Danny,

First, reading the quote above, it seems like you don't believe that you are making invalid assumptions about my experience.

Second, I don't know what you mean by calling Gene Watson a regional performer.

Third, I'm not sure if the last two paragraphs are trying to convince me of what I've been advocating all along, or to try to get this thread back on topic, but either way it's better than continued subjective arguments based on a single performance from a single video.

Don’t you see by your goofy wanting to be Mr. Mysterious that you require us to make assumptions? It is a direct result of your behavior and you don’t seem to see it. Then you get strange when people don’t automatically know what you won’t tell them. Sorry but it doesn’t work that way. If you want to baa taken seriously and not as just another unsubstantiated opinion you have to put that out there. If you don’t see that I can’t help you.

What YOU’VE been advocating all along? Are you kidding? George and I were talking about it on page ONE!

One of my flaws, if you want to call it that, is that I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially when they are someone I already respect.

So when you say things that seem like nonsensical non-sequiturs to me, I try really hard to find ways to justify them in my mind. It causes a real case of cognitive dissonance.

I'll look at all the following criticisms and do some deep soul-searching:
* I'm goofy or do goofy things
* I'm "playing" by trying to protect some level of my privacy
* My behavior is responsible for Danny's responses to me
* I can be strange
* When posting, I intentionally hide important pieces of information
* I need help, but Danny is unable to provide that because of my failures

I'm not necessarily agreeing to all of those, but I promise I really won't ignore them. (Are you willing to trust my sincerity on that?) And let me know if I've misrepresented any of your criticisms (which I'm sure you will).

Are comfortable with answering my three questions?

I have zero idea who you are.

First. Well that wasn’t a question it was a statement. What’s to answer? But I did answer it in my above post. Your behavior requires us to assume.

Second. He is not a Taylor Swift recognized performer.

I already answered that even though yet again it isn’t a question. (Maybe you’re are attempting an erudite style of communication on purpose for effect, or it is what you always do but it is tough to follow.) George and I have been making the point since page one. So no I wasn’t making your point, I was restating mine.

Thanks! I agree that my questions were implicit rather than explicit and perhaps I should have been more clear.

You made assertions; I was only somewhat aware of your experience with musical performance and was forced to make assumptions based on what I knew (trying to cast your assumptions in the best possible light).
(As you might reasonably assume, I don't typically stalk participants to find out where they might have worked 20 years ago.)

I also assertions, provided limited context, and you also made assumptions. But both of us made our original assumptions before you provided fuller information about your musical experience.

So the implied question was whether you really think we were doing anything differently? (I'm also tempted to ask whether you really didn't realize there was an implied question there.)

Setting the bar at "Taylor Swift" is hard to take seriously; that almost eliminates everyone but Taylor Swift. I don't know what the cutoff for "regional" performers should be, but when we establish that criteria I suspect we might both be surprised at who makes the cut. I still don't know what data you referenced in deciding that Gene Watson is a "regional" talent.

And yes, I've noticed I've been slipping further into my "academic voice" and away from a more casual tone. I need to keep an eye on that.

(BTW, I also posted on Page One, this isn't the first thread on which I've posted on this topic, and I've always been consistent.)

Just use regular words please. I'm not that bright.

YES we both make assumptions, but you REQUIRE others to make assumptions by intentionally not giving information. Hang any air freshener on it you like that is the reality. You just throw out "I sang professionally" which takes in a WHOLE lot of ground! It can mean almost anything and says almost nothing. But you have to be super mysterious so that is what happens when you do that. You make assumptions about me because you insist on making things complicated and reading between the lines instead of what is on the line. You claim that is "academic" but in reality not so much.

OK forget Taylor Swift it was a flippant example. I guess "academic" means no sense of humor. He is not a top level A list celebrity. Probably not a B list either. IT ISN'T RELEVANT to this discussion at all.

By the way your "academic voice" sort of comes across as if you are trying to teach others. Maybe not the best tone to take when you are fairly unknown huh?

But the thread is not about almost any of that is it?

Agreed. Let's talk about guerrilla marketing instead.