[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

How would I go about doing this in ruby..

Kyle Pinkman

10/3/2006 1:35:00 AM

Quick question, I have asked some other programmers, they were not
sure.. my friend who knows c had said cout.SetColor('color'); although,
ruby is not c, but I take its something simular.. so if anyone, can help
me, this is an example, of what I want to be able to do.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/5291/a...

thats a link to the image, and basically I wanna control the fonts
color, and the bg color of it..

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....
17 Answers

Justin Collins

10/3/2006 4:13:00 AM

0

Kyle Pinkman wrote:
> Quick question, I have asked some other programmers, they were not
> sure.. my friend who knows c had said cout.SetColor('color'); although,
> ruby is not c, but I take its something simular.. so if anyone, can help
> me, this is an example, of what I want to be able to do.
>
> http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/5291/a...
>
> thats a link to the image, and basically I wanna control the fonts
> color, and the bg color of it..

This just involves outputting the color codes for the console. You can do this by hand, or use one of the libraries available:

http://rubyforge.org/projects/term-...
http://rubyforge.org/projects...

Hope that helps.

-Justin

David Roberts

10/3/2006 10:45:00 AM

0

Kyle Pinkman wrote:
> Quick question, I have asked some other programmers, they were not
> sure.. my friend who knows c had said cout.SetColor('color'); although,
> ruby is not c, but I take its something simular.. so if anyone, can help
> me, this is an example, of what I want to be able to do.
>
> http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/5291/a...
>
> thats a link to the image, and basically I wanna control the fonts
> color, and the bg color of it..

If you need to implement this for Windows, as that screenshot suggests,
you might get a quick return from win32console -

Z:\>gem list -r win32console

*** REMOTE GEMS ***

win32console (1.0.8)
A library giving the Win32 console ANSI escape sequence support.

