Travelling musicians

[xCrucialDudex]

I met this old guy just a little more than an hour ago. Name's Neil and he's from Edinburgh, Scotland; he came to my city to actually live here. He's a professional street musician, I'd say a showman too, he plays his little, golden sax and entertains crowd by his performance. Mostly Irish tunes, some jazz and rock'n'roll too. I still can't really wrap my mind around why would he come to all of the places in the world here.

Don't take me wrong, this place is really beautiful and many foreigners find local people really friendly and interesting. But drifting all the way from Scotland to southern most part of Ukraine? Something you don't really see happening every day.

So, yeah, I figured I'd share this and maybe this thread will go somewhere.

[Jacob]

Maybe he wanted to get away from stuff back home, or just find a major change of scenery while continuing to play his music.

[xCrucialDudex]

Maybe he wanted to get away from stuff back home, or just find a major change of scenery while continuing to play his music.

Yeah, it's just unusual!

[xCrucialDudex]

Meet Neil Holmes!

http://cs302201.userapi.com/v302201285/208b/unQTEW-SnV8.jpg

This is how he looks in the street with his sax. I met him without his jacket on yesterday evening, it's hot here (xsecx wouldn't agree, though, but who cares anyway)

http://cs302201.userapi.com/v302201285/2092/vQXIBAALaXM.jpg

for those of you who read Russian click this link (http://respublika-krim.livejournal.com/97097.html).

[xsecx]

Meet Neil Holmes!

http://cs302201.userapi.com/v302201285/208b/unQTEW-SnV8.jpg

This is how he looks in the street with his sax. I met him without his jacket on yesterday evening, it's hot here (xsecx wouldn't agree, though, but who cares anyway)

http://cs302201.userapi.com/v302201285/2092/vQXIBAALaXM.jpg

for those of you who read Russian click this link (http://respublika-krim.livejournal.com/97097.html).
the weather doesn't agree with you, you dufus.

[xCrucialDudex]

the weather doesn't agree with you, you dufus.

Easy captain, you're getting over-emotional there!

[xsecx]

Easy captain, you're getting over-emotional there!not really, just pointing out that you're insane and wrong.

[straightXed]

not really, just pointing out that you're insane and wrong.

But dude, its hot enough to not wear a jacket!

[straightXed]

I met this old guy just a little more than an hour ago. Name's Neil and he's from Edinburgh, Scotland; he came to my city to actually live here. He's a professional street musician, I'd say a showman too, he plays his little, golden sax and entertains crowd by his performance. Mostly Irish tunes, some jazz and rock'n'roll too. I still can't really wrap my mind around why would he come to all of the places in the world here.

Don't take me wrong, this place is really beautiful and many foreigners find local people really friendly and interesting. But drifting all the way from Scotland to southern most part of Ukraine? Something you don't really see happening every day.

So, yeah, I figured I'd share this and maybe this thread will go somewhere.


It really doesnt seem that odd to me, you guys have an international airport right? It makes sense to me that people see as much of the world as they can and the airport makes where you live easily accessible and its really pretty cheap to get there so theres not much to lose. And obviously you guys recently hosted the uefa euro 2012 which will have put ukraine as a whole as a destination to travel to in peoples minds. And just maybe after research your city appeals to people and perhaps local knowledge in other parts of your country suggest it as a place worth visiting. I think its probably something you will see more of.

[xCrucialDudex]

It really doesnt seem that odd to me, you guys have an international airport right? It makes sense to me that people see as much of the world as they can and the airport makes where you live easily accessible and its really pretty cheap to get there so theres not much to lose. And obviously you guys recently hosted the uefa euro 2012 which will have put ukraine as a whole as a destination to travel to in peoples minds. And just maybe after research your city appeals to people and perhaps local knowledge in other parts of your country suggest it as a place worth visiting. I think its probably something you will see more of.

Yeah, visiting is cool, actually moving here from Edinburgh is unusual.

[straightXed]

Yeah, visiting is cool, actually moving here from Edinburgh is unusual.

I know theres not to much point in posting this but how is moving to a place you visited and enjoyed unusual...especially at an older age when you have lived somewhere for a long time and want something different. I mean retiring abroad is hugely common. And when you live on a little wet island something as simple as weather can be enough of a factor to move for many...of course i'm sure you don't want to discuss the weather. It just really doesn't seem that much of a big deal to me, i mean in my office alone i work with people from Germany, Poland, Estonia, Pakistan, Turkey and portugal who have all moved here for different reasons and thats an office of 10 people, iam sure a lot of people from all over europe and russia and probably further a field move to your country.

