Page 1 of 1
byrony
Posted: 22 Jun 2010 08:40
by lotek
to do a byron/byrony: just made up expression that gets its name from the almighty pussy of Dung Novels, and that covers any commentary, post or other twat that pushes forward the OH credo without, of course, being done on purpose!
Also called Shooting yourself repeatedly in the foot.
Example:
http://forum.dunenovels.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3402" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The post that got me banned.
Posting a link without realizing it mocks the hack... this is byrony.
Re: byrony
Posted: 22 Jun 2010 08:42
by lotek
http://www.filmreviewstew.com/clash_of_the_titans.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And once again Hollywood proves it has run out of original ideas. Why else would they remake this movie?
Back in 1981, when special effects were beginning to take serious root in films, we had the original CLASH OF THE TITANS. It had some cheesy claymation mixed with some less cheesy special effects. But it did have a story. A damn good one. Sure there were action sequences, especially when Perseus (Harry Hamlin) met up with Medusa. But these action scenes were barely a few minutes long. The story of the gods, how they felt about humanity (and how humanity felt about them) dominated the storyline. Yes, there was an actual story.
A bit like the Real Dune as opposed to the nudune kewl pewpew laser show and torture scenes that make a whole chapter?
Yes, there was an actual story indeed...
This is byrony!
Re: byrony
Posted: 22 Jun 2010 08:48
by lotek
this man is a goldmine!
I heard rumor that a sequel is in the making. Hmm. Let’s hope they don’t ruin a good thing by trying to make a big budget block-buster with M. Night.
http://www.filmreviewstew.com/paranormal_activity.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Yeah, let's hope they don't ruin a literary masterpiece by putting a best selling journeyman with the mental age of a bigbudgetblockbusterproducer in charge...
This is byrony!
Re: byrony
Posted: 22 Jun 2010 12:02
by Nekhrun
Did we really need another thread about queefing?
I pointed out Byron's hypocrisy of reviewing films vs. what we wrote on DN. He never got it, but for awhile his "reviews" looked more like summaries. Every single thing he says about movies he doesn't like applies to McDune.
Re: byrony
Posted: 22 Jun 2010 12:30
by lotek
yeah I should have known these grounds had been covered but I was quite pleased with my pun
(I get easily amused as you can tell
)
Re: byrony
Posted: 22 Jun 2010 12:40
by Nekhrun
lotek wrote:yeah I should have known these grounds had been covered but I was quite pleased with my pun
(I get easily amused as you can tell
)
Oh that's okay. Anything to point out Byron's double standard is a good thing.
Re: byrony
Posted: 22 Jun 2010 13:23
by lotek
definitely!
Re: byrony
Posted: 22 Jun 2010 14:15
by Hunchback Jack
This was actually a review by Chad Wilson. But I applaud the sentiment.
HBJ
Re: byrony
Posted: 22 Jun 2010 15:00
by Nekhrun
Hunchback Jack wrote:
This was actually a review by Chad Wilson. But I applaud the sentiment.
HBJ
Maybe not, but at least you don't have to read Byron's that way. Every one of his latest "reviews" is a summary of the plot. The only fun thing about reading them is finding typos.
Re: byrony
Posted: 22 Jun 2010 16:10
by SandChigger
Nekhrun wrote:Every one of his latest "reviews" is a summary of the plot.
Ah. The "Preeq on Amazon/Harriet Klausner" School of "Reviewing"!
Congrats, Byron, you've hit the Big Time!
Re: byrony
Posted: 22 Jun 2010 18:01
by lotek
Hunchback Jack wrote:
This was actually a review by Chad Wilson. But I applaud the sentiment.
HBJ
but... but... I never hecked because Byron linked it from his profile on Dungnovels... I mean I never expected to find
someone else's review the way it was presented...
He puts his email adress above someone else's stuff? I don't get it and I don't want to really...