deejay

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

Gerard

8/21/2011 8:24:00 PM

0

M forever wrote:
> On Aug 21, 3:52 pm, "Gerard" <ghe_no_spam_ndrik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > M forever wrote:
> > > On Aug 21, 3:20 pm, "Gerard" <ghe_no_spam_ndrik...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > M forever wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 21, 3:10 pm, "Gerard"
> > > > > <ghe_no_spam_ndrik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > M forever wrote:
> > > > > > > On Aug 21, 2:12 pm, "Gerard"
> > > > > > > <ghe_no_spam_ndrik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > M forever wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 21, 2:02 pm, "Gerard"
> > > > > > > > > <ghe_no_spam_ndrik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > M forever wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 21, 1:40 pm, "Gerard"
> > > > > > > > > > > <ghe_no_spam_ndrik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > M forever wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 21, 9:58 am, Bob Harper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/20/11 11:59 PM, M forever wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (snip)> It actually makes me proud to be the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > object of your fanatic hatred.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (snip)
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the record, I *do not* 'hate' you. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dislike your behavior here, that's all.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, I do not hate you, I pity you.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's a difference;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope someday you'll figure that out and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > change your behavior. When you do, the need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for that pity will be obviated.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So why should I take advice from a guy who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > condones the rape of children and who thinks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it's OK the perpetrators are not criminally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > prosecuted?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Why should I take advice from a guy who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > appoints himself the moral apostle but who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > himself has absolutely no manners and no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > respect when it comes to participation in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > discussions? A guy who, when his views are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > challenged, can not make an argument for his
> > > > > > > > > > > > > views, all he can do is to snip&snipe and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > defame?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words - you.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Even this "well meant advice" is completely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > hypocritical. You just can't live with the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fact that I have challenged you in a number of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > discussions and you weren't able to make your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > own points and all you had was that childish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > behavior described above. So, you hold a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > strong personal grudge against me just like a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mentally immature person like you would, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you try to hide that behind your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sanctimoniousness.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > There it is again.
> > > > > > > > > > > > And it goes on and on and on and on and on and
> > > > > > > > > > > > on and on and on and on and on and on and on
> > > > > > > > > > > > and on and on and on and on and on. The FM
> > > > > > > > > > > > forever.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Man, you really *are* online *night and day*,
> > > > > > > > > > > *seven days a week*. It only took you a few
> > > > > > > > > > > minutes to "respond".
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > So I have a question for you, too. *Why* do you
> > > > > > > > > > > spend all your time hovering around this forum,
> > > > > > > > > > > commenting on everything, while nobody here takes
> > > > > > > > > > > you seriously and few people ever even reply to
> > > > > > > > > > > you.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > There it is again.
> > > > > > > > > > And it goes on and on and on and on and on and on
> > > > > > > > > > and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
> > > > > > > > > > and on and on and on and on. The FM forever.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Why do you "comment" on everything I say? Why do
> > > > > > > > > > > you always have to make a contrarian comment?
> > > > > > > > > > > Like when I said, the economy is very regulated
> > > > > > > > > > > in Germany, you reply "Deutschland ?ber alles".
> > > > > > > > > > > But the same applies to the Netherlands where you
> > > > > > > > > > > sit in front of your computer night and day. They
> > > > > > > > > > > also have a stable economy because it is
> > > > > > > > > > > regulated, pretty much in the same tried and
> > > > > > > > > > > tested ways as in Germany. So why is that
> > > > > > > > > > > suddenly something bad?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > As you know very well, it was *completely*
> > > > > > > > > > irrelevant. It had *nothing* to do with the
> > > > > > > > > > "discussion" at hand. Just chauvinistic blathering
> > > > > > > > > > as usual.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Saying the economy Germany is working better *because
> > > > > > > > > it is regulated* in response to a discussion in which
> > > > > > > > > somebody stated that "regulations kill the economy" is
> > > > > > > > > very relevant and has a lot to do with the
> >
> > > > > > > > BS - see below.
> >
> > > > > > > > > discussion at hand. It gives a good example for why
> > > > > > > > > regulations do not kill, but in fact protect the
> > > > > > > > > economy.
> >
> > > > > > > > > On the other hand, it is not "chauvinist" at all.
> > > > > > > > > Especially since the same statement applies to other
> > > > > > > > > countries as well, for instance, yours. You didn't
> > > > > > > > > think of that before you typed, did you?
> >
> > > > > > > > Even more irrelevant.
> > > > > > > > Pure BS. Nonsense.
> >
> > > > > > > No, it makes complete sense, and it just explained why.
> >
> > > > > > No, you did not explain anything.
> > > > > > What you did, was cutting in my post (and in what you
> > > > > > quoted):
> >
> > > > > > Socialist Reverend Jim Jones took his San Fran flock to his
> > > > > > new "Utopia" in Jonestown, Guyana. There, he became a mini
> > > > > > Dictator, mistreating his people and molesting children.
> > > > > > When a California Congressman (a Democrat, no less) went to
> > > > > > investigate, Jones had him murdered along with some of the
> > > > > > people who tried to escape with him. He then ordered his
> > > > > > members to drink poisoned Kool aid and they all died.
> >
> > > > > > That is "Drinking the Kool Aid" --believing in Marxism.
> > > > > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> >
> > > > > > > It's not
> > > > > > > really that difficult to understand nor that
> > > > > > > controversial a statement. Especially since it applies to
> > > > > > > your country as well. Nothing "irrelevant" or
> > > > > > > "chauvinist" there at all.
> >
> > > > > > The broken record FM forever, and it goes on and on and on
> > > > > > and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and
> > > > > > on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
> > > > > > and on.
> >
> > > > > > > But you didn't think that far before you typed in your
> > > > > > > automated "response", obviously. With the number of posts
> > > > > > > you make every day, there is not really time to think
> > > > > > > about what you write. Especially since you "reply" the
> > > > > > > same stuff to every one of my posts, no matter what it is
> > > > > > > actually about.
> >
> > > > > > > So, back to my question: why is that? Why are you so
> > > > > > > obsessed with replying to everything on this forum here,
> > > > > > > night and day, every day of the week? Why are you so
> > > > > > > obsessed with "commenting" on everything I post here?
> >
> > > > > > And there it is again, the FM forever, and it goes on and on
> > > > > > and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and
> > > > > > on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
> > > > > > and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and
> > > > > > on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
> > > > > > and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and
> > > > > > on and on and on and on and on and on.
> >
> > > > > You didn't answer any of my questions. You just avoided them
> > > > > and then posted your usual OCD/ODD stuff "and on and on and
> > > > > on" - impressive how many times you repeated that. This very
> > > > > obviously is an obsession for you.
> >
> > > > > But *why* is that? If you don't like my posts, but you don't
> > > > > have anything to reply either other than just the same
> > > > > standard phrases, why do you keep obsessing about them? Why
> > > > > don't you just ignore them the way most people here ignore
> > > > > you and the way I ignore you most of the time? Yet you keep
> > > > > posting the same contrarian "comments" over and over and
> > > > > over, or "on and on and on" and "forever".
> > > > > So why is that?
> >
> > > > See?
> > > > There it is again, the FM forever, and it never stops and always
> > > > writes the same things again and again.
> > > > It goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and
> > > > on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and
> > > > on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and
> > > > on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and
> > > > on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and
> > > > on and on and on and on and on and on.
> >
> > > Still no answer to any of my questions. So I think it is pretty
> > > safe
> >
> > See?
> > It never stops, a FM forever.
> >
> > > to say that there is no point in even trying to take you
> > > seriously.
> >
> > HAHAHAHA!
> > What a silly remark.
> > You have said so hundreds of times already.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Now, that has been proven many times before, but I thought I just
> > > give you the benefit of the doubt
> >
> > HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> > What a stupid remark.
> > You have said so hundreds of times already.
> >
> >
> >
> > > and inquire why you keep repeating the
> > > same obsessive stuff in "response" to all my posts.
> > > But it is obvious that there is no reason behind that, and you
> > > simply can't help it.
> > > When I am offline, I can see you just switch to other posters, so
> > > it doesn't really have anything to do with me either.
> >
> > And it goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on ....
> > It's a silly FM forever.
>
> Yes, it never stops. Because you never stop replying obsessively to
> everything I post here - or when I am offline, to everything other
> people post.
>
> So why is that? Why do you complain that "it never stops" yet that it
> exactly what you are doing yourself? Why don't you just ignore posts
> which don't interest you?

