Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers (it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

SEARCH
the Forums & Piano World

This custom search works much better than the built in one and allows searching older posts.
(ad 125) Sweetwater - Digital Keyboards & Other Gear
Digital Pianos at Sweetwater
(ad) Pearl River
Pearl River Pianos
(ad) Pianoteq
Latest Pianoteq add-on instrument: U4 upright piano
(ad) P B Guide
Acoustic & Digital Piano Guide
PianoSupplies.com (150)
Piano Accessories Music Related Gifts Piano Tuning Equipment Piano Moving Equipment
We now offer Gift Certificates in our online store!
(ad) Estonia Piano
Estonia Piano
Quick Links to Useful Stuff
Our Classified Ads
Find Piano Professionals-

*Piano Dealers - Piano Stores
*Piano Tuners
*Piano Teachers
*Piano Movers
*Piano Restorations
*Piano Manufacturers
*Organs

Quick Links:
*Advertise On Piano World
*Free Piano Newsletter
*Online Piano Recitals
*Piano Recitals Index
*Piano Accessories
* Buying a Piano
*Buying A Acoustic Piano
*Buying a Digital Piano
*Pianos for Sale
*Sell Your Piano
*How Old is My Piano?
*Piano Books
*Piano Art, Pictures, & Posters
*Directory/Site Map
*Contest
*Links
*Virtual Piano
*Music Word Search
*Piano Screen Saver
*Piano Videos
*Virtual Piano Chords
Page 12 of 13 < 1 2 ... 10 11 12 13 >
Topic Options
#876618 - 05/27/03 07:40 PM Re: Something that really troubles me
CrashTest Offline
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/23/01
Posts: 4110
Elena, what is your program? (Who is the composer of the work you commisioned?)

Top
Piano & Music Accessories
#876619 - 05/27/03 07:44 PM Re: Something that really troubles me
ksk Offline
Full Member

Registered: 03/14/03
Posts: 103
Loc: sweden
Regardless of what the WWF says,

my guess is that we (humans) have changed the earth more the last 100 years than we and our ancestors did in 100000 years before that. It is also clear to me that we can't continue using and polluting nature like this if we want to be here for as long as the dinosaurs for example. However, many poor countries (along with the US in particular) obviously can't afford not overusing/abusing nature or polluting it. I have no solution to this and personally I really don't have a big problem with that either. It's the system we have choosen. I'm also pretty sure my children and many generations after them will be able to enjoy wildlife, clean water (at least in the northern part of sweden) etc. It would be a pity though when the earth finally is useless to us....in 10000 years or so?

Top
#876620 - 05/27/03 08:10 PM Re: Something that really troubles me
EHpianist Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/27/03
Posts: 1703
Loc: NY-Madrid-Newfoundland (rhymes...
 Quote:
Originally posted by CrashTest:
Elena, what is your program? (Who is the composer of the work you commisioned?)[/b]
José Miguel Moreno Sabio (Spain, 1956)
Come un eco lontano (2001)
(Dedicated to the Dúo Hammel - Sánchez)

Colin J. P. Homiski (USA, 1971)
The Exploding Music Box (2003)
(Commissioned by and dedicated to the Dúo Hammel - Sánchez)

José Luis Turina (Spain, 1952)
Fantasía sobre Don Giovanni (1981)

George Crumb (USA, 1929)
Celestial Mechanics (Makrokosmos IV) (1979)

The work we commissioned is from a Boston composer I knew from my days as a student at NEC. His work is harder to memorize than the Crumb was!

Elena
http://www.concertpianist.com
_________________________
Schnabel's advie to Horowitz: "When a piece gets difficult, make faces."

Top
#876621 - 05/27/03 08:15 PM Re: Something that really troubles me
gryphon Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 08/09/01
Posts: 11678
Loc: Okemos, MI
Is it gauche to ask what it costs to commission a piece (like asking someone how much money they make)?
_________________________
"If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to."
MSU - the university of Michigan!
Wheels

Top
#876622 - 06/06/03 01:57 PM Re: Something that really troubles me
phykell Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 08/22/02
Posts: 697
Loc: UK
Sorry to reopen this one, but I just found some interesting information on how over-population may indeed be a serious threat:

The world's natural supply of underground water, on which two billion people depend, is being run down, according to the United Nations. Growing populations, industrialisation and more intensive farming are all contributing to a dramatic increase in the use of water.

Two-fifths of the world's people already face serious shortages, and water-borne diseases fill half its hospital beds.

There is certainly room for better management of water in agriculture - which currently takes ups 70% of the water we use.

The World Water Council believes that by 2020 we shall need 17% more water than is available if we are to feed the world.[/b]

All this information and sources are available from the http://news.bbc.co.uk website
_________________________
If you vote me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

========

Evil cannot be conquered in the world. It can only be resisted within oneself.

Top
#876623 - 06/06/03 02:06 PM Re: Something that really troubles me
Ariel Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/07/03
Posts: 3028
Loc: NE
phykell,

Do you think you could post this in the "Is Polluting a Sin?" Thread, since this is precisely what was under discussion (and what I was being ridiculed for saying)?

Ariel
_________________________
If this is coffee, bring me tea. If this is tea, bring me coffee.
~Abraham Lincoln~

Top
#876624 - 06/06/03 07:59 PM Re: Something that really troubles me
phykell Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 08/22/02
Posts: 697
Loc: UK
Consider it done \:\)
_________________________
If you vote me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

========

Evil cannot be conquered in the world. It can only be resisted within oneself.

Top
#876625 - 06/06/03 08:21 PM Re: Something that really troubles me
Ariel Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/07/03
Posts: 3028
Loc: NE
\:\) Ta!
_________________________
If this is coffee, bring me tea. If this is tea, bring me coffee.
~Abraham Lincoln~

Top
#876626 - 06/07/03 03:39 PM Re: Something that really troubles me
piqué Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/15/01
Posts: 5483
a little background:

i've been an "environmentalist" in the sense that most people mean it all my life: i've lived in the wilderness for months at a time, i love nature and wildlife, i'm more at home on a mountain top than in a city.

because of my great passion for the outdoors and the natural world, i've been an investigative reporter covering the environment for nearly twenty years, and have written major public policy articles for some very heavy hitting and respected journals.

i learned very early on that you cannot trust environmental groups on their facts. i would not put a penny's worth of stock in one damn thing the world wildlife fund or any other enviro group publishes. if i had believed any of them at face value, i would have lost all credibility as a reporter because the fact checkers would have found out i didn't do my homework.

now, i don't have at hand the correct facts and figures, and i have no intention of doing the research to find them for the mere purpose of posting them here. but i can tell you that based on my twenty years of experience of writing about these issues, that i would no more trust what an enviro has to say than what a logging company or a mining company or a rancher has to say.

in fact, a lot of times, the industry groups are more honest. the enviros think they can fudge and lie because the ends justify the means: they have a just cause, so they can use questionable info to persuade people.

all they've really accomplished is to destroy their own credibility. no decent enviro reporter worth his salt would believe anything they have to say without proof.

i wrote a major essay about the ranching subsidy a few years ago. the enviros dutifully sent me all their substantiating documents to support their position that cattle grazing was harmful to the land.

do you know what i found? the peer-reviewed scientific reports that they based their anti-grazing campaigns on actually stated the opposite of what the enviros claimed they stated!!! for just one little example, the enviros claim that cattle grazing is harmful to elk, when in fact, the scientists had found that cattle grazing is beneficial for elk! quite brazen and unbelievable!!!

just to be sure, i interviewed the scientists who were the authors of the studies. i found out they were furious at how their work was being misused/abused by the enviros and were considering suing them.

so, elena, though she may not have the specific facts on hand, has the right idea and the right level of skepticism when dealing with these issues.

my urgent message to all of you who care about the planet is to take what information you receive from enviro groups with a bucket of salt, and definitely read everything with a great deal of skepticism.

on another topic:

there is not and never has been any "balance of nature." nature is not in balance and never was, that is a myth. nature operates in a boom and bust cycle, it never reaches homeostasis.

the grazing radicals who are so vicious in their goals that they'd wipe out an entire culture and livelihood state they want the range to return to it's "natural" state. well, define "natural" for me, i dare you. it doesn't exist. no one can define it.

well, then, they say, we want it to be what it was as the time of the arrival of the first white settlers.

why that period of time? why not a hundred years or a thousand years before that?

not only is that goal completely arbitrary, but it also represents a landscape that nobody would like today. the condition of the landscape at that time was one of extremes, not balance. on the great plains, there was hardly a blade of grass--the bison had completely chewed it down to nothing. and their carcasses lay rotting by the thousands in rivers. the "damage" the bison did was so severe, you can still see the mark of their wallows on the landscape today.

except it wasn't damage. the great plains vegetation co-evolved with heavy grazing. what the enviros are demanding is based on phony science. it is not and never was about the "health" of the land. it's about who gets to live here, who lives and who dies. so they demonize the ranchers, who are, by and large, good stewards of the land, and instead are happy because now the land is only used for recreation.

which, btw, scientific studies show that recreation is far more harmful to the land, overall, than logging, mining, or grazing.

but, the enviros don't want to hear anything that might throw them off the land or limit their activities. ruining other people's lives is fine, however.

[end of rant]
_________________________
piqué

now in paperback:


Grand Obsession: A Piano Odyssey

Top
#876627 - 06/07/03 04:51 PM Re: Something that really troubles me
Ariel Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/07/03
Posts: 3028
Loc: NE
pique,

I appreciate your perspective and unique experience both as a lover of Nature and as a reporter. I'm just curious why you posted this here and now - was it in response to phykell's post?

There is, I think, a more pertinent thread (so the issue doesn't get buried anyhow) - the one on pollution and "sin" even though that has gotten a bit bogged down in a debate about separation of Church and State.

I would rather "talk" to you on that thread about all this - it's hard when there are two threads running with similar themes - when in doubt then, I choose to debate an issue in the one with the more apt title, if only so I can remember where I was.

But then again, I don't know if we are even in disagreement. I am not obliged to "fact-check" like a journalist - and I doubt even a journalist could check every fact in areas of personal policy making, outside of his/her area of journalistic expertise. But I do take most everything I hear with a grain of salt, especially if the person speaking is emotionally (or financially) caught up in the outcome.

In any case - there is no question in my mind that the global fresh water supply is endangered (doesn't seem any industry would have a special ax to grind here - the "water industry?"). I think the problems are pretty well acknowledged by the scientific community - the finitude of supply, in combination with expanding population, contamination of what we do have, and gluttonous over-use in the Industrialized Nations...Plus the obvious distribution issue.

The BBC link, phykell provided (need to click from front-page onto Science/Nature) provides many references to organizations such as the World Water Council (UN Agency), the Egyptian Water Ministry and what looked to me like respectable scientists rather than zealots.

So - comments? (Any chance we could adjourn to the other Thread?? Maybe pasting these posts over there too...) I may not be able to do much responding for a while as I'm just about to go somewhere. But then again, maybe this water problem was not an issue for you.

Ariel
_________________________
If this is coffee, bring me tea. If this is tea, bring me coffee.
~Abraham Lincoln~

Top
#876628 - 06/07/03 07:54 PM Re: Something that really troubles me
phykell Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 08/22/02
Posts: 697
Loc: UK
 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:...because of my great passion for the outdoors and the natural world, i've been an investigative reporter covering the environment for nearly twenty years, and have written major public policy articles for some very heavy hitting and respected journals...[/b]
Care to name them? Care to post some links?

To be honest, I noted that you ended your post with "end of rant" which I thought was fairly inappropriate, especially as it sums up an opinion, which I believe you would wish us all to take seriously.

