
As usual, verbatim:
-"You are obviously an individual who does not understand Phish. At no point in your rambling, incoherent review were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone who has clicked on you your blog is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
-"Perhaps if you stepped outside of your seemingly narrow-mind and actually listened to/ researched their music. You would never venture to say that Phish just jams monotonously for hours on end."
-"We don't like hateful people at shows anyway. Please do not attend. Go see "good" music, like Lady Ga Ga...."
-"Mr. Barnes' claims that the band has no charisma or talent. If this were accurate: why would so many follow and support a talentless band with no charisma for so long? They wouldn't and they didn't have to."
-"I love Sacramento! I mean seriously where can I get more reviews like this?? This is the coolest guy ever. He hates Phish! Most film critics are just sad and pathetic. However, in this review, this guy makes sure we know there are at least several other people who are more pathetic than him. (Hey, that’s batting .500, right?)" [Ed.: As a baseball fan, I can confidently that is NOT right.]
-"It was as if he was jealous that his favorite performers, Justin Bieber or Taylor Swift, don't have there own 3D movie or flavor of Ben and Jerry's ice cream named after them."
-"Your words seem to flow with the most blatant ignorance, biases, and overall poor composition. You make serveral refecences to drugs and or drug parahenalia in your article conveying an overal negative connotation. These are steryotypical words if there ever were any."
-"Nice work. Keep it up. With dickishness like that, DB's coolness shall never fade."
-"Just an FYI, you’re about to get trolled by a bunch of little children from the lamest and most pathetic messageboard on the planet, Phantasy Tour, a place where the worst of the worst Phish fans spend their days and nights, living behind a computer because they aren’t fit to be seen in public. Any idiot who actually thinks that the disgusting, drug addicted leeches who follow Phish on tour didn’t cause the band’s demise has smoked entirely too much weed. Phish’s fanbase is terrible, just terrible. I really can’t disagree with your article, and again - I actually LIKE the band’s music."
"A zillion of hippies can't be wrong..." [Ed.: these are the same hippies that found an absolutely pristine and bucolic piece of upper New York state farmland, and said, "Hey, let's turn this place into our own personal sewer, invite Sha Na Na to play, and then spend the rest of our lives making everyone who had a fucking job in the summer of 1969 (the same year we put a man on the moon, you hippie scum!) feel bad for having missed out on all of the brown acid, hepatitis, and multiple deaths of Woodstock!"; i.e., a zillion of hippies CAN be wrong.]
-"There is PLENTY more that can be said here, but I am sure that by now there is enough smoke coming out of your ears for one day. So I will spare you of further critisism."
4 comments:
Greatest! I love how everybody assumes that if you don't like Phish's music that you listen to Disney Radio.
gbomb
Why do you keep listening to radio disney?
this one is good too:
More is better, even if it’s branded
Re “Box-office branding” by Daniel Barnes (SN&R Cinema Scoped, May 13):
Mr. Barnes, what are you whining about? There is only one reason these major brand franchises often dominate the box office (meaning a whole lot of people flock to see them): They are entertaining. And they are entertaining because often these films employ superb storytelling. The Dark Knight or Iron Man or the first Mission: Impossible come to mind. The mother of all brand franchises, James Bond, has had its share of great films as well as clunkers. And when they aren’t that entertaining, they flop just like other films do that stink (current stinkers: Shrek Forever After, A Nightmare on Elm Street).
But it’s not like these franchises are somehow suppressing superb filmmaking, which would be a legitimate thing to whine about. To the contrary, I think these “brand franchises” encourage both movie-going and moviemaking. The numbers bear that out: In 1996, there were 310 U.S. films made; in 2009, there were 1,156.
And along with the higher quantity, we are seeing far more quality films as well: Precious, The Hurt Locker, An Education, Up in the Air, Up, Sin Nombre, Slumdog Millionaire, Vicky Cristina Barcelona and Milk, just to name a smattering of recent ones. And Slumdog Millionaire grossed more worldwide than Toy Story, Fast & Furious, A Bug’s Life, and Planet of the Apes.
So I’m at a loss to understand why you find all this so distasteful.
Faosto Scuingilli
Sacramento
That's a fake name.
g
Post a Comment