|
in summary it's far too complex to really matter
my point is that its a poor stylistic choice he has made to, by default, use plural conjugations.
that's all. i'm also not trolling. i rarely listen to disturbed anymore. I just want to justify my
neg.
| | |
i may have phrased it wrong in that comment, whatever, but if the individuals are acting in the band, and 'have' lost 'their' time together, well, I don't see what's so retarded about that. It fits with the stupid rule. It makes more sense than "the band has lost its time together". To me, "together" in that context implies more than one, but whatever.
Edit: fair enough, academy, thanks.
| | |
I don't think it's a 'poor stylistic choice' at all. It's a GOOD stylistic choice. It might be a poor technical choice but since 99% of people don't care that's fine. It's not like writing without apostrophes or using fragments; it's pretty accepted and in England if you write about a band using singular conjugations people will look at you very funny.
| | |
It makes more sense than the band has lost its time together.
That's my point. The stupid rule is stupid (also, it does not 'fit' here, although this is besides
the point), but you used it in your own defense earlier. It'd be better if you just stopped using
collective singular nouns with plural verbs.
'have' lost 'their' time together
idk why you emphasized this verb and pronoun, because they do not necessarily have to be in
agreement. Observe: Strikey and Jared are pretty good writers. Academy has negged
their reviews in the past, though.
| | |
knott's got a point there, but what academy is right about is that i have overlooked the rule too much, where an instance like the above requires a plural (imo), but something like "the band are regressing" should have an "is", if only to be correct. Either singular or plural, it doesn't read bad, and if I can be the most accurate in my writing, than I should do it and keep the dumb rule for something simple like that.
'have' lost 'their' time together
idk why you emphasized this verb and pronoun, because they do not necessarily have to be in
agreement
whether singular or plural forms, that verb and pronoun pair go with the noun band. They have to agree whereas your example it's different.
edit (again, ug): thanks academy and ill work on it for sure.
| | |
Either singular or plural, it doesn't read bad, and if I can be the most accurate in my writing, than I should do it and keep the dumb rule for something simple like that.
i guess this is an ok philosophy for an american college student or an Englishman, but it might be helpful to become conscious of this sort of thing and fix it gradually as you keep reviewing. You can write both clearly and correctly... i have faith in you...
| | |
So guys, Disturbed huh...
| | | Album Rating: 1.5
they sux dix
| | |
who Dev?
| | |
Idk, some band who has regress
| | |
lol
| | |
i lol'd
| | |
I think they have only somewhat regress
| | |
what's the .5 for?
just give it a 1
| | | Album Rating: 4.0
I loved Indestructible, actually. But that's just it; I feel this furthers their sound just an inch or two even from that. There are some typical Disturbed riffs on here, yes, but also, I think, some progression in playing. And Draiman not only brought back a higher level of aggression in his voice here and there, but even the smoother voice I missed from Believe. It feels like there's enough change, here. But that's just me, you gotta feel what you feel.
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
You gave Meteora, Meteora mind you, a 5, and the vast majority of what you review is music I detest, such as In Flames, or music I can hardly classify as actual music, you reviewed this simply to bash the band(which you do gleefully) and gain visibility, I'm glad you aren't staff so this doesn't appear anywhere reputable.
| | |
who are you?
| | |
in flames > all.
| | |
123 revrant
| | |
"or music I can hardly classify as actual music"
hHAHahAhaAHha
fanboyalertfuckoff
| | | |
|
|