I cannot state that you are wrong in what you say because, for all I know, you really are an investigative journalist specialising in environmental issues and perhaps you really do have the real facts as to the danger our environment is in. However, I do have one or two problems accepting your opinion as facts on face value...

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:i learned very early on that you cannot trust environmental groups on their facts. i would not put a penny's worth of stock in one damn thing the world wildlife fund or any other enviro group publishes.[/b]
A massively sweeping generalisation there.

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:now, i don't have at hand the correct facts and figures, and i have no intention of doing the research to find them for the mere purpose of posting them here. but i can tell you that based on my twenty years of experience of writing about these issues, that i would no more trust what an enviro has to say than what a logging company or a mining company or a rancher has to say.[/b]
I thought you'd been an "investigative journalist", "writing about these issues" for 20 years? Surely finding those links must be simplicity itself? Surely you *would* have the facts and figures at hand? In fact, surely you'd be able to write a truly devastating post in reply to some of the opinions expressed here, yet you choose to simply post your opinion without any links, without any supporting evidence and trust that we are prepared to just take your word for it. As a journalist, you should be able to supply links and evidence to prove what you say as easily as I would be able to write software i.e. it's your job isn't it?

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:in fact, a lot of times, the industry groups are more honest. the enviros think they can fudge and lie because the ends justify the means: they have a just cause, so they can use questionable info to persuade people.[/b]
And you don't think the industry groups feel *exactly* the same way? That their ends justify the means? Incidentally, the industry groups are almost certainly driven by money, the "enviros" are more likely to be driven by their concern for the environment. I know which one I'd rather trust!

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:so, elena, though she may not have the specific facts on hand, has the right idea and the right level of skepticism when dealing with these issues.[/b]
That's your opinion and I strongly disagree (with Elena too though I wonder now if that isn't some sort of cardinal sin, not that I think she needs anyone to defend her of course ;\) ).

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:my urgent message to all of you who care about the planet is to take what information you receive from enviro groups with a bucket of salt, and definitely read everything with a great deal of skepticism.[/b]
Even with a healthy dose of skepticism, which I actually agree is a good idea, anyone who thinks that our environment isn't under threat is, unfortunately, a fool or just ignorant. I could post links and find a huge number of facts, and not just from the WWF ;\) but it's the sheer number of links to valid and provable information out there that makes it a pointless exercise. Frankly, I think asking someone to try and show our environment is at risk is ridiculous. Even taking into account the, what you imply, are dubious opinions and statistics from organisations concerned with the environment, the fact remains that our air and water *are* becoming more polluted, the water table *is* dropping and we *are* losing many species every single day. These facts are surely undeniable.

Anyway, instead of simply dismissing the evidence I provide, how about posting some links containing evidence to the contrary, and of course, make sure your links have the credibility mine apprently lack.

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:there is not and never has been any "balance of nature." nature is not in balance and never was, that is a myth. nature operates in a boom and bust cycle, it never reaches homeostasis.[/b]
Relative to the arbitrary limits of a so-called "boom and bust cycle", Man's effect on the environment is well outside the bounds of this cycle.
_________________________
If you vote me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

========

Evil cannot be conquered in the world. It can only be resisted within oneself.

Top
#876629 - 06/07/03 08:32 PM Re: Something that really troubles me
piqué Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/15/01
Posts: 5483
 Quote:
Originally posted by phykell:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by piqué:[qb]...because of my great passion for the outdoors and the natural world, i've been an investigative reporter covering the environment for nearly twenty years, and have written major public policy articles for some very heavy hitting and respected journals...[/b]
 Quote:
Care to name them? Care to post some links? [/b]
well, phykell, if i did, then i would no longer be anonymous on this forum. and it is an anonymity i wish to protect, for reasons that have been discussed extensively here and long ago.

there is much that you say that is true, and that i have no argument with. so, i'll try to respond point for point, so as to clarify my position.

for starters, i am certainly NOT claiming that there are not real threats to the health of the planet. if there weren't, there would be nothing for me to write about, would there? \:\)

 Quote:
To be honest, I noted that you ended your post with "end of rant" which I thought was fairly inappropriate, especially as it sums up an opinion, which I believe you would wish us all to take seriously. [/b]
that was meant ironically.

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:i learned very early on that you cannot trust environmental groups on their facts. i would not put a penny's worth of stock in one damn thing the world wildlife fund or any other enviro group publishes.[/b]
 Quote:
A massively sweeping generalisation there.[/b]
and one the vast majority of environmental journalists agree with. i should know as i just spent three years interviewing them about their jobs.

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:now, i don't have at hand the correct facts and figures, and i have no intention of doing the research to find them for the mere purpose of posting them here. but i can tell you that based on my twenty years of experience of writing about these issues, that i would no more trust what an enviro has to say than what a logging company or a mining company or a rancher has to say.[/b]
 Quote:
I thought you'd been an "investigative journalist", "writing about these issues" for 20 years? Surely finding those links must be simplicity itself? Surely you *would* have the facts and figures at hand? In fact, surely you'd be able to write a truly devastating post in reply to some of the opinions expressed here, yet you choose to simply post your opinion without any links, without any supporting evidence and trust that we are prepared to just take your word for it. As a journalist, you should be able to supply links and evidence to prove what you say as easily as I would be able to write software i.e. it's your job isn't it? [/b]
wow. if i were to simply research stuff on the internet and post a link you would accept it as fact? no wonder we have a lot to worry about when it comes to educating the public.

i would no more consider what i found on the internet as gospel truth than.... than, i'd eat my grandma's underwear.

if these facts were so easy and simple to dig up, even for an experienced reporter, everyone would have them. unfortunately, it takes a huge amount of grunt work and many months of research, most of the time, to provide enough information to have enough confidence that you are providing readers with a fairly accurate picture.

