republishing inri056

time & psi were partially a rejection of the folk idea in favour of glossy, somewhat experimental pop. i realized that it was reasonable to move in a more commercial direction, but folk wasn't something i understood well, so it was a weird direction for me to be moving in. experimental or psychedelic pop, on the other hand, was something i had a solid grasp on...

time had been initially recorded in the fall and was remixed in late february to integrate a drum part. no original files exist. psi was recorded quickly in early march.

the track, as it existed in rabit, was a conscious pop compromise. i had ideas that weren't explored to keep it poppy and that have been expanded upon in the remixes.

the time machine is added here as a bonus track. it's based on an earlier classical guitar composition that was always meant to be reinterpreted as an idm tune and finally was in early 2014. the thematic overlap makes it relevant, but there is otherwise no connection between the two songs.

i started working on what would become my seventh symphony very shortly after the material on this ep was completed, and it really represents the point where i lost interest in rabit as a concept, under pressure to continue moving in a direction i didn't have any interest in. there are folk and psych versions of the track; sean never caught on to the psych version, and i never had my heart in the folk version. there were final folk demos recorded as late as the fall, but the disconnect was not solvable. the vocal version of the seventh symphony is in some way a corollary of but is ultimately too separate from these files to include here. psi & time, together, consequently comprise what is the fourth and final ("psychedelic pop") phase of rabit is wolf.

written in late 2001 and early 2002 and recorded in early 2002 and late 2014. the final mix was finished on nov 18, 2014. the uncorrupted mix was created on nov 18, 2014 and then cut up into the unstuck mix, but not added to the release until nov 2, 2017. the lorentz factor mix and the separated from mix were rendered on nov 2, 2017. disc finalized on nov 2, 2017. as always, please use headphones.

the 2014 instrumental version appears on my sixth record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj-2

the 2002 vocal mix appears on the rabit is wolf demo:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/rabit-is-wolf

this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (2002, 2014, 2017). 

credits

released March 10, 2002

j - electric & acoustic guitars, bass, synthesizers, digital effects & processing, drum manipulations, orchestral & other sequencing, drum notation sequencing, digital wave editing, loops, sound design, production, composition.

sean - vocals, lyrics (3,7)
greg - drum performance sample source (1-3, 5-6)

the rendered electronic orchestra on track 5 includes acoustic bass, synth bass, electric bass, brass, orchestra hit, drum machine, electronic drum kit, nylon guitar, electric guitar, synthesizer effects, music box, piano, bells and mellotron. 

also, just to kind of get a point across...

it doesn't cost me anything to go to court.

and, nobody's ever going to collect on any damages, either.

i have better things to do, of course. but, this is of minimal risk to me...

my honest analysis is that the adjudicator - perhaps in both cases - appears to have been driven not by a correct interpretation of the law, but by some "higher" concept of "morality" (which i claim is bullshit), in concluding that my landlord ought to have the right to move her sick mother in.

but, ignoring the question of faith, the court should not be adjudicating morality. and, i'm not driven by higher callings or magical beings. that's a lot of nonsense. rather, i will insist that the law be upheld.

i can be a little more specific.

the tenant alleges in the request for review that the application should have been dismissed pursuant to section 83 of the residential tenancies act, 2006.

this is incomplete - 83(3), precisely.

first, if the tenant did not raise the specific argument at the hearing, it should have and could have been and therefore is not properly considered on review (my emphasis). 

this is kind of a half-truth, as the adjudicator has specific responsibilities under s. 83. you don't get to get away with an error in law because nobody pointed it out before hand; it's still an error in law and still justifies a review. it's true that i can't change my argument in review. but, the law remains the law, regardless.

but, the conditional clause here is false, because i did raise the specific argument at the hearing, which is what i put up for review in the first place. and, i pointed this out in the review body in two different ways. short of presenting audio evidence from the trial - which i will need to do on appeal, apparently - there isn't anything more convincing that i could have done to demonstrate this. but, a request for review is just that. a verbal or written rebuttal of this sort should, in truth, be enough to get back in front of a judge; we then determine whether i did or did not raise the argument at this point by going over the evidence that was presented and by listening to the audio of the tapes.

to claim that if i didn't raise the argument then the review is improper is an almost true statement, granted. but, that's the question we're trying to determine: it's what the review is meant to come to an answer on. i claim i did raise the argument. so, the reviewer is supposed to get us back in front of a judge to figure it out.

her formal argument is in the form of:

1. x ----> y 
2. y

i don't dispute (1). but deducing (2) is a logical error because x has not been demonstrated, which is what the review is supposed to determine.

so, she's assuming the result of the review, rather than conducting it. and, that's misconduct on her behalf.


second, in paragraphs 21 to 23 the hearing member specifically turns her mind to the issue of section 83 and provides a detailed analysis.

see, now the fact that she dropped 83(3) previously is important, as this is a red herring - the discussion in 21 to 23 was about 83(1).


the hearing member has a broad discretion in issuing her order.

in fact, she does not. the case law is quite explicit that the clauses in 83(3) require hard stops. if there is any evidence that the action is being brought in retaliation, the adjudicator must dismiss - and she does not have discretion in balancing or weighing other interests against it. this is the importance of the evidence i've cited, which was ignored. and, it's the importance of this member being selective in the way she wrote her denial.

this board member obviously did not listen to the audio of the trial. she's essentially arguing from a point of ignorance, and making the assumption that the ruling was correct. then, she's producing very shoddy arguments to try and get to that predetermined conclusion.

i have no choice but to appeal.

yeah, i got the denial in.

it was from a different member of the board that wasn't at the hearing. 

she actually doesn't even say that i didn't raise the matter - she says that if i didn't raise the matter, then i should have. but, i did raise the matter, and she has no way of knowing if i did or not, without checking the audio. a priori, if she is going to contemplate what might happen if i didn't raise the matter, she should also contemplate what might happen if i did. and, if i did, the adjudicator clearly ignored the point. so, this is a fallacious argument, at best.

then, she claims i have the burden of proof here (edit: on review), which i do, but my only argument would have been to submit the entire audio of the trial, which would be unreasonable. and, i actually cited evidence, which the reviewer clearly didn't consult. this is again a question of misconduct; i put in the review that the judge didn't look at the evidence, and it is dismissed without consulting the evidence. then, they claim i didn't provide a burden of proof. well, you didn't look at the evidence!

she then claims that the hearing member explored the s. 83 in detail over 21-23 - which is true, but it explored the detail of 83(1) and not 83(3), which is the argument presented. this is a red herring.

the denial essentially did not address my request, and did exactly the same thing that i claimed was the problem in the first place: i claimed that the adjudicator didn't address the evidence, and the review then also doesn't address the evidence.

i'm going to have to serve the appeal on monday or tuesday.

this is the vlog for nov 1, 2017, where i close inri055 and finish inri056.