Well, I was suggesting that the answer isn’t no but yes. And I gave the prerequisite. I’m sure in some deeper sense we aren’t disagreeing. But I think the difference of emphasis matters or this very intelligible thread would be completely unintelligible. So do most of the other posters to the thread.
Young Talbert does come across as a bit over-excited these days, pummeling us senseless with his never-ending praise of Chieftain whistles at the expense of all others. 
While “professional” or “advanced” players can certainly make a $5 whistle sound great and are apt to be more mindful of certain nuances of playing, and therefore of whistle characteristics, than lesser mortals may be, it does not take a prodigy to have taste in tonal quality or timbre and to have credible opinions as to relative merits of various whistles. (That may be my longest run-on ever; I’m so proud; hear that JJ).
I’ve been not speaking up much regarding whistles of late and have not been looking for any more whistles, because I’m concentrating on trying to bring my playing to a higher level and only use a couple of whistles anyway. (Really because I already have all the whistles I want).
On this Board we’ve all learned to take others’ opinions of whistles with a grain of salt, because we know that opinions vary widely according to personal taste. I think we talk whistle shop because it’s fun and related to what we are here for - being part of a community with a common interest, i.e., the most wondrous music on the simplest yet intriguing and ultimately difficult to master instruments. That is, most of us realize that it’s the music , not the whistles; but we’re interrelating on an integral subject.
We’ve also developed our own little cliques that correspond privately because we’ve come to know who has similar tastes and whose opinions we’ve come to trust.
Now, I defy anyone to write longer run-on sentences, and am hereby claiming my right to the title of Great Windbag and Foremost Thread Killer (sorry, Em and Weekenders, but you know noone kills a thread like me - just watch).
Love ya all,
PhilO
Oh, and yes, people who started this music relatively late in life and have day jobs should not be precluded from giving very valid opinions as to whistle characteristics and preferences as long as they don’t start coming off like pros or hold themselves out as teachers prematurely; and if they do, the reality soon becomes evident anyway.
All long sentences out; I will be using grunts the remainder of the day. getting my thread-burying shovel now… 
“Talbert” is NOT DS, as we previously suspected. He did that to spin us off his true identity.
He really is PHIL HARDY!!
Think about it.
Actually, if you assume there are any reprequisites on politeness, then politeness never happens. Same goes for peace, tolerance, kindness…
These only start when someone extends them to someone else who doesn’t deserve it.
Looking at the world, though, I’ll grant that you in the majority opinion. Civility in discourse, kindness, politeness, just basically giving the other guy the benefit of the doubt–these are things are aren’t happening much at all anymore, to the detriment of us all.
–James
Let’s forget about the whistles, the opinions, and qualifications for a moment, and let’s just look at this little debate as a study in online behavior. Apart from who’s right or wrong, how have the posts developed in the last two days?
The thing to notice is the contrast between what Talbert seems to think he is saying (POSITIVE posts, good listening) and what he actually says. For one thing, he is the only one who is abusing others, calling them names. That’s putting your foot in your mouth in a grand way, telling 99% of the chiffboard that they are not qualified to have an opinion on whistles, and yet the responses were really pretty mild. (Compare earlier instances of people telling us what they thought the chffboard’s opinions.) Yet, Talbert seems to feel increasingly hunted and attacked. What’s going on?
I am thinking that at least half the problem is communication. I mean, I for one am happy to hand it to whoever wants it that they are POSITIVELY, gifted! if it helps. But apart from that I’m stumped.
If anyone has an idea how to nudge Talbert gently put firmly back to cyber ettiquette, let’s hear it.
Ooh uh unh?
Aargh, uh kkk buh! Hahahaha!
(Homo erectus lightbulb jokes always crack me up.)
I used to have, what am I saying, I still have an old Bonzo dog band lp. On the inside cover of it there’s a photo of their sax player on stage holding a cartoon type text balloon over his head while playing, it says ‘WOW I AM REALLY EXPRESSING MYSELF’.That really the feeling I get reading our fried T St. I can’t help it but I feel he is trying a bit too hard to convince everybody how gifted and deep he is.
As it is I know heaps of musicians, professional and otherwise and none has ever tried to convince me they were gifted or special, just because they don’t consider themselves as such. Their music however does the convincing for them.
At this point in time I think we should move on, i posted this thread to take the mickey out of the situation but I don’t think it’s usefull to stretch it out and gang up on the one person just because he slipped up made an arse of himself in a moment of deep passion. :roll:
Anyone for locking this here and now?
And he said ASS. Four times!
huh huh, huh huh!
And there he reminded me of every young Irish boy’s favourite priest , father Jack Hackett. ‘FECK !’ ‘ARSE!’ ‘DRINK!’
I went back and re-read the original thread, again and again.
No matter how many times I read it, I just can’t quite make seem to fit the responses it generated.
Bloomfield referenced his experience of both Chieftain and Overton whistles and stated his preference.
I don’t think he meant it to be the Gospel According to Bloomfield–I think he was just stating which kind he has found he likes better. But Talbert took it that Bloomfield had made an overly broad, sweeping statement that he didn’t feel that he was qualified to make, and pointed it out, in the process sounding like he was making a Pronouncement From On High.