See?
It never stops, such a FM forever.
(Must be an very old-fashioned one, because it says that it goes "offline".)

Bob Harper

8/21/2011 8:57:00 PM

0

On 8/21/11 10:26 AM, M forever wrote:
> On Aug 21, 9:58 am, Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 8/20/11 11:59 PM, M forever wrote:
>> (snip)> It actually makes me proud to be the object of your fanatic hatred.
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> For the record, I *do not* 'hate' you. I dislike your behavior here,
>> that's all. Again, I do not hate you, I pity you. There's a difference;
>> I hope someday you'll figure that out and change your behavior. When you
>> do, the need for that pity will be obviated.
>
> So why should I take advice from a guy who condones the rape of
> children and who thinks it's OK the perpetrators are not criminally
> prosecuted?

'Condones'? Pretty serious charge--and utterly false. As for criminal
prosecution, where appropriate that should--and has--happened. But other
than satisfying your desire for vengeance and hatred of the Church, what
will it accomplish in cases that are 20 or 30 or even 40 years old?

> Why should I take advice from a guy who appoints himself the moral
> apostle but who himself has absolutely no manners and no respect when
> it comes to participation in discussions? A guy who, when his views
> are challenged, can not make an argument for his views, all he can do
> is to snip&snipe and defame?

If you want to see someone who has no manners, look in the mirror.

> In other words - you.
>
> Even this "well meant advice" is completely hypocritical. You just
> can't live with the fact that I have challenged you in a number of
> discussions and you weren't able to make your own points and all you
> had was that childish behavior described above. So, you hold a strong
> personal grudge against me just like a mentally immature person like
> you would, and you try to hide that behind your sanctimoniousness.

Untrue. I hold *no* personal grudge against you. And if someone here is
behaving childishly, once again I invite you to look in your mirror. As
Steve correctly pointed out, your 'questions' are nothing more than
disguised attacks, resembling nothing so much as the most famous of all
such: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" When you learn the
difference between that sort of 'question' and a real question, by all
means let us know. Who knows, you might get some answers.

Bob Harper

M forever

8/21/2011 9:34:00 PM

0

On Aug 21, 4:57 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 8/21/11 10:26 AM, M forever wrote:
>
> > On Aug 21, 9:58 am, Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net>  wrote:
> >> On 8/20/11 11:59 PM, M forever wrote:
> >> (snip)>  It actually makes me proud to be the object of your fanatic hatred.
>
> >> (snip)
>
> >> For the record, I *do not* 'hate' you. I dislike your behavior here,
> >> that's all. Again, I do not hate you, I pity you. There's a difference;
> >> I hope someday you'll figure that out and change your behavior. When you
> >> do, the need for that pity will be obviated.
>
> > So why should I take advice from a guy who condones the rape of
> > children and who thinks it's OK the perpetrators are not criminally
> > prosecuted?
>
> 'Condones'? Pretty serious charge--and utterly false. As for criminal
> prosecution, where appropriate that should--and has--happened.