i'll give you one little example. suppose you were writing about the salmon situation in the pacific northwest (not something i've written about, but something many of the reporters i've interviewed have written about). you want to be able to give readers some clear perspective on the state of the salmon, and the broader historical and scientific perspective of what it all means.

you start reading all kinds of reports. dozens of them. maybe a hundred of them. they all say different things. some of them are suspect because of who paid for the research--how do you know if your sources are reliable? a big, big problem for even the best journalists.

someone gives you a cheat sheet of the facts (much like the things you'll find on the internet) to help you out and make things simpler. you start checking the facts independently, and they don't check out.

now what?

after about a month or more of this, it starts to look like, actually, there isn't a salmon problem after all. you spend another month or so verifying this premise, turning it over and inside out with sources you know to be reliable, and reading the documentation they send you to, and verifying what you read. (i never just take someone's word for anything, just because of who they are.)

at this stage of my career, someone has to pay me to read through the piles of documents and studies and reports. would you like to hire me?

otherwise, i don't have the time.

but it is the knowledge of what is really involved to get down to the nitty gritty of what is factual--if that can even be determined, which it often can't--that by itself makes me very skeptical of most claims, especially on the internet. i seriously doubt most of these people have really done their homework.

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:in fact, a lot of times, the industry groups are more honest. the enviros think they can fudge and lie because the ends justify the means: they have a just cause, so they can use questionable info to persuade people.[/b]
 Quote:
And you don't think the industry groups feel *exactly* the same way? That their ends justify the means? Incidentally, the industry groups are almost certainly driven by money, the "enviros" are more likely to be driven by their concern for the environment. I know which one I'd rather trust![/b]
excuse me, but the enviros are also driven by money. everyone is. take a look at an excellent series run by the sacramento bee a couple of years ago called "environment, inc."

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:my urgent message to all of you who care about the planet is to take what information you receive from enviro groups with a bucket of salt, and definitely read everything with a great deal of skepticism.[/b]
 Quote:
Even with a healthy dose of skepticism, which I actually agree is a good idea, anyone who thinks that our environment isn't under threat is, unfortunately, a fool or just ignorant. I could post links and find a huge number of facts, and not just from the WWF ;\) but it's the sheer number of links to valid and provable information out there that makes it a pointless exercise. Frankly, I think asking someone to try and show our environment is at risk is ridiculous. Even taking into account the, what you imply, are dubious opinions and statistics from organisations concerned with the environment, the fact remains that our air and water *are* becoming more polluted, the water table *is* dropping and we *are* losing many species every single day. These facts are surely undeniable.[/b]
they are popular beliefs. and such beliefs have been skewered before as off the mark. take the deforestation issue. we actually have far more forests than we did in the 1800s. take the loss of wildlife issue. we actually have far more wildlife now than we did in the early 1900s. as i indicated above, links will not carry any weight with me. i'm almost certain, btw, that our air is not becoming MORE polluted, certainly our air and water are far less polluted than they were in the 1960s. that i can speak on from my own experience and memory.

this is not to say that what you have written could not, on the whole, be true. but i doubt you nor i have the actual facts and full picture in front of us, and certainly not from reading the internet.

i will go along with you that information from independent research groups and independent science should be accepted as factual. but i was only talking about info from the WWF, not the later discussion about water.

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:there is not and never has been any "balance of nature." nature is not in balance and never was, that is a myth. nature operates in a boom and bust cycle, it never reaches homeostasis.[/b]
 Quote:
Relative to the arbitrary limits of a so-called "boom and bust cycle", Man's effect on the environment is well outside the bounds of this cycle.[/b]
that all depends on the length of your view. if your view is in geological time rather than historical time, then we humans are no more catastrophic than many other natural events.

but i certainly agree that the problem with the loss of species is a matter of rate and degree, rather than the fact that it is happening at all.

and i certainly do grieve the negative impacts i have witnessed on the landscape--out of control clearcutting in alaska and british columbia (no longer done in the lower 48 since the spotted owl controversy), the commercialization of public lands as they are turned into recreational theme parks, the loss of rare and endemic species in many places.... there are plenty of issues, and i could name more.

note that i'm not mentioning the ones i haven't personally researched. i am that much of a skeptic.
_________________________
piqué

now in paperback:


Grand Obsession: A Piano Odyssey

Top
#876630 - 06/07/03 09:02 PM Re: Something that really troubles me
piqué Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/15/01
Posts: 5483
ariel,
i'm not posting in the environment and sin thread because it has become a discussion about the separation of church and state. i actually think the environment needs all the help it can get, and if the church gets involved, so much the better. a lot of people who might have otherwise believed in man's dominion over the earth might change their ways as a result, and that has to be a good thing.

i'm posting here because of the discussion between elena and phykell, which is taking place here, not the other thread. i don't agree the other one is more pertinent.

 Quote:
I doubt even a journalist could check every fact in areas of personal policy making, outside of his/her area of journalistic expertise.
[/b]

sure they can. fact checkers do it every day.
 Quote:
In any case - there is no question in my mind that the global fresh water supply is endangered (doesn't seem any industry would have a special ax to grind here - the "water industry?"). I think the problems are pretty well acknowledged by the scientific community - the finitude of supply, in combination with expanding population, contamination of what we do have, and gluttonous over-use in the Industrialized Nations...Plus the obvious distribution issue.
[/b]

i really can't comment on this issue and didn't mean to appear to be doing so in my earlier post. i've certainly heard the same things you have. but i haven't checked any of it out, so have no special knowledge on this one.

i also tend to believe sources like the BBC, the UN, government agencies, and independent scientists. if that is where the info is coming from, then i'm inclined to agree with your acceptance of the information.

have fun on your trip!
_________________________
piqué

now in paperback:


Grand Obsession: A Piano Odyssey

Top
#876631 - 06/07/03 09:19 PM Re: Something that really troubles me
apple* Offline


Registered: 01/01/03
Posts: 19862
Loc: Kansas
I knew an old Greek and he would say as he pointed and squinted blearily;

"Who do you think you are ? the thread police?
_________________________
accompanist/organist.. a non-MTNA teacher to a few

love and peace, Õun (apple in Estonian)

Top
#876632 - 06/07/03 09:44 PM Re: Something that really troubles me
Ariel Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/07/03
Posts: 3028
Loc: NE
"Zorba" (of PW.com)?
_________________________
If this is coffee, bring me tea. If this is tea, bring me coffee.
~Abraham Lincoln~

Top
#876633 - 06/08/03 12:50 AM Re: Something that really troubles me
Larry Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 9217
Loc: Deep in Cherokee Country
Pique, I can't believe it. Your post about the lack of credibility of the enviro groups sounded like something I would write.

