Letters to the Editor: BFG

[The Escapist Staff]

BFG

Each week we publish letters sent to us regarding previous issues and highlight particularly interesting forum posts. If you'd like to comment on an article directly, send your letter to [email protected].

Read Full Article

 

[Brumbek]

@Ytmh: You say, "Hence, saying X is or isn't "art" is nonsense, since it's only a personal opinion."

That is a completely wrong and worthless statement. You fail to understand personal opinions can be wrong! Just because you *feel* something is art doesn't make it so.

And I don't think you realize the irony of you trying to convince me my view of art is wrong by telling me art is merely a matter of opinion. Clearly my post was my *opinion* so by your own reasoning my view is as valid as yours, isn't it? Pwned.

But anyway, please provide your definition of art instead of just saying art is whatever each of us wants it to be because that is not a definition...

(I stand by my definition and still maintain that art must have a designer because key to art is the communication of truths. Therefore, art should be judged on how well it conveys these truths. Randomly blown leaves are not art because they inherently do not communicate anything but can still be appealing to look at. And yes, some art is nearly indistinguishable from random accidents (much modern art). It's technically art but it's very bad art since it conveys almost nothing in itself but has to rely on the audience to create most meaning.)

 

[Ytmh]

@Ytmh: You say, "Hence, saying X is or isn't "art" is nonsense, since it's only a personal opinion."

That is a completely wrong and worthless statement. You fail to understand personal opinions can be wrong! Just because you *feel* something is art doesn't make it so.

Oh really? Why, I didn't know there was an international committee designated to deciding what I find or don't find artistic. Thanks for the heads up.

And I don't think you realize the irony of you trying to convince me my view of art is wrong by telling me art is merely a matter of opinion. Clearly my post was my *opinion* so by your own reasoning my view is as valid as yours, isn't it? Pwned.

But anyway, please provide your definition of art instead of just saying art is whatever each of us wants it to be because that is not a definition...

I wasn't trying to convince you of anything, I was merely pointing out flaws in your reasoning by providing simple counter-examples that make your argument moot.

Furthermore, I don't know who made you the authority on which definitions of art are or aren't allowed. This was my entire point, thanks for further demonstrating it.

And as for "pwned," I'm thinking that if you were so absolutely certain that your argument and position was impeccable you wouldn't have need to attempt to further the issue in such a manner. ...Or?

(I stand by my definition and still maintain that art must have a designer because key to art is the communication of truths. Therefore, art should be judged on how well it conveys these truths. Randomly blown leaves are not art because they inherently do not communicate anything but can still be appealing to look at. And yes, some art is nearly indistinguishable from random accidents (much modern art). It's technically art but it's very bad art since it conveys almost nothing in itself but has to rely on the audience to create most meaning.)

Whatever floats your boat, really. Like I said, everyone is free to have their own opinions of what art is to them.

Just make sure you don't attempt to force your standards and opinions onto others as they may not share them. I happen to think a lot of what you're calling "bad art" is fantastic, but see that's just how different people see things.

So really, no need to get so uptight about it.

 

[Brumbek]

Ytmh: My post was defensive, I admit. I don't mind disagreement, but I do tend to get frustrated if no alternate theories are provided, which is why I asked you some questions last time. And as you pointed out this topic has been discussed for thousands of years with no one specific answer, so it is dangerous to assume we are right.

First, if it wasn't clear from the very first post you quoted, I was being tongue-in-cheek when I claimed to have the one true and perfect definition...what I was really doing was submitting my personal working definition. That's hardly forcing my views on you; that won't happen until I come to power and then you'll be "persuaded" I'm right...

Anyway, I still find it strange you say art is merely personal opinion. So you view art as you view chocolate or vanilla? Do you think opinions can be wrong? And do think art can be good and bad? If so what standards do we use to judge art's goodness?

I'd like to know your answers because so far you've countered my points but not offered any supporting arguments for your position of personal opinion.

And I'd still like your definition of art...in other words I demand you force yourself to create a definition!

(Oh, and it would be interesting if you could give a specific example of the art I think is bad but you like (presumably modern art) and tell me why you like it.)

 

[Ytmh]

Anyway, I still find it strange you say art is merely personal opinion. So you view art as you view chocolate or vanilla? Do you think opinions can be wrong? And do think art can be good and bad? If so what standards do we use to judge art's goodness?