No, there are many cases, the vast majority no doubt, which were
covered up by the CC. And you know that.

> But other
> than satisfying your desire for vengeance and hatred of the Church, what
> will it accomplish in cases that are 20 or 30 or even 40 years old?

There are many, many, many more recent cases, and you know that.
Thousands of them. And the cases which are 20 or 30 or "even" 40 years
old should be prosecuted, too. People who get abused as children are
injured for life.

That's like saying they should have stopped hunting Nazis after 20
years or so.

See how you are playing this down, acting as if it was just a small
problem that occurred in the distant past?


These crimes are among the worst human beings can commit, targeting
the weakest among us, and that in an institution which pretends to be
the high bastion of morals and righteousness, and which continues to
meddle in people's lives and to tell them how they should live their
private lives. Not that a lot of the people who jump forward to defend
the church take that all too seriously - see yourself and your
daughter, a sinner by the standards of your church. But suddenly,
those don't apply anymore...


> > Why should I take advice from a guy who appoints himself the moral
> > apostle but who himself has absolutely no manners and no respect when
> > it comes to participation in discussions? A guy who, when his views
> > are challenged, can not make an argument for his views, all he can do
> > is to snip&snipe and defame?
>
> If you want to see someone who has no manners, look in the mirror.

You are in no position to judge that. You don't have any manners or
standards or any class yourself. The difference between you and me is
that I don't jump out of the closet at you, acting the moral apostle.
I leave you alone unless you attack me once again.

And that alone makes mine a vastly superior character to yours, no
matter what other flaws I have. But being a better person than you is
very easy anyway. You are about as low as it gets.

> > In other words - you.
>
> > Even this "well meant advice" is completely hypocritical. You just
> > can't live with the fact that I have challenged you in a number of
> > discussions and you weren't able to make your own points and all you
> > had was that childish behavior described above. So, you hold a strong
> > personal grudge against me just like a mentally immature person like
> > you would, and you try to hide that behind your sanctimoniousness.
>
> Untrue. I hold *no* personal grudge against you.

That is completely predicted by your behavior here. The way you meddle
into exchanges you had no part of. The way you snip&snipe from the
sidelines.

Don't you have the slightest sense of self-criticism, man? Are you
completely enveloped in your hypocritical self-righteousness?

Have you learned *anything* from the teachings of the wandering
preacher you worship as an idol?

> And if someone here is
> behaving childishly, once again I invite you to look in your mirror.

You don't even realize how childish that response (the second time in
a row even) is, don't you?

> As
> Steve correctly pointed out, your 'questions' are nothing more than
> disguised attacks, resembling nothing so much as the most famous of all
> such: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" When you learn the
> difference between that sort of 'question' and a real question, by all
> means let us know. Who knows, you might get some answers.

Of course I won't. Because the answer to the question I asked him is,
obviously, yes, he is a small and narrow-minded person, so, yes, he
does feel the need to shoot down things that he doesn't get. But being
such a small character, of course he can't admit that. It's that
simple. He could have proven me wrong. My attitude is to respect
things I don't get but that others can. That is a much better and much
more mature attitude than to shoot down stuff I don't get.

That you in turn don't get *that* once again shows what a small and
immature character you are yourself.