Is the world coming to an end??..... \:D ;\)

Great post, Pique.
_________________________
Life isn't measured by the breaths you take. Life is measured by the things that left you breathless

Top
#876634 - 06/08/03 02:30 AM Re: Something that really troubles me
piqué Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/15/01
Posts: 5483
larry,

you mean you only just now figured out that i'm a conservative?!? ;\)

no, the world isn't coming to an end. you still post links here all the time and expect us to believe them just because they are web sites.

so the pique/larry dissonance shall continue, unmolested. :p \:D
_________________________
piqué

now in paperback:


Grand Obsession: A Piano Odyssey

Top
#876635 - 06/08/03 05:55 AM Re: Something that really troubles me
phykell Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 08/22/02
Posts: 697
Loc: UK
 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:well, phykell, if i did, then i would no longer be anonymous on this forum. and it is an anonymity i wish to protect, for reasons that have been discussed extensively here and long ago.[/b]
Well pique, I personally do not understand your need for anonymity but that's your choice. However, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim anonymity and claim that your opinions can be backed up by your experience, experience that you cannot prove. This thread has turned into a discussion about the trust we should have on the evidence certain organisations publish, yet you then expect us to take your opinion without any supporting evidence. If however, you named yourself as a well-respected, investigative journalist, with proof that you had indeed been even published, your opinion and your statements of fact would get the credibility they allegedly deserve.

for starters, i am certainly NOT claiming that there are not real threats to the health of the planet. if there weren't, there would be nothing for me to write about, would there? \:\)

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:and one the vast majority of environmental journalists agree with. i should know as i just spent three years interviewing them about their jobs.[/b]
Again, something you cannot back up.

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:wow. if i were to simply research stuff on the internet and post a link you would accept it as fact?[/b]
No, but I would at least be able to check the link out, do any research I felt necessary, and form my own opinion. After all, we are discussing credibility aren't we?

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:no wonder we have a lot to worry about when it comes to educating the public.[/b]
I'll let that one pass.

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:i would no more consider what i found on the internet as gospel truth than.... than, i'd eat my grandma's underwear.[/b]
What? Reagrdless of the source? Regardless of the fact that information on the Internet can itself be researched?

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:if these facts were so easy and simple to dig up, even for an experienced reporter, everyone would have them.[/b]
No, I'm saying you'd still have them to hand. I'm saying you'd at least be able to list reports and studies. I'd say you'd at least have even a few links we could check out.

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:(i never just take someone's word for anything, just because of who they are.)[/b]
Now that I can agree with.

I'll answer the rest of your post when I have time, hopefully later today \:\)
_________________________
If you vote me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

========

Evil cannot be conquered in the world. It can only be resisted within oneself.

Top
#876636 - 06/08/03 09:55 AM Re: Something that really troubles me
Larry Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 9217
Loc: Deep in Cherokee Country
 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:

no, the world isn't coming to an end. you still post links here all the time and expect us to believe them just because they are web sites.
[/b]
Yeah, I should be ashamed of myself, shouldn't I?..... the nerve - posting links to major news outlets and expecting the information there to be factual....... :p
_________________________
Life isn't measured by the breaths you take. Life is measured by the things that left you breathless

Top
#876637 - 06/08/03 10:54 AM Re: Something that really troubles me
Jolly Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/20/01
Posts: 14048
Loc: Louisiana
pique stated:
 Quote:
you mean you only just now figured out that i'm a conservative?!?
Nope, but I might believe Rockefeller Republican.

So there's hope. ;\)
_________________________
www.coffee-room.com

Over 1,000,000 posts where pianists discuss everything. And nothing.

Top
#876638 - 06/08/03 02:58 PM Re: Something that really troubles me
jodi Offline
6000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 6959
Loc: The Evergreen State (WA)
I can vouch for Pique. I'm not saying I always agree with what she says, but I can say that I have seen at least two of her articles in two different well-respected magazines. I won't say which ones, since she obviously wants to remain anonymous.
\:\) Jodi

Top
#876639 - 06/08/03 05:40 PM Re: Something that really troubles me
piqué Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/15/01
Posts: 5483
thanks, jodi. i wondered if you had googled me and would vouch for me. not that you have to. most of my stuff isn't on the web, anyway, because it was published prior to '96, which is when most of the pubs i wrote for went online.

as far as how much we are in agreement, my work actually covers a very broad political and philosophical spectrum, sometimes in radically opposite directions.

phykell, this is an internet forum, not the new york times. i'm not under any obligation to prove anything, or do extra research to back up my statements. i'm here for recreation, not to do stuff that to me feels too much like my job.

you are right it would be extremely easy for me to post links to web sites. but then you would have to do the leg work to find out if those web sites' info is accurate. so why not do the research yourself? finding the web sites is the easy part. use google or a software program i use: webferret. or go to the web site for the columbia journalism review and take a look at their links under "tools for journalists" if you want to get your research going.

and then question your own assumptions. that is the key.

you are free to accept or reject the information i present here. i have no vested interest in getting anyone to believe it.
_________________________
piqué

now in paperback:


