Originally Posted by Neapolitan

This is what I found quite ludicrous:



Rjinnx, I hate to use an analogy but it is like having two beverages (let's use this as an example ) and someone is asked which one is warmer the one on the left or the one on the right. The person said the one on the left. Would it be right if people were to estraplate what the guy really said was that it was hot? Saying something like "one beer is warmer than another" isn't the same as "that beer is hot."

So if one says Heavy Metal is over-rated (in regards that it doesn't live up to its media hype or it doesn't have enough in his opinion to pique his interest & make him a fan of it). Should that be deduced the person is saying Heavy Metal is terrible? And get made at him for that? The poster only said it was over-rated he didn't said it sucked or was terrible. He didn't condemn it as the worst. It's only a comparitve statement, to me it goes no further than that. When it comes down to it it's only his opinion anyway. It's not some objective statment etched in stone.



All that I would see as being a given and I still would not talk to you like Howard did to AA in that instance. And yet somehow I feel I am made to defend his statement about Heavy Metal. I reread my post and I noticed I did not agree with everything AA said. I hope it is understood that I am only defending his right to give an opinion, (and a right to state an opinion without being told to "just **** off"). I'm not defending his opinion. Whether I agree or not is totally another matter.



He only gave an opinion about music. So Howard comes along and tells him to "just **** off." Well what is that? All in all why should Heavy Metal as thing get more respect than a member who is a person just because he gave an opinion? (Even though he might be a fly-by-night memeber.)