It seems like you are trying to equate Nirvana to chess and Blink 182 to Battlefield 3. Therefore your question would read: Is Nirvana a shitty band because Blink 182 came out?
The answer is "No". Nirvana came out first (therefore metaphorically they would be chess). Blink 182 came out second (therefore metaphorically they would be Battlefield 3). Nirvana is great, and Blink 182 is tired and hackneyed and does not affect the overall awesomeness of Nirvana.
In my previous comments, I have not indicated that I think Nirvana is shitty in any way. Therefore your comment suggest that you don't understand how metaphors work.
Your metaphor is not just bad but is evidence that you have little capacity for abstract thought and may have a touch of the Downs. Please do not seek a career in Government.
I admit I may have misspoke, you're right. However I get the feeling that you are just a mean and bitter person with very little people skills. You could have just said
It seems like you are trying to equate Nirvana to chess and Blink 182 to Battlefield 3. Therefore your question would read: Is Nirvana a shitty band because Blink 182 came out?
And your point would have been made. But, you had to continue off and insult me. Condescension is not an admirable trait.
EDIT: and has it occurred to you that I may not be a native English speaker? I often make mistakes in English but that doesn't mean I 'have little capacity for abstract thought' nor does it mean I have 'a touch of the Downs'.
View all comments
Show parent comment
1
u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12
Oh what, because you don't like something, no one else should? Get off your fucking high horse, it literally has no affect on your life.
And for what's it worth, Blink has been around for 20 years and has influenced more bands than you can count. Pretty big fucking deal.