KSG_Standard Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Saying Stalin and Pol Pots killed all those people because they were Atheists is the same as saying they did it because they rejected the notion that the earth was flat. The one thing Pol Pots' date=' Stalin and Christians have in common is they are all HHGD (Holy Hand Grenade Deniers) so there you have it Holy Hand Grenade Deniers are responsible for the biggest slaughter of humans in all history. So you got it wrong they replaced the Holy Hand Grenade with the State and were Grenadeless murderers responsible for most of the non-disease related death in recorded history. [/quote'] For such a bright guy, you are being pretty obtuse. I did not say Stalin, et. al killed "all those people" because they were atheists...good try there HHG! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted April 28, 2009 Author Share Posted April 28, 2009 Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Napoleon, Sadam Hussein, and countless others, were Narcissistic, Nihilistic,, Ego-maniacs, that used whatever means necessary, political, religious, whatever...to "justify" to themselves, and/or their "followers," their methods, of obtaining what THEY wanted. CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Hand Grenade Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 I didn't say' date=' or imply that Stalin or Pol Pot were killing in the name of Atheism. I was attempting to make the point that while "religion" has been the cause of a HUGE amount of death and mayhem. It is factually correct that Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler, who were not restrained by any of the world's "Great" religions, are responsible for more killing and suffering than all of the world's "great" religions combined. Hitler was an occultist, not a Christian.[/quote'] So the fact remains the same Hitler was still a Religious man, The occult for the most part is a Religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Good luck in your crusade THHG! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Hand Grenade Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Good luck in your crusade THHG! The Book of Armaments has already predicted my victory. P.S I thought this was a guitar forum? I came in here looking for information on a Lester and got into a Religious debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wicked1 Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Well, KSG...since the original argument was that Muslims kill for their religion followed up by Christians killing for their religion--it would make logical sense that you were trying to argue that Stalin (or whoever) killed for their beliefs. Stalin didn't kill because he was an atheist. It was purely political. Hitler publicly professed a belief in god because it was political suicide to say otherwise. Of course, it still misses the point. It's still a matter of noticing the speck in your brother's eye while ignoring the log in your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky4 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 One thing's for sure. With all the different beliefs, religions, non religions, etc, there sure is gonna be a lot of sorry wrong people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Yeah but i saw the Hitler' date=' Pol Pots and Stalin cop out that i could not resist. I always found people like Hitler and Stalin fascinating, I actually believe Hitler had the right idea but he was just an underachiever. I just re-read your post...You are quite the anti Semite aren't you? You are dead to me THHG... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Hand Grenade Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 I just re-read your post...You are quite the anti Semite aren't you? You are dead to me THHG... I guess you didn't get the underachiever part did you? I will give you a day or two to figure out what i meant by that statement, take that as todays assignment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MReynolds Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 I guess you didn't get the underachiever part did you? I will give you a day or two to figure out what i meant by that statement' date=' take that as todays assignment.[/quote'] I don't know HHG...but I take it as meaning that you think Hitler had the right idea but should have killed more Jews (if he wasn't such an underachiever). If that isn't what you meant, you might want to express yourself a little better since at least two of us think that's what it means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Hand Grenade Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 I don't know HHG...but I take it as meaning that you think Hitler had the right idea but should have killed more Jews (if he wasn't such an underachiever). If that isn't what you meant' date=' you might want to express yourself a little better since at least two of us think that's what it means.[/quote'] What i meant is that he should have killed everyone not just the Jews, The Good lord knows we can use allot less dumbasses running around i can tell you that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Of course' date=' it still misses the point. It's still a matter of noticing the speck in your brother's eye while ignoring the log in your own. [/quote'] This post wins. Not just because she is my wife either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeRom Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Anybody reading thru all these posts? Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djroge1 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 I guess you didn't get the underachiever part did you? I will give you a day or two to figure out what i meant by that statement' date=' take that as todays assignment.[/quote'] Wow today's assignment. Hitler an underachiever. Your words sound like a mix between homz and buddy light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djroge1 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 This post wins. Not just because she is my wife either. I'd say that quote wins because its a quote from the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Hand Grenade Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Wow today's assignment. Hitler an underachiever. Your words sound like a mix between homz and buddy light What do you mean? an African or a European swallow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted April 29, 2009 Author Share Posted April 29, 2009 Think Gibson will start building these, in the near future?! ;>) The Oud, a central instrument of Arabic music, is a stringed instrument with an ancient history. It probably originated over 3,500 year ago in Persia, where it was called a Barbat (oud). A similar instrument is shown in Egyptian paintings and was used in the times of the Pharaohs. The Arabic name, Al Oud, means wood and specifically thin wood. The strings were originally made of gut, and are now often made of plastic. The moors or the Crusaders carried the Oud to Spain, where it entered Europe as the lute ("al-ud") and was ultimately transformed into the 6 stringed fretted guitar. The earliest Arab Oud musician was possibly Eben Sareeg. In the past, Arab composers wrote exclusively for Oud. It is a solo instrument used also for Taqasim (improvisations) accompanied by song. The Oud sound box is pear shaped, and it has a relatively short handle and no frets. The precise shape and dimensions differ throughout the Arab world, as do the number of strings - up to six and even seven. . Since the 9th century the musical tradition of the Mediterranean Sea was based in great part on the Oud. The heart of Oud music are the Makams. Makams are also playable on other instruments, but for Arab music, Makams are executed on the Oud. Makams are roughly equivalent to Indian Ragas or to Western "keys," but they are more complex than "keys" and unlike Ragas, they do not have any allegorical significance. The Makam (Turkish makam, plural makamlar; Arabic maqam, plural maqamat) are scales or 'composition rules'. The makam names designate an important note in the scale (i.e. Turkish Cargah, Arabic Chahargah: fourth position), or a city (i.e. Esfahan, it is sometimes spelled as Isfahan), a landscape (i.e. Turkish Hicaz, Arabic Hijazi), a person (i.e. Kurdi) or a poetic abstraction (i.e. Suzidil: heart glimmer). Based on the use of untempered intervals (with as many as 53 microtones amplifying the western octave), a given makam follows a particular scale and a set of associated musical practices. Each makam joins a tetrachord (Turkish dortlu), and a pentachord (Turkish besli). Certain rules/characteristics of a makam may include the entry tone (Turkish giris, Arabic mabda), the final tone (Turkish karar, Arabic qarar) which may or may not be the same tone as the entry tone, the leading tone (Turkish yeden), dominant (Turkish guclu) and tonic (Turkish durak), as well as stressed secondary tonal centers. The seyir (path, way) (Arabic zahir) of a makam is determined by the direction of the melody, which may be either ascending (Turkish cikici) or descending (Turkish inici) or a combination of the two (Turkish inici-cikici). Range (makam may be extended above and below the octave without repeating), modulation, temperament, melody types, and cadential endings (i.e. suspended cadences) may also determine a makam's make-up. Compound makamlar exist which combine elements from two makamlar. Thousands of makamlar have been theoretically conceived though only a few hundred have been used. Of these, about one hundred have been fully developed into musical settings. References Kurt Reinhard: The New Grove: Dictionary of Music and Musicians. vol. 19. ed. London: Macmillan, 1980 Josef Pacholczyk: The New Grove: Dictionary of Music and Musicians. vol. 1. ed. London: Macmillan, 1980 Karl Signell: Makam: Modern Practice in Turkish Art Music. New York: DaCapo Press, 1985 Walter Feldman: Music of the Ottoman Court. Berlin: GAM- Media GmbH, 1996 More Musical Instruments of the Middle East Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Think Gibson will start building these' date=' in the near future?! ;>) [img']http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq333/charliebrown1949/oud1.jpg[/img] I wonder how that baby sounds amped up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted April 29, 2009 Author Share Posted April 29, 2009 I wonder how that baby sounds amped up? Be intersting to see where they'd put the "Fishman," (or similar)... then plugged into a Fender Acoustic amp...might be pretty cool?! Yet another "tone" palette to explore. Then, someone might try to use a violin bow, on it, too! Hmmm, verrrrry Interesting! Might give a new twist, to "Kashmir!" ;>) CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.