Carl306 Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 Trust me, when "I" review Cadets, these "muppets that sit up in the balcony type" folks are gonna wish I hadn't !!! :sshh: :lolhit: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 Trust me, when "I" review Cadets, these "muppets that sit up in the balcony type" folks are gonna wish I hadn't !!! :sshh: Great review Jordan, very comprehensive, albeit not all-inclusive. At least some understand comprehensive is a description of the type of review, not the action of reviewing all that took place. Sheesh.... ~G~ Hey now - you're only supposed to call me "muppet" during our private time :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X DM Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 (edited) Haven't read them all. Could really care less. JUST SAYIN. Comprehensive implies "completeness." Which, as fine a review as this may have been, is not. NO BIG DEAL. Sheesh. Oh, now I understand. Your definition of what constitutes " comprehensive " is that it must be fulfill " completeness ". Webster's definition ( and mine ) of what constitutes something as " comprehensive " is different. My definition ( and Webster's ) defines something " comprehensive " as " of wide scope"..... of " having a broad understanding "...... " of much ( data ) ". There is no " completeness " at all that is required for something to be implied as" comprehensive ", and so that's where we went awry. But as you said, and I agree...... it's no big deal if some of us found his review here "comprehensive "and anothers do not. Edited June 27, 2007 by X DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LAMystreaux Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 Oh, now I understand. Your definition of what constitutes " comprehensive " is that it must be fulfill " completeness ". Webster's definition ( and mine ) of what constitutes something as " comprehensive " is different. My definition ( and Webster's ) defines something " comprehensive " as " of wide scope"..... of " having a broad understanding "...... " of much ( data ) ". There is no " completeness " at all that is required for something to be implied as" comprehensive ", and so that's where we went awry. But as you said, and I agree...... it's no big deal if some of us found his review here "comprehensive "and anothers do not. Yet, which side has made a bigger deal of it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 If you want to point out a review of a show from this year that was more " comprehensive " than this one, would you care to tell us which one it is that you believe was MORE comprehensive ? I'd be more than happy to see how it stacks up compared with this one ( even with the one corps he didn't view ) for " comprehensiveness ". This review, in my oipinion, was the most " comprehensive " I've read so far this season. Some reviews of shows this year included all the Corps, but had as little as one sentence comments at best ( which is fine in my opinion as well ).But to each his own. Personally I thought Jordan did a great job, as I posted. I totally disagree with his stance in 'some' areas, but he really put in a lot of time and effort with his review. Again...great job by Hrothgar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X DM Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 (edited) Yet, which side has made a bigger deal of it? You. You were the first one to say you had a " problem " with his review. That's when he didn't review a Corps, and you said it was good becuse his review of them would have been " immature " had he done so. Then stated his ommission of the Cadets was of evil intent ( which MAY or MAY NOT not be the case in this particular show because frankly none of us know ) The reviewer said absolutely nothing negative at all about the Cadets. Nor you, nor any other poster here in his review. In fact the Cadets were mentioned briefly and in a positive way ( ie 2000 Cadets.) This is a far cry from your attacks ( his " immaturity )from the past ON THIS thread on this reviewer and your " problem " with his review here. You've told us not a thing about what you LIKED about his very comprehensive review, which is your perogative. So.I'd say what prompted some of us to ask you to relax, was your stated " problem " with his review because he simply omitted a Corps.......that's all. Again, no big deal. Edited June 27, 2007 by X DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rut-roh Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 Oh, now I understand. Your definition of what constitutes " comprehensive " is that it must be fulfill " completeness ". Webster's definition ( and mine ) of what constitutes something as " comprehensive " is different. My definition ( and Webster's ) defines something " comprehensive " as " of wide scope"..... of " having a broad understanding "...... " of much ( data ) ". There is no " completeness " at all that is required for something to be implied as" comprehensive ", and so that's where we went awry. But as you said, and I agree...... it's no big deal if some of us found his review here "comprehensive "and anothers do not. Hmmm...Webster's you say? Stupid dictionaries can't even make up their minds! :P I've officially totally lost interest in this discussion. Looking forward to the weekend and checking out some drum corps! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgiaGirl Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 Venue: Atlanta Brass ClassicLocation: Milton High School Date: June 23, 2007 The corps were scattered across Milton High School’s campus, which has recently been completely renovated. .....Again, I’m glad I got to witness a spectacular display of one of my greatest passions tonight, drum and bugle corps, and I wish EVERY corps the best of luck for the 2007 season. Thank you for taking the time for such a detailed review, Hrothgar! Very good job! Milton opened for the 2005-06 school year, and was "renovated" from being a cow pasture, heh. We looked it up on Google Earth, and it was like, "Dude, Where's My School?" B) Every corps out there-- from the top three to the smallest-- puts on a better show when they get to the gate and see a big crowd. Our sincere thanks to everyone who came to Milton. Here's encouraging everyone to go to as many shows as possible :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LAMystreaux Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 You. You were the first one to say you had a " problem " with his review. That's when he didn't review a Corps, and you said it was good becuse his review of them would have been " immature " had he done so. Then stated his ommission of the Cadets was of evil intent ( which MAY or MAY NOT not be the case in this particular show because frankly none of us know ) The reviewer said absolutely nothing negative at all about the Cadets. Nor you, nor any other poste in his review. In fact the Cadets were mentioned briefly and in a positive way ( ie 2000 Cadets.) This is a far cry from your attacks ( his " immaturity )from the past ON THIS thread on this reviewer and your " problem " with his review here. You've told us not a thing about what you LIKED about his very comprehensive review, which is your perogative. So. I'd say what prompted some of us to ask you to relax, was your stated " problem " with his review because he simply omitted a Corps.......that's all. Again, no big deal. Wrong. . .again. Evil intent? Where did you pull that out of? I said his past actions have proven he does not handle those situations well. His immaturity is well documented from last season when it comes to dealing with shows with narration. He has however handled himself very well this summer. I did not say reviewing them would have been immature. You've made the most noise in opposition to George and I since our initial posts. As far as a big deal, you've made this much more a big deal than anyone else. Now, back on topic, the review was well done, in spite of the omission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X DM Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 Hmmm...Webster's you say?Stupid dictionaries can't even make up their minds! :P I've officially totally lost interest in this discussion. Looking forward to the weekend and checking out some drum corps! :) Fair enough, and on this we can agree rut-roh !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.