I do care about where rhythm, melody and composition meet, I just don’t believe that all possibilities of musical creativity have been explored. Look in any genera or time you wish you will find both good and bad music. Poor music prior to recording has been lost because no one liked it, but be certain it existed.
Traffic rules are a ridiculous example because of the ability to infringe upon the “right to life” of another individual, while dining has no such consequence. That’s all that deserves.
Regarding the numerous names you suggested that the alterative to “dining exemplifies (piggishness, slobbering, spilling and swilling). These value judgments based on your definition of “dining” reveal your intolerance. I merely suggested that there is another form of dining without the rules that you hold so dear. Do you feel that I am infringing on “sacred ground”? Am I not allowed to call my experience “dining” because you and the food illuminati won’t allow it?
I agree that there are minimum rules for all situations, including society. These rules should be based on consensual agreement determined by those in the situation, not edicts form those who believe themselves to be the HCD (Highest common denominator?).
This is not intended to flame, but to bring to light the true crux of the issue. I would appreciate continued conversation, with a less accusatory tone.
P.S. I just saw the disclaimer, was it an edit or did I miss it? I am not taking this personally, I understand that I am just one person of all that you are upset with.
Last edited: