The Definitve List: Most Overrated Bands\Artists ever (electronic, alternative)

right-track · 08-01-2008, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whogivesaflux

Dude/Dudette, whomever, try asking a straight question and you'll get a straight answer. STOP playing games. It's you that has tried to turn my thoughts into some mysterious mumbo jumbo that I need to prove in legal long form. Now ask your SPECIFIC question or STFU in response to me. k?

Quote:

Originally Posted by whogivesaflux

ROTFLMAO!!! You didn't paste a question you moron...this is insane, but I'm having too good a time to stop now!

Quote:

Originally Posted by whogivesaflux

Dude, that's NOT a question. Does the statement end with a question mark???<---(That's a question mark in case you're not sure what one looks like.)

I find your comments arrogant, insulting and argumentative.
If you wish to continue posting on these boards I suggest you respond to people in the way you would want them to respond to you.

whogivesaflux · 08-01-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

I find your posts arrogant, insulting and argumentative.
If you wish to continue posting on these boards I suggest you respond to people in the way you would want them to respond to you.

You're a little late. Go back and read the first 4 posts that I made to this forum. If you find those insulting or arrogant, then you ban me justifiably. But don't you dare call me arrogant or anything else unless you FIRST identify those that have INSULTED ME BEFORE my posts became insulting arrogant. Try being fair instead of playing God.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 08-01-2008, 12:35 PM

I really cannot believe I am doing this but i'll try one last time.

Let's revist my first post here shall we?

You said

Quote:

art pop is a term I confabulated out of my proverbial cobwebs on the spot. It's a term that for me describes more so an effect the artist/band has socially that constitutes a resulting clique mentality.

And I replied

Quote:

In what way?

Any band could claim to have what could be considered 'a clique mentality' That's why you buy t shirts and sing along at gigs.

A band's image? it's message? it's politics? it's fashion? all of them? none of them?

You're being far to vague on this.

LOOK !!! A QUESTION MARK !!! In fact lots of them. I think the question I am asking here is pretty clear. But to simplify it i'll ask again anyway.
In what way do you consider a band to have 'a clique mentality'. What makes one band have them and another not? What are your defining factors in judging if a band has 'a clique mentality' or not.

Then you said

Quote:

It's a phenomenon that attaches and best lends itself to a commercial popularity drawn form a pseudo intellectual underground which is in reality neither.

To which I replied

Quote:

You could have just written 'commercial' and saved yourself some time here , assuming that's what is you meant. If it isn't then perhaps you can clarify this as well.

Now it's not a direct question but it clearly states that I am assuming you just mean a commercial band and asked you to state if this was the case or not.

See there's no hidden agenda here that you need to be a rocket scientist to figure out.

And finally you stated

Quote:

I believe in identifying responsibility rather than the premise. The measure of anything is best taken from result rather than appearance.

And I replied

Quote:

Pardon ?

Sorry but in this context this means absolutely nothing unless you are prepared to explain it.

Thus meaning that without you explaining what you mean here I have no idea of what you are talking about with the rest of the post I quoted hence my usage of the words 'In this context'. Not the sentence , the entire post. But if you'd like to break it down further I would ask how would you go about 'identifying responsibility rather than the premise' in practice. Give me examples of ways you have indeed 'identified responsibility rather than the premise'.
Explain your criteria of judging responsibility and premise. Hell even a hint would be nice because as I said at the moment it just looks to me like something out of Pseuds Corner.

right-track · 08-01-2008, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whogivesaflux

You're a little late. Go back and read the first 4 posts that I made to this forum. If you find those insulting or arrogant, then you ban me justifiably. But don't you dare call me arrogant or anything else unless you FIRST identify those that have INSULTED ME BEFORE my posts became insulting arrogant. Try being fair instead of playing God.

If you go back a few pages and read this...

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

Tone it down please.

...a message to ALL members to tone it down.
You didn't.

I am being fair. That's why you only got a warning.

whogivesaflux · 08-01-2008, 01:14 PM

UHM, I went through ALL this meticulously. I took about 45 minutes of my time to do so and then you followed up with insults directed at me. It seems as though it's perfectly OK for everyone here to be condescending and irritating to me, but when I poke back, I get a warning. However it seems perfectly justified for the posters here to jab away to their heart's content. Incidentally why are you leaving off your basic initial response about what I posted as being meaningless?

I am NOT writing this out again. If you cannot accept the fact that I HAVE carefully explained this in as basic a stance that I possible could, I can do no better. Did you even read what I wrote? All the questions you asked above are addressed specifically. How about someone helping me out here? Go back and look and tell me I did not answer all these questions and explain myself as best as I could. They are really not pertinent questions anyway because they are based on a gross misunderstanding of what I initially wrote. I have explained all of this already.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 08-01-2008, 01:28 PM

Yes I did read what you said.

In fact here's exactly what you said word for word.
I have decided to make a point of changing the parts where you were criticising me rather than answering the question in red type.

Quote:

What you are stating above is that you do FULLY understand what I wrote and that it's meaningless. The term meaningless translates literally to an expressed thought that bares out no substance. You then completely contradict your expressed certainty by asking "In what way?" Seems pretty "divisive" to me. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's you that should more so focus on the concept of brevity.

According to what your last reply expressed, the following response would have articulated your previous response much more efficiently: "I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are attempting to express here. Could you elaborate please?"

As you can see , you didn't actually answer my question. You just basically implied I was either taking you for a fool or I'm too stupid to understand what you meant. Neither actually answers the question put to you , which was a very simple one.

Quote:

Those things are ALL subject to interpretation and therefore only when various common consensuses are tallied can critics make categoric judgments based on mass opinion. I'm sorry friend, but you dismissed your own understanding of what I wrote by hacking up the context of what I expressed, prematurely. You can't first write that what I wrote is definitively meaningless and then follow up with a direct reference to your own uncertainty. Incidentally, all sarcasm aside, what I wrote was in NO WAY "clever" it consists of an utmost in efficient and basic communications. It just must be read as one thought and not several different posts in one. Very simple actually.

The whole point of me asking you to clarify this was so that I could get YOUR interpretation of the meaning. Something you've again still not answered.

Quote:

A follow up that directly contradicts the claim in your last response to me that you merely wished further explanation on the matter. The truth is, you COMPLETELY missed the point I was making. (or did you? seems pretty obvious to me) The point is that the bands themselves claim nothing that in reality determines their PERCEIVED musical identity. That is a complete misrepresentation of what I posted. Is a band categorized within any specific type of music whatsoever because they themselves claim they are? The answer is a resounding NO. That's up to the public. It called artistic interpretation made by the critical public. That's the ONLY thing that constitutes a band or artist's musical affinity, not their image or any of the other appearance oriented relativities the you forwarded in the form of:

"A band's image? it's message? it's politics? it's fashion? all of them? none of them?"

Those things are ALL subject to interpretation and therefore only when various common consensuses are tallied can critics make categoric judgments based on mass opinion. I'm sorry friend, but you dismissed your own understanding of what I wrote by hacking up the context of what I expressed, prematurely. You can't first write that what I wrote is definitively meaningless and then follow up with a direct reference to your own uncertainty. Incidentally, all sarcasm aside, what I wrote was in NO WAY "clever" it consists of an utmost in efficient and basic communications. It just must be read as one thought and not several different posts in one. Very simple actually.

Finally some sort of answer , but still in general terms rather than your own opinion.

Quote:

You see, by over simplify and dissecting what I wrote, you most certainly HAVE misrepresented my thoughts. As stated by yourself above, "in this context" it does make little sense. That's because you created a false context by delineating what I succinctly expressed. I apologize for expressing that I believe "you knew what you were doing" but it just seems so basic, it seemed to me as though you must have. I could be wrong and for that and I do therefore apologize.

Try this: Go back and lump together the three separate quotes you did your best to understand in a separate fashion above. You will find the thoughts I express most certainly are exacting, objective and complete in meaning. Although there is some admitted cynical spice contained in the reference to those supporting Radiohead's popularity, you will find a very specific means to an ends. A very real rationale.

You end with the following defensive congenial clique derived summation that could have been simply put as: "That's your musical opinion and whereas I can respect that, I don't hold the same opinions you do and doubt I ever will" That at least would have been true, to the point, and respectful of what I intelligently forwarded on the matter. It also does you no justice to offer defense of emotional impulsiveness as forwarded by your peers on this message board community. Dig?