[xCrucialDudex]

I know theres not to much point in posting this but how is moving to a place you visited and enjoyed unusual...especially at an older age when you have lived somewhere for a long time and want something different. I mean retiring abroad is hugely common. And when you live on a little wet island something as simple as weather can be enough of a factor to move for many...of course i'm sure you don't want to discuss the weather. It just really doesn't seem that much of a big deal to me, i mean in my office alone i work with people from Germany, Poland, Estonia, Pakistan, Turkey and portugal who have all moved here for different reasons and thats an office of 10 people, iam sure a lot of people from all over europe and russia and probably further a field move to your country.

How many people move from Scotland to Crimea, statistically speaking? Very few, and that means unusual, i.e. not commonly occurring on a regular basis/often (which would mean a usual thing otherwise).

[straightXed]

How many people move from Scotland to Crimea, statistically speaking? Very few, and that means unusual, i.e. not commonly occurring on a regular basis/often (which would mean a usual thing otherwise).


Yeah but your issue is trying to get your head round why...which seems pretty damn straight forward. I'm not even suggesting that emigrating to your city is a common occurrence...that's just you shifting away from the initial remark to which i was commenting. I am saying its completely understandable and plausible that someone from Scotland or anywhere in fact could decide to move there. It is easy to get your head round that yet you state that you can't. The whole drive of my statement is that it makes perfect sense to do so not that it happens every day.

Just because it doesn't happen all the time does not make it hard to get your head round it just makes it less common but a completely understandable act. Like a solar eclipse, its not everyday, its sporadic yet we can comprehend it and get our heads round it perfectly well. Sure its comment worthy as it may not happen everyday as you say but it is so very simple to get your head around and i posted many simple reasons why it is perfectly understandable. The act of moving there is certainly not unusual, its an act that continues to happen at a measurable rate and that rate is increasing. It may be unusual in terms of how many people from Scotland have moved there but not unusual that someone from Scotland would want to and has...i was never disputing that it was something you don't see everyday just that it is totally fathomable.

I mean surely you can get your head round certain groups of immigrants being of a low number but still existing and it being perfectly fathomable? And you can surely understand that people from all over the world may find themselves there at some point and may choose to move there? What is it you can't get your head round if its not something i have already addressed?

[xCrucialDudex]

The act of moving there is certainly not unusual, its an act that continues to happen at a measurable rate and that rate is increasing.

Increasing? How do you know?

[straightXed]

Increasing? How do you know?

are you suggesting it isn't increasing?

[xCrucialDudex]

are you suggesting it isn't increasing?

Are you? If yes, then how do you know?

[straightXed]

Are you? If yes, then how do you know?

Am i suggesting it isn't increasing? Why would i suggest that? How do you think one would know either way? Is this the only point of contention you have with my post?

[xCrucialDudex]

Am i suggesting it isn't increasing? Why would i suggest that? How do you think one would know either way? Is this the only point of contention you have with my post?

You said


The act of moving there is certainly not unusual, its an act that continues to happen at a measurable rate and that rate is increasing.

How do you know it's increasing?

[straightXed]

You said

I think you misread what i wrote there.




How do you know it's increasing?[/I]

Theres a whole bunch of stuff you aren't addressing in my post, if this is the only thing you are contending should i take it that you are conceding on all other points?

[xCrucialDudex]

I think you misread what i wrote there.

Would you care to elaborate?


Theres a whole bunch of stuff you aren't addressing in my post, if this is the only thing you are contending should i take it that you are conceding on all other points?

I'm sorry, but that's about the only thing that perked my interest there.

[straightXed]

Would you care to elaborate?

Re-read it, its just a semantic issue.




I'm sorry, but that's about the only thing that perked my interest there.

Thats fine, apology accepted but if you aren't interested in discussing the other points then i may be less inclined to discuss just the things you want to discuss it just seems unfair. I will happily answer your questions when you answer mine...i think thats fair, don't you?

[xCrucialDudex]

Re-read it, its just a semantic issue.

