Rhetorical facetiousness? Well aside from the fact that you made a comment and I made a following comment, which is the norm of a discussion board, all defining aspects of that phrase seem to have been lost in your repeated statements.
You are right, you spoke of rights and I commented on them. No confusion there on either of our parts it looks like
Now let's look at this comment (one of several):
"I think that gets at why I'm having a hard time getting worked-up over Nuestro Himno. Most native-born English speakers don't even know the whole song, so most native-born English speakers wouldn't know whether the translation draws on verses other than the first one."
From that I can infer that you don't understand why a native-born English speaker, who may not know the lyrics, can get "worked up" over a bastard translation. That's not really a stretch there for someone reading your words.
And I offered you analogies to help clear that lack of understanding on your part. If you don't sympathize with folks that's fine too, but you sure are going out of your way to post that in this thread.
I'm sure you know all sorts of veterans that may be upset by a singer that sings the anthem at a ball game, but I am not sure how many of them would now be willing to accept this "Song".
Good luck with your band and the obo. Were I to misspell an instrument's name, well I think I could live with that and continue to do so as a form of facetious rhetoric.
-Rudey
Quote:
Originally posted by MysticCat81
Good Lord, Rudey, chill. I'm sorry that rhetorical facetiousness is lost on you.
But if you're going to be so literal, then at least do as you are so fond of advising other people: go back and read what I said, and notice how what you attribute to me doesn't match up with what I actually said. I have referred to "rights" exactly once in this thread, and when I did, it had nothing to do with "not knowing something."
What I said about rights was: "I'm of the opinion that by silently allowing countless celebrities to butcher the national anthem at sporting events over the last few decades, and by even applauding such horrors, Americans have forfeited the right to complain about anything anyone does to the national anthem." Would you understand it better if instead of saying "forfeited the right" I said "lost the moral highground"? "Lost credibility"? By applauding disrespect or even allowing it to go unchallenged, we lose our credibility when we later accuse others of disprespect.
My comments about people not even knowing the words of the national anthem were tied to the suggestion that Nuestro Himno is not a word-for-word translation but rather pushes an agenda. The point is how do people know that the second verse is not a translation -- direct or composite of parts of various original English verses -- if they don't know the English verses to begin with? One Harris poll showed that a majority of those polled can't even get the words to the first verse right.
Not strange at all, and I'm not sure that one or two comments constitutes "going on," but let me rephrase it for you: Whether you have good cause or not, you certainly have a right to be upset. I have a right to think you sound like an idiot, and you can't take that right away from me.
I know quite a few veterans who are not musicians themselves and who would disagree with you. I've listened to enough of them grumble when the national anthem is "performed" at ball games to know that it's not the ability of the musician but the lack of respect in the performance that offends them.
andOh, I do. Ironic even.
If English becomes the official language of the US, does that mean everybody has to learn it? [/facetious comment]
|
Threaded Mode