Originally Posted by whogivesaflux

OK, I went back and carefully read what you posted in response to my thread and your intent in response is just too methodically obvious to respond to. All you did UHM is subdivide my post to eliminate it's contextual meaning. I don't know why you took the time just to do that, but you did nonetheless. Please forgive me for pointing out the fact that although you put a little thought into your response, it was a basic story book case of "pseudo intellectualism". You claim that for instance that the posted thought containing the word commercial could have been just shorted to just commercial. That's nonsense friend and completely removes the value and justification of the word in the thought's context. Sure it would make sense if I was attempting to put forth a false position, but I am not and know it. Your responsibility in response to any given thought is not to conform said thought to your preferred perception, but rather to respond to my perception. Otherwise your response is just a "sell". A manipulation of my thoughts to best serve a quick anecdotal "that don't make any sense" strategy. You neither refuted anything factually contained within the post nor did you approved it. By intentionally misrepresenting it, you avoided it. Very basic in reality. Did you also actually not understand what I was expressing about appearances and results? Think on this: Why do they call pop music, Pop Music? I will give you a hint. It's not because the artist is handing out free soft drinks at their concerts. I simply made the point that when assessing and calculating a group or artist's stylized musical output, more can be accurately drawn from the social results of it's fans justification and defense of the music than the group's musical appearance. Is that not true?