Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That particular vehicle looks practically ready to go...

Balance wrote:That particular vehicle looks practically ready to go...

Yeah, just trash it a bit more.

As for people refering to BOW folks as bums with a camera its kind of surprising... I mean have you guys really followed the vids and reports? have you guys seen the Steve Jackson ( if you dont know who he is you dont deserve to be in wargamming ) interview at salute carried by BOW? If thats not journalims and GOOD one I dont know what is...
Something tells me you guys watched one unboxing vid and drawed some generic conclusions based on personall intuition rather than the facts.

Tried to watch the video, couldn't get into them. The accents annoyed me... get those marbles out your mouth!

withershadow wrote:Tried to watch the video, couldn't get into them. The accents annoyed me... get those marbles out your mouth!

Ah, that's not really fair, is it?

Anyway, I'm looking forward to BoW's triumphant return...

Just go on their website

Knowing what I know about video production, they do a great job and have a pretty professional quality .. compare them to most internoobs on youtube and you can see the difference. They're reviews and interviews are done well, but I think the unboxing videos aren't really needed. I mean, it's a guy opening a box with sprues in it.. why? I'd rather just see high res good quality photos of the sprues alone.

Glad they got a new host for their videos though. YouTube is great because it's so common, but all the other video providers are just as good IMO.

$10 says that after all the GW bashing, it's something to do with some kind of marketing technicality where Youtube wasn't getting it's money.

I enjoy their videos. Their "news" is generally a few days older than what I see here, but I really like the in-depth un-boxings they do.

Even for miniature games I don't play. Their un-boxing of Mantic's zombees convinced me to go out and buy a box of 30. I'll use them for D&D.

Their "tips and tricks" and "beardy tactics" are interesting, although I don't always agree with a certain BoW's rules interpretations. Good for a laugh, at any rate.

You can't deny that their camera work is better than half of the crap that is out on the interwebs, though. Good quality, there. I hope they are back, soon.

Alpharius wrote:

withershadow wrote:Tried to watch the video, couldn't get into them. The accents annoyed me... get those marbles out your mouth!

Ah, that's not really fair, is it?

Anyway, I'm looking forward to BoW's triumphant return...

How is that not fair? Their manner of speech (particularly the pace) irritates me and I don't want to listen to it... so I don't. I'm not hating on the guys, I just don't like them. Where is the lack of fairness in that?

Same thing with the PP-themed Guts & Gears podcast. They usually have tons of content and interview developers all the time, but I struggle to get through it because the host is some Aussie that speaks so slowly and swallows so many vowels, I suspect he has a concussion.

It's not fair because instead of saying you find the Irish accent hard to understand due to your upbringing in the US -- which is perfectly understandable -- you say you find them annoying because they have marbles in their mouths.

They don't have marbles in their mouths. They are not difficult to understand for people who are familiar with a wider range of accents.

I was born and raised in the Soviet Union. English is my third language, yet I speak it better than most Americans (and Brits too, for that matter).

Their accents and way of speaking annoys me. There is no lack of comprehension. I can understand l33t-speak, it doesn't mean I like it. I can understand the [edited by Moderator] on Jerry Springer (or whoever the daytime talkshow hosts are these days), it doesn't mean I want to listen to them. I know what is meant when someone says "irregardless", it doesn't mean I don't want to murder them with a shovel.

edited for less and

Formal education or attention to language will often mean you have a better technical understanding, this does not make regional variations and dialects "wrong", though you are of course free to dislike listening to it. Pretty much the same as the posters who said they liked it because of the accent, in my view.

TBD wrote:

Ouze wrote:

TBD wrote:But that is not what I said. It's fine for people to review products, but let's not give them a name they don't deserve.

Yeah, I agree totally. I mean, all they do is review stuff. Anyone can do that! Like a movie reviewer... no way are those guys journalists. Any idiot can watch a movie, and you don't see those guys getting pulitzer prizes, right?

