just a normal guy kevin

As someone who has undoubtedly sold almost as many limited edition Vinyl Me Please exclusives as the company itself, where do you see the future of both the forums and VMP headed?

As someone who has undoubtedly sold almost as many limited edition Vinyl Me Please exclusives as the company itself, where do you see the future of both the forums and VMP headed?

As someone who has undoubtedly sold almost as many limited edition Vinyl Me Please exclusives as the company itself, where do you see the future of both the forums and VMP headed?

I bought the 7"s and told OP that "subtlety" is not VC's "strong suit".
They arrived today and were packed perfectly and play better than Mint. I don't have a camera but here is proof that I got them and am happy.

You guys forced him to copy and paste all those threads.  You made him do this.  This is hurting him more than it hurts you.

Download cards add an unnecessary level of complication and stress to reselling limited edition vinyl. Whenever a customer emails me to complain that their download card expired or wasn't included with their $150 record, I send them this boilerplate response:
 
 

Some of my best record sales/buys took 3-6 years to complete.
Also, drugs.

http://piaptk.limitedrun.com/products/598133-floating-action-is-it-exquisite-lp
 
 
 
 
This guy's music is so fucking good and PIAPTK is such a cool label. Don't sleep on this.

I can see that. I think both a loose attachment and a hyper tight attachment help with this record. If you're not a huge AF fan and casually browsing Spotify's new releases playlists for your new music, which is filled with major label D-level/AAA artists, the album isn't wildly different than anything else they offer as "rock" or "indie" music and maybe it's better. If you really really love AF, you can look at the record in a way where you think "Hey, this song is so terrible...that it's now good!" If you're in the middle, you know too much about AF's discography to think this matches up and you probably are too busy listening to other music to dedicate hours to trying and liking it. I am sincere though when I say that I think it's a bad album but that it is cool that people can discuss it and think about it this much, which is much more than albums that are better.

I'm not sure it was intentional but Arcade Fire seem to have provided legitimate value in the form of giving dedicated fans an opportunity to challenge themselves. The album is very mediocre, if not terrible, and very easy to dismiss for most people but I see some followers sticking with it and trying to find positives or relate with the thought behind certain choices. That level of interaction and thought energy is more than you can say for many albums that are better quality wise.

^ That's how you drop seven f bombs, attack someone's music tastes, and let the testosterone fly without using a slur. Some posters need to take mother fucking notes.

Sleeve City's Audiophile inner sleeves are exactly the same as the MoFIs except the rice paper backing is thicker, which helps prevent scrunching when returning an LP to the sleeve.  IMO, it's worth the slight hike in price to not have to deal with the sleeves being too thin and easily collapsable.  
 

 
Sleeve City also makes an Ultimate Audiophile version that has rice paper lining on both sides but those are a bit overkill for me.  I have bought both and prefer the simpler 1-rice-paper-side, 1-thin-clear-side look and feel (and price).  If you want a sturdy tank sleeve, it's great though.

This won't work for everyone but...get banned from VC for making threats to other members, come back immediately under a fake persona of a Russian scene kid whose dream is to backpack to the United States, give silly advice to someone asking for sincere advice, and you should feel great and fulfilled within seconds.

This won't work for everyone but...get banned from VC for making threats to other members, come back immediately under a fake persona of a Russian scene kid whose dream is to backpack to the United States, give silly advice to someone asking for sincere advice, and you should feel great and fulfilled within seconds.

This won't work for everyone but...get banned from VC for making threats to other members, come back immediately under a fake persona of a Russian scene kid whose dream is to backpack to the United States, give silly advice to someone asking for sincere advice, and you should feel great and fulfilled within seconds.

This won't work for everyone but...get banned from VC for making threats to other members, come back immediately under a fake persona of a Russian scene kid whose dream is to backpack to the United States, give silly advice to someone asking for sincere advice, and you should feel great and fulfilled within seconds.

This won't work for everyone but...get banned from VC for making threats to other members, come back immediately under a fake persona of a Russian scene kid whose dream is to backpack to the United States, give silly advice to someone asking for sincere advice, and you should feel great and fulfilled within seconds.

This won't work for everyone but...get banned from VC for making threats to other members, come back immediately under a fake persona of a Russian scene kid whose dream is to backpack to the United States, give silly advice to someone asking for sincere advice, and you should feel great and fulfilled within seconds.

