"Dont discuss hardcore if you dont know hardcore."

Labret, ok, you follow that advice too. No more talk of pop or rap for you, ok?

Not even close.

I listen to an amazing amount of black metal, viking metal, real punk, ska, Oi!, classical.

I just recorgnize Top40 for what it is. And for that I am narrow minded. Pushaw.

Not saying you're an idiot (as I probably should here, heh), just curious, did you find Moby Dick a good book?
I really didn't get it.. is there something I'm missing? A big picture or something.. Because as far as entertainment was concerned, it was boring

But I do understand pop and rap. It surrounds me all day long, it is unavoidable. I can sing along with every god damn pop song out there, how can you not, that is how it is written. I hear it at bars, clubs, stores, malls, radio... so I am more than qualified to give my opinion.

You people on the other hand, it is all you know.

Sheeple.

As Im always willing to learn:

What is vicking metal? Do they pillage and plunder between shows?


also what ska do you listen to?

Dude your posts are losing its entertainment value. Why not limit these posts already, not so funny any more

"It's the fact that you like them that makes you an idiot, it's the fact that you apparently can't distinguish the differences (in quality, among other things) between them that makes you an idiot.
"

punkworld,

Since you're such a cocky little bitch ...

I know more about anything than you and I'll back it up. I challenge you to a live game (in jeopardy format) on one of the porn radio shows. Do you accept the challenge? I'll arrange everything for a live internet broadcast, get a host, etc.

Here's my email address.

[email protected]

Email me for details, I'll call you on the phone, and we'll make an announcement here on GFY so everyone can come hear.

If you will do the radio thing in Dutch, sure :)
(btw, wtf is jeopardy format?)

Mika,

I didn't read Moby Dick. I've read a lot of Melville's short stories though. My favorite is Billy Budd. I also liked "The Lightning Rod Man"

The answer is: "Im a cocky little bitch"

*gling**gling*

Who is punkworld?



That is correct!

*Fake applause*

Hey everyone,

I have to run. My new fiance and I are going to go have some FUN :-)

Punkworld, I don't know anyone to it in Dutch. Your English seems fine though. ;-)

Punkworld, Labret .. it's been fun arguing. Let's be friends, now.

Hey Colin ..... I know your song was all about love !!

Dont forget i know the real Colin :thumbsup your far from an Idiot!!

But let's just start with the following questions:

1. What is the ethics theory known as "evolutionary ethics", and to which other ethics theories is this theory closest?
2. Who wrote "God is a Taoist"?
3. What did Tertullian say about philosophy and how did he contradict himself?
4. Why did Berkeley consider his theory non-sceptic?
5. What are the 2 main formulations of Kant's categorical imperative?
6. What is commonly known as the "hard problem"?
7. Which musical genre started the whole punk movement?
8. Who proved verification to be an invalid method of scientific proof?
9. In which part of the Bible is it said to the Jews that they should exterminate all the people living in cities in which there are heathens?
10. What is the ontological "proof" for the existence of God?

(these are all very easy questions, harder ones will come later on if you manage to answer all these correctly. please note that since you posted the challenge, I will only ask questions, and supply answers if you fail to answer any of them. since you said you know more about anything than I do, answering all the questions correctly is the only way to prove it. (I never made any claims, so the burden of proving is upon you))

Ah, you already quit the argument. Too bad. It's been fun :)

(btw, you don't know dutch? at least one thing I know more about than you :glugglug )

I think the point is getting lost here, which really shouldn't be whether a band is popular or not, but whether their music comes from an independent label or a major corporate label (which usually does, incidentally, determine whether or not they become popular). If you only draw that distinction, then I think it's clear that a lot of indie labels are putting out great material by bands that would never be considered by the MTV crowd, and it's unfortunate. Meanwhile, the major labels are making millionaires out of talentless pretty faces like Linkin Park and Brittney Spears. That's why the indie bands (and their fans) who refuse to conform to the cookie cutter formula of pop music become so bitter toward the entire pop scene.