By the way, I'm curious. What precise licensing do you think it would take to be a journalist? Who should license them? What schooling? Clearly a college dropout would not pass muster, right? No one ever gonna give a Nobel Prize to some dropout nursemaid. What degree must they have, in your mind? Something vague and fake like "public affairs" or "speech"? What is that even, right? Nah. What about a bachelor's degree in history or English? Hah, history? Any substitute teacher needs that. What about experience as a debt collector? Hah, how crazy would that be?

So, wondering what would be appropriate.

Despite the suspected high % of smartpantsery it looks like you did a good amount of spending time & looking stuff up on this reply, so it must be very important to you (and I'm bored at work, so here we go)

...

A list of people who have done extraordinary work to earn special accreditation... cool?

Needless to say, for every each one of these exceptional cases there are 1000.000 unworthy bums with a website and/or a video camera.

"unworthy bums"? So, in addition to offering commentary on the fair use laws (without any demonstrated familiarity with them) you're the merit police, are you?

TBD wrote:If anyone who watches and reviews movies can be called a journalist, then in principle any random bum = Roger Ebert. I'm sure that is not what you want to state here. Now, can any random bum possibly ever become a Roger Ebert? Certainly. Nobody claims otherwise.

Can they become Roger Ebert? Like, invasion of the body snatchers style? Of course not. Can anyone become a movie reviewer? Yes, of course. Claiming otherwise is preposterous.

TBD wrote:A college dropout can be an excellent movie reviewer, but in general and until further notice he should still be called a movie reviewer and not a journalist. Walter Cronkite probably doesn't agree that Bubba Joe @ BoW should be viewed as a legit colleague, and I'm sure there are random people out there who never went to law school who know more about the law than the average lawyer, but they still don't have the right to call themselves lawyer.
If legislation attaches special treatment to a certain name tag, then there damn better be a proper distinction of that specific name tag and who gets to wear it. That has been the whole point throughout. I don't see how that is so hard to understand and/or (apparently) upsetting to some.

Your points would go over much better if you understood what you are talking about: a movie reviewer is, for all considerations of fair use law, a journalist as we are using the term here.

TBD wrote:As far as qualifications go, other fields of profession have certain requirements. Just add similar ones to journalism. Figure it out. Normally there would be nothing wrong with, among others of course, a bachelor's degree in English or History as a starting requirement, at least not down here. I can't comment on the specifics and quality of the US educational system and how these particular degrees compare to their supposed equivalents elsewhere (you seem to not think very highly of them & substitute teachers though?).

Yeah... you realize you've now ventured straight into fantasy land, right? That is, you're not saying that a relevent standard has been breached, but that the one that you wish existed applied to this real life situation.

TBD wrote:In addition to that, there is nothing wrong with granting honorific titles to people who have done extraordinary work to deserve such special consideration.

It would be very nice if I could review some movies of boxes of plastic sprues on Youtube and put "journalist" on my resume. However when you put some more thought into it that is not very realistic now is it? Most potential employers would raise an eyebrow at that at a minimum. Some will definitely laught in your face.

Well, with iron-clad reasoning like that...

Let me put it this way: you keep using the word journalist as if it were freighted with meaning, and it simply isn't. Let's be concrete here: is the defense of fair use for purpose of criticism, commentary or news reporting available for the material produced by Beasts of War? All signs point to "yes".

Is there an accreditation requirement for the fair use defense to copyright infringement? Nope.

As for putting it on your resume.. I dunno, if you're applying for a position as a reviewer of, say, stereo systems or cars or whatnot, I would imagine that the existence of reviews you did previously (which demonstrate your on camera presence and analytical capacity) could hardly be a negative. If you're applying for a position as a foreign war correspondent... well, let's just say, if the bar is Geraldo Rivera, the bar ain't all that high.

TBD wrote:I can race a car, but that doesn't make me a legit racecar driver. I can also make myself dinner, but that doesn't make me an official cook. Etc.

And yet if you put a review on the web of a movie you saw, you've acted in a journalistic capacity. Do it enough and you're, gasp! a journalist.

