With regards to KharmaDog's post in which he took every single thing I said out of context:
First example: They are Tool songs. I wasn't making specific reference to the other three members. They are "Tool" lyrics.
Second example: Once again, in a lyrical debate, you should know that I was referring to Tool lyrics. I'm not exactly gonna pull out the talents of the other members where they're not needed. But I'm sure you'll hit the relevence target soon.
Third example: I wrote ...by Tool because the songs are by Tool. The lyrics are by Maynard which is what you should have picked up. Talk about clutching at straws. What do you want me to say? By Christina Aguilera?
Fourth example: That was completely unrelated and in reply to Lana's post regarding Tool SONGS. Hence why I didn't dwell on it.
Fifth example: A completely related example in which I connect people labelling pretentiousness on the band, which I later connected to Revan's post about LYRICISM.
Sixth and seventh examples: An off topic reply to Koolrunningz who spoke of wanting to get into the band. It wasn't in connection with the lyricism debate, nor did I intend it to be.
Eighth example: Why did you only bold the word Tool and not bold me saying "Though that's a whole other debate"? Would it be because therefore you using it as an example of me bringing the band up would be irrelevant?
Ninth example: I'll give you this one because I, to be fair, should have said "Maynard's lyrics" rather than "Tool song". Although I've referred specifically to Maynard many times (as you later admitted), some even in your huge list of 'examples'. So I could also say that you just wrote it for the sake. Which is, lest we forget, the more likely of the two.
In closing, all you did was just post a load of passages in which I used the word "Tool". I don't refer to the band when I say Tool lyrics, because they are Tool lyrics written by Maynard. So if you're just working your ass off to find examples where I used the word "Tool" (of no relevance whatsoever) then I don't know whether to show pity or respect. Moreover, I later referred to the band but mentioned it was a whole other debate, and stopped. Which negates your argument. So while you've likely swayed the odd impressionable poster with a large post of irrelevant quotes (which I've since negated also) it would suggest that maybe this needs to be stopped, but...any excuse for you eh?
I anticipate a reply showing how I've made excuses and yada dada da, but maybe this once you could just be true enough to your soul and admit that you took every single thing I said, out of context, and posted it here. Because we both know that everything I just said is true. Maybe, but maybe not. We can hope.
This bit got me though:
Originally posted by KharmaDog
If we also add all you posts regarding Maynard James we could probably double what I have shown here.
Weeeeeelllllll, considering he's the lyricist in question...in a debate about lyricism...
What do you want me to call him? John? I have to refer to him by name, I can't call him Mr. X.
-AC
Originally posted by KharmaDog
I see, first you defended yourself and every time you brought them up, now you try to laugh it off, very good.
Well you tried proving something that I didn't deny doing. I mentioned Tool by name only in conjunction with addressing the lyrics. Because that's the band name, the songs are Tool songs and written by Maynard (whom I have referred to mainly) are Tool lyrics. So you went to the trouble of posting quote after quote to prove something I didn't deny saying. I SAID that I mentioned the name, so you decided it would be a good idea to prove what I already admitted to.
Not sure what you gained from it.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I didn't, at all, in any way. You're misunderstanding the context. I suggest you understand it before going further.-AC
😂 Your funny. The thread was to talk about if musicians used literature devices in their songs. After a couple of pages you turned the debate into "Rock has more lyrical content than Hip Hop". Come come Watson. Your smarter than that
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's a thread on literature in music, I wasn't off topic. Moreover, you are the one who first said hip hop had the greater literature content. Not I.If that IS what you were getting at, then YOU changed the subject. Because that's not what Kharma and I were discussing. Come come Sherlock.
-AC
No. You and Afro Cheese had the discussion, I just simpled put my 2 cents in.
You lost me at the 2nd paragraph Watson. Shame nono