https://youtu.be/-tKcXPNItVY
Taro Tsujimoto wrote:
https://youtu.be/-tKcXPNItVY
That video isn't impressive and clearly wasn't made using professional
tools. That video could have been made on a phone app. It's just a
slideshow of badly-edited images. The presenter's voice isn't naturally beautiful and he clearly has no experience in the art of announcing or narration. It's ungainly and needs a lot of work. The comedy falls flat;
it's simple-minded and stupid. The message isn't important or
revolutionary, it's mere pablum. The presenter doesn't put his face in
the video and has no real stake in the nothingness he's communicating to
the world. As an independent observer, I fail to see how this video
achieved 21,000 views in only 8 hours whereas John Henry DeJong's video
at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY6yqfoseG0 only has 75 views after
2 weeks. It makes zero sense. John Henry DeJong's video is professionally-crafted with a meaningful essence and a presenter who has
put his life and image on the line so that you know it's real, and the
other is vapid fluff. There's no way any sane, rational person would
claim otherwise.
On 19Aug2023, Matt Burns wrote
(in article<169248683476.95692.2454550397191713751.XPN@5150.chad>):
Taro Tsujimoto wrote:
https://youtu.be/-tKcXPNItVY
That video isn't impressive and clearly wasn't made using professional
tools. That video could have been made on a phone app. It's just a
slideshow of badly-edited images. The presenter's voice isn't naturally
beautiful and he clearly has no experience in the art of announcing or
narration. It's ungainly and needs a lot of work. The comedy falls flat;
it's simple-minded and stupid. The message isn't important or
revolutionary, it's mere pablum. The presenter doesn't put his face in
the video and has no real stake in the nothingness he's communicating to
the world. As an independent observer, I fail to see how this video
achieved 21,000 views in only 8 hours whereas John Henry DeJong's video
at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY6yqfoseG0 only has 75 views after
2 weeks. It makes zero sense. John Henry DeJong's video is
professionally-crafted with a meaningful essence and a presenter who has
put his life and image on the line so that you know it's real, and the
other is vapid fluff. There's no way any sane, rational person would
claim otherwise.
Your video was self-indulgent shit, John Henry.
Buckley has built a following by having an actual personality and not constantly begging for cash.
Taro Tsujimoto wrote:
On 19Aug2023, Matt Burns wrote
(in article<169248683476.95692.2454550397191713751.XPN@5150.chad>):
Taro Tsujimoto wrote:
https://youtu.be/-tKcXPNItVY
That video isn't impressive and clearly wasn't made using professional tools. That video could have been made on a phone app. It's just a slideshow of badly-edited images. The presenter's voice isn't naturally beautiful and he clearly has no experience in the art of announcing or narration. It's ungainly and needs a lot of work. The comedy falls flat; it's simple-minded and stupid. The message isn't important or revolutionary, it's mere pablum. The presenter doesn't put his face in the video and has no real stake in the nothingness he's communicating to the world. As an independent observer, I fail to see how this video achieved 21,000 views in only 8 hours whereas John Henry DeJong's video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY6yqfoseG0 only has 75 views after
2 weeks. It makes zero sense. John Henry DeJong's video is professionally-crafted with a meaningful essence and a presenter who has put his life and image on the line so that you know it's real, and the other is vapid fluff. There's no way any sane, rational person would claim otherwise.
Your video was self-indulgent shit, John Henry.
John Henry DeJong's video was an important piece of critical analysis
which not only made sense and was well-crafted, but also offered novel insights and was genuinely amusing to boot.
Buckley has built a following by having an actual personality and not constantly begging for cash.
The first ten seconds of Buckley's video was an ad for his Patreon. The
first line of the description of the video is "Support Buckley" with a
link to his Patreon. The second line is a link to his merchandise
page. The third line is a link to his bandcamp page which has tracks
for sale.
On 19Aug2023, Matt Burns wrote
(in article<169249040740.80658.7992604445658920603.XPN@5150.chad>):
Taro Tsujimoto wrote:
On 19Aug2023, Matt Burns wrote
(in article<169248683476.95692.2454550397191713751.XPN@5150.chad>):
Taro Tsujimoto wrote:
https://youtu.be/-tKcXPNItVY
That video isn't impressive and clearly wasn't made using professional >> > > tools. That video could have been made on a phone app. It's just a
slideshow of badly-edited images. The presenter's voice isn't naturally >> > > beautiful and he clearly has no experience in the art of announcing or >> > > narration. It's ungainly and needs a lot of work. The comedy falls flat; >> > > it's simple-minded and stupid. The message isn't important or
revolutionary, it's mere pablum. The presenter doesn't put his face in >> > > the video and has no real stake in the nothingness he's communicating to >> > > the world. As an independent observer, I fail to see how this video
achieved 21,000 views in only 8 hours whereas John Henry DeJong's video >> > > at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY6yqfoseG0 only has 75 views after >> > > 2 weeks. It makes zero sense. John Henry DeJong's video is
professionally-crafted with a meaningful essence and a presenter who has >> > > put his life and image on the line so that you know it's real, and the >> > > other is vapid fluff. There's no way any sane, rational person would
claim otherwise.
Your video was self-indulgent shit, John Henry.
John Henry DeJong's video was an important piece of critical analysis
which not only made sense and was well-crafted, but also offered novel
insights and was genuinely amusing to boot.
Grade 6 intellectual level, horrible sound, washed-out video of someone who looks like Gandalf
and it has 75 views.
The subject could have been explored even deeper, but that would require John Henry DeJong to step up his game beyond send me money.
Buckley has built a following by having an actual personality and not
constantly begging for cash.
The first ten seconds of Buckley's video was an ad for his Patreon. The
first line of the description of the video is "Support Buckley" with a
link to his Patreon. The second line is a link to his merchandise
page. The third line is a link to his bandcamp page which has tracks
for sale.
None of that is begging.
You suck at this, John Henry DeJong.
Taro Tsujimoto wrote:
On 19Aug2023, Matt Burns wrote
(in article<169249040740.80658.7992604445658920603.XPN@5150.chad>):
Taro Tsujimoto wrote:
On 19Aug2023, Matt Burns wrote
(in article<169248683476.95692.2454550397191713751.XPN@5150.chad>):
Taro Tsujimoto wrote:
https://youtu.be/-tKcXPNItVY
That video isn't impressive and clearly wasn't made using professional
tools. That video could have been made on a phone app. It's just a slideshow of badly-edited images. The presenter's voice isn't naturally
beautiful and he clearly has no experience in the art of announcing or
narration. It's ungainly and needs a lot of work. The comedy falls flat;
it's simple-minded and stupid. The message isn't important or revolutionary, it's mere pablum. The presenter doesn't put his face in
the video and has no real stake in the nothingness he's communicating to
the world. As an independent observer, I fail to see how this video achieved 21,000 views in only 8 hours whereas John Henry DeJong's video
at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY6yqfoseG0 only has 75 views after
2 weeks. It makes zero sense. John Henry DeJong's video is professionally-crafted with a meaningful essence and a presenter who has
put his life and image on the line so that you know it's real, and the
other is vapid fluff. There's no way any sane, rational person would claim otherwise.
Your video was self-indulgent shit, John Henry.
John Henry DeJong's video was an important piece of critical analysis which not only made sense and was well-crafted, but also offered novel insights and was genuinely amusing to boot.
Grade 6 intellectual level, horrible sound, washed-out video of someone who looks like Gandalf
Yet still somehow superior to Buckley's pointless nonsense.
and it has 75 views.
A reflection of the sorry state of our culture, not JHD's effort.
The subject could have been explored even deeper, but that would require John
Henry DeJong to step up his game beyond “send me money”.
JHD packed a considerable amount into a five minute video. It's not a
stretch to call it intellectually weighty. The brevity was designed to
appeal to an audience with a deficit of attention.
Buckley has built a following by having an actual personality and not constantly begging for cash.
The first ten seconds of Buckley's video was an ad for his Patreon. The first line of the description of the video is "Support Buckley" with a link to his Patreon. The second line is a link to his merchandise
page. The third line is a link to his bandcamp page which has tracks
for sale.
None of that is begging.
You haven't produced any criteria for what constitutes "begging,"
instead only offering a flat denial and an insult.
You suck at this, John Henry DeJong.
John Henry DeJong stated in a recent post that he doesn't hide and that
he doesn't sock up and pretend to be other people. What did you fail to understand about that?
He also uses Windows, not Linux.
Taro Tsujimoto wrote:
https://youtu.be/-tKcXPNItVY
That video isn't impressive and clearly wasn't made using professional
tools. That video could have been made on a phone app. It's just a
slideshow of badly-edited images. The presenter's voice isn't naturally beautiful and he clearly has no experience in the art of announcing or narration. It's ungainly and needs a lot of work. The comedy falls flat;
it's simple-minded and stupid. The message isn't important or
revolutionary, it's mere pablum. The presenter doesn't put his face in
the video and has no real stake in the nothingness he's communicating to
the world. As an independent observer, I fail to see how this video
achieved 21,000 views in only 8 hours whereas John Henry DeJong's video
at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY6yqfoseG0 only has 75 views after
2 weeks. It makes zero sense. John Henry DeJong's video is professionally-crafted with a meaningful essence and a presenter who has
put his life and image on the line so that you know it's real, and the
other is vapid fluff. There's no way any sane, rational person would
claim otherwise.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 101:34:29 |
| Calls: | 6,660 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,862 |