Done several times already, I can see only what you write. Increasing means increasing, i.e. rate is becoming greater. How else can this be understood? And if it's increasing, well, how do you know?



Thats fine, apology accepted but if you aren't interested in discussing the other points then i may be less inclined to discuss just the things you want to discuss it just seems unfair. I will happily answer your questions when you answer mine...i think thats fair, don't you?

I always felt people were free to discuss whatever they find interesting. If you're disappointed someone doesn't find something you wrote interesting enough, well, write something else! And yes, life's unfair, someone like yourself should've learned that long time ago. Or wait, are you trolling me? xsecx put the dude on moderation as well, please.

[straightXed]

Done several times already, I can see only what you write. Increasing means increasing, i.e. rate is becoming greater. How else can this be understood? And if it's increasing, well, how do you know?

I think what i am referring to has gone over your head. But it is there.





I always felt people were free to discuss whatever they find interesting. If you're disappointed someone doesn't find something you wrote interesting enough, well, write something else! And yes, life's unfair, someone like yourself should've learned that long time ago. Or wait, are you trolling me? xsecx put the dude on moderation as well, please.

I've not suggested you are not free to discuss what you find interesting but that conversations don't work so well if you suddenly stop discussing the points being discussed and besides have you considered that i may also be exercising this freedom? As you may have noticed the conversation isn't progressing as a result, so whilst it is your right to ignore the main points i made it has only resulted in this conversation and if this is what you find interesting then fine but i was interested in the original topic myself.

Like i said previously it just comes across that you stop responding to these points because you didn't have a cohesive response, if thats not the case then fine but i would contest that me asking you to discuss the points i made before we move away from those points to answer your question is certainly not trolling by any means. I'm fine with you saying you are not interested in discussing it but then i must ask why engage into that discussion in the first place? And the fact that life isn't fair is true, not sure if you are trying to suggest something else by suggesting that i should have learned that a long time ago, i sense a little frustration but i could be wrong. But yes while life is unfair it doesn't mean striving for fairness is wrong or that we should sit back and accept things we believe to be unfair. So with that in mind we can go back to my suggestion of discussing things in a fair way, i am happy to continue with the discussion and move on to your question in due course of that, i am trying to be accommodating for what its worth but i think at this point you may just be more inclined to rebuke anything i write almost unconditionally.

[xCrucialDudex]

I think what i am referring to has gone over your head. But it is there.

I can't really know that until you explain. If you feel like that's a lot of work, no problem.



I've not suggested you are not free to discuss what you find interesting but that conversations don't work so well if you suddenly stop discussing the points being discussed and besides have you considered that i may also be exercising this freedom? As you may have noticed the conversation isn't progressing as a result, so whilst it is your right to ignore the main points i made it has only resulted in this conversation and if this is what you find interesting then fine but i was interested in the original topic myself.

Like i said previously it just comes across that you stop responding to these points because you didn't have a cohesive response, if thats not the case then fine but i would contest that me asking you to discuss the points i made before we move away from those points to answer your question is certainly not trolling by any means. I'm fine with you saying you are not interested in discussing it but then i must ask why engage into that discussion in the first place? And the fact that life isn't fair is true, not sure if you are trying to suggest something else by suggesting that i should have learned that a long time ago, i sense a little frustration but i could be wrong. But yes while life is unfair it doesn't mean striving for fairness is wrong or that we should sit back and accept things we believe to be unfair. So with that in mind we can go back to my suggestion of discussing things in a fair way, i am happy to continue with the discussion and move on to your question in due course of that, i am trying to be accommodating for what its worth but i think at this point you may just be more inclined to rebuke anything i write almost unconditionally.

Conversations also don't work so well when you deliberately avoid explaining what you meant to say and simply send people back to what you'd written. So, your view is kind of one-sided, at best. And it's kinda funny to see you talking about this train of thought when you don't really put any energy into following your own convictions. Because, in my reality a fair type of discussion is when someone asks to explain what someone else meant to say and they just do it, because they maybe realize the way they express themselves in writing, or language generally speaking -- a tool that happens to be often subject to interpretation -- objectively is a challenge in communication process for not just recipient of a message, but also the communicator. To assume communicator is always delivering a fine message is arrogance. And if you really strive for fairness perhaps you should be able to admit that forcing your idea of fairness onto someone else isn't exactly fair. Of course, you can ask directly to address your points but appealing to fairness in order to evoke a desired behavior comes across as a little too manipulative.