Grand Obsession: A Piano Odyssey

Top
#876640 - 06/08/03 06:14 PM Re: Something that really troubles me
TomK Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 07/06/02
Posts: 2611
 Quote:
Posted by phykell: Well pique, I personally do not understand your need for anonymity but that's your choice. However, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim anonymity and claim that your opinions can be backed up by your experience, experience that you cannot prove.[/b]
Dear phykell,

Sure you can. It's the Internet. Look at all the advice given on pianos here. People spend thousands of dollars on advise given here. Who writes that stuff? Guys named "iyi" and "Klavier" and "topdog." It's the nature of the beast. Each day people prove themselves for who they are and what they're made of on the Internet. Their credentials are their body of posts. Posters on this Forum prove themselves daily, not by their off line merits, but rather by who they are and what they say in a very judgmental medium.

pique has proved herself here, and pretty nicely in my opinion. She's proved she knows what she's talking about in every discussion she's been engaged (with the possible exception of Steinway uprights.)

She's a class act. You may disagree with her, hay, I have, but she's a first class intellect and you have to respect her for her opinions.

(Except, as I said, that Steinway problem of hers. There's she's BLIND just BLIND, I tell you! Or maybe deaf.)

Top
#876641 - 06/08/03 06:16 PM Re: Something that really troubles me
CrashTest Offline
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/23/01
Posts: 4110
pique, just to elaborate on the privacy debate, what is the difference between having one's name published in a magazine (widely circulated or not) and an internet forum? It is feasible to say that any risk of personal intrusion of privacy would also be equal in both cases, since this forum has a limited audience much like an article in a publication will have. (Granted, a larger audience will inevitably be in something like the NY times, but limited in a specific publication on a specific subject)

I am not criticizing you, but I feel it would be very "Interesting" to read an article written by another forum member, not to assert credibility, but just for pure enjoyment or enlightment on the person behind the nickname.

Top
#876642 - 06/08/03 07:11 PM Re: Something that really troubles me
Ariel Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/07/03
Posts: 3028
Loc: NE
Phykell, I couldn't have said it better than TomK:
 Quote:
Each day people prove themselves for who they are and what they're made of on the Internet. Their credentials are their body of posts. Posters on this Forum prove themselves daily, not by their off line merits, but rather by who they are and what they say in a very judgmental medium. [/b]
By the way, mate, you might care to stroll over to the Pollution/Sin thread...

Cheers,

Ariel \:\)
_________________________
If this is coffee, bring me tea. If this is tea, bring me coffee.
~Abraham Lincoln~

Top
#876643 - 06/08/03 07:55 PM Re: Something that really troubles me
phykell Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 08/22/02
Posts: 697
Loc: UK
 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:
...but it is the knowledge of what is really involved to get down to the nitty gritty of what is factual--if that can even be determined, which it often can't--that by itself makes me very skeptical of most claims, especially on the internet. i seriously doubt most of these people have really done their homework.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by piqué:[qb]excuse me, but the enviros are also driven by money. everyone is.[/b]
Another generalisation. In my opinion, not all of them are driven by money as I doubt it's a very lucrative business. No doubt someone, somewhere makes some money but it's not really the first thing you think of when you're wondering how to get some cash in is it? I believe they probably start out with good intentions, some stay true to the cause and others may stray off the straight and narrow but generally speaking, I would trust them. I'd be very interested in even just one article you can supply a link to which would show otherwise and I'm quite surprised with the accusations you make, that you haven't already posted something to support your point of view.

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:they are popular beliefs. and such beliefs have been skewered before as off the mark. take the deforestation issue. we actually have far more forests than we did in the 1800s.[/b]
There you go again and with a potentially misleading statement. How about quoting a reliable source? Tell you what, I'll quote one instead: "Forests now cover 32 percent of the land area of the United States, compared to about 50 percent at the time of European settlement." Source: MacCleery, Douglas W. 1992 (look it up).

Or how about this link which shows maps of virgin forest in the US from 1620, 1850, 1920 and today:
http://www.endgame.org/gtt-oldgrowth-map-us.html

...and here's a reasonable explanation of why, even if the US does have more trees than it did 300 years, such statistics are ultimately misleading:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mblowers/def.html

Here's a letter from Dr. Peter Raven, director of the Missouri Botanical Gardens, to Senator Jean Carnahan (D-Missouri) in support of the Act to Save America's Forests which states the following: If the current pace of logging planned by the Forest Service continues, nearly all of America’s ancient and roadless wild forests will soon be lost forever. According to a recent report by the World Resources Institute, only one percent of the original forest cover remains in large blocks within the lower 48 states. Source is here:

http://www.saveamericasforests.org/Raven.htm

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:take the loss of wildlife issue. we actually have far more wildlife now than we did in the early 1900s.[/b]
What? Can you be a little more specific please? What country? The world? Insects? Mammals? Proof?

Interestingly, "The Skeptical Environmentalist" written by Bjorn Lomborg, a former member of Greenpeace, challenges widely held beliefs that the world environmental situation is getting worse and worse but there is some controversy surrounding this work. A committee of Five scientists filed three cases against Bjorn Lomborg for scientific dishonesty arising from the book accusing him of accused Lomborg “of fabricating data, selectively and surreptitious discarding unwanted results, of "deliberately misleading use of statistical methods, consciously distorted interpretation of the conclusions, plagiarization of others’ results or publication, and the deliberate misrepresentation of others’ results." Story here:

http://newsroom.wri.org/newsrelease_text.cfm?NewsReleaseID=196

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:as i indicated above, links will not carry any weight with me. i'm almost certain, btw, that our air is not becoming MORE polluted, certainly our air and water are far less polluted than they were in the 1960s. that i can speak on from my own experience and memory.[/b]
Even if that is true, don't expect me to be impressed with your claim that the air and water are less polluted now that when they were very badly polluted only decades ago. I need reliable metrics and statistics to help me understand and appreciate your claims.

