It always amazes me just how bad my writing is. For how else can so many people mis-interpret my meanderings.
Anyway, Jeff had some good points, so I think I need to clarify. First, to everyone who thinks I am bagging laptop shows, that is not the case. A laptop is a tool to do something, the laptop does not sing and dance for you, nor will it be scoring groupies afterwards, although oddly enough the damn things can still get viruses, but I digress. It's only a tool, so just as an Apple Mac won't make you a better designer, a laptop won't make a boring performance. Second, Kent decided to bring up Fred Gianelli. I don't know why. I have never heard anyone describe his performance as boring (well maybe his ex-girlfriend ... laugh Fred laugh ...) and to my current knowledge he doesn't use a laptop as his main performance piece. Sorry, there was no second point, I just wanted the cheap laughs of the ex-girlfriend joke. So here's my refined point about boring laptop shows in some kind of logical notation: IF you go to a performance AND the performance is BORING * (see note below) AND the performer primarily uses a laptop THEN BECAUSE a laptop is inanimate and cannot be blamed AND BECAUSE the performer is only expressing their art and cannot be blamed THE only conclusion left is that the music is boring. Elementary my dear Watson. * BORING. Thanks to all you boring people telling me about subjectivity I have refined the definition of BORING to be anything which you find boring, for you personally, not for anyone else. Also notice the difference between BORING and boring. BORING is subjective and boring is universal in that we all know how boring feels. SO.... The next time you go see your favourite act perform AND they are boring AND they are using a laptop, PLEASE DON'T BLAME THE LAPTOP, it's the MUSIC which is BORING * * (according to the above definition) Thank-you for allowing me to clarify. Tosh -- Twelve Hundred Group http://www.1200group.com/