I don't actually like to think about art too much. Instead, I see it as tastes and preferences. If you like something, you can call it art, you can call it whatever you want, but it's because it's doing something for you.

Likewise, you can call art something that you don't like or that does nothing to you, as well, if you feel so inclined. Maybe because you recognize artistic qualities in it, maybe out of respect. Everyone has different reasons and it's very hard to generalize.

Because you can have so many different reasons for calling something "art" I think it's impossible to come up with a real definition that works even in a majority of cases. Just like it's hard to argue for "good" or "bad" art since value judgments are also very subjective. I have things I don't like, but I wouldn't call them "bad art," just because I don't happen to like it. Someone else may like it, who am I to say such a broad statement like that?

Nor would I recognize stuff I liked as "good art," just things I like. You can operate entirely without using the label of "art" if you want, since it contributes nothing to the actual experience and discourse. In fact, it always makes things more complicated than they have to, as all this demonstrates so far.

So no, I don't want to attempt a definition since it'd be ultimately pointless. Why would I even bother though? Do we NEED a definition for what "art" is? Can't we just go on making and enjoying the product of people's creativity without it? Or for that matter, enjoying things overall regardless if anyone made them/intended them to be enjoyable, whatever?

It doesn't change a thing, really.

 

[Brumbek]

I know I was harsh to you initially, and I apologize for coming across that way. You've made me think more about things, and for that I thank you. Hopefully, you've thought some more about these matters too and have learned something.

Because you can have so many different reasons for calling something "art" I think it's impossible to come up with a real definition that works even in a majority of cases. ... Do we NEED a definition for what "art" is?

Yes, we need a definition. Every word must have a definition. A "word" is defined as a combination of letters that communicates meaning. If art remains undefined, this leads to much confusion. So our task is to determine what meaning "art" conveys.

You can operate entirely without using the label of "art" if you want, since it contributes nothing to the actual experience and discourse.

First, some famous guy once said a rose by any other name... What I mean is we could remove the term "art" but that doesn't bypass any of the issues.

That being said, you mention discourse. I'm trying to envision what discourse can be had under your framework, and I can see only frustration and confusion occurring. I see everyone talking and sharing their personal views but nobody can make any definitive statements because everybody's opinions are equally correct. I envision your discourse to be as effective as debating whether apples taste better than oranges.

I also think your model wipes out film critics, video game reviewers, art critiques or contests, and so on. Sure, someone could review a film, for instance, but they'd have no standards to use since it's all in the eye of the beholder. Do we really want a world with no universal standards for creative design?

Can't we just go on making and enjoying the product of people's creativity without it?

I know you don't intend this, but this statement is really the same as saying ignorance is bliss. This statement contains the idea that people should simply enjoy what they enjoy. The fundamental problem is, paradoxically, it takes work to increase your ability to enjoy art so those who never work at it, won't ever fully appreciate creativity.

For instance, music appreciation takes a lot of learning but in the end you can hear so much more deeply and notice subtleties you never knew before. So no, people do not inherently have the ability to fully appreciate great creativity. Just like I can't appreciate amazing car engines because I totally lack understanding of motors, people can only shallowly appreciate creative works unless they study and learn what makes creative works great.

So the reason defining art is important is so we can better understand and appreciate the great works of art. Now, that statement contains the debatable position that some art is ?greater? than other art, and I know you never want to call any art good, bad, or mediocre, but consider the following.

There seems to be "something" greater about the Sistine Chapel, Statue of David, or Hamlet than a child's finger-painting, child's mud ball, or random doodling. Would you dare to disagree? Assuming you agreed, this tells me that art is not merely personal opinion but does rely on universal standards.

To conclude, you do actually define art even if you don't realize it. Your definition is thus: art is whatever people believe it to be. This idea actually builds great walls between people and fosters isolation since no debate is possible if we are operating on different rules. This is why you believe discussion of art is fruitless; you've made it fruitless by making art nothing more than chocolate vs. vanilla.

I, however, take the much more concrete (and difficult) path that art is expression and all art must be judged on how well it expresses the common human experience. I realize we will endlessly debate which artwork expresses what best, but at least we will be sharing thoughts about human values and learning along the way, which hopefully will lead to even greater works of art in the future.

 

[Ytmh]

...and I know you never want to call any art good, bad, or mediocre, but consider the following.

In reality I'm all for people having tastes on things. Why not? After all I also think some stuff is crap, some stuff is nice, whatever. I just don't go saying that something is universally awesome or bad or whatever.

There seems to be "something" greater about the Sistine Chapel, Statue of David, or Hamlet than a child's finger-painting, child's mud ball, or random doodling. Would you dare to disagree? Assuming you agreed, this tells me that art is not merely personal opinion but does rely on universal standards.

Or is there? I do disagree. We can have numerous factors that influence us to think that the statue of David is more "worthy" than random doodling, but strip that and you end up with two works that if valued on their own merits alone you can end up actually liking the doodle more. Why not? After all, who knows, you may not like statues, or you may really like doodles? Why eliminate this possibility.

For all you know, the random doodling isn't random at all and it's the result of a 5 year process of intense research and effort, who knows?? We can't just pin it on effort, or whatever random aesthetic, since all that may vary. You can't just make an appeal to emotion or popularity here that way. That won't fly.

This is the same argument I heard for things like "Oh but there's a reason why people still play Beethoven!" and honestly I don't see any beyond it being extremely popular and just remaining popular out of tradition. This is why all this kind of fails, since you always end up having to measure up political/cultural pressures along with whatever you're trying to judge. The examples you mentioned of "great art" are only so to you because you were told they were. Maybe if you weren't told this, you would've found other things better, or who knows?

How much of what we consider "great" is because we're told and how much is it because we actually find it great? Can we really be honest enough to see that the line between both is sometimes very blurry?

To conclude, you do actually define art even if you don't realize it. Your definition is thus: art is whatever people believe it to be. This idea actually builds great walls between people and fosters isolation since no debate is possible if we are operating on different rules. This is why you believe discussion of art is fruitless; you've made it fruitless by making art nothing more than chocolate vs. vanilla.

I, however, take the much more concrete (and difficult) path that art is expression and all art must be judged on how well it expresses the common human experience. I realize we will endlessly debate which artwork expresses what best, but at least we will be sharing thoughts about human values and learning along the way, which hopefully will lead to even greater works of art in the future.

I don't actually know what "art" is even for myself, so I just let everyone have their opinions on it. I'm only interested in what I like or don't like, etc. The practical aspect. Everything else is just thinking too hard over something that nobody really has an answer for.

And you can debate all you want still about your tastes, and reasoning for liking or disliking something. Nothing I said prevents you from that at all, it just gets rid of this pointless meta-discourse that leads nowhere.

 

[Brumbek]

Wow...your views are extremely relativist and ambiguous. And if you don't even view the Statue of David as superior to a kid's attempt to push some mud together, then we are truly at an impasse.

In reality I'm all for people having tastes on things.

I'm not talking about tastes. Tastes are subjective at their heart. I'm talking about having objective, measurable standards of quality for creative works. This again shows that we are on completely different wavelengths.

There seems to be "something" greater about the ...Statue of David...

I do disagree. After all, who knows, you may not like statues, or you may really like doodles?

Wow...just wow. This creates a really funny mental image of a guy saying, "Yeah, nice statue I guess, but check out this kid's random crayon scrawlings...they're epic!"

You can't just make an appeal to emotion or popularity here that way. That won't fly.

Right, I agree. I've been saying over and over that we must base our views on concrete standards related to design and aesthetics. This is ironic you say this because you are doing exactly what you condemn when you base your opinions of art on your feelings. My point is there are principals of art that transcend our opinions.

The examples you mentioned of "great art" are only so to you because you were told they were. Maybe if you weren't told this, you would've found other things better, or who knows?

Wow, thanks for telling me why I believe something. Be VERY careful when telling people why they believe things. I DO NOT believe great art is great because I heard it from some bird somewhere. I believe it's great because I've studied it and it resonates deep and lasting truth.

I don't actually know what "art" is even for myself, so I just let everyone have their opinions on it. I'm only interested in what I like or don't like, etc.

For someone who admits to not knowing what art is, you sure seem fairly strongly opinionated about your views. And my point is there is something beyond any of our personal feelings of like/dislike.

and honestly I don't see any[thing] beyond it [Beethoven] being extremely popular and just remaining popular out of tradition.

Just wow again...wow. Have you ever studied a Beethoven symphony? I mean listened and followed along in the score? Have you analyzed his chord structure and progression or melody? (I have a degree in music, so that's why I pick up on your music comment.)