Beasts of war is a business engaged in disseminating news, reviews and commentary; they even have corporate sponsors. What, exactly, is the difference between BoW and, say, Motorweek? Or MaximumPC? Or Cook's Illustrated? Note, this is a rhetorical question, there is no legal difference in terms of rights and privileges between these entities.

TBD wrote:Anyway, this post has become way too long already. Again, what I have been saying is that not every random hobo with a website and a videocamera should be called a journalist, because if everyone is then nobody truly is, and the word would be meaningless (which it unfortunately seems it has become a long time ago already). If that opinion offends anyone then that is too bad, but I honestly don't give a rat's arse

Well, I suppose you can rest assured that at least you held firm in this round of the fight against free expression. Or something.

withershadow wrote:I was born and raised in the Soviet Union. English is my third language, yet I speak it better than most Americans (and Brits too, for that matter).

Their accents and way of speaking annoys me. There is no lack of comprehension. I can understand l33t-speak, it doesn't mean I like it. I can understand the [edited by Moderator] on Jerry Springer (or whoever the daytime talkshow hosts are these days), it doesn't mean I want to listen to them. I know what is meant when someone says "irregardless", it doesn't mean I don't want to murder them with a shovel.

edited for less and

Even if you were born on the Moon, it's pointless to say you don't like someone's accent, it's rude to say they have a mouth full of marbles, and it's unfair because they are only speaking their natural accent.

So now it's unfair for me to not like something and therefore not want to listen to it? Am I to be put in stocks and forced to watch it whether I like it or not?

Don't stick him in with the rest of America. I've never had a problem with an accent. It's really easy if you pay attention to the conversation.

Surtur wrote:Don't stick him in with the rest of America. I've never had a problem with an accent. It's really easy if you pay attention to the conversation.

Hurray for selective reading.

Hmmm
.
If you had simply said that the accent was annoying to you personally, then fair enough. So why add the comment about the marbles?

The accent will have been the result of their cultural background and intrinsic to the way they speak. They have no need to apologise for not having received pronounciation. There are no marbles to remove.

Kilkrazy wrote:

withershadow wrote:I was born and raised in the Soviet Union. English is my third language, yet I speak it better than most Americans (and Brits too, for that matter).

Their accents and way of speaking annoys me. There is no lack of comprehension. I can understand l33t-speak, it doesn't mean I like it. I can understand the [edited by Moderator] on Jerry Springer (or whoever the daytime talkshow hosts are these days), it doesn't mean I want to listen to them. I know what is meant when someone says "irregardless", it doesn't mean I don't want to murder them with a shovel.

edited for less and

Even if you were born on the Moon, it's pointless to say you don't like someone's accent, it's rude to say they have a mouth full of marbles, and it's unfair because they are only speaking their natural accent.

QFT.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's not fair because instead of saying you find the Irish accent hard to understand due to your upbringing in the US -- which is perfectly understandable -- you say you find them annoying because they have marbles in their mouths.

They don't have marbles in their mouths. They are not difficult to understand for people who are familiar with a wider range of accents.

+1 And the Irish sense of humour is good too

Maybe someone needs their ears checked? I've been brought up in the USA and have no trouble understanding them, and not one of them sounds like they have "marbles in their mouth".

withershadow wrote:So now it's unfair for me to not like something and therefore not want to listen to it? Am I to be put in stocks and forced to watch it whether I like it or not?

Where ever it was that you learned to speak engrish (jk) you need to see if they run anger management courses as well......

No one is trying to dictate what you like or don't like, they're just politely suggesting you DON'T be an ass while talking about it.

I watched the video where they had to record it live on Justin.tv or something and what annoyed me the most is the guy on the left wouldn't shutup. He would go on and on and then look at the guy to his right, who would basically say "Yep" and then the guy on the left would go on again.

If the show was just that guy then that is ok, but the should try to get a 2nd co-host who can hold his own weight

I know.
Poor John in the camo suit couldn't get a word in edgewise!

