Ian doubtless views me as a reactionary anti-modernist and I view him as a naive lefty - we've said as much. But nonetheless we've conducted some interesting discussions without spite. I've always been impressed both with his dogged readiness to continue to make his point and with the clarity of his english. And, importantly, wrong though I think he often is, I have never doubted his sincerity.
That is why I feel the need to comment now against the way in which a few posters have recently ganged up against him in what to me is a very unsporting and intolerant manner.
As (possibly) one of the posters to whom you refer (and please correct me if I am wrong about this), I have not participated in any "ganging up" and it is against my nature to do so, but that fact has not prevented me from trying to comment on what struck me as some gratuitously insulting remakrs made by Ian Pace towards Richard Barrett - no more, no less; I would like to think that our views of his "sincerity" take due account of this...
Perhaps his view on screen names was on the extreme side but he nevertheless made his points with fairness and logic, whether one accepts the logic or not. And it was, after all, simply that - a personal view, which he has every right to hold and express.
I think that his views on the subject are ones that, as you say, he is perfectly entitled to hold and to express without restriction, but the "fairness and logic" with which you credit him on this is not, to me, a factor that I can recognise when he starts to talk about "cowardice" and such.
FWIW, I think he missed the point that there are many good reasons for not using one's real name in these places and that his accusation of cowardice doesn't hold much water, but isn't it possible just to make this point against him (as I have just done) and to leave it at that?
Yes - and I have done the same - but when he adds to such accusations with the kind of remarks that he directed towards Richard Barrett, I do not think that it is any kind of obligation to "leave it at that"; one can of course do so but I did not feel inclined to do so, because I did not feel that Mr Pace's remarks stood up to anything much beyond the insults that seemed to me to constitute the bulk of their substance.
After this general point, what I find far more worrying is that after Ian's suggestion that another poster "Richard Barrett" used a different screen-name "Veronika Lenz" to comment favourably on "Richard Barrett's" music, - and promised to find evidence of this on TOP - everything degenerated and the topic stopped.
I have already given my thoughts on this elsewhere on this forum, albeit with the brevity that I felt they deserved...
Now, I recall objectionable exchanges with both these people (RB & VL) in the past, but I've never been sure exactly who was who and who did what, though I'd gathered that RB was some sort of a composer of electronic music. I had some idea from one of Bryn's hints that there was a connection between them but it's a while ago and I can't remember exactly what I did think anymore. :-) So Ian's comments have at least clarified something for me - at least, I think they have. It all gets murky... But if Ian's suggestion is correct, then I really am quite annoyed at having been taken in by a deception. If it is not correct, then Ian in my view should withdraw it and apologise - and I have no reason to doubt that he would be honest enough to do so.
We'll have to see if, how and when your final suggestion here materialises, will we not? - and, in the meantime, it might be appropriate to point out that Richard Barrett (on whose work I do not claim to be any kind of authority) is by no means merely "some sort of a composer of electronic music"...
So, to put the record straight - and without straying again into the sensibly now locked territory of the general use of pseudonyms - would it perhaps be possible for Ian to comment on exactly what he meant? VL, I recall, left TOP after losing some heavy arguments with me and a few others a while ago and RB, it seems, has now left this one. I'm almost always sorry to see someone go - these are generally friendly places, at least that's what I've found - but the use of cross-screen-names to promote one's own work, if that is what happened, does tend to give weight to Ian's recent arguments, doesn't it?
It might possibly do just that if this were the case, but I have no evidence to suggest that this is what actually happened. I don't want to see Richard Barrett depart from these shores either - not least because his contributions are not merely interesting but are blissfully unafraid to resort when necessary to a sense of humour (and a self-deprecating one if need be) that can sometimes be sadly absent from certain others' posts. Whilst there is a place for vitriol, it is, I believe of the utmost importance always to recognise what that proper place is and not to abuse it; sadly, not everyone seems to recognise this.