To say Beethoven is still around just because it somehow got popular...is a very ignorant thing to say, no offense meant because I truly think you said it out of sincere and honest ignorance.

Anyway, it's clear you have much study to do on this subject...we all do, but your statements are becoming quite absurd. I'd suggest one of two things: 1) go read some books on art, study a specific field of art in-depth, and create some art and submit it to critics; 2) be true to your current beliefs and don't comment about art when you admit to not understanding it!

(Don't take this discussion personally but rather as a learning opportunity; that's how I've taken it.)

 

[Ytmh]

Just wow again...wow. Have you ever studied a Beethoven symphony? I mean listened and followed along in the score? Have you analyzed his chord structure and progression or melody? (I have a degree in music, so that's why I pick up on your music comment.)

To say Beethoven is still around just because it somehow got popular...is a very ignorant thing to say, no offense meant because I truly think you said it out of sincere and honest ignorance.

Anyway, it's clear you have much study to do on this subject...we all do, but your statements are becoming quite absurd. I'd suggest one of two things: 1) go read some books on art, study a specific field of art in-depth, and create some art and submit it to critics; 2) be true to your current beliefs and don't comment about art when you admit to not understanding it!

I think it'd be around the right time to mention that I have an actual masters in composition and musicology, yeah. And, oh, I also taught and I've done seminars and courses ON music history and modern aesthetics... But man, I guess I have no idea, eh?

Trust me, there's no ignorance in anything I'm saying, quite on the contrary.

Say Beethoven himself. His last works (the last string quartets, the last sonatas) all show a rather contrary tendency to everything that he actually came out from (the Vienna Classic, the Galant style in direct opposition to the late 18th century counterpoint.) If you count him as part of the Mozart/Haydn group, you have also to acknowledge the paradigm shift as counterpoint elements began to emerge rather violently during his late works. A tendency that is also reflected during the further development of the 19th century.

But even before that, you also see the shift in aesthetic perception that actually leads to the pre-classic. The last arguable "great" of the old Baroque counterpoint tradition was Bach and that ended in 1750 with his death (though he was relatively unknown until much later) the point is that these contrary tendencies (get rid of the complexity, horizontal-vertical transitions, etc) have to do with changes in aesthetic appreciation and public opinion of what "better" is.

The hard cold truth is that if you asked someone that wrote music during the classic (And pre-classic) era you most likely find a lot of people who thought Bach's work was antiquated garbage. This isn't an isolated phenomenon. You can find people who at the time they lived were completely rejected only for many years later to be recognized in some way or other (in cases like poor Zelenka it took until the late 20th century!)

In light of all that, if you know your history, you KNOW that "good art" is only dependent of what people at the time think is "good art." I mean, seriously, I think that a lot of the works of John Cage, Schoenberg, Webern, etc are all fantastic, but that opinion isn't shared by many. The only reason being taste or lack of exposure of the music itself (or both?) And some of that "modern" stuff is almost a hundred years old now, yet here it is.

You can see enough times if you have studied art history that people's conceptions of what "good art" and "bad art" is change violently and drastically, sometimes as results of political or cultural pressure or simply memetic drift. Hell how about the medieval conception of numbers representing the highest standard (for religious reasons, no less?) you find in architecture, painting and yes, music (Machaut's isorhythms, for example.) That was completely abandoned during the renaissance and only began to matter again in the 20th century when it was rediscovered by composers and so on.

Or how about the attempted destruction of the eastern catholic church's music practices due to Pope Gregory I by the enforcement of the chorale set that would then become standard (almost entirely for political reasons, no less.) Things that remain today may only do so for accidents in history that may have destroyed competition, like the example above, not because anything is objectively "better."

Let's not even mention other cultures outside of Europe, which have musical practices that were outright ignored until rather recently. Most of which have almost nothing to do with anything that the European classical canon has to offer, from tone systems to composition techniques and instruments. Vastly different views on what "art" was, if that concept even existed in those cultures as it did in Europe.

But yes, what the hell do I know, right?

 

[Brumbek]

I think it'd be around the right time to mention that I have an actual masters in composition and musicology, yeah.

LOLWUT?!?! Well, color me suprised; I would have never, ever guessed that based on your comments!

The hard cold truth is that if you asked someone that wrote music during the classic (And pre-classic) era you most likely find a lot of people who thought Bach's work was antiquated garbage.