Gerard

8/21/2011 9:47:00 PM

0

M forever wrote:
> On Aug 21, 4:57 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On 8/21/11 10:26 AM, M forever wrote:
> >
> > > On Aug 21, 9:58 am, Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > On 8/20/11 11:59 PM, M forever wrote:
> > > > (snip)> It actually makes me proud to be the object of your
> > > > fanatic hatred.
> >
> > > > (snip)
> >
> > > > For the record, I *do not* 'hate' you. I dislike your behavior
> > > > here, that's all. Again, I do not hate you, I pity you. There's
> > > > a difference;
> > > > I hope someday you'll figure that out and change your behavior.
> > > > When you do, the need for that pity will be obviated.
> >
> > > So why should I take advice from a guy who condones the rape of
> > > children and who thinks it's OK the perpetrators are not
> > > criminally prosecuted?
> >
> > 'Condones'? Pretty serious charge--and utterly false. As for
> > criminal prosecution, where appropriate that should--and
> > has--happened.
>
> No, there are many cases, the vast majority no doubt, which were
> covered up by the CC. And you know that.
>
> > But other
> > than satisfying your desire for vengeance and hatred of the Church,
> > what will it accomplish in cases that are 20 or 30 or even 40 years
> > old?
>
> There are many, many, many more recent cases, and you know that.
> Thousands of them. And the cases which are 20 or 30 or "even" 40 years
> old should be prosecuted, too. People who get abused as children are
> injured for life.
>
> That's like saying they should have stopped hunting Nazis after 20
> years or so.
>
> See how you are playing this down, acting as if it was just a small
> problem that occurred in the distant past?
>
>
> These crimes are among the worst human beings can commit, targeting
> the weakest among us, and that in an institution which pretends to be
> the high bastion of morals and righteousness, and which continues to
> meddle in people's lives and to tell them how they should live their
> private lives. Not that a lot of the people who jump forward to defend
> the church take that all too seriously - see yourself and your
> daughter, a sinner by the standards of your church. But suddenly,
> those don't apply anymore...
>
>
> > > Why should I take advice from a guy who appoints himself the moral
> > > apostle but who himself has absolutely no manners and no respect
> > > when it comes to participation in discussions? A guy who, when
> > > his views are challenged, can not make an argument for his views,
> > > all he can do is to snip&snipe and defame?
> >
> > If you want to see someone who has no manners, look in the mirror.
>
> You are in no position to judge that. You don't have any manners or
> standards or any class yourself. The difference between you and me is
> that I don't jump out of the closet at you, acting the moral apostle.

WOOOOOHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

But it's true.
You're acting the moral apostle without jumping.
May I suggest you jump into the closet?
Thanks.


> I leave you alone unless you attack me once again.

Big lie.

>
> And that alone makes mine a vastly superior character to yours, no
> matter what other flaws I have. But being a better person than you is
> very easy anyway.

Not if you have a KAPO mindset.

>
> You are about as low as it gets.
>
> > > In other words - you.
> >
> > > Even this "well meant advice" is completely hypocritical. You just
> > > can't live with the fact that I have challenged you in a number of
> > > discussions and you weren't able to make your own points and all
> > > you had was that childish behavior described above. So, you hold
> > > a strong personal grudge against me just like a mentally immature
> > > person like you would, and you try to hide that behind your
> > > sanctimoniousness.
> >
> > Untrue. I hold *no* personal grudge against you.
>
> That is completely predicted by your behavior here. The way you meddle
> into exchanges you had no part of. The way you snip&snipe from the
> sidelines.
>
> Don't you have the slightest sense of self-criticism, man? Are you
> completely enveloped in your hypocritical self-righteousness?

WOOOOOHAAAAAAAA!!!!
Read that again, and think "what did I say about myself?".

>
> Have you learned *anything* from the teachings of the wandering
> preacher you worship as an idol?
>
> > And if someone here is
> > behaving childishly, once again I invite you to look in your mirror.
>
> You don't even realize how childish that response (the second time in
> a row even) is, don't you?

Broken record at work.


>
> > As
> > Steve correctly pointed out, your 'questions' are nothing more than
> > disguised attacks, resembling nothing so much as the most famous of
> > all such: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" When you learn the
> > difference between that sort of 'question' and a real question, by
> > all means let us know. Who knows, you might get some answers.
>
> Of course I won't. Because the answer to the question I asked him is,
> obviously, yes, he is a small and narrow-minded person, so, yes, he
> does feel the need to shoot down things that he doesn't get. But being
> such a small character, of course he can't admit that. It's that
> simple. He could have proven me wrong. My attitude is to respect

WOOOOOHAAAAAAAAA! You have an attitude? To respect? Why does nobody know so?

>
> things I don't get but that others can. That is a much better and much
> more mature attitude than to shoot down stuff I don't get.
>
> That you in turn don't get *that* once again shows what a small and
> immature character you are yourself.

See the mirror.

Rugby

8/22/2011 12:45:00 AM

0

On Aug 21, 4:33 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> obviously, yes, he is a small and narrow-minded person, so, yes, he
> does feel the need to shoot down things that he doesn't get. But being
> such a small character, of course he can't admit that.

