tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971097165195198562.post7425192198361177461..comments2008-08-26T05:31:10.060-04:00aresevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09779042632972417951noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971097165195198562.post-65045774036001452082008-08-26T05:31:00.000-04:002008-08-26T05:31:00.000-04:00Skepticism towards any critic's claim of "best new music" is probably a good policy. I downloaded their Wizard EP back when P4k reviewed it, and I did not get the appeal. They're certainly not terrible (I could see myself enjoying something like "Look At Me (When I Rock Wichoo)" in a live setting), but they still don't strike me as anything special. <BR/><BR/>While I'm not a fan, I completely agree with you that the P4k review was mean and totally not a good look for them. <BR/><BR/>I interpreted the "Sorry :-/" picture as the editor apologizing for P4k's hyping the band in the first place, and being a dumb asshole at the same time. What I think it meant was a kind of "Sorry that some of our writer's told you this band was good. This band actually sucks...but you should already know that." It's arrogant (he doesn't think he has to explain himself to those who disagree with him) and it completely insults the readers and P4k writers who actually like the band. It also confirms that Scott Plagenhoef thinks he's entitled, as editor-in-chief, to use the site as his personal playground. He also thinks he's funnier than he actually is.Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08234505610364293035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971097165195198562.post-61329968187930364642008-08-25T19:31:00.000-04:002008-08-25T19:31:00.000-04:00Thank you for writing this. This whole "issue" has been bothering me since I saw that dog photo.lizwww.headphones-on.comnoreply@blogger.com