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:...but i was only talking about info from the WWF, not the later discussion about water.[/b]
I've been saving this one ;\) : The WWF and the European Commission have actually been accused of watering down a report on the destruction of tropical forests, for fear of upsetting the multi-national companies identified as the perpetrators! Sounds to me like the WWF is possibly understating the threat to the environment! Link here, and to the BBC no less (or is that not good enough for you either?):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/768577.stm

Incidentally, the report was written by Nigel Sizer, of the World Resources Institute in Washington DC, and Dominiek Plouvier, of WWF-Belgium and was peer-reviewed before being submitted for publication.

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:i am that much of a skeptic.[/b]
The world needs skeptics and believe it or not, I do accept your right to be skeptical - as I've said before, it's a good thing.

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:this is an internet forum, not the new york times. i'm not under any obligation to prove anything, or do extra research to back up my statements. i'm here for recreation, not to do stuff that to me feels too much like my job.[/b]
That's fair enough, but my point is this: on one hand you are prepared to happily discredit my source, but on the other hand you offer no supporting evidence other than to say that I should accept your opinion because you *used* to be an "investigative journalist". I have no real reason to doubt you, and I appreciate that you have people who will "back you up", and that you no doubt possess a formidable intellect - none of this is in question. What I find odd is that a professional like yourself, cannot instantly dismiss my amateur claims with a few, well-chosen sources of supporting evidence. To be honest, I'm now trying hard to understand exactly what it is you actually are claiming.

For example, you say that your opinion is "one the vast majority of environmental journalists agree with." and that you "should know as" you "just spent three years interviewing them about their jobs.". How about naming some of these scientists and telling us how exactly they agree with you.

You also say that you "...would not put a penny's worth of stock in one damn thing the world wildlife fund or any[/b] other enviro group publishes". As I said, that is quite a generalisation, yet it contradicts what you then go on to say: "...but i was only talking about info from the WWF".

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:phykell, this is an internet forum, not the new york times. i'm not under any obligation to prove anything, or do extra research to back up my statements. i'm here for recreation, not to do stuff that to me feels too much like my job.[/b]
pique, I appreciate the fact that this is only an Internet forum and that you're only here for recreation, yet you wade into an discussion, citing professional experience as the only supporting evidence for your argument. When questioned on your professional experience you then expect us (me) to take your word for it. I'm sorry, but that's something I cannot do. The reason? I'm a skeptic just like you ;\)

 Quote:
Originally posted by TomK:pique has proved herself here, and pretty nicely in my opinion. She's proved she knows what she's talking about in every discussion she's been engaged[/b]
I'm sure she has proved herself here, but in this particular discussion, she has not proved she knows what she's talking about. In fact, she has not provided even one supporting piece of evidence.

 Quote:
Originally posted by TomK:She's a class act. You may disagree with her, hay, I have, but she's a first class intellect and you have to respect her for her opinions.[/b]
I respect her opinions, and I respect her intellect, but in this particular case, I am willing to accept that certain environmental organisations' should be treated with some skepticism, but I need proof that organisations such as the WWF are deliberately presenting a distorted view of the state of the environment for their own ends.
_________________________
If you vote me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

========

Evil cannot be conquered in the world. It can only be resisted within oneself.

Top
#876644 - 06/08/03 07:57 PM Re: Something that really troubles me
TomK Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 07/06/02
Posts: 2611
 Quote:
Posted by Ariel: I couldn't have said it better than TomK:[/b]
That's dangerously close to a complement, Toots.

Top
#876645 - 06/08/03 07:58 PM Re: Something that really troubles me
piqué Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/15/01
Posts: 5483
tomk, i very much appreciate your praise. coming from you that means a lot to me.

 Quote:
Originally posted by CrashTest:
what is the difference between having one's name published in a magazine (widely circulated or not) and an internet forum? [/b]
it's a matter of mixing up my personal and professional lives. the people who read my bylined articles don't know anything about my personal life. the people who read my "pique" internet posts (with the exception of those who have also become offline friends) know a great deal about my inner life, but they don't know about my professional life.

my professional writings are often very controversial. i find the strife of answering angry letters to the editor quite stressful and exhausting at times. and i have made some people mad enough that i don't allow my address to be published in the phone book.

i once wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper complaining about the lack of decent laws to control cats (does this sound familiar, anyone? ;\) ). thankfully, i used a p.o. box for my address on that letter, because someone who had read an article of mine ten years earlier, and who wanted to have a correspondence with me, wrote to me after seeing my name signed to that letter to the editor about cats. i was not surprised. fortunately, they weren't hostile. but there are a lot of nut cases out there. and that's why most readers have to correspond with writers through their editors.

i also don't want my professional work to become a topic of discussion here. it would make this place a lot less fun and far less of an escape for me. perhaps to that end i should not have revealed as much about myself as i have already.

 Quote:
It is feasible to say that any risk of personal intrusion of privacy would also be equal in both cases, since this forum has a limited audience much like an article in a publication will have. (Granted, a larger audience will inevitably be in something like the NY times, but limited in a specific publication on a specific subject)[/b]
the difference is that those who read my articles will not be able to do a google search and learn about my life here. that matters, for one. i have a very large audience. people know my work, even things i wrote ten, fifteen years ago, i get calls about. so, it's partly keeping those relationships strictly professional.

i want to come here and talk about pianos and cats and gardening and movies, and not have myself identifiable to my professional audience. and not have to debate the merits of my articles here. that is tiresome enough in RL.