Well...since none of us can ever meet someone like that, I'm not sure you can present this as "hard truth". This is the difficulty of speaking of the past, all we have is mostly anecdotal notes to go by. Yes, the history books tell us Bach fell out of favor for a short period...that's hardly the same as people saying it's "antiquated garbage." So your use of hyperbole is...unhelpful.

You can find people who at the time they lived were completely rejected only for many years later to be recognized in some way or other

No doubt. You're totally right. But that is irrelevant to our central discussion of art. In fact, if anything it supports my claim of universal standards in art. Even if the masses ignorantly brush aside great artists, those artists are still great. The opinions of the public don't dictate the greatness of works of art.

In light of all that, if you know your history, you KNOW that "good art" is only dependent of what people at the time think is "good art."

Logical fallacy!!! Knowing history only tells us what certain people are certain times perceived as good art. That doesn't mean that proves what good art is...the question still remains: does art have certain universal qualities to it or is it all personal taste?

Things that remain today may only do so for accidents in history that may have destroyed competition, like the example above, not because anything is objectively "better."

We'll just have to agree to disagree. You think it's all just randomness and whim; I think some art is definitely objectively better than other art.

But yes, what the hell do I know, right?

Well, given that you said you don't think about art much and don't know what art is, I was quite justified in assuming you didn't know much. You obviously know *about* music history. That still is only tangentially related to the concept of art.

It's strange you've studied music so much if you feel it's all personal taste. Why study composition if it's all personal taste? In studying it, I think you unknowingly are admitting some music is more well-crafted than others, which means it's superior art since it expresses itself much more powerfully...

So I'm still very convinced that my first attempt at composing a little 2 minute piece was inferior art to Beethoven's Ode to Joy...but I guess I should thank you for saying his is no better than mine???

 

[Ytmh]

Two quick things.

Logical fallacy!!! Knowing history only tells us what certain people are certain times perceived as good art. That doesn't mean that proves what good art is...the question still remains: does art have certain universal qualities to it or is it all personal taste?

Hah, speaking that the majority thinks X composer is great THEREFORE this must mean they are somehow objectively great IS a fallacy. Are you sure you're not doing this? Are you sure you aren't just judging based on the culture you grew up in and that this has very little to do with what is objective?

Well, given that you said you don't think about art much and don't know what art is, I was quite justified in assuming you didn't know much. You obviously know *about* music history. That still is only tangentially related to the concept of art.

Oh wow, really. Did you just say that the study of ART HISTORY is only tangentially related to the concept of art?

I'll throw you a bone here, if you want to talk about "objective" anything, go dig into the cognitive science research being done on musical perception (neurology studies, etc.) There's a good reason why Webern and Beethoven can both be "Great" composers and sound nothing alike, but you can go look this up yourself as clearly I seem to be wasting my time.

 

[Brumbek]

Hah, speaking that the majority thinks X composer is great THEREFORE this must mean they are somehow objectively great IS a fallacy.

No kidding. I know that. One important note: I never said Beethoven was great because the majority said so. Re-read what you quote me saying. Does that have anything to do with your response? No. You are putting this ad populum fallacy on me even though I've never said it and never would say it.

If you actually read and understood my posts, you'd see that I've been saying Beethoven's (or Bach's) music has intrinsic qualities to it that make it great, which is the exact opposite of appealing to the masses.

Oh wow, really. Did you just say that the study of ART HISTORY is only tangentially related to the concept of art?

No, I did not say that. Did you actually read what I said?

One thing has become clear: You have a strong tendency to re-interpret what people say instead of actually understanding their message. This is a massive hindrance to communication. For instance, I clearly stated that your knowledge of "music history" is only tangentially related to the concept of art. However, you read it as me saying "art history" is only tangentially related...do you understand what you did there?

I've known a number of people who filter communications rather than understand the original message. Most do it unknowingly. Some do it on purpose. Hopefully you don't do it in real life but I bet you do...I'd think about it if I were you because it's a really, really annoying habit that will frustrate others.

In conclusion, you can believe your relativist big fancy termed ideas if you want. You can think were just the product of our cognitive psycho-babble formed environment. But that's all esoteric rubbish for academics to keep them employed.

I care about the here and now of creating great art, which is the art that best expresses the human experience, because remember: Art is any form of human expression.