So far, I asked you directly to explain/rephrase what you'd written, because without complete understanding of your message I cannot really productively and constructively to continue participate in the discussion. Yet you insist I should reply nonetheless. It's weird that you'd want someone to stay misinformed and see them carry on with discussion.

[straightXed]

I can't really know that until you explain. If you feel like that's a lot of work, no problem.

Its just a case of reading it through, its a simple mistake in semantics, i had mentioned this. Its probably not going to be worth it now...its like having to explain a joke and it then seeming unfunny. If you really would like an explanation of it though i would happily explain





Conversations also don't work so well when you deliberately avoid explaining what you meant to say and simply send people back to what you'd written.

Is this referring to the semantic issue? I asked you to read that again because i thought rereading it would make it clear and obvious, when it didn't it seems you had missed it but its not a big issue...it was a little bit of distraction from the main crux of things.



So, your view is kind of one-sided, at best.

Well no, i would say its two sided at best because some people are happy to reread things if the response they initially gave indicates they have potentially misread it...it was only a couple of short sentences so i don't know why that would be such a hardship. But i appreciate that you have done this and still not seen it, its not a big issue i am just letting you know one of your replies indicated a slight misreading but its really not a big issue. I understand that with you it would seem one sided.


And it's kinda funny to see you talking about this train of thought when you don't really put any energy into following your own convictions. Because, in my reality a fair type of discussion is when someone asks to explain what someone else meant to say and they just do it, because they maybe realize the way they express themselves in writing, or language generally speaking -- a tool that happens to be often subject to interpretation -- objectively is a challenge in communication process for not just recipient of a message, but also the communicator. To assume communicator is always delivering a fine message is arrogance. And if you really strive for fairness perhaps you should be able to admit that forcing your idea of fairness onto someone else isn't exactly fair. Of course, you can ask directly to address your points but appealing to fairness in order to evoke a desired behavior comes across as a little too manipulative.

Firstly thank you for the predicted rebuke. Secondly i am putting just as much energy as you are into this conversation, you have asked me to readdress points and i have asked you to, neither of us have and as a result neither of us are talking about the subject matter of the thread which apparently you no longer find interesting to talk about...at least with me. The semantic issue is really a throw away one aqnd the only one i haven't really explained. Your other question about a figure increasing is a question i am happy to answer and have considered my answer but it comes after i have asked questions of you which you simply have ignored and this falls inline with my convictions consistantly. I would like to answer your questions for you even if the answer seem irrelevent to me or perhaps uninteresting. But if you will simply just ignore my questions and suggest they are some how unworthy of your time then i find that a little bit rude especially when you still are expecting me to address your question. If you find what i have to say so uninteresting about your thread then thats fine but i am happy to return to talking about the original issue rather than this odd discussion that is clearly not going anywhere. I do not see what you really find so unacceptable about me asking you to answer the questions i asked of you before i address the one you asked of me...do you really not see that as fair? But lets be clear about this, i have never forced you to do anything i am clearly just exercising the choice you defined previously, you have always had a choice to converese with me or not as have i. There is no forcing of this whatsoever, i have presented what i believe to be fair and if you truly believe its unfair for me to ask you to answer my questions about the original matter then ok please feel free to choose not too. But like i have said i too am able to be free to choose and if i feel that someone is ignoring my points and questions in a very dismissive way then surely you can see why i would be inclined not to engage further? I mean surely you feel the same when i don't address your question? I am putting a lot of effort into being reosonable with you, a lot of people on here to find discussions with you very difficult and i am sure thats not really your aim is it? I mean you aren't actually trying to troll the boards are you? But i do hope we can return to the discussion.


So far, I asked you directly to explain/rephrase what you'd written, because without complete understanding of your message I cannot really productively and constructively to continue participate in the discussion. Yet you insist I should reply nonetheless. It's weird that you'd want someone to stay misinformed and see them carry on with discussion.

Ok, as far as i was aware the only thing you had asked me to explain or rephrase was a silly semantic issue that arose after you had asked your question yet ignored my own. It was just a throwaway point and not really the focus of this at all. If i have misunderstood you then i sincearly appologise and as i definitely do not wish you to answer the questions i asked without all the relative information needed. The questions i asked which related to your assertion in the post previous to them and the original post were as follows:


I mean surely you can get your head round certain groups of immigrants being of a low number but still existing and it being perfectly fathomable?

