Should we call it "formulaic" when an artist uses a method that has been shown to be effective in the past? Or do we call it "tried and true"? Or do we whisper in hushed tones that the artist may be "borrowing" or even "committing plagiary"?

In bob's freshman release on these boards, he shows himself to have his finger on the pulse of the okay crowd. We can't resist responding to criticism, as we've shown time and time again. We love to talk about ourselves even more than we live to espouse our well thought out opinions and reviews. This is as true on the Reviews boards as it is on GD or Activist, but bob has shown once again that "no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public" or, in this case, the okaypublic.

bob's thread suffers from no spelling errors and only minor punctuation errors (some of which are clearly intentional and so do not rank necessarily as errors in punctuation but may instead be classified as errors in judgment). At the very least we can say that bob is a refreshingly professional technician, perhaps resurrecting the self-absorption of this genre to a higher level for future craftsmen.

Finally, bob notes with some irony at the end of his post that he is doing exactly what he accuses others of doing, thereby leaving the post open for a sequel, something this critic heartily despises. Shall we discuss whether a critique of the critics is itself a criticism of the sort derided by the original critic or shall we join the walrus and the carpenter on the beach?

@@@@ out of @@@@@

P.S. I have been giving some serious consideration to writing a review of my glasses collection, prescription and nonprescription, clear and dark. A short treatment of the subject available on request.