Check out your post!

Shaun wrote:
"Man, you're everywhere tonight, Dan!" [I wrote this in jest, obviously, as that night, Dan appeared in nearly every thread I was looking at]
No, I'm only posting where I feel like it, and that just happens to be where ignorance appears.

"This post is a prime example as to why Ford shouldn't be allowed around others. That's all."

Ah. So giving someone advice on how to find the information they desire (in a sense, teaching a man to fish) is a BAD thing? Are you the type of person who needs everything spoon fed to you, like a "puppydog"?

Dan

So.........there's one example.
http://www.moviemusic.com/mb/Forum1/HTML/004354.html

(Thanks to Jonathan Little for reminding all of us good folks about this thread, which also featured a cameo appearance from Mark Hatfield)

The only reason I made this its own thread was because I thought the subject title was funny.

Apoligies

Anyways, I could probably find (if I wasted the time to search) a whole bunch of cases where YOU were much more pompous than I was in that post. Get over it. It's from January. Move on.

Toodles,
Dan

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeterK:
Although... I am once again disturbed by the "teaching a man to fish" allegory, as you can guess.

---

Why? What's wrong with that allegory? You don't want people to find out information on their own? Would you rather they not think for themselves and just rely on others to find out information?

Do you want people to continually ask the SAME QUESTIONS over and over? Wouldn't you rather just tell them where they can get the answers (if they're all compiled together for them)?

(My bad!)

Though I didn't say "teach a man to fishchip"!

Everything I've written above pertains to the following, which was written (and not edited at all by Peter K, with the exception of the addition of quotation marks, which were added by myself) by Dan G:
"That's great Shaun, thanks! So I wonder why I was _already_ pissed at you when I posted. Must have been from some OTHER thread that you harassed me on."

I'm now going to respond to this BELOW the previously-written material (which I and PeterK left unaltered from its original form), just to "shake things up":
Anyways, I could probably find (if I wasted the time to search) a whole bunch of cases where YOU were much more pompous than I was in that post.

PeterK, install that vocal-synthesizer to this board pronto! Unless you're reading some of my posts incorrectly (some are only intended to be funny; whether or not I'm the only one laughing isn't the issue), none of them could possibly be deemed pompous.

Waste your time to search? Dan, you finally have your beloved search feature back! Use it to its full abilities! Find my pompousness!

One word answers:
Get over it.
No!

It's from January.
Yes!

Move on.
Yes!

I only created the post to show you that I'm not totally full of it. Partially, yes. Totally? Nah.

Toodles is now officially Dan's equivalent to Ford's "Regards" (after he's called you a dumb f*ck). I says.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shaun Rutherford:
Toodles is now officially Dan's equivalent to Ford's "Regards" (after he's called you a dumb f*ck). I says.

---

Uhh... right. So says you!

And as for an example of your "pompousness", well, most of them are on threads that had been deleted by PeterK. (For instance: http://www.moviemusic.com/mb/Forum1/HTML/005062.html )

From that (deleted) thread:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shaun Rutherford:

You suck, PeterK!

Visit ************** , home of nary a negative review!

Planet KissAss!

Shaun

---

Yeah, that one just makes me warm and fuzzy inside. Of course, maybe it's just part of your psychological profile? (Love how the link is ******** due to Peter's filter. I think I have the lovely distinction of being the ONLY website to be FILTERED in messages!)

This one has some rather distinct arguments for both our sides. (upon reading it, I think we both come across rather pompous, don't you?)
http://www.moviemusic.com/mb/Forum1/HTML/005066.html

Anyways, I've wasted too much time trying to prove a point that is already common knowledge.

Cheers,
Dan

(I stand here and await the bashing.)

--Brian

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeterK:
It's not the only filtered one, Dan. I await your reply.

---

Okay, well, obviously I have no way of knowing what other sites are filtered. Out of curiosity, then, what other sites are filtered (you don't have to be terribly specific; even the TYPE of website would do to satisfy my curiosity).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crono/Kyp:
I think I speak for a few people here when I say this is all getting a bit lame, this whole Dan and Peter back and forth, just rent a boxing ring and settel it!

---

Well, I would be happy to settle it over lunch. But even that is too much to ask apparently.

And Brian, if it's too lame, don't read it!

Let me find it

No long term harm done though

--Brian

At the time of the second thread you mentioned, all of your postings (I will rephrase to "the vast majority", so as to not exaggerate and offend) WERE to shamelessly self-promote yourself and Koran's website, defend Thaxton, debate whether or not off-topic posts should be allowed, and shamelessly self-promote yourself and Koran's website. At the time. That's not pompous! I also wrote something about people who run "review sites" are mostly just in it for free CDs, which is cool if you don't really want people to read your reviews, but I'd put a helluva lot more stock in a reviewer who reviewed things he wanted to review......things he decided to go out and buy. But, hey---that's just me!

I'd like to thank you, Dan, for attracting the few who are left's attention to this thread, as maybe someone else will agree with me that Dabney Coleman is/was underrated.

We should let the people of the board decide?

Who's Pompous.....er, me or Dan?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shaun Rutherford:
Dan, come now. Planet KissAss is a damn fine name for ************** . 9 out of 10 reviews on the site are positive, man!

---

I have a strong sense of deja vu here. I believe we told you last time you mentioned that (same deleted thread) that the reason most of our reviews are good is because we don't bother to waste time reviewing sh*t. Would YOU want to waste time listening to and writing up a review of a CD you thought was godawful? Probably not.

quote:

---

Who's Pompous.....er, me or Dan?

---

At this point? Both of us. Deal with it (I will) and let's move on, shall we?

Dan

Still, as you can clearly tell from my posts here, I have much more fun writing about music that sucks. You spend the money, it hurts more. That's why I would think it easier to give a negative review to an album I purchased rather than getting it for free and worrying about offending "the guy with the list" (of people to send promos to).

Again, that's just me.

This is hard to explain at 3:00 in the morning. Maybe tomorrow (or September...).

I do understand what you're saying. But I (personally) have never held back on writing a negative review of an album for "fear" of offending "the guy with the list".

And you have a valid point - if I paid for album XXX - and it sucked - I'd be more inclined to write about it even though I hated it.

But since I didn't pay for XXX - I'm more likely just skip over it and talk about YYY - the album I liked.

<shrug>

What can ya do? If you want to write for us, we'd be delighted to get your negative reviews!

Shaun