Quote:
Originally Posted by Laurent Quinn Proper
I stopped reading here.
Maybe my reading comprehension isn't what it use to be, but to me, it sounds like you are mimicking what you claim the Rolling Stone is doing to the world. What's the difference between you telling this message board's entire community that "Minus the Bear sucks" than the Rolling Stone telling us about "authenticity and 'freshness'"? It would appear to me like you are being that "elitist".
All in all, they are nothing more than opinions and if you are going to try and attack the Rolling Stone's in a rant, at least make sure you aren't doing what you are accusing.
Note: I don't like either (Rolling Stone nor Minus the Bear).
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comus
I'm sorry but you missed his point entirely.
|
And yet, he made my point amazingly well.
Forums have become Legaleese 101. Its not that I had a point. Victory comes in taking apart an argument. Showing hypocrisy is the new moral high ground. So rather than discuss my point, which may or may not be valid, we're going to discuss whether I'm an elitist or not which is irrelevant to my point.
This is likely hard for the Gen X'ers to swallow because it requires them to think, and it requires them to go against their parents cultural lessons post-Watergate:
Being a Hypocrite is not a reason to dismiss a point.
Its why they don't allow you to say "well he did it too" as a legal defense. My position about conventional wisdom being lapped up by the newer posters who are tired of being abused isn't changed by me potentially being an elitist.