|
|
Forums - News / General |
For General modelling or hobby-related topics that are not covered by any other specific forum. Please keep to topics concerning the hobby. |
| Topics | 2993 |
| Messages | 22396 |
|
|
| Subject: | Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument |  |
| Date: | Apr 18, 2006 |
| From: | Steve Frost | |
>>This glib generalization...---
glib. adj.
1: marked by lack of intellectual depth; "glib generalizations"; "a glib response to a complex question"
2: having only superficial plausibility; "glib promises"; "a slick commercial"
3. To castrate; to geld; to emasculate.
4. Speaking or spoken smoothly and with flippant rapidity
5. artfully persuasive in speech
..Reads like a pretty negative and pointed comment, when several of the possible definitions of "glib" are considered...
For the record, I don't condone knocking people that build kits out of the box, warts and all. I also don't condone knocking people that spend six times the kit price on parts to make a kit better (hey, pumps up the economy...) and take much pride and pleasure in doing the extra detailing to make the kit better. I will however point out that ALL finished armor model kits are completely inaccurate, regardless of detail added, or efforts taken by the kitbuilder. The scale weight is totally off, most of them either completely lack motors and drive trains, or the ones put in the finished model are just for "show" and don't work, the turrets don't traverse in the manner the real vehicle does, most of them have non-functioning hatches, are missing properly scaled fuel systems, if they have them at all, and the armament on those supposed to have it suffers the same afflictions as the motor/drive train; it's there merely for show and completely nonfunctional.
Reviews are what people make of them. Kits are what people make of them. This site is what we make of it. There will never, ever be one review, kit, or site that sums up everyone's thoughts about a given subject. "Looks like ", like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder, and that beholder has inhaled copious amounts of model cement and paint fumes. To use a tired cliche, "There's no accounting for taste." |
| |
|
|
 | The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Paul A. Owen - Apr 17, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Marc Brandes - Apr 17, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - David Bridges - Apr 17, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Damon Agretto - Apr 17, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - John F. Steinman - Apr 17, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Alex Hill - Apr 17, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - David Manning - Apr 17, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Eric Scurlock - Apr 17, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Mike Tittel - Apr 17, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Kip Rudge - Apr 17, 2006 |
| . . . . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Roy A. Schlicht - Apr 17, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Dwayne - Apr 17, 2006 |
| . . . . . . I'd respectfully....... - Alex Hill - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: I'd respectfully....... - Kip Rudge - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: I'd respectfully....... - Paul A. Owen - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: I'd respectfully....... - Kip Rudge - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: I'd respectfully....... - Paul A. Owen - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . Re: Interesting - Paul A. Owen - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - adam lehmann - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Geoff Steer - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . Re: Model shop customers - Paul A. Owen - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Model shop customers - Dwayne - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . ....the greed to get the mighty dollar! - Glenn Bartolotti - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - David Bauer - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - frank forster - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Steve Frost - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Steve Frost - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Glibberish [IMG] - Paul A. Owen - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Glibberish - Andrew Herbert - Apr 20, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Glibberish - Paul A. Owen - Apr 20, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Brian J Tears - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Paul A. Owen - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Mike Harmon - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . Paul - Glenn Bartolotti - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Glenn - Paul A. Owen - Apr 18, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paul.... [IMG] - Glenn Bartolotti - Apr 19, 2006 |
| . . . Re: The "It looks like a [tank]" argument - Michael Wawrow - Apr 19, 2006 |
|
|