And you can surely understand that people from all over the world may find themselves there at some point and may choose to move there?

What is it you can't get your head round if its not something i have already addressed?

Now i don't know exactly what if anything about these questions needs rephrasing or needs explaining but i am very happy to do so if you could just let me know what bits you don't get and i will help so you are able to answer...if you so wish, no gun to your head or anything.

[xCrucialDudex]

Its just a case of reading it through, its a simple mistake in semantics, i had mentioned this. Its probably not going to be worth it now...its like having to explain a joke and it then seeming unfunny. If you really would like an explanation of it though i would happily explain






Is this referring to the semantic issue? I asked you to read that again because i thought rereading it would make it clear and obvious, when it didn't it seems you had missed it but its not a big issue...it was a little bit of distraction from the main crux of things.




Well no, i would say its two sided at best because some people are happy to reread things if the response they initially gave indicates they have potentially misread it...it was only a couple of short sentences so i don't know why that would be such a hardship. But i appreciate that you have done this and still not seen it, its not a big issue i am just letting you know one of your replies indicated a slight misreading but its really not a big issue. I understand that with you it would seem one sided.



Firstly thank you for the predicted rebuke. Secondly i am putting just as much energy as you are into this conversation, you have asked me to readdress points and i have asked you to, neither of us have and as a result neither of us are talking about the subject matter of the thread which apparently you no longer find interesting to talk about...at least with me. The semantic issue is really a throw away one aqnd the only one i haven't really explained. Your other question about a figure increasing is a question i am happy to answer and have considered my answer but it comes after i have asked questions of you which you simply have ignored and this falls inline with my convictions consistantly. I would like to answer your questions for you even if the answer seem irrelevent to me or perhaps uninteresting. But if you will simply just ignore my questions and suggest they are some how unworthy of your time then i find that a little bit rude especially when you still are expecting me to address your question. If you find what i have to say so uninteresting about your thread then thats fine but i am happy to return to talking about the original issue rather than this odd discussion that is clearly not going anywhere. I do not see what you really find so unacceptable about me asking you to answer the questions i asked of you before i address the one you asked of me...do you really not see that as fair? But lets be clear about this, i have never forced you to do anything i am clearly just exercising the choice you defined previously, you have always had a choice to converese with me or not as have i. There is no forcing of this whatsoever, i have presented what i believe to be fair and if you truly believe its unfair for me to ask you to answer my questions about the original matter then ok please feel free to choose not too. But like i have said i too am able to be free to choose and if i feel that someone is ignoring my points and questions in a very dismissive way then surely you can see why i would be inclined not to engage further? I mean surely you feel the same when i don't address your question? I am putting a lot of effort into being reosonable with you, a lot of people on here to find discussions with you very difficult and i am sure thats not really your aim is it? I mean you aren't actually trying to troll the boards are you? But i do hope we can return to the discussion.



Ok, as far as i was aware the only thing you had asked me to explain or rephrase was a silly semantic issue that arose after you had asked your question yet ignored my own. It was just a throwaway point and not really the focus of this at all. If i have misunderstood you then i sincearly appologise and as i definitely do not wish you to answer the questions i asked without all the relative information needed. The questions i asked which related to your assertion in the post previous to them and the original post were as follows:


I mean surely you can get your head round certain groups of immigrants being of a low number but still existing and it being perfectly fathomable?

And you can surely understand that people from all over the world may find themselves there at some point and may choose to move there?

What is it you can't get your head round if its not something i have already addressed?

Now i don't know exactly what if anything about these questions needs rephrasing or needs explaining but i am very happy to do so if you could just let me know what bits you don't get and i will help so you are able to answer...if you so wish, no gun to your head or anything.

I won't address your reply point by point, simply because I'm short on time right now and will be leaving soon to meet up with a friend.

