I hadn't planned on coming back to this forum, but then I received another email indicating a response to my post, so I peeked back. Unbelievable. Looking back over the posts here, my posts have been described variously as, "a little offended," accusing someone of "a terrible crime," "at least mildly hostile," looking for a "fight," that I posted for the "express purpose of attacking," that I mounted a "vehement defense" of a writer I've never read before until you posted him, and most hilariously, my "subdued outrage." Seriously; the two people who posted those comments need to step back and take a deep breath. I defy anyone to point out anything in my posts that comes close to that hysterical hyperbole.
Even worse, you attack that guy who wrote the review, and actually accuse him of being me. And yes, AmalgamatedMoron, that's precisely what you meant in your first post. It wasn't "mostly tongue in cheek." You meant it, and then the guy called you on it, and you had to back down. And even in your apology, you still didn't sound convinced ("I presume," and telling him to "thank me.")
I came to this site because I wanted info on the third volume of the Stooges DVD. I hadn't read that guy before, until I scanned the links for the various Stooge reviews at the top of this forum. His seemed pretty good (I wasn't aware of his site, either, but I'll be checking it out). I'm no expert in the Stooges, but he gave me all the detail I needed. I even checked out his earlier reviews on the Stooges that he mentioned in the review -- the ones that had more detail about A/V. So when I saw the post about knocking his review, I simply wanted to understand what was wrong with it. xraffle said at first he didn't know why he said what he said, but then gave a reason and posted his two reviews -- reviews that I didn't find any more detailed than that other guy Stuart. As far as I was concerned, that was it for me: I had my answer. But then all sorts of incorrect inference was drawn from my posts, and I defended myself.
You can reply to this post if you want, but I won't be back. All I wanted was info on the Stooges DVD, and an answer as to why another review that I thought was fine, got knocked. The two posters who turned this into something personal (with ridiculous, overemphatic readings of what I wrote -- seriously, "subdued outrage"
) are pretty typical of these kinds of forums -- that's why newcomers rarely sign up to speak. Increasingly, these forums are just "internet back alleys" for bullies who don't like being questioned on their turf. You can see that in the response from Amalgamated -- his indignation that a newcomer would dare to question xraffle, is palpable.
But that's fine. Enjoy your forum. I'll go elsewhere for info on the Stooges, I guess.
Wow! Talk about being overly sensitive. This guy has an agenda, something to prove, doesn't he? Just so we are clear, let's remember what he said. Because he "defies anyone" to point out anything in his posts that comes close to the "hysterical hyperbole" suggested by xraffle and myself. And let's remember, he only came here for "info" on the third volume of the Stooges Collection. He first said:
Actually, it's the longest of the three articles that reviewer wrote. And I don't think it's "vague" at all. He details each short, and tells you what he does and doesn't like about them. He obviously knows the Stooges (and loves them), so what's "vague" about it?
Ok, an honest question. No big deal so far (though I'm curious how he knows the reviewer "loves" the Stooges). He's answered, and then responds with this:
Well, I don't think that review is intended strictly for the readers of this forum, do you? It's a general review for general audiences -- many of whom might not be familiar with the shorts.
As for the audio/visual quality, he states quite clearly that it's as good as the first two volumes -- which he detailed in the two earlier reviews (why repeat in detail what he's already detailed?) -- reviews, by the way, that everybody here seem to find okay. So what's the beef?
Continues to push the issue, and is answered again. He responds with this:
Nothing in my posts suggest I'm offended; not sure why you'd read them that way.
I'm just trying to understand why you find the review lacking. But you state you don't really know why, so there's my answer.
He claims he has his answer, but continues
anyway.Well, do you have a review I could read that has more detailed analysis of the video and audio? Because what that guy wrote in his three reviews seemed to cover it pretty well: he says they're close to pristine. We know Sony hasn't screwed them up. This is, after all, the third volume, and I haven't read anything from die-hard fans like you that says Sony has screwed them up, so other than a problem with a specific short, which he doesn't mention, what more could he say?
Where exactly did xraffle say that "Sony screwed them up"? Hmmm....I'm beginning to wonder why this guy is so upset that he's making up alleged quotes out of whole cloth, or at least suggests that xraffle insinuated such a thing.? In fact, xraffle wrote of Volume 2:
Overall, Sony did an excellent job with this set. They did a much better job than I expected and I hope they keep up the good work.
Shempyshine continues:
It's a common "straw man" argument to purposefully misinterpret something someone wrote, and then counter it. Nothing in my posts suggest you committed a "terrible crime," as you put it. I'm merely trying to understand why you chose to knock that review. Reading over your two reviews, I didn't see much of anything that was truly substantial when it came to analysis of the A/V. You merely went short by short, saying they looked better than they used to look on video and DVD. Well...of course they do. They've been cleaned up and restored. You even indicate that audio was clipped off due to your player (what does that have to do with the actual audio quality of the discs?). What you term "vague" in that guy's review, I term "pendantic" and "obvious" in yours.
No big deal. I understand where you're coming from now. No hard feelings, either -- isn't wasn't an argument; just questions.
No hard feelings of course, but xraffle is "pendantic" (sic) in his reviews. Riiight, it's just "questions" he has. But wait, he's not finished yet. Thus we have his final post quoted above. He says:
Even worse, you attack that guy who wrote the review, and actually accuse him of being me. And yes, AmalgamatedMoron, that's precisely what you meant in your first post. It wasn't "mostly tongue in cheek." You meant it, and then the guy called you on it, and you had to back down. And even in your apology, you still didn't sound convinced ("I presume," and telling him to "thank me.")
So I attacked the "guy who wrote the review", rather than using a clever ploy to find out if in fact it was Mr. Galbraith. Shempyshine knows this because God has endowed him with omniscience, and thus he read my mind and knew full well my intentions, my assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. My intent was to draw the gentleman out,
on the slight chance that it was actually him. Given the possibility that it was him, or at least was a fan of Mr. Galbraith, because shempyshine so vociferously defended him. After he actually showed up (to my surprise) and revealed himself, that issue was resolved.
Shempyshine then enlightens everyone that I did not truly apologize to Mr. Galbraith because I didn't "
sound convinced". Apparently he has a gift for hearing voice inflections in text type. Even when there is a complete lack of sarcasm. I was rather serious in apologizing for offending Mr. Galbraith,
and in suggesting he thank shempyshine, who obviously has a fondness for his writing. Though he is misguided in how he handles his "disagreement" with anyone who dares to question that which he deems fine and dandy.
After Mr. Galbraith posted here, I allegedly "had to back down". Hardly--I succeeded in accomplishing what I set out to do. Discover if in fact Shempyshine and Stuart Galbraith were one and the same. Now we know. I apologized to Mr. Galbraith, and chastised shempyshine for his behavior. Mission accomplished. Elvis has left the building!