 Quote:
I feel it would be very "Interesting" to read an article written by another forum member, not to assert credibility, but just for pure enjoyment or enlightment on the person behind the nickname.[/b]
well, let me think about if there is a way i could post one without identifying myself or the publication. one that is NOT public policy analysis, and not controversial. i'll think about it.
_________________________
piqué

now in paperback:


Grand Obsession: A Piano Odyssey

Top
#876646 - 06/08/03 08:16 PM Re: Something that really troubles me
piqué Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/15/01
Posts: 5483
phykell,

i feel i have already answered the points you make, and to continue to reply would just be going in circles.

in its essence, my point is a simple one: don't believe whatever the enviros tell you just because they are enviros. they have their own agendas, such as fundraising, that have, often, created a conflict of interest when it comes to telling the truth.

take the example you gave--logging. my specialty! what the sierra club is publishing now regarding logging on the national forests is outdated information. it is no longer true. there are other, far more pressing issues on the national forests besides logging, yet the sierra club keeps clubbing this issue to death because its a great fundraising tool.

what could i possibly link you to that would prove these two points: a) that environmentalists don't always tell the truth b) that the sierra club is specifically lying about this one issue?

i am basing my assertions not on what i read anywhere, but on my own experience. i cannot link you to my own experience. i can't link you to the year and a half i spent visiting national forests from north carolina to alaska. i can't link you to the countless conversations i had with enviros, scientists, loggers, policy makers, foresters, etc. etc. i can't link you to what i've seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears.

and for me, that information is more reliable any day than what i've read on the internet.

but as for the money and enviro groups issue (another article i've written, btw), i've already referred you to the article "environment, inc." in the sacramento bee. i'm sure a quick google search would take you there. too hard? here, i'll do it for you:

tom knudson\'s article

please take note that i think tom knudson missed a lot of the story. there's a lot more to this story than just enviro groups becoming rich. there is also their incestuous relationships with the very government agencies and industries they publicly criticize. after doing my own research, i have practically zilch respect for the big, well-known groups.

this is very basic: they can't get grant money unless they sell themselves out to someone else's agenda. those that refuse are too small and too broke to accomplish much.

is there a link to prove that info? possibly. but i didn't get that info from a link. i got it from my own research. and i don't have a web page.
_________________________
piqué

now in paperback:


Grand Obsession: A Piano Odyssey

Top
#876647 - 06/08/03 08:48 PM Re: Something that really troubles me
phykell Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 08/22/02
Posts: 697
Loc: UK
 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:in its essence, my point is a simple one: don't believe whatever the enviros tell you just because they are enviros. they have their own agendas, such as fundraising, that have, often, created a conflict of interest when it comes to telling the truth.[/b]
If that is your point, I accept it is quite possible, just like I don't necessarily believe everything I read in the papers or on the Internet. Was that ever in question?

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:too hard?[/b]
That's twice you've resorted to that sort of comment now but the article looks very interesting. Unfortunately, it's going to be at least tomorrow evening before I can read it in its entirety (it's very late here in the UK).

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:...there is also their incestuous relationships with the very government agencies and industries they publicly criticize.[/b]
Yet you should also bear in mind that at least one, the WWF, allegedly "waters down" reports that are too damning of certain multi-nationals as I mentioned before. Either way, perhaps the WWF is not exactly "squeaky-clean". Nevertheless, I still refuse to accept that their claims are all bogus and I would still be prepared to accept that much of what they say is probably correct. Isn't this pretty much what I said to Elena though, which begs the question, exactly what point are you really trying to make?

Seriously, if anyone can successfuly show that what the WWF is posting on their public website for all the world to see, is an exaggeration or misrepresentation of the truth, I would be very interested in hearing it. Believe me, while hunting down information on this subject, I have tried to find some "dirt" on the WWF and to be honest, I haven't found any, though I do agree that the statements as fact that they make, should be accompanied with corresponding links to supporting evidence.

 Quote:
Originally posted by piqué:and i don't have a web page.[/b]
I do. I recommend you check out the cats. You like cats don't you? \:\)

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/phykell/Cats/Cats.htm
_________________________
If you vote me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

========

Evil cannot be conquered in the world. It can only be resisted within oneself.

Top
Page 12 of 13 < 1 2 ... 10 11 12 13 >

What's Hot!!
Our latest Issue is available now...
Piano News - Interesting & Fun Piano Related Newsletter! (free)
-------------------
HOW TO POST PICTURES on the Piano Forums
-------------------
Sharing is Caring!
About the Buttons
-------------------
Forums Rules & Help
-------------------
ADVERTISE
on Piano World

The world's most popular piano web site.
(ad) HAILUN Pianos
Hailun Pianos - Click for More
Ad (Seiler/Knabe)
Seiler Pianos
Sheet Music
(PW is an affiliate)
Sheet Music Plus Featured Sale
(125ad) Dampp Chaser
Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver
(ad) Lindeblad Piano
Lindeblad Piano Restoration
Who's Online
123 registered (accordeur, aesop, 36251, aDino, 36 invisible), 1614 Guests and 9 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
75602 Members
42 Forums
156334 Topics
2296011 Posts

Max Online: 15252 @ 03/21/10 11:39 PM
New Topics - Multiple Forums
High school student questions..
by lavienrose16
19 minutes 0 seconds ago
August Piano Bar, drinks on the house
by Peyton
Today at 09:40 AM
I just read this at the Yamaha FAQ website
by BrianDX
Today at 09:21 AM
Schimmel DUO piano
by wimpiano
Today at 08:56 AM
Feurich 190 cm grand from 1920 - Is it any good?
by pinkfloydhomer
Today at 08:16 AM
(ads by Google)

Visit our online store for gifts for music lovers

 
Our Piano Related Classified Ads
| Dealers | Tuners | Lessons | Movers | Restorations | Pianos For Sale | Sell Your Piano |

Advertise on Piano World
| Subscribe | Piano World | PianoSupplies.com | Advertise on Piano World | Donate | Link to Us | Classifieds |
| |Contact | Privacy | Legal | About Us | Site Map | Free Newsletter | Press Room |


copyright 1997 - 2014 Piano World ® all rights reserved
No part of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission