Re: (313) do not hate on discogs

2004-08-09 Thread Thomas D. Cox, Jr.
i will say that theyve pushed through my recent comments within 
hours. it seems like theyre really trying. i love discogs, i use 
it daily.

tom

-- Original Message --
From: jason kenjar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date:  Mon, 9 Aug 2004 15:19:46 -0500

Pardon me Mr. taylor, but I dont see how somebody who spams the 
list 
daily with one or two quick sentences of  over-simplified 
arrogant 
generalizations has the guts to call the discogs website sh!t. 
Im 
just one of the many free users and am not affiliated with the 
site by 
any other means, but I still have to stand up for them if you 
feel it 
necissary to besmirch their name.

Discogs has been very helpful to me in the past.  I can only 
recollect 
a fraction of the many times I have found discogs to be totally 
helpful. Knowledge is power, and there is a lot you can learn if 
your 
are willing to spend some time researching discogs. its also 
totally 
free, you dont even have to be a member to search its information 
libraries.

And is it so unthinkable and unforgivable that there would be 
spotty 
information about Basic Channel?  I consider myself a fairly well 
informed member of the under ground community, and even i think 
all the 
basic channel records look alike. Artists like von oswald arent 
about 
advertising themselves nearly as much as you do for yourself.






On Monday, August 9, 2004, at 09:36 AM, Robert Taylor wrote:

 Discogs is sh!t and there's loads of inaccuracies.


 


andythepooh.com


 
   


Re: (313) do not hate on discogs

2004-08-09 Thread Fred Heutte
The last couple of weeks have had the worst stretch of nasty
language and out-and-out personal attacks that I can recall
in nearly 10 years on 313.

It's annoying at best and doesn't do anything to convince us
that you are right.

out

fred



RE: (313) do not hate on discogs

2004-08-09 Thread Big 50 Entertainment
I'd have to stand up for Discogs as well.  They don't go out and track down
every release's information and input it themselves; they rely on the
contributors for accuracy but it doesn't always work out that way.  I use it
as a reference, not an end all...

Mike Grant 

-Original Message-
From: jason kenjar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 4:20 PM
To: Robert Taylor
Cc: 313@hyperreal.org
Subject: (313) do not hate on discogs

Pardon me Mr. taylor, but I dont see how somebody who spams the list 
daily with one or two quick sentences of  over-simplified arrogant 
generalizations has the guts to call the discogs website sh!t. Im 
just one of the many free users and am not affiliated with the site by 
any other means, but I still have to stand up for them if you feel it 
necissary to besmirch their name.

Discogs has been very helpful to me in the past.  I can only recollect 
a fraction of the many times I have found discogs to be totally 
helpful. Knowledge is power, and there is a lot you can learn if your 
are willing to spend some time researching discogs. its also totally 
free, you dont even have to be a member to search its information 
libraries.

And is it so unthinkable and unforgivable that there would be spotty 
information about Basic Channel?  I consider myself a fairly well 
informed member of the under ground community, and even i think all the 
basic channel records look alike. Artists like von oswald arent about 
advertising themselves nearly as much as you do for yourself.






On Monday, August 9, 2004, at 09:36 AM, Robert Taylor wrote:

 Discogs is sh!t and there's loads of inaccuracies.