Album Rating: 4.5
your point is invalid:
you have 1 review with 75% approval,
he has 25 reviews with 99% approval
case closed bitches
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
I think the review is pretty good, but lacks any mention of the album's subject matter (or concept; whichever you may.) That subject being what it might be like for a prisoner in a panopticon prison.
Aside from this, the review of the music is good. Oh and excellent album of course! Isis and Pelican are two of my favorites. Awesome genre.
|
| |
your point is invalid:
you have 1 review with 75% approval,
he has 25 reviews with 99% approval
case closed bitches
First of all someone only neg'd my review because of a personal problem with me. Aside from that, yes I wrote a review to see if it was for me, clearly it isn't (in my opinion), not yet. That doesn't mean I lose the right to criticize. At least I didn't try to use pseudo-flashy writing because the review isn't about me, it's about the album. This isn't even the worst case of it but this is the one that put me over the edge really.
Of course, great writing can benefit a review when used correctly and not seen as an end (most of Coc's reviews, as much as I sometimes disagree with them).
Those statistics do not prove/disprove anything (especially when I'm only talking about this review); they only potentially make a statement about some of the users.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
tl;dr
oh, and how does using a wide range of vocabulary make you a bad reviewer? this guy isn't being ridiculous about it... clearly you havent seen silvegrafg's review for this.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
lol at Anthracks negging a 2 and a half year old review because of 'flashy writing'
you're about as respectable as CreamCrazy.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
how does it feel to have your balls smashed by snackary?
|
| |
I didn't necessarily say that, as I implied in my post that was apparently too long for you to read. This reviewer specifically tried to show off when, quite frankly, he isn't very good at it. I'd hardly call his vocabulary range particularly "wide", too.
"This isn't even the worst case of it but this is the one that put me over the edge really."
"Of course, great writing can benefit a review when used correctly and not seen as an end"
Don't act like it's my fault that you didn't read my other post because I addressed the things you just commented on previously.
|
| |
lol at Anthracks negging a 2 and a half year old review because of 'flashy writing'
The review still exists, does it not? What does that have to do with anything at all, really?
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
you're about as respectable as CreamCrazy.
|
| |
The review existed two years ago, it still exists today. It was poorly written two years ago, it is still poorly written today. Very typical to result to ad hominem and act like you gain credibility for it, at least back up the things you say.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
you're about as respectable as CreamCrazy.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
too long for you to read.
too long for me to be bothered to read, you mean
|
| |
Funny, because you said "too long; didn't read" as opposed to: "too long for me to be bothered to read."
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
too long didn't read doesnt explain why i didnt read, dumbass
|
| |
Is that my fault you didn't explain? And is it my fault for not magically knowing why you didn't read it?
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
i shouldn't need to recite my reasons for not reading
you really don't shut up do you?
|
| |
You're replying just as much as I am...
I'm not asking you to recite your reasons. I asked who's fault it is that you didn't explain in the first place. It certainly isn't mine.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
Anthracks,
I think what these fine people are trying to say is you have no idea what your talking about anymore.
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
5/5 is all i'd like to say...
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0 | Sound Off
Beautiful review, beautiful album.
|
| |
|
|
