User talk:G michalakis

Iakovos Nafpliotis
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Iakovos Nafpliotis, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have responded to you at Talk:Iakovos Nafpliotis. -- JLaTondre 15:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Based upon the links you provided, I'm convinced. I have restored the content. -- JLaTondre 01:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Iakovos Nafpliotis vs. Simonas Karras, Georgios Violakis and others
KK Well, I have the creation of an article about Karras in mind,

GKM If you are so careful as to his "research", may I suggest tha you be just as careful with his name KARAS with just ONE "R"

KK but it just needs its time in order to show all the aspects of the research he has done about both Church and Traditional music, and how he showed that they in fact are the two sides of the same coin. As for the picture I don't know whether it is copyrighted, so there may be a problem with Wikipedia administrators.

GKM The picture was given to me along with the 18 volume opus of Angelos Boudouris by the Boudouris Family along with an authorisation to scan as much of this work so as to provide it for free to all those interested

KK Concerning the links you provide I would suggest that you put them in a special position below the article, so that the style ( "hyphos" ;-) ) of the article conforms to the wikipedia guidelines. Remember, the article is not a sandbox, so attention must be paid so that it is easy to read and get the information it provides.

GKM I don't know how to do this, and I'd appreciate any help.

KK As for Simonas Karras,

GKM Karas

KK I think that we should follow the NPOV rules and not turn Nafpliotis' article into a battlefield between the so-called "Hypermachoi" and the followers of Karras.

GKM Iakovos' life is about a STAND he took against ANYTHING non traditional I decided to use SOME of his words of caution as brought down to us by his biographer. I'll add more concerning others later on.

Since Iakovos said this about KARAS, I don't see why it should be removed or why it should be considered as a "new" battlefield : there were ALWAYS battles in the area Iakovos excelled in and this is just ONE illustration of the problem.

Your Simon Karas page will most certainly give all the "good side" of Karas.

It's only fair that Iakovos' comments be known as well.

KK As anyone may see, the last two paragraphs (the one that pre-existed and the one sentence that I added - that as I see has recently been expanded -

GKM Of caurse it was expanded : the Iakovos page shouldn't turn into a Simon Karas publicity page either. There's LOTS of room for his "contributions" elsewhere.

KK because you presenting the opposite opinion) deal in fact with the on-going disagreement about Karras and should not - according to my opinion - take so much space in Nafpliotis' article, when there are so few things written there about Nafpliotis himself.

GKM I don't think that there are just a "few" things concerning Iakovos. There's a lot about his teaching method of which I supposed to know quite a bit.

Later on, more details concerning his everyday life we will added as well. The "hypermachos school" vs the "Karas school" debate DOES in fact exist and Iakovos CERTAINLY did take POSITION against Karas well before the start of this "battle".

Iakovos took stance against others as well, but the one against Karas is where he expressed himself CLEARLY.

KK I don't have much time to spare for wikipedia right now, but I hope that you will be kind enough to clean up the article and make it more "Wikipedia-compliant",

GKM I don't know how to do more than what I've contributed till now

KK but when I'm done with some papers I have to prepare for university, I'll be glad to continue improving the articles concerning Byzantine music and all the great people involved in it. --K kokkinos (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

GKM My guess is that you'll do EVERYTHING to get rid of whatever Iakovos said against Karas.

My conclusion was MORE than fair: it gave Karas credit for his "research" and expressed how even today MANY are those who hang on to Iakovos as a STANDARD; not only in CHANT, but also in confronting anything that is not traditional.

ALthough I trust your judgement concerning "wikipedia standards", I really don't trust your "musicological" and "historical" intervetions in this particular article as well as others in which I will write concerning other TRADITIONAL psaltis.

My guess is that someone else should mediate this page.

Thank you.

Georgios K. MICHALAKIS Second reply by K kokkinos (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all thank you for the reply :-)

I preferred to used the spelling Karras instead of Karas so that english speakers would be facilitated with the pronunciation; it's similar to the case when single s is pronounced as a greek zeta and ss is pronounced as a greek sigma. So rr provides for a more spanish-like instead of an english like "r".

Well, your guess is wrong... There's no need to get rid of whatever Iakovos said against Karas (as you prefer the spelling), as there's no need to prove his research. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. I've started now collecting material for the Karas article and I hope that with the grace of God I will be posting them up soon. As for the "I don't trust..." paragraph I would suggest once more for you to read the wikipedia guidelines, especially the "you are not alone in Wikipedia" part.

Moreover, when you decide to post a new article on Wikipedia, I'd suggest that you first edit it in a sandbox in your personal space and then upload it at the public space for articles. I'd also advise you to be careful about the capitalization and the number of quotation marks you use as some may find the resulting document offending, and I suppose that it is not what you intended to do. Finally, apart from using your name, it would be a good idea that you sign your posts with the time and your username by using ~.

Here are some pages you could take a look at: K kokkinos (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Five_pillars
 * Manual_of_Style
 * Uploading_images


 * I just read this dialogue with great interest. Please excuse me, that I intervene here 4 years later. I agree with Mr. Michalakis that his generous contribution, especially of material concerning the Old Patriarchal School, should be recognized more gratefully, especially with respect to the very poor level that the very few articles to related topics have in English wikipedia (I do not comment about Greek wikipedia, but it is astonishing that there are nearly no articles that it seems to me that it must have disqualified itself). Concerning Mr. Kokkinos' suggestion for the transliteration of Karas' name as "Simonas Karras", it is his private decision which was obviously neither regarded by the authors of the article dedicated to him nor by the author of the New Grove article.


 * On the other hand, I have to admit that Mr. Michalakis personality as an author which I respect as it is, is far from being neutral, and never was. My proposition is that you present Iakovos Nafpliotis' point of view by direct quotations or indirect speech. Of course, if you don't like to do this, later editors will do it, but I don't expect that somebody will censor contents, as you fear. There is no doubt that the same standards are expected for the article about Simon Karas, where your objections might do a good job. There is no doubt that wikipedia is also full of very young and unexperienced authors who have quite crazy illusions about having a "neutral point of view". I think this dialogue was quite helpful to learn more about it.


 * I already made some concrete suggestions concerning the conflict between Old Patriarchal School and Galata School. Mr. Michalakis is certainly more competent than me, but it looks as this had been already a conflict of his "teacher" Nikolaos (I mean the first Domestikos, when Iakovos joined the Patriarchate as the second) and Iakovos got involved in it, without being asked for an own opinion (it must have been a quite unpleasant situation, when he was so young). It is evident that Mr. Michalakis does not like scholars and uses words like "musicologist" and "historian" as a kind of insult. As an interested reader, I would like to know, what was your point to call Violakis in such a way? His attitude towards Chrysanthine notation or did he really teach at universities of Istanbul as well? Platonykiss (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

GKM to Platonykiss

Platonykiss I just read this dialogue with great interest.

GKM I'm glad.

Platonykiss Please excuse me, that I intervene here 4 years later.

GKM You'd be more than amply excused if you were to "improve" your English before daring some "contribution". Start with the above sentence, if you like.

Platonykiss I agree with Mr. Michalakis that his generous contribution, especially of material concerning the Old Patriarchal School, should be recognized more gratefully, especially with respect to the very poor level that the very few articles to related topics have in English wikipedia (I do not comment about Greek wikipedia, but it is astonishing that there are nearly no articles that it seems to me that it must have disqualified itself).

GKM You've stated so many ideas in just one sentence, while using such a "particular" syntax, "that" it is almost impossible to entirely comprehend! Thank you, anyways, for what I'd like to interpret as words of acknowledgment.

Platonykiss Concerning Mr. Kokkinos' suggestion for the transliteration of Karas' name as "Simonas Karras", it is his private decision which was obviously neither regarded by the authors of the article dedicated to him nor by the author of the New Grove article.

On the other hand, I have to admit that Mr. Michalakis personality as an author which I respect

GKM Try adding an apostrophe, before referring to my "personality", and adding a coma before the word "which" (vide supra ET infra)

Platonykiss Mr. Michalakis' personality as an author, which I respect as it is, is far from being neutral, and never was. My proposition is that you

GKM I suppose you're referring to me

Platonykiss present Iakovos Nafpliotis' point of view by direct quotations or indirect speech. Of course, if you don't like to do this,

GKM "Of course, if you wouldn't like to do this",

Platonykiss later editors will do it, but I don't expect that somebody will censor contents, as you fear.

GKM Dear "friend": as concerns "censorship", I'll take care of the issue in due time. I'll respond to your "suggestions" below.

Platonykiss There is no doubt that the same standards are expected for the article about Simon Karas, where your objections might do a good job. There is no doubt that wikipedia

GKM You seem to be "no doubt" about "a lot" of things.... You may write WHATEVER you like about Karas. The person, his "work" his "legend" and his "followers" are all, as far as I am concerned, INSIGNIFICANT psaltic entities.

Platonykiss is also full of very young and unexperienced authors who have quite crazy illusions about having a "neutral point of view".

GKM I'm 45 years old, and hold a number of university diplomas. If you are in my age group with a degree from some English language university,  I suggest that you  ask for a re-evaluation of your English level. I do not feel you have the minimal LINGUISTIC "prerequisite" to evaluate the neutrality of my article.

ALL quotations will be added in the future, given that they are taken from two main sources: the books by Boudouris and the interviews with Tsolakidis. The Boudouris books are in HANDWRITTEN form, yet are AVAILABLE for free on the web. In about 2 years' time, we hope to obtain a TYPESET edition by means of handritten OCR for the Hellenic polytonic language (I've already contributed to a FREE PRINTED polytonic OCR version). Appropriate references will then be made, which will include the original Greek text.

Platonykiss I think this dialogue was quite helpful to learn more about it.

GKM I don't see any "dialogue", and do not wish to PURSUE any form of "dialogue" in Wikipedia, which is NOT a forum. All I see is a repetitive attempt to remove NEGATIVE references Iakovos HAD made concerning Karas. "There is no doubt" the Karas "group" is "full of very young and unexperienced" chanters, and, with the help of its numerous "experienced authors", we are to expect many who will barge in here to "troll" this topic down, as they have done in some forum in the past. Platonykiss I already made some concrete suggestions concerning the conflict between Old Patriarchal School and Galata School.

GKM WHERE? WHO are you?

Platonykiss Mr. Michalakis is certainly more competent than me,

GKM I surely hope so!

Platonykiss but it looks as this had been already a conflict of his "teacher" Nikolaos (I mean the first Domestikos, when Iakovos joined the Patriarchate as the second) and Iakovos got involved in it, without being asked for an own opinion (it must have been a quite unpleasant situation, when he was so young).

GKM Some "young" people, as I was once, have the "talent" to appreciate a GOOD psaltis when they hear one, as I did when I was only FOUR years old (concerning my uncle and teacher Xerodemas) and later on when I was TEN years old (concerning Tsolakidis,  in spite of being in the midst of traditional psaltis but Sakelaridis singers and, triphonic choirs as well). Binakis, for instance, chanted "beyond" the Patriarchate's walls, but was considered as having "Patriarchal hyphos", even though he chose DIFFERENT parametes to express it, as compared to Iakovos.

Platonykiss It is evident that Mr. Michalakis does not like scholars and uses words like "musicologist" and "historian" as a kind of insult.

GKM This is YOUR opinion of my "generic" use of the term, which I do NOT apply to firstly to TRULY learned scholar and secondly to myself, given that I am enrolled in a Masters II program in musciology, as well.

Platonykiss As an interested reader, I would like to know, what was your point to call Violakis in such a way? His attitude towards Chrysanthine notation or did he really teach at universities of Istanbul as well?

GKM Biolakis was NOT a university musicologist, but he was referred to as being a "musicologist" by the elders, which include Boudouris  (other "musicologists" of that time include Kamarados and his disciple Syrkas). For many people, he terme "musciologist" was not, and still is NOT, limited to UNIVERSITY degrees (for instance, TRULY learned and skilled TEACHERS in arabic music are many a time referred to as "musicologists").

My use of main sources is certainly insufficient. Surely, there exist OTHER testimonies of that period, even negative ones (against Iakovos [although few in number eg. Markou, Psachos]). Furthermore, a number of Boudouris' writings are contested by some as being too subjective. When all this "historical" research will (eventually) come to light, some truly neutral  authors may THEN wish to add the pertinent facts to the current presentation.

While awaiting for such SCIENTIFIC work to be accomplished, I beg that you do NOT "troll" on this subject.


 * Dear Mr Michalakis


 * Don't worry. My "trolling" so far was, that I spend some hours on your Nafpliotis article to replace your blind links with those leading to an existing article. It was slave work for you, and it seems that you continue to treat me like one. I commented on the talk page that your contributions are sometimes even more subjective than the memoirs of Angelos Voudouris. But unlike an encyclopedic entry, memoirs are not supposed to be anything else than subjective, so you may quote Voudouris or even yourself as Georgios Michalakis, because it is evident, that this is a voice which judges within the tradition, and there is no problem, if it is more or less subjective.


 * Your remark about Violakis confirmed that no reader will understand, what you mean with "musicologist". May I suggest that you mention Kiltzanidis' theory concerning the didactic method of exoteric music (Thank you, by the way, for making his book public)? It was important for the singers of the Galata school. It would also be helpful, if you could explain the difference between this academic approach to makamlar and the one of other protopsaltes like Gregorios who became a student of Dede Efendi – a famous composer of the Mevlevi tradition. Nobody at wikipedia can explain this better than you.


 * When I pointed at young wikipedians who have illusions concerning the "neutral point of view", I was certainly not addressing you, because I know very well about your age and your experience and I wrote this, because it is ridiculous to bother you with wikipedian abbreviations like "NPOV". You are in every respect a good school, and, if it calms you down, I am not interested in contributing further to articles about Simon Karas and Iakovos Nafpliotis. I leave it to you or others to improve these articles.


 * If you ask me to correct the English of our correspondence, I would like to suggest that you replace "above" with "below" (as far as you refer to your quotations of my words). It seems that you are much closer to the competence of a native speaker, as you have grown up in Canada. Nevertheless, despite the fact that you like to respond to any of my criticism, whether you are meant or not, you understood me quite well. Of course, I agree with your objections against my syntax and I appreciate your efforts to correct my "impoverished English". I guess that we are quit with serving each other ;)


 * Thank you for the annoncements concerning the Voudouris Project. I am looking forward to it. Platonykiss (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Platonykiss

Platonykiss: Don't worry. My "trolling" so far was, that I spend some hours on your Nafpliotis article to replace your blind links with links which lead to existing articles. It was slave work for you.

GKM: It is not a matter of refusal from my behalf, I simply do NOT know how to go about this correctly, and I have not had the time to read all the necessary information so as to conform. I was counting on others' contribution, and I am grateful for yours. As far as "trolling" is concerned, it seems to me you provided "volonteer work" just to get the Karas issue REMOVED, by implying I have not done an mpartial job. To the contrary, I've added comments about OTHER schools that were different from Iakovos, but against which Iakovos never spoke as categorically as he did against Karas. Platonykiss: I commented on the talk page that your contributions are sometimes even more subjective than the memoirs of Angelos Voudouris.

GKM: The biographical notes on Iakovos are RARE (Antonellis' two introductory pages in the late 1950's (some "psaltic guide book", of which I do not have a copy where I am actually living; Boudouris's MEMOIRS; a few articles; and of COURSE, whatever Tsolakidis told me, of which some recordings have been made, and already uploaded, in part, on various websites].

Platonykiss: The problem is that memoirs unlike an encyclopedic entry are not supposed to be anything else than subjective, and your remark about Violakis confirmed it.

GKM: Most biographies come from "subjective memoirs" and finally become part of some "encyclopedia". My sources are from PUBLISHED books (Boudouris/Antonellis), and that is good enough for me. So as to be "neutral", I included comments (for which we'll have to find the references, which I do not have available) AGAINST Iakovos (Psachos, Markos Basileiou).

Platonykiss: I would like to suggest that you mention Kiltzanidis' theory concerning the didactic method of exoteric music (Thank you, by the way, for making his book public).

GKM: WHERE? Along with Nileas Kamarados? and what does Iakovos have to do with Kiltzanides or "exoteric" music?

Platonykiss: It was important for the singers of the Galata school. This might explain readers, what YOU mean talking about "musicologists".

GKM: I "explained it". For elders, a "musicologist" was anyone involved with theory "more than usual". Today, the term refers to someone who is involved with university degrees. THESE are the type of musicologists I consider as INCOMPETENT, given they do not use PURE and APPLIED sciences CORRECTLY so as to PROVE what the describe with "scientifc terms" such as interval values according to their SUBJECTIVE listening and not to some truly scientific measur that is STATISTICALLY correct.

Platonykiss: It would be also helpful, if you could explain the difference between this academic approach and the one of other protopsaltes like Gregorios, who became a student of Dede Efendi, a famous composer of the Mevlevi tradition.

GKM Your proposition is way beyond the scope of the present article, and involves an entire historical overview that surpasses my competence. Why not make another article ("Gregorios Protopsaltis"), and add whatever you think is necessary.

Anyhow, please make a suggestion, and I'll try to integrate it somewhere, if you feel it is as important as you write. Platonykiss: When I pointed at young wikipedians who have illusions concerning the "neutral point of view", I was certainly not addressing you, because I know very well about your age and your experience and because it is ridiculous to bother you with wikipedian abbreviations like "NPOV". You are in every respect a good school, and, if it calms you down, I am not interested in contributing further to articles about Simon Karas

GKM: I think you should, because I feel this was the IMPULSE to your contribution and criticism concerning my "lack of neutrality".

Platonykiss: ... and Iakovos Nafpliotis.

GKM: I feel there are a few more things to write, but NONE to remove...

Platonykiss: I leave it to you or others to improve these articles. GKM Thank you.

Platonykiss: If you ask me to correct the English of our correspondence, I would like to suggest that you replace "above" with "below" (as far as you refer to your quotations of my words).

GKM You wrote: "Please excuse me, that I intervene here 4 years later". This appeared ABOVE what I wrote next, and, as underlined, that very line you wrote NEEDS improvement. Here is what I had written: "You'd be more than amply excused if you were to "improve" your English before daring some "contribution". Start with the above sentence, if you like".

Platonykiss: It seems that we both are far from being native speakers.

GKM My grandmother Sophia Farleka was born in the USA, and spoke IMPECCABLE English, so I am not THAT far from being a "native speaker" myself, and I often make use of English MUCH better than most "native speakers". You certainly have improved your English in the present comments you have made. It might be that you were a bit negligent in whatever you wrote within the article. Whatever the case, and without wishing to be arrogant, I do NOT feel our English levels are comparable. Anyhow, your "contributions" within the main article obliged me to take time and try to improve it.

Platonykiss: Nevertheless, despite the fact that you like to respond to any of my criticism, whether you are meant or not,

GKM What are you trying to say: whether I am "meant or not" for WHAT? How do you expect me to give you credit for such JARGON?

Platonykiss: you understood me quite well.

GKM : I made an effort to correct your comment. I also feel I have understood your PRO Karas intentions.

Platonykiss: Of course, I agree with your objections against my syntax.

GKM: try to find a better way to communicate any improvements you might like to make, so as not to burden others with cumbersome corrections.


 * Dear Mr Michalakis


 * Very nice to meet you here at the same time. I am not the first one who is suspected to remove something from your article. For my behalf I can assure you, that this is out of question. The information, that Simon Karas was regarded rather as an academic than as a singer, is as important as the biographical detail, that Simon Karas sent his students instead of visiting himself. It is even okay, if you express your own negative opinion about Simon Karas. But in this case, just quote yourself with a veryfiable source. Thus, as a quotation, nobody is authorized to change it. Platonykiss (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

GKM: Dear Platonykiss, As other members in your line of thought, you deform propositions. Four years ago, when Kokkinos had made comments similar to yours, I added lines stating Karas had done musicological research, as had others (Peristeris, Psachos, etc.). Furthermore, he did not have a PhD, or even a B.A., be it in musicology or Law, so I do not see why I should give his name and "research" and "school" any more importance (be it "academic" or other) in terms of overall "contributions". I SIMPLY included a QUOTE that is found in the MEMOIRS of Boudouris, and which I translated, and which is indicative of Karas' INCOMPETENCE, not only in singing, but in his entire CONCEPTION of psaltiki - THIS is what Iakovos is saying in SIMPLE terms. References will be included, although just about anybody can do this. I happen to AGREE with Iakovos, and consider his quote as being HISTORIC. I will later on include quotes of Iakovos concerning Syrkas, Pringos, and others, as well as quotes of what OTHERS said about Iakovos. The MAIN source is ALWAYS the same: BOUDOURIS, whether you deem his work as being subjective or not. Your interventions here are turning into a nuissance, and I'll ask wipedian moderators to intervene. I will no longer answer you.


 * I do not deform anything. I make suggestions. That is all. And you may do with it, what you like. Nobody said that only those with academic titles can be quoted here. The fact that you are regarding Simon Karas' work as "insignificant" and that you are suspecting others to be a groupy of him, tells enough. Please do not feel forced to answer me. Platonykiss (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about Simon Karas
Dear Mr. Michalakis

Thank you for your email.

Please don't feel haunted by me. At wikipedia I work mainly on the Octoechos articles (the former one has been splitted recently, so the old links to certain issues are no longer working). But whenever I find some material which might be relevant for related articles, I just copy the references into other articles. Thus it happened to your article. During our correspondence I found out, that you reworked it and it has certainly improved a lot. But I did not really understand your remark about musicologists who say that something has changed between the 15th and the 20th century. Is there anybody who pretends that nothing has been changed over the centuries?

Concerning your interest to discuss the work of Simon Karas, I fear that I am not the right person. Maybe the article about Simon Karas might need to be improved, but with regard that we do not even have articles about Ioannis Glykys, Xenos Korones, Gabriel Hieromonachos, Balasios, Germanos of New Patras, Ioannes of Trebizond, Iakovos the Protopsaltes, Georgios of Crete, Petros Byzantios, Chourmouzios, Gregorios the Protopsaltes, Konstantinos Byzantios etc. and all the later Protopsaltes that you mentioned in your article, I think that Simon Karas who already got an article, is my last priority.

But I can recommend Ioannis Arvanitis for an exchange. First, he was student of Simon Karas. Second, his thoughts are quite original and distinct in comparison with other students of Karas. Third, he knows that gifted and cultivated enemies do a better job in academic exchange than any friends. Fourth, his relevant publications are all available online. You will find all the links in my article Neobyzantine Octoechos. I can send you his address, if you are interested. Platonykiss (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Platonykiss. I repeat, I am NOT interested in Simon Karas, and anything or anyone (including Ioannis Arvanits) having to do with his "theory", as long as IAKOVOS NAFPLIOTIS' viewpoint is NOT submerged/changed. Most of what you've written in the above paragraphs is, by consequence, IRRELEVANT to this article. I noticed you tried to connecte "parallagi" with ther octoechos theory. There should be a DIAMBIGUATION page created. By "parallagi", MOST modern psaltis simply refer to "solfeggio" (I'd rather call it "pabougadisation" [Pa Bou Ga Di] so as to parallel the "Sol Fa" of Solfeggion). Once again, I, and the entire wikipedia community is much obliged for your contribution to providing links, references and overall presentation improvement. As for the debates amongst musicologists (Kiltzanides, Psachos, Kamarados, Peristeri, Karas, Arvanitis, etc), I suggest another article be made. I simply stated that modern day musicologists (by extension Karas, for thos who like to consider him as a musicologist) believe that Hagia Sophia chanting was "different". I DO NOT, and I firmly believe my Gregorian chant interpretations from 1000AD manuscripts are far better tha anything Arvanits UNDERSTANDS or will EVER understand and interpret.... and I use CONTEMPORARY patriarcal hyphos to achieve this. SO, PLEASE DO NOT make any further issue as to "musicologists"... make a link, create an article, and put anything you or those you admire feel like writing.

I repeat: this is NOT a forum, but you're REALLY abusing of my patience. Your comments are "OFF KEY" i.e. OFF TOPIC... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.88.183.159 (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please don't mind. It was a pleasure;)


 * Ioannis Arvanitis has rather his own theory. But I did neither know about his nor about your contribution to Gregorian Chant. Thank you for mentioning it. As well in this field, I can assure you that there is neither a right nor a wrong way, but always a highly hypothetical one. But I appreciate the archaeological way to start from the present and to go from there layer by layer. Just for this reason I wondered about the identity of the present with the past. Platonykiss (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)