The Melvins, for instance, basically invented grunge in the 90's... they were a local band from Seattle, but were way too "wierd" to ever be accepted by a major label (I say they invented grunge, but they never sounded anything like the corporate version you might recognize). Kurt Cobain used to check them out at the clubs, and was inspired by their music... and that's how Nirvana was born. Nirvana lucked out, were picked up by a major label, lost the raw sound they had started with on Bleach, and became a new brand of corporate rock. Millions of clones followed. To pay back their debt to the genius band that inspired them (and I do mean genius), they pulled strings and got The Melvins signed to Atlantic. Unfortunately, The Melvins refused to conform, so Atlantic refused to promote their albums... and after the contract was up, they dropped them. The Melvins held onto their integrity, kept doing what they did best, and moved back to the indie labels. And they're still doing it... they're not huge, but they have one of the most dedicated fan bases in the history of music... because they deserve it, and because they constantly push boundaries. They even piss off their own fans by putting out completely contradictory albums, making it impossible to label or categorize them... and they're completely unapologetic. They're artists. That's why I respect them more than just about any other musicians out there.

Now, meanwhile, Nsync is standing on a stage accepting an award for corporate cookie-cutter unoriginal garbage that they do nothing more than dance to. If you were a talented musician who had been neatly pushed under the carpet and ignored, wouldn't YOU be a bit bitter? If you were a fan, wouldn't YOU lash out at the standards of taste in this country?

P.S. Hi Colin. :)

Not sure if I get the point, but why would they be bitter if they chose not to follow the cookie-cutter garbage?

I mean, if your choice is to remain artistic and independent, then why would you be bitter to those who choose otherwise, for example, go for selling as many records as possible? Everyone decides themselves, right

Because they're effectively locked out of the system. They're not allowed to participate because they refuse to let a corporate-owned producer tell them how their music is going to sound. Remember, these aren't all necessarily bands that are so abrasive that nobody would want to listen to them (although, that is sometimes the case)... some of these bands could potentially have a huge fanbase if they could only get the kind of promotion that Nsync gets.

And the point is simply what Labret has been saying all along - that corporate major label bands are nothing more than watered down garbage designed for mass consumption, and not worth shit to somebody who actually appreciates good music, rather than just accepting everything MTV shoves down their throats.

People do lose me when they say that anyone who listens to Linkin Park is an idiot... I don't believe that. But I do believe that if Linkin Park fans just expanded their horizons a bit and did some real searching (instead of being spoon fed their music), they'd soon realize, "Hey, I was listening to shit!" and their attitudes toward corporate rock and MTV would change.

And remember that it costs money to produce and distribute records. If Mozart were alive today, and refused to make a dance beat, he would never get any promotion from a major label, and wouldn't make a reasonable living. The carreers of a lot of musical geniuses have died because they just couldn't afford to continue, yet refused to become corporate puppets.

Viking metal is metal typically from Scandinavian countries and the topics sung about generally revolve around things of a Pagan nature. Rape, plunder, pillage, killing Christians... things Viking love. I am horribly hooked on Amon Amarth. It has more of a melodic death metal feel with black metal style vocals. No keyboards. I hate keyboards in metal. Cept for Cradle of Filth.

As for ska. I really cant think of any off hand that stand out as suck in my mind. I dont like British ska ala Judge Dread or the Specials. Although the Specials have a couple good songs. I like everything from old Marley and Skatalites to Inspected 7 and the Warsaw Brothers. And skapunk like Op Ivy.

Labret I recall you spent some time in Finland. Did you see any bands you liked here? And I mean in those genres you talk about.

Music or any art is never about what is seen and heard it is always about where and whe it comes from - that's why today's music is so bad, it's just about the surface - nothing more. Labret is of course correct in this point.

However many of the major changes in music only come about when a particular group gets so popular that change is inevitable - such easy examples that quickly come to mind are Chet Atkins, The Beach Boys, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Patti Smith, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Tom Petty, Pearl Jam - all of these bands tried to change the way we hear music and they did succeed. It's hard for most people to realize how much of an impact in the recording studio Chet Atkins and The Beach Boys had, each of who adjusted the recording technique to suit the music that they were making. The segregation of the audience based on race and gender that accompanied the rise of Led Zeppelin. The change of view on what could be used to make music with Pink Floyd. Patti Smith challenging the entire system of peace, gender and beauty with her stong emotional unrelenting lyrics. Tom Petty for fighting the system from within and Pearl Jam by fighting from outside the system. All these bands made amazing contributions to music and ultimately to our understanding of art and what art can be.

No one on MTV can ever accomplish the same thing because its simply not where they are coming from.

