Dangers Messy, Isn't It?
» Back to review

Comments:Add a Comment 
Ulsufyring
January 10th 2010


1748 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

or say bellicose at least 3 times

Rationalist
January 10th 2010


880 Comments


Joshuatree, you are just angry because you do not possess the level of pretentiousness that I do.

But Waior, he understands what a good review is. Thank you for living up to your position.

Roach
January 10th 2010


2148 Comments


lol waior




are you sure you're not just a pissed off waior speaking out against your critics

Rationalist
January 10th 2010


880 Comments


@ roach: the fuck?
@ulsufrying: or bro.

Electric City
January 10th 2010


15756 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Off

lol kane

PuddlesPuddles
January 10th 2010


4798 Comments

Album Rating: 2.5

albeit

Rationalist
January 10th 2010


880 Comments


or reference the scarlet letter a lot

Ulsufyring
January 11th 2010


1748 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

obvious troll is obvious

Rationalist
January 11th 2010


880 Comments


I wasn't trolling, I was being serious. Don't like me; I'm a pathetic douchebag.

Ulsufyring
January 11th 2010


1748 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

kay obvious troll

Rationalist
January 11th 2010


880 Comments


umkay...

pixiesfanyo
January 11th 2010


1223 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

"I am simply stating that I dislike several staff reviews and do not understand why several of these staff reviewers are/were:"



quit being ambiguous and state who you're talking about.

tombits
January 11th 2010


3582 Comments


People like you because 25% of America is retarded. There. Go suck on that Chan.

angry 13 year old ITT

Ulsufyring
January 11th 2010


1748 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

actually pixies he declared your dangers review "shit review" in the thread; take a look if he hasn't changed it by now

pixiesfanyo
January 11th 2010


1223 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

oh, well then.. the reason i am a staff reviewer is because i personally helped sputnikmusic (as a review site) become what it is and have been involved with the review side of musicianforums basically since the review side come to be.

Rationalist
January 11th 2010


880 Comments


@pixies: Yeah, I stand by that statement. That review was all over the place, included unnecessary info, and was way too short to have so many mistakes.
I like your Jerome's Dream review though. I haven't read enough of your reviews to know whether or not you fall into this category though.

Ulsufyring
January 11th 2010


1748 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

oh i see rationalist i s the arbiter of review requisites and quality now



you see jared you didn't use www.thesaurus.com enough

Rationalist
January 11th 2010


880 Comments


I use my vocabulary to my advantage, if you don't like it, or you don't believe that someone can have a vocabulary beyond two-syllable words, then you're sadly mistaken because an extensive vocabulary is something to flaunt rather than to hide.

Also, I'm sure you don't like a lot of reviews that show up on this site (br00talsamitch, the 0.5 review for circle takes the square), and you've said, "this review sucks" and why. Don't act as if I'm the only one who has said that a reviewer has sucked.

PanasonicYouth
January 11th 2010


7413 Comments


an extensive vocabulary is something to flaunt rather than to hide.


i agree
if you're wanting to make yourself look like a complete douche

Ulsufyring
January 11th 2010


1748 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

by the way, people who actually have an "extensive vocabulary" usually don't talk about it like it's something they have





or, actually, let me put this into one of your sentences



"The tendency of a Homo sapien with a copious palaver is to beget a humble persona."



You have to be logged in to post a comment. Login | Create a Profile





STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS // CONTACT US

Bands: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Site Copyright 2005-2023 Sputnikmusic.com
All Album Reviews Displayed With Permission of Authors | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy