Showing Visitor Messages 106 to 120 of 169
-
September 12th, 2011 12:49 PMRogue planetOmg I love it
I don't even sound like that irl, but I'm actually preferring the recorded version -
September 12th, 2011 12:47 PMMr Cat DogI didn't realise that you sounded like a Bond villain crossed with a cat! Dunno what the south does to your voice.
-
September 10th, 2011 12:24 PMRogue planet"If there are always being new albums being released, why isn't the thread always popular?"
Because C&M is never popular lol
I still get your point though. But still, it just reminds me again, there's no point in posting there, because nobody else cares. -
September 10th, 2011 12:02 PMMr Cat DogAnd if it were a thread about a specific artist, then that would be perfectly acceptable. But a whole genre of music is a different story. If there are always being new albums being released, why isn't the thread always popular? (I guess the best example I can think of this is the Metal thread, which HAS become very sustainable.) If people have stopped talking about it, it implies interest has diminished completely. Does that make it clearer? Sorry if I'm being pedantic.
-
September 10th, 2011 10:17 AMRogue planetHip-hop is ongoing though, there are always new albums being released.
Same can be said for any genre. -
September 10th, 2011 10:09 AMMr Cat DogWhen I say 'on-going' threads, I mean for actual events that are happening. For example, TV shows like Doctor Who and South Park have breaks for numerous months in the middle of their seasons; football (both the actual and US varieties) are pretty much continuing stuff with a few-months-long break in the summer. For those sorts of stuff, I'd be fine with people reviving threads. Stuff like: 'Let's talk about hip-hop', if the discussion has gone dead, there's not really an 'event', so to speak, to liven up interest. So, in your situation, I'd rather you start a new thread, if that's OK. If it's just a few days over the limit, then just go ahead and post, but if it's multiple months, then a new thread would be better. Thanks.
And Bagpuss has been added to the ever-expanded list. Merci beaucoup. -
September 10th, 2011 10:01 AMRogue planetThat is fair enough, I thought you'd say something like that.
When you say ongoing events, would that make it okay to post in the generic hip-hop thread? Because I want to post something, but don't see the point in making an entirely new thread when there's one only a few months old anyway.
And I would like to request bagpuss! -
September 10th, 2011 9:47 AMMr Cat DogI know what you mean, re: the revival rule. The reason it's there is because if people have not spoken about a thread in a month, it doesn't seem to hold much interest. With entertainment stuff, people might not talk in a thread because their TV show isn't airing new episodes, or a new album hasn't come out from a band they like. More general revivals, on the other hand, are indicative that discussion of a particular topic has come to an end. Also, if we extend this rule for C&M, it seems to send out a message that this forum is different, almost lesser than others because of its relative inactivity. So... I'm probably going to edit it to say that it's OK to revive stuff about ongoing events, like TV series or sporting events, but not for more general stuff.
And you're more than welcome to suggest something for my avatar, but I currently have a four-week waiting list. -
September 10th, 2011 9:38 AMRogue planetAlso, do you have a request for the next avatar?
-
September 10th, 2011 9:37 AMRogue planetHello! I have a request!
Would it be possible to repeal the thread revival rule for C&M only? Seeing as the section is not very active, I don't see any problem in getting rid of the thread revival rule. Or at least extending it so you can post in a threw a few months old, rather than just one month. -
August 27th, 2011 4:17 PMRogue planetangry bartender

-
August 27th, 2011 3:51 PMMr Cat DogThat message was directed at both of you. I can't be dealing with petty infighting over Baz Luhrmann for crissakes!
-
August 27th, 2011 1:43 PMRogue planetI do have to admit I didn't really approach Inland Empire in the right way. I wasn't in the mood for some of Lynch's craziness, after about 20 minutes I just thought "okayyyy idk what is going on" and didn't really put much thought into it after that point.
Blue Velvet I had to watch twice before liking it, but it is a good film. It's a bit of a drag at first but gets so much better once you get into it. -
August 27th, 2011 1:24 PMMr Cat DogI just saw on Facebook that you liked Mulholland Drive and Blue Velvet and didn't see Inland Empire there. The only ones I've seen are Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire - I liked the former, and it has definitely grown on me after viewing the latter, which I also liked but had no discernible comprehension towards. By the time the prostitutes started dancing to 'The Loco-Motion', I just gave up all hope of understanding and enjoyed the ride, although I do want to revisit Mulholland Drive.
Just curious, is all. -
August 26th, 2011 5:54 PMRogue planetYeah I didn't like it tbh. I have a love hate relationship with Lynch.
Eraserhead and Mulholland Dr. are on my top films of all time list. Blue Velvet was good, as was Dune, Inland Empire was okay, Lost Highway was really bad, and Twin Peaks is absolutely terrible. Still have to see the rest of his films.

