"defend the indefensible" is a lame concept

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

did custos come up with that gem?

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Friday, 22 August 2003 14:32 (twenty-two years ago)

alex in nyc, i think.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Friday, 22 August 2003 14:35 (twenty-two years ago)

it's a paradox, see.

― amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 22 August 2003 14:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Defend the Indefensable: Threads called Defend the Indefensable

Where I copy and pasted the title's spelling mistake from elsewhere. Normally I take full credit for my unique grasp of the English language.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Friday, 22 August 2003 14:36 (twenty-two years ago)

i think there's a kernel of merit somewhere if it allows people to say good things about bands which are commonly held as debased and irredeemable coins.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Friday, 22 August 2003 14:37 (twenty-two years ago)

It's a great concept surely. Either people think counter-intuitively about bands they 'dislike' or they get cross about bands they do like being considered 'indefensible' and are made to work a bit to defend them. It's like "say something nice about" (which was one of mine) but less passive-aggressive.

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 22 August 2003 14:38 (twenty-two years ago)

But it gets annoying when taken to the length of Defend the indefensible: Wilco or any random band you happen to dislike.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Friday, 22 August 2003 14:41 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think there have been any like that, though, anyway I've had ample opportunities to read defenses of Wilco on this board, I agree that there's little point in any more.

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 22 August 2003 14:45 (twenty-two years ago)

A "lame concept" would be having TWO meta-threads now (about what are more-or-less C or D threads under a different name), surely?

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Friday, 22 August 2003 14:47 (twenty-two years ago)

good points, i guess it's not the concept it's the execution i dislike

i just wish the attacks were better co-ordinated & the defenders were more willing to defend the bits pointed out as indefensible, but v often the attacker has clearly NEVER heard more than the BIG ANNOYING HIT by the "indefensible" artist, and the defender just deflects the attack by talking about something the attacker has never heard so the thread amounts to

Attacker: Rod Stewart/Bob SegAr/George Thorogood is so bad, he's not at all cool
Defender: He's actually good, you should listen to his older stuff from when he was cool

so it's just rockism 101

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Friday, 22 August 2003 14:47 (twenty-two years ago)

i thought Graham invented "nice" threads, Tom. i'll give you "interesting" tho'...

― zebedee (zebedee), Friday, 22 August 2003 14:48 (twenty-two years ago)

The first one IIRC was mine about Chris De Burgh after Gale's first ever post!

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 22 August 2003 14:52 (twenty-two years ago)

two months pass...

did custos come up with that gem?

twas i, fer better or fer worse. but i'm not the RIAA, i don't sue for copyright infringement.

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Monday, 10 November 2003 06:56 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.