Then ... erm ... there is ... erm ... another problem ... erm
But I guess the quality of BoW videos is not the topic here.

I'm biting back a few of the comments that I really want to say, but to address that toolish comment that these guys arn't journalists...

As an independent podcast, D6 Generation, BOW, and any number of sites that want to put together a commentary and discuss a subject while having a good discussion on the subject qualify as news.

The need is being filled by a couple of gamers that are discussing what they know. Are they out there spouting the party line from f!@#'s news? No. They are discussing and presenting pov's and discussion. ALBET, sometimes they go off the deep end, ( Orgy's,,, ) but to be honest, Journalism as YOU want it has been dead since the beginning of the radio.
News services are diametricly biased to the point of view of thier advertisers, backing, and political puppetstrings they are being directed by.

These guys are gamers, they know what they are talking about, and they have something to say. You want to do something better? You are welcome to.

Thats one of the things about the internet, and why some people have such an issue on it.

You don't like it, your welcome to the party line and read WD for your lickies and chewies, but I don't see GW discussions going any farther then "Oh, you have GOT to get one of these! It's the bee's knees! Paint it up with GW paints, and glue it with GW patented paste! "

What is it about them that isn't journalistic? They need to go to Harvard or something? WTF?

The show is rough, the guys have thier moments, but on the whole at the grass roots level, They are doing a fine job at discussing thier subject, have done it in a unbiased, (To a point)
and are giving you information.

I saw that show and find it fine.

Withershadow, you just need to not post what your thinking... It wasn't what you said, it was how you came across with how you said it. Honestly, you just need to hold what you have and let the subject go, because you come across like your being a tool and looking down on people just becauuse they have a accent.

Its fine if you don't like it, that wasn't the thing. It was calling them on something they really don't have a choice on. It's ok to not say why you don't like it, or even not even comment on reason at all, but to go out and call someone on all things an accent...

Bad form, bro. Bad form indeeed.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Hmmm
.
If you had simply said that the accent was annoying to you personally, then fair enough. So why add the comment about the marbles?

The accent will have been the result of their cultural background and intrinsic to the way they speak. They have no need to apologise for not having received pronounciation. There are no marbles to remove.

I'm sorry you don't value proper diction. I added the comment about the marbles, because to me some of them sound like they have marbles in their mouth. Just because I think Hanna Montana sounds like a harpy being castrated, doesn't mean she's actually a winged mythological being or has anything to castrate in the first place. It's called a simile, with perhaps a touch of hyperbole for comedic effect. I'm sorry you don't have a sense of humor either.

I understand them fine, I just don't care to take the time because they annoy me. And it's not even all of them, but just a couple of the commentators are enough to turn me off the show. Likewise there are podcasts I don't listen to because they will have one guy I find grating, or some mouth-breather that sounds like he's about to die of emphysema. All that is my personal choice, I'm not getting paid to listen/watch fan shows. I'm sure they wouldn't really care either that some random donkey-cave thousands of miles away doesn't like how they sound, so you can bring them down from the cross now.

But fine, if it makes you all feel better, omit the portion about marbles. Or you can continue raging about it, getting that blood pressure nice and high. I make my money off of bad tickers, so I thank you for your future business. I agree with Grot 6 that the best thing to do is just bow out of this. For the sake of those that do enjoy Beasts of War, I hope they come back soon.

withershadow wrote:Tried to watch the video, couldn't get into them. The accents annoyed me... get those marbles out your mouth!

'Out of your mouth!'...

I can't understand what you're typing, type in English you colonial scum.

I am sorry for you that you feel the need to defend yourself on this, when an apology would be far better than continually digging a hole.
Maybe you don't understand the expression of talking with something in one's mouth. It is usally applied in a mocking and derisory manner.

I value the diverse range of accents and cultures we are fortunate to have in the British Isles.

As for not having a sense of humour, I will let fellow Dakkanauts be a judge of that.

btw Harpies are female, so it would be difficult to castrate them.