On 9 Feb 2005 at 6:48, Richard Yates wrote: > > I don't think anybody has said physics has no significance, just > > that it is not part of people's conscious thought processes while > > making music or playing pool. > > My part of this thread has been to respond to the post that said: > "Physics is involved, but not at any conscious level, and not at any > significant level".
In context, I was not talking about music. If I had been, I would have said "not at any significant *musical* level." > This says that no aspect of physics is in consciousness when making > music, and that physics is has no significant role in making music. . . No significant *musical* role. You've taken one line out of its original context and applied it to an entirely different context, and that's why you're coming up with a nonsensical argument -- because it's one I've never made. > . . . I > think that this may have just been sloppy writing (rather than sloppy > thinking) by the original postert, but people's continuing defense of > it suggests otherwise. The sloppiness is on your part for taking something from one context and arguing against it in a completely different context. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