The singer from Creed was on CNN Headline News yesterday saying that in his mind he firmly believes he invented a new form of rock - he called in Anthemic Rock - the shear stupidity of the statement was akmost too much for the interviewer who did all he could from laughing. The funny thing is, is that there are millions of kids who will believe him - how sad.

When i was 12 i listened to skinhead Oi and Punk Rock....

17 years later and I still do......So fuck off all you sellouts :thefinger ..hehe

Try to listen to a band called TurboNegro <----Good Shit

Impaled Nazarene, Apocolyptica, Amorphis, Mistreat... just off the top of my head. Found all of those in Helsinki. And there are others that I cant remember.

hehehehehe

Okay, I admit I am an old guy, pushing fifty. I was around for Vietnam, I was around to go though the punk era...I drove half around the country just to see the Sex Pistols. And have watched an awful lot of bands come and go, no matter what style they played.

I can still remember some the early seminal records that came out of Vox/Stacks recording studios, along with the whole Muscle Shoals Southern rock scene. Very few bands have stood the test of times because they were unable to keep up with the times or simply drugged themselves into oblivion.

I was a performance piano major my first three years in college, so I have a resonable knowledge of classical music, as I played countless recitals that all featured great classical minds.

My point is, unless you have an intimate knowledge of what went into each piece, most are ill equipt to judge any music. Each piece of music must be judged within the historical context it was written and what circumstances were part of that musical composition.

Obviously, many of the titles that have brought up will be little more than an after thought in ten years. Case in point, at one point in my life, I really thought Alvin Lee and Ten Years after were a god send to rock n roll..."If I could change the wordl" is still one of the great tracks ever laid down. You don't exactly hear it dominating the radio waves these days, and only of handful of individuals really know who Alvin Lee was. Let along what his music was about.

The music I have loved in parts of my life include: Black Flag, Circle Jerks, Led Zeppelin, Bruce Springsteen, Warren Zevon, Procol Harem, Bob Dylan, Sex Pistols, Public Image Limited, and a host of others.

Today I enjoy a wide range of music, bluegrass music has a certainly earthiness and authenticity about it that few rock n roll bands can match, Springsteen has reinvented himself in so many different ways that his music carried a certainly revelancy about it that few indivudals can ever hope to match...he just keeps changing as time goes by....as his life changes. Is his music hokey, sometimes, but by inlarge it reflects the confusion many of us feel in 2002...he did stand the test of time. I went to Viet Nam, I shot people, and much of his music reflects the ambiguity that individuals like myself feel. Lets face it, the guy has taken an awful lot of chances in his carrer that few would.

One thing that I have learned, tho, is that people who condemn a certain type of music usually reflects a certain "insecurity" in which thier music belief system lies. The idea that you dislike a certain form of music and means you are unable to understand the political and socio economic conditions at the time. Recently I was in San francisco and went down to the Haight-Asbury section of the town. It is caught in a time warp....I went there for a summer to find myself...all I found were great drugs and a hollow existence. Doesn't make the Greatful Dead of all the bands that followed irrelevent, the times were different.

The Beatles and Elvis existed at a time when their art forms were so new and novel that the mainstream refused to accept who they were. They were the victims of widespread prejedice and they were not allowed to participate in many of the activities that were afforded most artists of their time.

I guess my point is, you need to look at music in the time frame it was written, because a band reflects you viewpoint at a given time doesn't mean it is bad or lacks validity...it means that you simply don't understand the historical viewpoints and events that shaped the music at the time. It is you who have failed to miss the point.

The list of great musicians goes on....woody guthrie, Bob wills and the texs playboys, Rolling stones, Frank Zappa, and a host of others, are you willing to dismiss this music as old fashioned and irrelevent? Or take Ozzie, he is a shell of what he once was, but I can remember when people hung on every word he said and each album, not CD, was pure genius....in retrospect, maybe they weren't, but we thought so.

New bands are exploring new territory, too. Is it good? bad? It is good for now, is anyone going to remember Henry Rollins as some sort of visionary? I doubt it. How about Iggy Pop, maybe a beter chance....he was doing shit in the sixties that is just now sounding relevent.

What is ignorant, tho, is judging music based upon how it sounds at the time of release, sure it may touch a chord with you today...but will it stand the test of time, probably not. And therein lies the rub. Music affects all of us in certain way, our hopes, or ambitions, sometimes it seves as an excuse for bolstering out own insecurities.

