- Joined
- Mar 8, 2006
- Posts
- 4,728
The double ass shot ftw
I do still like making images!
*wonders what would happen if Rot ever met up with Merc in real life*
*wonders what would happen if Rot ever met up with Merc in real life*
The world would surely implode on itself.
And I will be at Ground Zero with a camera.
(B) his only real argument is that his article can't be poorly written if it doesn't contain any factual errors. [/B]
I'm still trying to comprehend the idea put forth by Stu that his composition can't be poorly written, as Bobak contends, if it doesn't contain any factual errors. That seemed to be the basis for his argument.
Agreed.
You're too late Bobak. Rot's elevated this to a new level entirely.[Its tough to follow Rot...]
If you summarize this lengthy thread down to its core, you'll find:
(A) Stuart Campbell really couldn't defend himself against my accusations of poor writing (substantively, anyway),
(B) his only real argument is that his article can't be poorly written if it doesn't contain any factual errors.
But don't take my word for it. Since quoting would get long, here are the key posts in this thread (with some summaries), in order:
-- Original Post: Point-by-point I state that Stuart Campbell's terrible Metal Slug piece is badly organized, poorly written, and that it sticks out as a horrible example in a mag I've bought regularly for years. I make the logical conclusion that the author is a poor "journalist", and a hack. (I feel bad for the more qualified writers in the UK and around the world who are losing work because he gets RG to keep employing him)
-- Well before Stuart discovered someone had pointed out his poorly written article, Geddon chimes in to say the review matched his reading --and is joined by Praise the Lard, Kiselgof and YuckMud, who all came to the same conclusion (and they're not even the White Knights or sock puppets)
-- Mr. Campbell's Response. There isn't much substance to summarize: the entire crux of his argument was its meant as a joke, there were no factual errors (which was also false), and his experience gives him better insight into how to write an article. The entire reply is using variations of "I'm a great writer in my own mind" to explain why the article was so poorly written, poorly organized and generally bad compared to the other articles in the same issue. Sure, there were an awful lot of words, but --if it isn't obvious-- Mr. Campbell is great at quantity over quality (and there are apparently people willing to pay for that).
-- Before I can get back to this thread, a lot of members point out it is astonishing that a so-called professional can't take professional criticism. He pretends that I was harsh, but anyone who's read criticism, of movies, books, etc. knows my words were hardly exceptional. In fact, I held back. He doesn't know how to, which is why arguments like this and terrible writing are he has to show for at 41 years.
-- My response (part 2 of it). Thanks to the unexpected surge in drama, 24 hours later its on page 6. I point out his theme of unsuccessfully zeroing in on a handful of issues in my criticism, while ignoring key points. Sorry to reiterate the point: but he doesn't bother to try an answer many of my original points because he can't, and those he tried were effectively refuted. The original article is still poorly organized and executed, and now we also know he can't defend himself very well.
-- In a moment where I assume he didn't actually read the original post, Darran (lead editor of RG) starts repeating Stuart Campbell's argument that a lack of errors removes any accusations of poor writing, omissions, etc... (which has no logical basis). He then basically expresses: "Oh, what can I do? Its not my problem. So I won't do anything." I'm sure I'm not the only one who's studied leadership and management in school; and one aspect of a good leader is the willingness take whatever responsibility --real or perceived-- they can muster to control damage to their organization; not dismissing it on a technicality.
I want to suggest all people reading this thread go to their Borders and Barnes & Noble and read the article --don't buy the magazine unless you enjoy the article. Everyone knows those mega stores welcome people doing this (page through it in the cafe or on the many comfy chairs), and you don't have to fork over $12 plus tax.
who took the photos Rot?
the friend from Uni or the missus?
Good old days- 1993
Damn, the thread died at 1000 posts?