🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <H35y7.1$ds3.2341983@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
 "David Eduardo" <radiodavid@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Kenosha Kid" <kid@kenosha.org> wrote in message
> news:kid-8905FC.18343113102001@news1.denver1.co.home.com...
> > In article <ER3y7.2$Ij.1851439@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "David Eduardo" <amdavid@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "Alfonso Dimitri" <tech@spearsinc.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3BB4CE36.B3A53066@spearsinc.com...
> > > > > What the hell does a song having had a cover done of it have with it
> > > being
> > > > > good?
> > > >
> > > > We don't even have to answer this as it is so obvious to anyone who is
> not
> > > a
> > > > troll.
> > >
> > > Are you agreeing or disagreeing or abstaining?
> > >
> > > Again: what relationship is there between the inherent "goodness" of a
> song
> > > and the number of times it has been covered?
> > >
> > > Tom believes this is an important consideration. I don't. And I would
> like
> > > to understand why he holds that particular belief.
> > >
> > > Oh, thanks for giving me my "own" thread. I have not had such an honor
> on
> > > usnet for at least 10 days.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > If you could give a precise definition of "the inherent goodness of a
> > song" this question would answer itself. But no such definition is
> > possible, certainly not one to which one everyone would agree. Therefore
> > all such discussions are a waste of time.
> 
> My point exactly. The goodness of a song is in the ears of the listener. I
> may truly like the barking dogs rendition of jingle bells, and that song is
> thus good to me. And I really am not concerned with what anyone else says I
> should enjoy, either.
> 
> Finally, that not should not even have posted at all. I have been going
> through 3 weeks of DSL problems with my friends form PacBell and that
> message seems to have gotten trapped in the pipes only to pop out now!
> 
> 

Well said, well spoken. So let it be written, so let it be done!
-- 
You never did,
The Kenosha Kid