I know one thing, tho....Bob Dylan still writes about real things that are happening today...and I am not a Bob Dylan fan, but you sure have to understand where he has been and look forward to where he is going.

interesting thread here guys....

while I am inclined to agree with Labret's position, I can't. At least not 100%. I'm very much into Mozart's work, and even though he made almost no money at all, there is no question that he was the "top 40" of his time (and location..... music was not global like it is now). There's also no question that he was a fucking musical genius. So, where does that leave him? Musical god? Or sellout?

End user musical listening preference (musical taste) really is rather irrelevant here. I personally detest eminem AS WELL as angry white boy death metal. In my eyes (or rather, ears) they suck equally bad. If I was forced to choose, I'd probably listen to eminem over Morbid Angel, and I fuckin' hate eminem. But That crap that the hardcore (or whatever the fuck you wanna call it) bands put out.... please..... that is so far away from being any kind of music it's laughable that they make any money at all putting out that shit. I've heards cats screaming and fucking that sound better than that. So again.... that's MY preferences getting in the way here. If you choose to dub that shit with the title of "music", hey.... more power to ya. I can't do it.

So, if we boil away the preference issues... we're left with the question of "selling out", "soulless corporate monkeys", "fat whire balding lyric writes seeking to infuse inspiration in the blind sheeple of the world".... etc....

and honestly.... I can't see that it matters. Unless, of course, you have some lofty preconceived notion of what "good" and "harmonious" and "right" in the path to musical legendry.

Like I started out with here.... my initial impulse was to agree with Labret's position.... however.... it seems that's a fanatical kind of view towards what's "real" music and what's not. If some kid on 6th street can belt out a tune with a talent that 4 billion other people don't have, and some corporate money bag matches him up with a fuckin' top 40 tune, who cares? If it's garbage, no one will buy it or listen to it. If he's good, he's good regardless of what he's singin'.... and people will buy. There are three different interests at work here....

1. The kid. He's singin' cuz it's what he loves to do.
2. The corporate monkey's: They're all about the bling bling.
3. The Listener: They just wanna hear what makes them feel good. Period.

In fact, the only thing that really wedges itself into that system, IS the people that have the lofty ideas about what "real" music is and/or should be. Personal preference doesn't really push itself into that system, but instead, simply eliminates #3 if it ain't your thing.

Labels (meaning, "Alternative", "Metal", "Rap", etc) are basically for convenience so that we know what we're talking about when we discuss these things.... you really shouldn;t take them so literally. After all, it's not really metal.... there's nothing metal about it. It's intangible audio. So as far as something being "truly" alternative" or being some label that MTV is trying to brainwash you into thinking that's what it is.... c'mon.... is that really fucking important? If it is, you probably buy clothes because of the name on the label too.

Colin, that is SOOO not a country song. You didn't mention mama, prison or a train track once.

Amputate: I'm not sure if the Mozart thing was a response to my statement, but just in case, I want to clarify what I meant...

He probably was top 40 of his time, you're right. But music was different then. There had been no market studies at that time. There were no boards of executives deciding what music lives and what dies, with huge investments to protect. There were no discernable trends and copycat fads (that I know of) watering down and even ruining music that COULD be good.

So my point was that commercialism has killed good art, and that's what I dislike. In Mozart's time, he was seen for the genius he was. But if he were coming of age today, he would either be making cheesy dance beats or on the streets playing for spare change.... and I think that's sad.

GENIUS musicians who will never be recognized for what they rightfully deserve: Mr. Bungle, Estradasphere, Loppybogymi, Dillinger Escape Plan... just to name a quick few. And it's really sad to me that they struggle with sales while MTV spoonfeeds the masses their musical tastes based on the will of their corporate interests. That's not what music's about... at least not for me.

there absolutely WAS..... remember, he was composing for royalty, which I'm sure was a helluva lot harder on composers/musicians than today's corporate suits are.
again, yes there was. People tried to rip off Mozart just like anyone else.

no.... he wasn't.... he died and was buried in a pauper's mass grave. No one viewed him as a genius in his time. A curiosity maybe, but certainly not the way we see him now.
I seriously doubt that.

I have read the first page, and the first thing that comes to my mind is:

Labret = IQ is 60 or below, can not keep up an arguement, has to call names, has to call everybody ignorant.

