SR VI: Incident Free since 2008

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Ricochet wrote:   Not that you would have missed the point of the act itself being pointless, singularily STC-good-laugh-worthy, plus (see above in bold) ---- but, fine, let me play by your guidelines, and read again your review (quickly enough deleted, thus again purely gang 's fun worthy; with the exception of a handful of outside readers, nobody even knows what's it about/what happened - so zero point for impressing anybody, or reaching out to anyone through this manifest.) 1. You quoted reviewers who found STW one of the best symphonic albums ever, so if you think they've written stupid stuff, it's them to chat with. 2. Most of the other motives are your own fiction humour, never mentioned in the big argument over at "Reviews discussion" (seriously, how frequent did you ever heard someone rating high something because the artist is posting on this site - thus, sarcasm). So you only have yourself to credit for what, inside the review, was pure blab. 3. So we get to the "vested interest" catchphrase, which is part of a gone-bad conversation, belonging to a sinister admin over which your's and your gang's and now (very likely) the two special-guests' grudge will never mellow until the age of 60, and yet distorting an initially valid, if not plausible assumption, distorted only by how the conversation went (bad enough, I agree) and how outraged the replies to it were. So perhaps a re-read of the conversation, with focus on the beginning. But it's me this time who's blabing, because attention won't be paid anyway, anyhow. It's all down to this remarkable catchphrase: "vested interest". Vested interest, said the sinister admin, and now "we" (you/the gang & guests) must show to others what a sinister fellow that person is. Or, at least, to ironize/mock it to death. Which is high-school level, tops. First off STC is not a hive colony. I wrote my review and posted it independent of any secretive plot of STC domination. Secondly, while the review was humorous it wasn't posted as a joke. I had a very serious motive for posting as I think is obvious to most people. Alright now since the point of the review seemed to have eluded you in its bluntness I'll make it clear. I was insulting the people who seemed to be leading an all out attack on the idea that STW could be a five star album. I haven't heard the album, but its actually quality is irrelevant. The fact is people have opinions quite independent from your own. The trend here that such opinions must adhere to some sick kind of PA general knowledge is disgusting and detrimental to a forum. In regards to you point (2) I would suggest that you reread those discussions as people were explicitly saying that his album was being rated higher because he's a poster here. Everything else I've included has been spoken by more than one person at this site.  Then in regards to (3). I have no grudge with Tony. There's little reason to suggest I have one honestly. I'm just responding to things that he said in that thread which I found to be offensive and childish.  Anyway thanks for including yourself in this with your false assumptions and terrible reading comprehension.

Let people have their opinions Equ-whateverthef**kyournameis - even if you don't agree you're not going to change their, or anyone else's minds, by making a capitol ass of yourself.

King By-Tor wrote: Let people have their opinions Equ-whateverthef**kyournameis - even if you don't agree you're not going to change their, or anyone else's minds, by making a capitol ass of yourself.

LinusW wrote: King By-Tor wrote: LinusW wrote: King By-Tor wrote: NOWIWILLCOMETOSWEDENANDEATYOURFLESH ITASTELIKECHICKENANDYOUKNOWITSINCEEVERYTHINGALWAYSDOEXCEPTMOOSEWHICHCANADAISFULLOFANDONEISPROBABLYYOURMOTHERCANUCKLOLOLOLOLOLOLO! MYMOTHERISABEAVERANDNOTAMOOSEYOUBLONDESWEDISHIKEALOVINGMEATBALLHOGGER! WHATSHAIRYCANTSPEAKRIGHTANDMURMURSUNDERTHESNOWYEAHRIGHTACANADIAN

I tell ya hw-what

Equality 7-2521 wrote: King By-Tor wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: King By-Tor wrote: Let people have their opinions Equ-whateverthef**kyournameis - even if you don't agree you're not going to change their, or anyone else's minds, by making a capitol ass of yourself. THis post is a joke right? of course it is, because the internet is serious business the internet is all a joke it is serious business. I WANT A SERIOUS ANSWER

Kittens and puppies. Rainbows.

"you're awesome" 

Damned grammar errors!

Yeah, I didn't make the poster, I just used it to troll the troll, and it worked, apparently.



Life's pretty awesome when no one takes you seriously, huh Equ-whatever? I'll bet IRL no one does either and that's why you have to impart your godly wisdom on us faceless drones online.

it is, and that's why it's amusing.

What's actually amusing is that Rob doesn't give a sh*t.  Fair play to that, I say.

Pat:

1) I don't buy the you being alone in this thing, and especially not the no-grudge part.

2) If you wanted to make a serious statement, you should have opened a topic. A front-page review makes 85% of the readers wonder what the hell is it about.

3) Better yet, you could have jumped into the debate, with the arguments you just presented (out of which, only the "adherence to a PA general knowledge shout" is an exaggeration). But I guess you like giving verdicts and pointing fingers, after it's all over.

I'm really curious what's the difference between popular albums with frequent reviews intentionally calling them flawless or ripping them to pieces (which is also a form of interest) - a phenomenon spanning for years already and repeating itself with the occasion of any new such album - and Tony's initial question "how come a 1-star review is reported, while a load of reviews calling it "prog's finest ever" aren't to raise an ounce of suspicion"?