What irrelevant things put you off

[pieterh]

Originally Posted by bohemian

One more time and someone has to do it:


".......... 1924 D-36 Martin owned by a friend of his. He told me it's all adirondack. Front and back. The friend "only" wanted $14,000 for it. A museum piece to be sure - very unique.

It's so unique that it doesn't even exist. "


There is no such thing as "very unique" or "so unique" or any other modifier or descriptive. Something is either unique or it is not..

Not "very" or "so" or "completely" or any other modifier.. it is either UNIQUE
or it is not.

Good point! It's frustrating when people say "almost all eternity" or "partial equality", all of which are paradoxical concepts. Something is unique (one of a kind) or it isn't; eternity is forever, time seen as infinite (whereas a specific length of time is just that, no matter how long it is); and equality means two or more things, sides, sexes, races and so on that have no differences in the contexts being discussed. People often talk about Sweden having one of the most equal societies which is misleading, given that it isn't yet an equal society.

I've drifted off topic a little, sorry. My guitars are unique in that they are mine. That'll do for me

[Scootch]

Forum posts that (and I see this everywhere) the poster asks a question as a post title that starts with "Has anyone ever...".

Has anyone ever played a Yamaha?
Has anyone here ever used a capo?
Or on bike forums, have any of you ever ridden a Trek?

Come on, at least phrase it as, "What do you think of...", etc.

- - - - -

On the other hand, it appears there is no single item everyone here likes.

[The Bard Rocks]

~Asymmetrical bridges and headstocks - unbalances me, sorry Breedlove
~Sunburst or paint - hides the beauty of wood
~Plastic - just feels cheap, not matter what it costs
~Cutaways - back to the symmetry thing; they just make the guitar look unbalanced
~Neck clashes with the body - I once rejected a fine Tippin for that reason, red neck, brown body
~ Not bookmatched - symmetry once again, but this is not as critical as the others to me for some reason. I guess I figure as the top darkens with age, this will cure itself to some degree.
~ Parts that clash with another, such as using too many different woods. On the other hand, guitars with parts that "fit" well attract me. I have one with bloodwood fretboard and bridge, but had white plastic tuner knobs. My personal aesthetics hated those knobs. When I got them replaced with bloodwood, I could breath easily again. Paid way too much for that and don't regret a cent of it.
~Squarish position markers - clunky looking
~Thick waists and fat bottoms - I mean in guitars; no offense, ladies

All this said, I own instruments which violate some of my reject reasons. After all, it is the sound and the playability that comes first. Looks merely attract. But if you are not initially attracted, you may not ever find out how it sounds or plays.

[handers]

"best guitar" threads

threads about the cost of guitars

Otherwise, I'm OK

hans

[devellis]

Deleted by poster because it was off-topic.

[billgennaro]

When two members destroy a thread by continually disparaging each other over something stupid. I understand a reply or two, but sometimes it just takes over the entire thread without any respect for the dozens of other folks trying to enjoy themselves.

Bill

[bohemian]

I don't care for pyramid bridges.. at all.

Moustache ok, pyramid not ok.

[Smilemaker]

I have a Seagull. Nice guitar, but the headstock is just plain weird.

[Kip Carter]

Originally Posted by Smilemaker

I have a Seagull. Nice guitar, but the headstock is just plain weird.

I kinda like the A frame approach to headstocks. Just me I guess but I've noticed more than a couple companies doing similar things.

[jaybones]

Don't care for Seagull headstocks either. Look weird, like they wanted their own and didn't want to copy another maker's. Which is probably how they came about.

On a related note, I dislike when people use the word "irregardless", as in "Irregardless of the facts..." Its not in the dictionary, and the former English major in me breaks it down to the quality of having no regard for something. So my example would mean that you do in fact support the "facts" or subject in question.

Double negative. Oxymoron. What ever you call it, it sounds stupid and uneducated.

[Kip Carter]

Originally Posted by jaybones

Don't care for Seagull headstocks either. Look weird, like they wanted their own and didn't want to copy another maker's. Which is probably how they came about.

On a related note, I dislike when people use the word "irregardless", as in "Irregardless of the facts..." Its not in the dictionary, and the former English major in me breaks it down to the quality of having no regard for something. So my example would mean that you do in fact support the "facts" or subject in question.

Double negative. Oxymoron. What ever you call it, it sounds stupid and uneducated.

Without regard I still like the A Frame look... (really didn't need to reply back but really wanted to use the 'Without Regard' bit... I never understood people that used irregardless... with ya!)

[M19]

Originally Posted by billgennaro

When two members destroy a thread by continually disparaging each other over something stupid. I understand a reply or two, but sometimes it just takes over the entire thread without any respect for the dozens of other folks trying to enjoy themselves.

Bill

Bill wins twenty brownie points from the AGF Moderator's Association!

[Goodallboy]

Originally Posted by M19

Bill wins twenty brownie points from the AGF Moderator's Association!

That still puts him way behind several others.

[flagstaffcharli]

Originally Posted by M19

Bill wins twenty brownie points from the AGF Moderator's Association!

He also wins points with a lot of us members who are tired of opening threads and seeing the same old, boring p#!*ing for distance contests between the same old, boring folks who take every point of disagreement as another personal insult that must be avenged.

[Teleman52]

I wouldn't say that they put me off, because they're easily changed.


But grover tuners... IMO they're hideous and don't look right on ANY guitar. They function alright, but I'm never going to own a guitar with those installed, at least not for very long