Colin = Puts up an arguement with facts, backs it up with examples, lays it out for the mass to understand easily, does not call names, does not call anybody ignorant.


This quote cracks me up:

"
They have no videos on mtv. A show with them in any given city would probably ony draw a hundred people MAX, and that would be if there were other bands as well, and the crowd would be comprised of people loyal to the hardcore scene. "

The reason why it only draws a hundred people is because nobody likes it, nobody cares about it. Its like if I had a show of me taking a big shit, very few people will come because its SHIT.


The reason why popular music is "good" is because many people like it.

Do you like the hot girl everybody liked in 5th grade? Yes she was popular.

Do you want that new laptop everybody drools over? Yes the laptop is popular.

Do you want to be the popular jock on the football team who fucks a different girl each night? YES he was popular.


As you can see, popular means good, not the other way around.


How does everybody like my break down for the stupid(labret) explanation? :)

ps. labret, don't argue when you are so ignorant and dumb please.

I think you should change your sig to "idiot by eighteen" moron at the moment.

eminem pwns ju too

eminem is gay.

captain,
if your going to call names, back it up with some examples and facts.

but obviously you can't do that, so name calling is so much easier for a dimwit like you.

Thank you, Come again for another schooling!

popular = 95% of the time means GOOD , approved by everyone.


There is that 5% of the time where the popular things aren't good.


what is popular?

mercedes benz
dodge viper
ferrari moderna
porsche 911 turbos
frosted flakes
britney spears
poland spring (do you drink mr tippys h20?)
hoover vaccums
CISCO routers ( you use cisco routers right?)
DELL servers
google.com
yahoo.com

I can go on and on and on, but the point is, if it wasn't good, How the FUCK Did it become popular?

Yes the 5% exception we will keep in mind.


Thread closed, lets move on and not keep labret and others make a fool out of themselves too much longer.

mrbling owns your minds, you know it.

An example of why you should change your sig to "idiot by eighteen":


I have read the first page, and the first thing that comes to my mind is:

Labret = IQ is 60 or below, can not keep up an arguement, has to call names, has to call everybody ignorant.

Colin = Puts up an arguement with facts, backs it up with examples, lays it out for the mass to understand easily, does not call names, does not call anybody ignorant.


This quote cracks me up:

"
They have no videos on mtv. A show with them in any given city would probably ony draw a hundred people MAX, and that would be if there were other bands as well, and the crowd would be comprised of people loyal to the hardcore scene. "

The reason why it only draws a hundred people is because nobody likes it, nobody cares about it. Its like if I had a show of me taking a big shit, very few people will come because its SHIT.


The reason why popular music is "good" is because many people like it.

Do you like the hot girl everybody liked in 5th grade? Yes she was popular.

Do you want that new laptop everybody drools over? Yes the laptop is popular.

Do you want to be the popular jock on the football team who fucks a different girl each night? YES he was popular.


As you can see, popular means good, not the other way around.


How does everybody like my break down for the stupid(labret) explanation?

ps. labret, don't argue when you are so ignorant and dumb please.

When you call people idiot, it usually means the opinion they made is false.

Try proving the example I made is false.

damn you are retarded, no wonder you are an adult webmaster, you couldn't get a job anywhere else


HAHAHAHAHHAHA ,
let me guess, your 24-35 , making $200 a day max, runs around message boards acting all smart and shit right?


Let the big boys talk now ok?
your wasting bandwidth biatch.

does your mommy know your still up?

ahhh, poor boy, got your feelings hurt?


let daddy make it all better for you, heres 50 cents bitch.
give me your email address and I'll paypal it over for you so you can move out of your moms house.

mrbling

You are right.

I have been up too late and I should know better than to argue with a 15 year old.

I'm of to get some sleep and so should you - it is a school day tomorrow and I hear that they are voting for hall monitor - so if you get up nice and early and pick out your favorite Eminem T-shirt, brush your teeth real nice and pretty - you might have a chance to win.

Good luck - and don't forget to post the results.

Punkworld,

Your questions look like review qustions for an Introduction to Western Philosophy class.
Know how I know? I took that class.

I was a physics major. By nature, one gets very interested in philosophy, as there is a philosophy of science that is very important to understand. One should know Bacon, Popper, et.al as modern science is predicated on their ideas. Popper has had a particularly strong influence on the philosophy of science in the past century.