 

[Brumbek]

Grr...Escapist forums going crazy double posting! Ignore, dear reader, ignore!

 

[Ytmh]

...because remember: Art is any form of human expression.

...to you.

Wink wink.

Oh, and if you want me to pay attention anymore, do please explain what these "intrinsic" qualities are and how you can prove then objectively X piece is "intrinsically better" than Y piece. Otherwise, you ARE just making a fallacy.

But, actually, don't bother. I've heard what you're trying to propose from dozens of people before you and nobody has ever gotten as far as that before realizing what they're trying to accomplish is nonsense. It's like asking which color is "intrinsically better," you can only go so far before it devolves into hilarity.

I mean seriously, you're going to give me some mathematical proof that a piece by Penderecki is "intrinsically worse" than one by Beethoven? Or what kind of proof are we talking about? What's the evidence here? What are you basing this opinion on?

Let me tell you. You like the music, right? You think "Man this is great music, and all these people study and play it, so I'm probably right it's great" then you're forced to defend it against other people's tastes, so you come up with the very simple "Oh, but it must be somehow better, otherwise how come does everyone play and analyze it?"

And I've answered the question there without the need of some absurd "inherent intrinsic quality" to it, which if you think about it could be emulated if we found it and therefore be used to create "great works" on the spot. See where this is going?

Then you have to somehow argue that a style copy of Beethoven is inferior than the original, in spite using all the same materials. Or how about within Beethoven's own works, which one is "better?"

That's an intellectual dead-end, guy. Just a friendly warning from someone who's heard all that tons and tons of times.

 

[Brumbek]

You think "Man this is great music, and all these people study and play it, so I'm probably right it's great" then you're forced to defend it against other people's tastes, so you come up with the very simple "Oh, but it must be somehow better, otherwise how come does everyone play and analyze it?"

There you go again telling me what I think...I thought I made it clear I wasn't appealing to any ad populum argument. Oh well...

But just for kicks, I'll tell you why I firmly believe certain music is better than others. Music conveys emotion. This emotion is conveyed through use of certain harmonic principles. These principles are "hardcoded" into how music works. For instance, the harmonic series is objective and unchanging (and is mathematically proven since you're so into that). So music that best employs the principles of harmony, melody, and rhythm is the best music.

But I understand you disagree. I think our differences cannot be reconciled because we both have totally opposite understands of how the world works. For instance, I believe that the God of the Bible created humans and the world in a orderly fashion. He created the principles of science and music and the rest. So given my worldview (right or wrong), it makes sense that I believe all forms of creative expression are governed by objective principles.

If I had to guess, I'd say you probably don't believe in a God who created the world in an orderly fashion. So for you it makes perfect sense to deny any intrinsic or objective principles of art. If you believe we all evolved randomly, then our taste in art is as random as life itself.

I'm just assuming about you; you might fall somewhere in between. But the point remains: our difference of opinion on art is based more fundamentally on our opinion of life itself. So until you see life my way or I see it your way, our views of art won't change.

So we'll just have to agree to disagree, unless you want to convert to my way of thinking.

 

[Ytmh]

Man I was wondering when you were going to turn this into religion in some way, specially concerning the classically flawed argument revolving around the harmonic series.

Yeah, I don't really care about your particular beliefs. I'm just saying you're actually not correct on some of the claims you made.

I won't get into the whole science behind music perception, but let's just say that the language centers of the brain have much more to do with you perceiving emotion in music than anything related to harmony in itself. In fact, that "aesthetic path" is based on appealing to that language center perceptions aided by cultural reinforcement and context.

But you can read more about if you want, here's a couple of papers you can start with:

Towards a neural basis of music-evoked emotions (Trends Cog Sci, 2010)

Neuroarchitecture of Verbal and Tonal Working Memory in Non-Musicians and Musicians (Human Brain Mapping, in press)

Processing Expectancy Violations during Music Performance and Perception: An ERP Study (J Cog Neurosci, in press)

...

Have fun.

 

[Brumbek]

Fair enough. It's clear that we've both studied this topic a lot, even if we disagree so strongly.

I want to say one thing in closing: I've actually enjoyed talking with you. You've made me think about a lot of things that I otherwise wouldn't have considered. ...Took me back to my college days a bit.

Anyway, despite my rhetoric, I wish you the best. We'll keep studying and learning and maybe someday both of us will change our minds, who knows? See you around.