This won't work for everyone but...get banned from VC for making threats to other members, come back immediately under a fake persona of a Russian scene kid whose dream is to backpack to the United States, give silly advice to someone asking for sincere advice, and you should feel great and fulfilled within seconds.

This won't work for everyone but...get banned from VC for making threats to other members, come back immediately under a fake persona of a Russian scene kid whose dream is to backpack to the United States, give silly advice to someone asking for sincere advice, and you should feel great and fulfilled within seconds.

Normally, when people share their music or a project they're working on, we are all really nice to them and we keep an open, supportive attitude. But, sadly, the music just isn't on par with where it should be quality wise. And, because of that, we have to be painfully honest and tell you that it needs improvement, as difficult as it is for us to be negative. Sorry.

Normally, when people share their music or a project they're working on, we are all really nice to them and we keep an open, supportive attitude. But, sadly, the music just isn't on par with where it should be quality wise. And, because of that, we have to be painfully honest and tell you that it needs improvement, as difficult as it is for us to be negative. Sorry.

Take a look at why we focus on one instead of the other and whether we use these sorts of incidents to illuminate the larger situation or distract/deflect from the larger situation.
One take is to highlight the UC Berkeley violence as a means to ADDING it to the growing list of troubling and extreme actions occurring from multiple 'sides' and filling out the conversation further. How does violence present itself in troubling political climates? Is the value of violence ruled by a simplified ideology such as "All violence is bad always" and, if so, is that ideology invoked every time a violent act is committed? If not, is there a pattern or common link between the cases where violence is denounced or the cases when it is overlooked? Could there be a biased advantage to minimizing some acts of violence while highlighting others? Is that bias justified if it contributes to less overall violence or is a response to more sinister forms of violence? Or is all bias wrong, again raising the question of whether we want to place blanket simplified rules on things?
The point of all those questions is that simply denouncing violence can be important but its also very basic and offers little value without asking or answering those follow up questions. Similarly, it can also be counter-productive. Stripping out context and foregoing follow-up reflection can feel ideologically pure and re-affirming, since you're taking a wild and insanely unpredictable thing and making it solvable with 1 sentence, but it's impractical. For example, there exists a scenario where an individual can use calls for peace, something that without context or further reflection is universally good, as a way to deflect and distract from the larger problem of violence, which is harmful and not productive in practice/reality. This was done with the "All Lives Matter" reaction. It is done in this thread where people who have sat in silence on many instances of violence and troubling international threats suddenly appear when the situation involves liberal college students and begin calling for peace or singling out specific users and calling for them to behave. The calls for peace are not asking us to look at the larger world and how violence has infiltrated that political climate...they are asking us to hyper-focus on this one incident and, effectively, narrow our sights and focus.

How can we fully tear you apart/further insinuate that you are stealing our golden suggestions if we don't have a link?

Take a look at why we focus on one instead of the other and whether we use these sorts of incidents to illuminate the larger situation or distract/deflect from the larger situation.
One take is to highlight the UC Berkeley violence as a means to ADDING it to the growing list of troubling and extreme actions occurring from multiple 'sides' and filling out the conversation further. How does violence present itself in troubling political climates? Is the value of violence ruled by a simplified ideology such as "All violence is bad always" and, if so, is that ideology invoked every time a violent act is committed? If not, is there a pattern or common link between the cases where violence is denounced or the cases when it is overlooked? Could there be a biased advantage to minimizing some acts of violence while highlighting others? Is that bias justified if it contributes to less overall violence or is a response to more sinister forms of violence? Or is all bias wrong, again raising the question of whether we want to place blanket simplified rules on things?
The point of all those questions is that simply denouncing violence can be important but its also very basic and offers little value without asking or answering those follow up questions. Similarly, it can also be counter-productive. Stripping out context and foregoing follow-up reflection can feel ideologically pure and re-affirming, since you're taking a wild and insanely unpredictable thing and making it solvable with 1 sentence, but it's impractical. For example, there exists a scenario where an individual can use calls for peace, something that without context or further reflection is universally good, as a way to deflect and distract from the larger problem of violence, which is harmful and not productive in practice/reality. This was done with the "All Lives Matter" reaction. It is done in this thread where people who have sat in silence on many instances of violence and troubling international threats suddenly appear when the situation involves liberal college students and begin calling for peace or singling out specific users and calling for them to behave. The calls for peace are not asking us to look at the larger world and how violence has infiltrated that political climate...they are asking us to hyper-focus on this one incident and, effectively, narrow our sights and focus.