Originally Posted by joy_circumcision

This is the OP's argument as I interpret it:

"I have an arbitrary definition of punk rock as a movement and I put its arbitrary ending date at the end of the eighties because that's when the hardcore movement died, which is the last leg of punk rock according to my arbitrary definition of what it was as a movement - a definition I refuse to present for critical analysis. Now explain to me why I am right under my own definition."

"But OP, there are competing definitions for what the punk movement is. For example, I would say..."

"NOPE. Discuss as I stated in my OP IS punk, not this false "spirit of punk." Punk be dead!!"

OP, it's difficult to take you or your topic seriously when you make up these non-falsifiable definitions and have no elasticity of opinion, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that there was some miscommunication on someone's part, so just provide for everyone a couple things to debate over:

1. What is your definition of punk rock music as a movement? Include sonic influences, cultural values, etc. Why is your definition better than everyone else's?

2. If your definition is superior, then extend it into other major umbrella genres such as prog, metal, and psychedelic rock - are these movements in any way dead because they have their own offshot descendents in the form of subgenres?

3. What does it really matter if punk is dead or not?