Well, who ever runs that site didnt strike me as someone I could pay attention to more than you would pay attention to let's say grass growing. However, I am inclined to agree with thier motto of "Pop music sucks donkey-dong".

I fail to see how it qualifies as satire. Its non-sequiter unless he explains himself better - its just a pointless rebellion against pop-culture, which is counter-culture, which is just as bad as pop-culture IMO.

I rant just as much about music I don't like. The difference? I have the good manners to be polite about it. I certainly don't have the hubris to think I'd be being funny, or making some profound statment, by verbally attacking a group of people who disagreed with my opinion. Its rude.

The harm doesn't lie in their opinion, and not even their sense of humour (mostly) its in their lack of tact, respect, and their ego that the harm comes in.

Why don't you (any of you) try treating some of the forumites that way, and see where it get's you? The fact that THEY can't be banned from their sites, or public, for being rude doesn't mean that its OK.

Being right or not isn't really the issue - the 'Bad taste in music' illusrtates this perfectly. He isn't right, but neither are the fans of the bands he is moaning about.

If these guys want to get an opinion across, I don't think ends justify their means of doing so.

Yeah, it seems to fit Definition #2. Satire is based upon the art of mockery, and what is this guy doing, in a nutshell? Mocking people.

You seem to have missed my point. I'm saying that they themselves, along with all of thier actions, are harmless to the casual reader/veiwer. It's only when the individual decides that they don't like the means, looks too hard for malicious intent, what have you, that they actually become "harmful". But that harm is in that individuals perception entirely.

Oh, and it's not solely to get thier opinion across, it's to convey it in a humorous manner, and the cynical, angry means they do it is perfect for the way a lot of people feel nowadays. Don't believe me? Work in retail fopr a while, it'll make much more sense.

Look. It's better for you to just completely ignore people like this if you don't like the style of humor. Yes, it's very mean-spirited and angry. But, when you get down to it, 90% of humor is mean-spirited. These people just aren't afraid to show it without the sugar-coating. But if it riles you up this much, then it's best to pretend that it doesn't exist, or it's bound to cause you a lot of frustration.

Now excuse me, I must go read last week's weekend web over at SomethingAwful. I forgot I haven't looked at it yet until now.

What vice was being mocked? What folly? What stupidity? Sure, the masses dictate pop-culture, and its often kind of inane. Agreed. But instead of insulting people on a personal basis, why not express a desire for people to broaden their tastes a little bit, and offer, oh, I don't know, a compelling argument as to 'why'? No one gets the point of what this guy is trying to say, becuase he doesn't present his purpose - only insults. Well, that and what he thinks is 'teh funn1e'.

Presenting the word 'art' to describe mockery is, I hope, a loose usage.

As far as most people will read into it, his 'point' is moot anyway, becuase again, it is a matter of personal taste. So he's just put a lot of effort into a meaningless task.

I didn't miss anything. They caused no harm to me. I was not personally hurt by their comments, and I wasn't even really insulted. But I do feel bad for the people who were made a fool of by them in person.

Also, your point about perception is moot, as ANY kind of harm and its degrees lies in the perception of the recipient and/or observor. That includes physical harm. For instance; Let's say I cut you. Your pain, and 'amount' of it, is only a matter of your perception of it, as is the sympathy from bystanders who observed the attack, and percived that you were in pain.

Maybe some of the people in those ticket lines are more 'callous' to this kind of verbal jousting. Good for them. From what I could tell, most of them weren't, and were very unfairly insulted, in what could easily be perceived in a personal way. Even if that wasn't the intent, I don't think that really matters.

I have worked in retail "fopr" a while, and your statment makes even less sense becuase of it. Just becuase a lot of people feel angry and cynical and mean, let me ask you; Does that make it OK to make other, unsuspecting induviduals the target of your angry-cynical-mean words/actions, thereby promoting that angry-cynical-mean attitude? 'Misery loves company' as it were, yes? Not a cycle I'd be proud to continue, even in the name of 'humour'.

No, it isn't better for me to ignore it. In fact, for these people the BEST thing for me to do is to respond so much more abrasivly and angrily than I have. To vent my frusteration so angrily that I sink to their level. It is BEST for them to ellicit such a response becuase that is EXACTLY what they want. If everyone who got 'riled-up' about these kind of things ignored them, guess what? Opionated jerks would see less airtime (online time?) and the world would be a happy place. Not what they want. They want the attention they unfairly gain by making people angry. ( In fact, if the opionated jerks ignored the stuff that riles THEM up, it would be even better.)

So you "Look", and see how much of a catch-22 that is, eh?

Futhermore, simply 'ignoring' problems does not make them go away, esspecially when there are a million other people who will not only NOT ignore, but who will out-and-out defy unreasonably. That would be the 'band-aid on a saw-blade wound' analogy.