Films/DVD Asylum

Re: have you spent much time on the Internet?

72.245.93.84

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

Wendell Narrod

(A)

In Reply to: have you spent much time on the Internet? posted by tunenut on February 5, 2006 at 09:30:35:

I hear you. I try to never say anything in cyberspace that I wouldn't say standing in front of the person or be ashamed that my kids heard me say it.

Follow Ups:

Exactly! Which is why I rarely respond to such aggressive rudeness and blatant idiocy, like in the post linked inside. - clarkjohnsen 11:58:29 02/05/06 (7)
Plus, he seems to have missed that *I* wrote the damn review he accuses me of echoing.
Buncha laffs, that guy.
clark
- http://www.videoasylum.com/films/messages/44176.html (Open in New Window)
- I notice that you wrote it; let me be the first to commend you for it. - Audiophilander 12:36:10 02/05/06 (6)
  > > > "...*I* wrote the damn review..." < < <
  I'm just glad that my encouragement in that area has borne fruit. :o)
  AuPh
  - Hmm... I've been writing for over twenty years... nt - clarkjohnsen 09:40:36 02/06/06 (5)
    x
    - Yes, but that's the first MOVIE review of your's that I can recall not being a cut 'n paste. - Audiophilander 10:48:07 02/06/06 (4)
      We all know that you're a talented and intelligent audio reviewer; in fact, I've never critisized that aspect of your writing prowess and have enjoyed your audio commentaries for many years. My prior faulting of your film opinions have been to the occasional linking of reviews to films that you apparently hadn't seen yourself. Linking to a reviewer's film criticisms is fine as long as you've seen the film in question, but otherwise it becomes an endorsement, by proxy, of a second-hand opinion.
      See the difference?
      Respectfully,
      AuPh
      - Thank you! But, when did you become moderator and start setting the rules? nt - clarkjohnsen 11:42:14 02/07/06 (3)
        
        In Reply to: Yes, but that's the first MOVIE review of your's that I can recall not being a cut 'n paste. posted by Audiophilander on February 6, 2006 at 10:48:07:
        
        z
        
        You're welcome, but it isn't about trying to set rules. It's always been about sharing informed opinions, ... - Audiophilander 12:47:29 02/07/06 (2)
        
        In Reply to: Thank you! But, when did you become moderator and start setting the rules? nt posted by clarkjohnsen on February 7, 2006 at 11:42:14:
        
        ... with a bit of cleverness thrown in now and then for good measure. You can call it my credo, if you like, or pretentious bull-$#!+ if you're feeling ornery! ;^)
        > > > "...when did you become moderator..." < < <
        I "try" to live my life through moderation, but I don't expect others to renounce their excesses on my account as long as they don't get too riled when I tease them about it. :o)
        AuPh
        
        We in Music are always sharing among ourselves the informed opinions of others. Why can't we in film? nt - clarkjohnsen 08:22:12 02/08/06 (1)
        
        In Reply to: You're welcome, but it isn't about trying to set rules. It's always been about sharing informed opinions, ... posted by Audiophilander on February 7, 2006 at 12:47:29:
        
        s
        
        That's a good question, and worthy of debate, but let's take that one step further, ... - Audiophilander 14:00:47 02/09/06 (0)
        
        In Reply to: We in Music are always sharing among ourselves the informed opinions of others. Why can't we in film? nt posted by clarkjohnsen on February 8, 2006 at 08:22:12:
        
        ...and discuss whether dissiminating information in a public forum should of necessity be RELIABLE and CREDIBLE.
        Personally, I like to read honest, first hand impressions of film, music and audio gear before investing my own time or money. Sharing second hand opinions is okay if you're a publisher employing critics to evaluate the film, music or gear for publication, but I've rarely observed folks trying to RECOMMEND music on a music forum that they haven't heard personally.
        If anything, film critiquing is an even more subjective medium than music. Film evaluation emphasizes the cultural biases of the reviewer, where music reviews often focus on the quality of the recording and the calibre of the performance as opposed to the popularity of the music.
        Also, unlike film reviewing, there are so many recordings and reissues available that critics often specialize according to their personal interests or those of the publisher. Note: The reviewer of the Chicago Symphony probably isn't likely to be the same guy who reviews goth or metal releases, although that viewpoint might be more interesting. :o)
        The problem with sharing the "informed opinions" of others is in trying to discern to what extent the individual linking those opinions has an agenda, preconceived bias or some political rationale for endorsing the critic's review. That's why the sharing of a 2nd hand opinion about material one hasn't personally experienced may reasonably be viewed as both an expression of personal bias and deceptive, UNLESS the individual linking the review explicitly qualifies his/her contribution as being solely the opinion of a 3rd party.
        Placing this in the context of audio gear may not be completely analogous to the point I'm trying to make, but the prinicple is similar. Posting a second-hand opinion of gear from an industry critic is generally frowned upon by those moderating audio chat boards because it might be perceived as a sales tool, even if the linked review is an honest, totally unbiased evaluation. OTOH, first-hand reviews by owners & auditioners of gear is encouraged, the idea being that even an overly florid subjective viewpoint is preferable to testimonials from professionals who may have a personal agenda or some undisclosed commercial interest.
        I guess that in a "perfect world" where everyone's BS detectors worked as designed such biases probably wouldn't matter and we could accept most information provided on the internet as well researched, sincere and reliable, but we don't live in a perfect world and over the past six years 'events' have transpired to drive this point home time and again.
        Cheers,
        AuPh
If you just don't say "LoTR sucks!" you will be OK here too. (nt) - Victor Khomenko 11:01:32 02/05/06 (5)
.
- Re: If you just don't say "LoTR sucks!" you will be OK here too. (nt) - Wendell Narrod 11:12:09 02/05/06 (4)
  I only saw the first one. Never bothered to see the others. I'm not a fantasy fan so I see very few films of that genre.
  - Re: You are a two third of an hero. Now. nt - patrickU 11:34:35 02/05/06 (3)
    nt
    - "You are a two third of an hero." - Two Nimrod's don't make a right, but we'll leave Wendell Narrod out of this. - Audiophilander 12:50:17 02/05/06 (2)
      We already know what you and your Brokeback buddy Victor think of intelligent fantasy like LoTR, so why don't you just drop it before you embarrass yourselves again.
      BTW, Nimrod being a mighty hunter of bible fantasy stories, and you & Victor being mighty trollers seeking to rule babble. ;^)
      AuPh
      - Re: Yes darling! - patrickU 14:13:13 02/05/06 (0)
        
        In Reply to: "You are a two third of an hero." - Two Nimrod's don't make a right, but we'll leave Wendell Narrod out of this. posted by Audiophilander on February 5, 2006 at 12:50:17:
        
        Take it easy.
      - LoTR... - Victor Khomenko 13:46:08 02/05/06 (0)
        
        In Reply to: "You are a two third of an hero." - Two Nimrod's don't make a right, but we'll leave Wendell Narrod out of this. posted by Audiophilander on February 5, 2006 at 12:50:17:
        
        Boo!

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Schiit Audio

You can not post to an archived thread.