So they both have a posting style that can come across as a bit arrogant, probably unintentionally in both cases, and they disagree with each other.
Big deal. Tempest in a teapot.
–James
Join me for some claret, old chap?
Since this seems to be aimed at me, I just want to reply and clarify. James, I don’t think we want different outcomes, we just have a slightly different view of how the world works. But it is unfair, and just plain wrong, to cast me as the world-weary cynic.
False, unless you assume the default position is hostility. I don’t. If you do, then you are cynical, not me. The prerequisite is satisfied by all those who do not approach you with hostility or unwarranted ‘attitude’. In my world that happens more often than not. My default position is that people will likely be indifferent or friendly. There are hostile personality types of course, and we all have to figure out a way to deal with them.
If the default position were hostility, that would be my default position and yours too. How would we be able to transcend our dispositions and why would we want to? What would even suggest to us that something better were possible? The Hobbesian state of nature you presuppose was left behind by mammals long before humans evolved. It is something we descend into, not something we have to fight to rise above.
That said, there is something to be said for adopting your approach so long as you do it with common sense. You initially extend undeserved courtesy but you hint that the courtesy is undeserved. Otherwise you just reward bad behaviour and get more of it. It’s at this point that the prerequisite really comes in. But note: I said nothing about escalating. When you are in this position you are already involved in a game of conflict, albeit not one of your own making. The best models for rational decison making in this position, for someone who wants to minimise conflict, all seem to employ one or another variation of tit-for-tat. More than that leads to escalation. Less than that leads to more of the same from the perpetrator.
No. My opinion is that these things you want are all good things and to be encouraged. I have been advocating giving the benefit of the doubt; that’s what having a default position which assumes till proven wrong, that others are not hostile amounts to. Furthermore, to respond initially (when there is no doubt) with a gentle reminder of what is the decent thing to do extends this generous approach as far as it will stretch without adopting policies which our best theories of human behaviour tell us would be counterproductive. Many hostile personalities know they have a problem and learn to deal with it. But they are not on the road to Damascus only waiting for a sign and it does the cause of peace and harmony no good to pretend that they are.
Love to! I have no clue what claret is, though…is that kinda like Jack Daniels? 
–James
Wombat, please read my above post where I give up and name names. 
I am sorry you thought any of my comments were directed at you; they weren’t. Neither were they meant for Peter.
As far as the default state in human relations, I would have to say it’s neither hostility nor aimicability: it’s confusion.
–James
Sorry James. But I wasn’t really interested in self vindication. Since I think we both want the same outcomes, I’d be curious to know if you agree in principle with me.
BTW, claret is a kind of chalky red table wine. Good with steak if you like that sort of thing. The term is thought to derive from the French ‘clairet’, but I don’t think anyone really knows.
OK, enough said. Right now you could be excused for being cynical, not that I really thought you were. I hope things pick up for you really soon.
Actually, I think there isn’t just one default state of human interrelations: I think there are at least three.
In the young and the young adult, the default seems to be a very aggressive, defensive mindset characterised by hostility, cynicism, and aggression: a do-unto-others-before-they-do-it-unto-you attitude.
In the mature adult, this is sometimes replaced by a more open, phenomenalogical approach that tries to see and understand others’ perspectives. Unfortunately, just age alone doesn’t seem to cause the transition: I have known many elderly who had never reached this point, and probably never will.
Lastly, in the final years of life, acceptance and resignation characterise human relations, as the years inevitably wind toward their close and the eventuality of death becomes a certainty instead of an abstraction.
In my experience, no matter who you are dealing with, the best way to assure a mutually satisfactory relationship is to always give the other person more benefit of the doubt than they deserve, never assume you understand them, always be the first to accept blame even when it’s not your fault and you can prove it, and always be the first to apologize rather or not you did anything wrong.
–James
P.S. Wombat, one thing complicating our interrelation is that we both type too darn fast!
[quote=“peeplj”]
Actually, I think there isn’t just one default state of human interrelations: I think there are at least three.
In the young and the young adult, the default seems to be a very aggressive, defensive mindset characterised by hostility, cynicism, and aggression: a do-unto-others-before-they-do-it-unto-you attitude.
In the mature adult, this is sometimes replaced by a more open, phenomenalogical approach that tries to see and understand others’ perspectives. Unfortunately, just age alone doesn’t seem to cause the transition: I have known many elderly who had never reached this point, and probably never will.
Lastly, in the final years of life, acceptance and resignation characterise human relations, as the years inevitably wind toward their close and the eventuality of death becomes a certainty instead of an abstraction.
In my experience, no matter who you are dealing with, the best way to assure a mutually satisfactory relationship is to always give the other person more benefit of the doubt than they deserve, never assume you understand them, always be the first to accept blame even when it’s not your fault and you can prove it, and always be the first to apologize rather or not you did anything wrong.
–James
This sounds an awfully lot like Transactional Analysis, as defined by Eric Berne in ‘Games people play’.
His three states are:
Parent
Adult
Child (as in free your inner child !!!)
I’m sure all of you know all about this stuff.
Claret is what we drink whilst sitting in our Club, smoking our pipes and blowing off casualty figures.