Recognizing the futility of further comment here, but appreciative of
Harper's insights :

My original comment was :

"As with Wagner, there are good moments in Bruckner, just too bad so
far apart. "

MForever's immediate response :

" Why do you think both composers are so highly regarded? Because a
lot of
people have a longer attention span and a better grasp of complex
musical structures than you do. But for people like you, there is
still Overture 1812. "

Any knowing observer would select the second comments , not the first,
as "disrespectful." Especially, the "people like you" ; deja vu all
over , when/where have we heard similar expressions of superiority ?!

If the first comment is disrespectful, then no one can ever disagree
here about composers, artists, works, or performances. ( My first
comment is actually a paraphrase of a Hanslick critique of a Bruckner
symphony. ) I have expressed here reservations about many others
before , but apparently not before about one of MForever's sacred
cows.

One should be able to express here dislike of certain music ( and I am
certainly not alone in my dislike of Wagner and Bruckner) without
having to produce a Ph.d thesis in support, and one should be able to
express pleasure in the music of composers ( and obviously many find
pleasure in those 2 ) without a similar justifying effort. Except ,
apparently, in the World According to MForever.

Actually, as I noted in my original comment, I do enjoy some Wagner,
eg. parts of "Die Walkure" and some of "Gotterdammerung", have a cd
of Modl and Windgassen of "Tristan" highlights, and I believe a
Karajan/BPO ( or Muti/PO ? ) cd called " Die Ringen Ohne Worte". Kurt
Masur's debut as Music Director of the NYPO featured the Bruckner 7th
( he was criticized in some NYC circles for that choice, by the
way ) , but I was sufficiently impressed ( and surprised given my
exposure to other Bruckner symphonies) that I purchased a cd of the
7th, Solti and the CSO I think on Decca.

Bottom line remains : Those who disagree with Michael are ignorant.
Pretty small and narrow-minded view, I think.

And I returned to RMCR ?! That's what I don't get !

Dufus

John Wiser

8/22/2011 1:14:00 AM

0

"Dufus" <stevehaufe@gmail.com> wrote:

[enormous schnip]

> Bottom line remains : Those who disagree with Michael are ignorant.
> Pretty small and narrow-minded view, I think.

> And I returned to RMCR ?! That's what I don't get !

What I don't get is why you don't just ignore him. ???

JDW

M forever

8/22/2011 1:17:00 AM

0

On Aug 21, 8:45 pm, Dufus <steveha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 4:33 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > obviously, yes, he is a small and narrow-minded person, so, yes, he
> > does feel the need to shoot down things that he doesn't get. But being
> > such a small character, of course he can't admit that.
>
> Recognizing the futility of further comment here, but appreciative of
> Harper's insights :
>
> My original comment was :
>
> "As with Wagner, there are good moments in Bruckner, just too bad so
> far apart. "
>
> MForever's immediate response :
>
> " Why do you think both composers are so highly regarded? Because a
> lot of
> people have a longer attention span and a better grasp of complex
> musical structures than you do. But for people like you, there is
> still Overture 1812. "
>
> Any knowing observer would select the second comments , not the first,
> as "disrespectful." Especially, the "people like you" ; deja vu all
> over , when/where have we heard similar expressions of superiority ?!
>
> If the first comment is disrespectful, then no one can ever disagree
> here about composers, artists, works, or performances. ( My first
> comment is actually a paraphrase of a Hanslick critique of a Bruckner
> symphony. ) I have expressed here reservations about many others
> before , but apparently not before about one of MForever's sacred
> cows.

Those aren't sacred cows for me. I don't listen to a whole lot of
Wagner either. For me, a lot of the music is also too long. But I know
that's just me, and maybe later I will appreciate it more. The reason
I know this is that I can see the qualities of the music, and I and
see that it means a lot to some people who are very informed
listeners. So maybe, it will be more for me later. In the meantime, I
don't have to shoot that down nor make a show out of it.

> One should be able to express here dislike of certain music ( and I am
> certainly not alone in my dislike of Wagner and Bruckner) without
> having to produce a Ph.d thesis in support, and one should be able to
> express pleasure in the music of composers ( and obviously many find
> pleasure in those 2 ) without a similar justifying effort. Except ,
> apparently, in the World According to MForever.

Who said you have to *justify* what you like or don't like? I didn't.
You completely made that up and you are now distorting what I actually
said.