However trivial and/or throwaway the point, I felt for some reason it was an important one (maybe because I understood it in a completely different way from the one you meant it to sound, but anyway). Overall, I find it extremely important to always try to take into consideration every detail if I look at a piece of art, listen to a musical composition or reading someone's reply on the Internet forum. It's a matter of principle to try not to make any conclusions until I've reached seemingly complete understanding of what I've experienced (best to my capacity and however erroneous it may be eventually), which is often characterized by a distinct feeling. That feeling, it didn't happen with your reply, that's why I'm reluctant to go further with it and am asking to explain what you'd meant to say. I'm honestly lost as to how else that throwaway point can be understood. Perhaps, that will give you a better idea about my "predicted rebuke".

By and large, though, I'm kind of amazed at why you would go into this much detail to discuss something so obvious. What you're talking about makes perfect sense and it kinda goes without discussion. My statement about how I cannot wrap my mind around Neil's decision, is not to be understood literally. All I said essentially was that I personally find it hard to completely and fully relate to his decision, because on certain levels my personal values and aspirations in life would prevent me from doing something like that. Generally speaking, of course I can wrap my mind around such a decision and everything you wrote before. Hence no interest to discuss this, it's just obvious, and in my opinion doesn't deserve such a high-profile discussion.

And, no, I've never trolled anyone except my close friends or people who first attempted to troll me. And, no, I am not intentionally trying to be difficult with anyone. Ever.

Cheers!

[straightXed]

I won't address your reply point by point, simply because I'm short on time right now and will be leaving soon to meet up with a friend.

However trivial and/or throwaway the point, I felt for some reason it was an important one (maybe because I understood it in a completely different way from the one you meant it to sound, but anyway). Overall, I find it extremely important to always try to take into consideration every detail if I look at a piece of art, listen to a musical composition or reading someone's reply on the Internet forum. It's a matter of principle to try not to make any conclusions until I've reached seemingly complete understanding of what I've experienced (best to my capacity and however erroneous it may be eventually), which is often characterized by a distinct feeling. That feeling, it didn't happen with your reply, that's why I'm reluctant to go further with it and am asking to explain what you'd meant to say. I'm honestly lost as to how else that throwaway point can be understood. Perhaps, that will give you a better idea about my "predicted rebuke".

Well the predicted rebuke was down to any attempt i made to make the conversation more palatable but continuing to receive a lack of response to the points which you have now said you fully agree with but i like you wasn't about to jump to a conclusion that you felt that way. Especially as you had contended what i had said to start with and would only respond by saying you weren't interested in replying to those points even though i was under the impression that maybe you were really struggling with the concept. Stranger things have happened and theres no harm in asking questions to be absolutely sure.


By and large, though, I'm kind of amazed at why you would go into this much detail to discuss something so obvious. What you're talking about makes perfect sense and it kinda goes without discussion. My statement about how I cannot wrap my mind around Neil's decision, is not to be understood literally. All I said essentially was that I personally find it hard to completely and fully relate to his decision, because on certain levels my personal values and aspirations in life would prevent me from doing something like that. Generally speaking, of course I can wrap my mind around such a decision and everything you wrote before. Hence no interest to discuss this, it's just obvious, and in my opinion doesn't deserve such a high-profile discussion.

Well as obvious as it may be for you what you had written painted a totally different picture and made it sound like you had issues with the concept, what amazes me was why you didn't just respond as such in the first place and avoid a large discussion of something that could have passed with a relatively small amount of discussion. But whilst at this point in your life you cannot imagine yourself doing it you still should be able to comprehend that others can and do emigrate, so writing that you don't comprehend why someone would was questioned, i mean i can't comprehend me moving to France but i can fully comprehend the choices of those that want to or do. So it wasn't to be taken literally but there was no way of me knowing this but you could have said so a lot earlier, this is why the suspicion of trolling was entertained. It only received such high profile discussion because you failed to clarify when questioned about what you said or meant to say...something you later accused me of and said you would expect in terms of a fair discussion. But i agree it was really not necessary at all and it was never my intention, i had one simple issue with your post and its taken this long to establish what you wrote was not actually how you thought about things. I am glad you are able comprehend what really is a completely understandable action and i think someone struggling with that concept would really need to rethink things.


And, no, I've never trolled anyone except my close friends or people who first attempted to troll me. And, no, I am not intentionally trying to be difficult with anyone. Ever.

Cheers!

Well i haven't attempted to troll you so you are either saying you haven't trolled me or that we are close friends!!!

Do you think you come across as being difficult sometimes?

[xCrucialDudex]

Well, define being difficult.