From: cblanc@pomona.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: *METALLICA SELL CHILDREN TO MARRIOTT FOOD CORP.!*
Organization: Pomona College
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:09:16 PDT

In article <1992Apr8.041300.2409@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Kevin.J.Feury@dartmouth.edu (Kevin J. Feury) writes:
> 
> why do you say this? i think i've provided a more than fair bit of
> evidence for my standpoint, and if you want more, i'll give you more.
> would you prefer to discuss the musical intracacies of metallica, old
> and new? perhaps their type of chord progressions and inversions? maybe
> soloing style and chord basis? you name it, i'll give it to you. 

	You've provided what is essentially subjective information in this
area; your contention is that the new album provides some form of musical
superiority through better music-crafting at a slower speed.  Analyze away, but
this is subjective.  About the only thing here that's qualitative is the
complexity argument, and that doesn't take any musical knowledge to see.  What
other evidence do you have?  Nothing besides vague paraphrasings of band member
interviews.  Great!  Of course, we _all_ know that they'd never _lie_...
 
> you on the other hand provide little or nothing the the way of
> constructive argument. you make statements, but you don't endeavor to
> provide any substance to them. thus, we are left simply with your

	Really?  I don't think so.  What about some of my analysis of the
lyrical/sonic qualities of the new album?

> bandwagoning opinions. where were you when the album came out? i don't

	Bandwagoning?  Your memory fails you.  I heard Enter Sandman two days
after the album came out and thought it was a sellout.  I didn't post for some
time because I waited until I had the album and had heard every song on it. 
That's called giving it a fair chance. 

> recall more than one or two post complaining about the 'sell-out' of
> metallica. now it seems that there's nothing else. 

	Really?  Seems there's more Nimpfer vs. Suaron than this...
 
> it seems to me that you grow weary of this argument because you can't
> come up with a good base or foot to stand on. once i dissect your

	Dissect?  Dissect, my ass.  Offer counter-arguments, yes, but you can
barely _read_ my statements from your interpretations.  Either that or you're
just a weak CX'er.

> statements, you simply seem to accept it and move on to fabricate
> another falshood about the band. i'm not one of these newer fans. i've
> followed the group for a long time, since before they switched to
> elektra records. (did you know they had a label before that?) i even

	Yes, I own the album on CD.  

> have the old megaforce version of KEA on album (no lyrics or
> 'blitzkrieg' or 'am i evil'. what i'm saying is that i'm a very long
> time fan of the band, and to tell you the truth, i think the only
> change is that in speed (with a resulting slight drop in intensity) and
> the choice of different subject matter.

	That's neat.  What the hell does length of fanship matter?  That's a
bandwagon argument I've seen around here before.  It doesn't matter if you
listen to "Metallica" before the other stuff or vice versa; if you know the
album release dates within a year or two you'll be able to figure out what
happened.
 
> i grow weary of your type of person. the type that makes a statement
> about metallica but can't back it up, so they circle around and around

	Find one I can't back up that's not subjective.  Do you now see my
point about this argument?

> and then try to back out when they can't think of anything new. it's
> pathetic. you should at least know what you're talking about before you
> open your flapper.

	I don't know what's more pathetic, this argument or your clinging to
the theory that Metallica are infallible and do not succumb to the corporate
pressures of this great nation.

> to quote the pyhtonesque, 'that's the type of blinard philistine pig
> ignorance i've come to expect from your type of non-creative garbage'

	This seems indicative of your style of argument.  When you reach a
point where you cannot "win," you attempt to insult.  Weak, at best. 
Hackneyed, in any case.

<c>.