> Actually, as I noted in my original comment, I do enjoy some Wagner,
> eg. parts of "Die Walkure" and some of "Gotterdammerung", have a cd
> of Modl and Windgassen of "Tristan" highlights, and I believe a
> Karajan/BPO ( or Muti/PO ? ) cd called " Die Ringen Ohne Worte".

There was such an album on Telarc with Maazel and the BP. But it's
"Der Ring", not "Die Ringen".

> Kurt
> Masur's debut as Music Director of the NYPO featured the Bruckner 7th
> ( he was criticized in some NYC circles for that choice, by the
> way ) , but I was sufficiently impressed ( and surprised given my
> exposure to other Bruckner symphonies) that I purchased a cd of the
> 7th, Solti and the CSO I think on Decca.
>
> Bottom line remains : Those who disagree with Michael are ignorant.
> Pretty small and narrow-minded view, I think.

No, you got that exactly the wrong way around. I am the one who
advocates not taking oneself as the measure of all things. If I don't
get something which I see other people see a lot of meaning in, then I
don't feel the need to shoot it down and make silly comments about it.
That has nothing to do with "sacred cows". More with a more realistic
perception of my own limits. What is beyond my limits is not
necessarily bad.

But that's what you think, and that's what comments like yours bring
across. and that is indeed a pretty small and narrow-minded attitude.
Yours, not mine.

I am all about staying open to what is beyond my current limits. You
are all about celebrating your limits.

And your passive-aggressive "bottom line those who disagree with M are
ignorant" is really childish. Just the kind of reaction one would
expect from someone who sees himself as the measure of all things and
who likes to cut down what he doesn't like.

And that's what's really behind this: I can respect things even though
I may not like them. You don't. So it is exactly the other way around.

> And I returned to RMCR ?! That's what I don't get !
>
> Dufus

Gerard

8/22/2011 7:09:00 AM

0

Dufus wrote:
> On Aug 21, 4:33 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > obviously, yes, he is a small and narrow-minded person, so, yes, he
> > does feel the need to shoot down things that he doesn't get. But
> > being such a small character, of course he can't admit that.
>
> Recognizing the futility of further comment here, but appreciative of
> Harper's insights :
>
> My original comment was :
>
> "As with Wagner, there are good moments in Bruckner, just too bad so
> far apart. "
>
> MForever's immediate response :
>
> " Why do you think both composers are so highly regarded? Because a
> lot of
> people have a longer attention span and a better grasp of complex
> musical structures than you do. But for people like you, there is
> still Overture 1812. "
>
> Any knowing observer would select the second comments , not the first,
> as "disrespectful." Especially, the "people like you" ; deja vu all
> over , when/where have we heard similar expressions of superiority ?!
>
> If the first comment is disrespectful, then no one can ever disagree
> here about composers, artists, works, or performances. ( My first
> comment is actually a paraphrase of a Hanslick critique of a Bruckner
> symphony. ) I have expressed here reservations about many others
> before , but apparently not before about one of MForever's sacred
> cows.

Being disrespectful is the only thing the FM forever can do.
He has no choice.
All the rest (replying, "argumenting", "discussing") is wasted words.

>
> One should be able to express here dislike of certain music ( and I am
> certainly not alone in my dislike of Wagner and Bruckner) without
> having to produce a Ph.d thesis in support, and one should be able to
> express pleasure in the music of composers ( and obviously many find
> pleasure in those 2 ) without a similar justifying effort. Except ,
> apparently, in the World According to MForever.
>
> Actually, as I noted in my original comment, I do enjoy some Wagner,
> eg. parts of "Die Walkure" and some of "Gotterdammerung", have a cd
> of Modl and Windgassen of "Tristan" highlights, and I believe a
> Karajan/BPO ( or Muti/PO ? ) cd called " Die Ringen Ohne Worte". Kurt

Probably Maazel on Telarc.

>
> Masur's debut as Music Director of the NYPO featured the Bruckner 7th
> ( he was criticized in some NYC circles for that choice, by the
> way ) , but I was sufficiently impressed ( and surprised given my
> exposure to other Bruckner symphonies) that I purchased a cd of the
> 7th, Solti and the CSO I think on Decca.
>
> Bottom line remains : Those who disagree with Michael are ignorant.
> Pretty small and narrow-minded view, I think.

Your bottom line is not correct. You should add "in his perception".

>
> And I returned to RMCR ?! That's what I don't get !
>
> Dufus

I suppose too many URLs were waiting.