h a l f b a k e r yBaker Street Irregulars
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Pitchfork is a site that is the gold standard of indie music criticism. Often times I'll vehemently disagree with their reviews (they gave Godspeed You Black Emperor's Yanqui U.X.O. a 5.6). It would be nice be able to review their reviews and see others' reviews of their reviews.
Pitchfork Reviews Reviews
http://pitchforkreviewsreviews.com/
acted for a time as described in the idea text until the man behind it was able to parlay his chatty urban naïf schtick into less meta music journalism [calum, Dec 11 2013]
[link]
|
| |
Strong tines, set at a good angle for hay release, but the shaft is just machine-profiled so does not have the characteristic swelling to help you judge the reach. The join between head and shaft is very strong but the rivets may cause corrosion problems long-term. Overall verdict: Suitable for casual labourers handling bales but not the best we have seen for expert use with loose straw. 6/10. |
|
| |
[pocmloc]'s review was admirably short and to the point - but we'd like to have seen more in-depth analysis of the pitchfork's suitability for the casual gardener if not suited for expert use. A comparison against market leading brands would also have been useful. 7/10 |
|
| |
[Auscan]'s review review raised interesting points,
but lacked detail on the basis on which a comparison
against market leading brands could be made. |
|
| |
The profork 8000 is a prosumer fork, built in the
transylvanian style. It's a generous 6'6" from post to
point and would suit all but the most enthusiastic
haybaling. In our benchmarking tests, we found it
performed well against others in the same market
niche, and even stood up to gentle castle-storming and
lynch-mobbing, though its length did pose cumbersome
within an unruly torch-bearing mob scenario. |
|
| |
Also, [AusCan531]'s review of [pocmoc]'s review was
rubbish! |
|
| |
[Zeusxis] review of [AusCan531]'s review of [pocmoc]'s review of the pitchfork was completely useless. It's great to know he didn't like it, but simply calling it rubbish with no explanation leaves a lot of unanswered questions. Was the problem with the conclusion drawn, or was it a matter of poor style? Was it too brief and too the point, or did he think it was too wordy? Some people prefer a review that goes on and on, exploring every possible nuance, but I'd prefer a review that is short and too the point. When someone writes a whole bunch of practically useless drivel that is not relevant to the actual review being made, it just gets under my skin. Do people actually think that other people WANT to waste their time following endless ramblings about how they are so supperior? And inevitably, those ramblings end up being self-contradictory and hypocritical. The nerve of some people... |
|
| |
[scad mientist]’s review of [Zeusxis]’s review of [AusCan531]’s review of [pocmloc]’s review, while superficially comprehensive, passionate and from the heart, was rendered unreadable by the misspelling of [pocmloc]. |
|
| |
Oops, that's what I get for copying text from a review I am reviewing. |
|
| |