No actually , I don't dig. This didn't give me any insight to your thoughts at all. I asked you to explain it. Not reply with 'Oh this is so easy to understand you must be thick' or words to that effect.

You were the one that complained of lack of debate earlier in this thread. I can quite see why people would be reluctant to do so with you after all this.

And I have not insulted you yet ,all I ask is you cut down on the linguistic gymnastics and media speak and actually answer a straight question.

ashtray · 08-01-2008, 01:41 PM

Coldplay and Radiohead. I think they both suck donkey nuts.

whogivesaflux · 08-01-2008, 01:49 PM

"Neither actually answers the question put to you , which was a very simple one."

A question is a question. Where is your question UHM? If you are referring to the belittling of what I wrote that you initially offered up as "so clever it's meaningless", then no, I have not entertained you or danced on your puppeteer's twin. Why should I respond to to a basic curiosity from someone that considers what I say to be meaningless? If your interpretation of all that I have put fourth here is meaningless, how can you ask a sincere question? You wrapped your curiosity in pretentiousness and you even have the stones to play the innocent school kid that was turned away like Oliver asking for food. Ask a question. Get an answer. Simple.

You say: "And I have not insulted you yet (LOL!!<--what a joke!) ,all I ask is you cut down on the linguistic gymnastics and media speak and actually answer a straight question."

Ask a straight question, you'll get a straight answer. You have NOT asked a SINGLE straight question yet. Not one.

Are you finally ready to limit your defense to an actual question pertaining to what I wrote? Or will you insist that I conform to your perceptions of what I have not said to clarify the harvest of what your confusion has sewn.

Ask a straight question please. No quotes needed. You will receive a straight answer. You have yet to debate me, because you have not acknowledged accurately that which I have put forward.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 08-01-2008, 02:09 PM

whogivesaflux · 08-01-2008, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

OK, ok...I'm going back now to take a closer look at your question/s. Relax there and give me a few.

08-01-2008, 02:09 PM	#229 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	__________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

08-01-2008, 01:14 PM	#225 (permalink)
whogivesaflux Groupie Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 47	UHM, I went through ALL this meticulously. I took about 45 minutes of my time to do so and then you followed up with insults directed at me. It seems as though it's perfectly OK for everyone here to be condescending and irritating to me, but when I poke back, I get a warning. However it seems perfectly justified for the posters here to jab away to their heart's content. Incidentally why are you leaving off your basic initial response about what I posted as being meaningless? I am NOT writing this out again. If you cannot accept the fact that I HAVE carefully explained this in as basic a stance that I possible could, I can do no better. Did you even read what I wrote? All the questions you asked above are addressed specifically. How about someone helping me out here? Go back and look and tell me I did not answer all these questions and explain myself as best as I could. They are really not pertinent questions anyway because they are based on a gross misunderstanding of what I initially wrote. I have explained all of this already.

08-01-2008, 01:41 PM	#227 (permalink)
ashtray Music Addict Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Canerrrrduuuh Posts: 134	Coldplay and Radiohead. I think they both suck donkey nuts.

08-01-2008, 01:49 PM	#228 (permalink)
whogivesaflux Groupie Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 47	"Neither actually answers the question put to you , which was a very simple one." A question is a question. Where is your question UHM? If you are referring to the belittling of what I wrote that you initially offered up as "so clever it's meaningless", then no, I have not entertained you or danced on your puppeteer's twin. Why should I respond to to a basic curiosity from someone that considers what I say to be meaningless? If your interpretation of all that I have put fourth here is meaningless, how can you ask a sincere question? You wrapped your curiosity in pretentiousness and you even have the stones to play the innocent school kid that was turned away like Oliver asking for food. Ask a question. Get an answer. Simple. You say: "And I have not insulted you yet (LOL!!<--what a joke!) ,all I ask is you cut down on the linguistic gymnastics and media speak and actually answer a straight question." Ask a straight question, you'll get a straight answer. You have NOT asked a SINGLE straight question yet. Not one. Are you finally ready to limit your defense to an actual question pertaining to what I wrote? Or will you insist that I conform to your perceptions of what I have not said to clarify the harvest of what your confusion has sewn. Ask a straight question please. No quotes needed. You will receive a straight answer. You have yet to debate me, because you have not acknowledged accurately that which I have put forward.