Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!EDDIE.MIT.EDU!Love-Hounds-request
From: Love-Hounds-request@EDDIE.MIT.EDU.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.music.gaffa
Subject: WD
Message-ID: <8701312124.AA25013@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 31-Jan-87 13:47:00 EST
Article-I.D.: EDDIE.8701312124.AA25013
Posted: Sat Jan 31 13:47:00 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Jan-87 23:48:51 EST
Sender: uucp@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: Love-Hounds
Organization: love-hounds anonymous
Lines: 23
Approved: nessus@eddie.mit.edu

Really-From: IED0DXM@UCLAMVS

>We are forced, as IED has repeatedly demonstrated, into forcing
>definitions on QUALITY which are, at most, purely arbitrary.
>
>John
 
GODDAMMIT, HOW FUCKING DUMB CAN YOU BE?!
 
IED really cannot believe that he has to point out this obvious
fact YET ANOTHER TIME for you dumbbells.
 
He did NOT give arbitrary definitions of "quality". He
made no judgmental remarks about the VALUE or "quality" of
such properties as "sophistication", "refinement" and
"complexity" AT ALL.
 
This is QUITE DIFFERENT from determining the PRESENCE of
and EXTENT of those properties in music.
 
U N B E L I E V A B L E !
 
-- Andrew Marvick