That being said, many of the philosophers I did not care to read. Sartre and Heidegger for
example. I think part of this may be because they did not write in English and the translations are not that good. Something gets lost in the foreign language translations I think.

I'll start with the Ontological proof of God. There is no ONE ontological proof of God. There are many (somewhat similar) versions of this proof. Descartes was one of the more modern ones and basically stated that what one perceives in the idea of something is true of it. He then goes on to say that he perceives existence in the idea of God and that therefor God exists. The argument has flaws as it proves the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy also. I say Descartes was one of the later ones because Kant came along and smashed the whole thing to pieces and rid us of this scourge.

Tertullian. Another theist. Tertullian said that whatever Christ said is true. What is in the
Bible is Christ's words and therefore true. His argument was circular. Sounds like today's
televangelists. Anyway, I he didn't like philosophy and said it should be abandoned.
He also said Christianity is a true philosophy. Not sure if that is the contradiction you
meant but it's contradictory. Maybe not though if we permit people to change their minds about
things over time -- which seems fair to me.

YOU wrote "God is a Taoist". Question number 2. .You forgot already?

Evolutionary Ethics. Man has, by natural selection, evolved morality. Stephen Jay Gould would turn over in his grave. What do you think, punkworld? For one, I don't think there are any universal morals. Take murder for example. Every society murders. I don't know of any society that doesn't permit killing the enemy. Maybe that is the moral. Kill gooks but not your neighbor. Interesting thing to evolve. I think it's BS.

You asked "Why did Berkeley consider his theory non-sceptic?" Which theory? He had many.
These the questions from notes to a philosophy class or something? The question assumes
having just studied something in particular about Berkeley. You probably mean his "Theory of Immaterialism". More BS. Science was right and has marched triumphantly on. Philosophy is being killed by Science. One of my professors liked to pronounce his name BARKLEY. I don't know if that is correct or not.

The mind-body problem is the "hard problem". Really not so hard. The mind is a construct. I'm
a materialist. There is no problem.

Karl Popper, my favorite philosopher, proved verification to be an invalid method of scientific proof. Well, I don't know if I would call it a proof. He did point there was some circularity in doing science that way. George Soros was very influenced by Popper. I think he ran into him at Columbia. If you are into investing, check out "the Alchemy of Finance" by Soros.

Jews exterminating "heathens". It's in the Torah. Leviticus or Deuteronomy I am nearly sure.
(I don't know the Hebrew names for these books). Lots of stuff in there I consider crazy. If your kids disobey you, they should be put to death. If a man shall lie with a man, he shall be brought to the city gates and stoned to death. Yes. the bible is very homophobic. Kill gays it says. Nice book.
What Eminem has written should be considered less controversial than what is in Leviticus.

On Kant's categorical imperatives. There are more than two. Which do you consider to be
"main" and why? I don't think Kant ever chose two and said they were "main". Maybe after he
was dead, someone thought them that important.

Anyway, One is that one should universalize any possible action one may commit. If you are about to do something, imagine everyone else doing it. If you wouldn't like the world this way, then that defines the actions as moral or immoral. Of course, I think we all think that is silly. Take porn for example. We all have very different ideas as to the morality of porn. One can discover nothing by asking this question of oneself. I think Rousseau's "Social Contract" is much better than this argument of Kant. More realistic anyway. The cool kids today all say "Real Politik". I highly recommend it.

Another of his categorical imperatives is basically a restatement of the Golden Rule. Do unto
others as you would have them do unto you. Kant didn't put it exactly that way but it means the same thing.

Well. about the history of punk question. I don't know what you want as an answer. It was
called punk ROCK. All the early artists had been rock musicians. So I say rock. Extremely
drunk rockers at that.

You wrote "I will only ask questions, and supply answers if you fail to answer any of them.
since you said you know more about anything than I do, answering all the questions correctly
is the only way to prove it."

I disagree with that. The only way to know if I know more than you on any subject is to pick
the subject and have a random person ask us a lot of questions from that subject. if you ask
the questions, you have slanted the questions to ones you already know, which is, well,
cheating. It's rigging the contest.

A neutral person is the only one that can ask the questions. I've read your English. It is nearly flawless.

For the record, if you call a person an idiot for their cultural tastes, you do not seem to
be a very wise person, certainly not studied in the philosophy questions you are asking
me. Well, maybe you studied Nazi philosophy. They had similar ideas.