10at10 Club

Main Discussion Area => Stream of Consciousness => Topic started by: RGMike on February 15, 2005, 09:23:32 AM

Title: Interesting (and a bit odd) article about 10@10
Post by: RGMike on February 15, 2005, 09:23:32 AM

stumbled across this -- it's about 3 years old, written by Gina Arnold for the Metro (the SJ answer to the Guardian & SF Weekly). What I found odd was her determination that 1985 is a "wonderful" year, while 1971 is "crap" (I think most of us might reverse the 2). She also disses his Earth Day set from 2002 and talks about creating her own (and her own indicates to me she was unclear on the concept). But she does actually interview Dave...

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/06.06.02/allshookdown-0223.html

Title: Interesting (and a bit odd) article about 10@10
Post by: Gazoo on February 15, 2005, 09:55:17 AM

"I can't wait for 1992--that's going to make some amazing sets."

We're still waiting for them, Dave.   :wink:

Title: Interesting (and a bit odd) article about 10@10
Post by: RGMike on February 15, 2005, 09:56:51 AM

Quote from: "Gazoo"

"I can't wait for 1992--that's going to make some amazing sets."

We're still waiting for them, Dave.   :wink:

I just KNEW someone (Gaz) would comment on that line... 8)

Title: Interesting (and a bit odd) article about 10@10
Post by: Beej on February 15, 2005, 10:10:24 AM

Quote

What I found odd was her determination that 1985 is a "wonderful" year, while 1971 is "crap" (I think most of us might reverse the 2).

Gina Arnold is either:

1) Very young
2) Very shallow
3) Some combination of the 2

Title: Interesting (and a bit odd) article about 10@10
Post by: princessofcairo on February 15, 2005, 10:47:03 AM

Quote from: "Beej"

Quote

What I found odd was her determination that 1985 is a "wonderful" year, while 1971 is "crap" (I think most of us might reverse the 2).

Gina Arnold is either:

1) Very young
2) Very shallow
3) Some combination of the 2

just a bad writer, methinks.