Agreed.

Again, some people can't see the statement, only the name of the person who posted the statement. The moment you stop paying attention to what a person is saying, any person, and automatically assume that everything this person says is outrageous and stupid, you've lost. You have nothing to offer a debate.

Now, I'm not saying that any time a person you don't like says something that makes sense, you should agree with this person, because a lot the time, the person who posted this opinion may not have come to his or her conclusion based on the same logic you would have. There are many posters in this forum and in other forums who normally say stupid things, but occasionally say something that's indeed correct. Should we all go: "I agree with Chad_kroeger_fan_99 that Hendrix was the greatest rock guitarist!", just because Chad_kroeger_fan_99 happened to blurt out something that for once is very much a worthwhile statement? Of course not, because Chad_kroeger_fan_99 may be just copying what he's seen others say, but he's unable to explain in his own words why Hendrix was the greatest rock guitarist without making a bunch of ridiculous claims in the process.

I see new posters making lists, a lot of lists, and every once in a while they make a list that has all the names in the right order. Does this mean this person spent a lot of time selecting the names using logic and informed opinions, or did he simply look at what others had done, changed a few names around, and thought: "this looks good, I'll post it and see what people think"? More often than not, it's the latter, and that is why I wish people around here were more selective about what they approved of and used as an argument to get something changed.

Please use your head and be more critical about the changes people propose, especially if this person hasn't made any reasonable arguments supporting his or her suggestions.

agreed on all that.
the bane of this forum

Eh, it's not so bad when someone like KeithMoonIsGod or Negative Creep make a list as they seem genuinely interested in constructing a decent one. It's people like Echoes and Stryder who ruin it for everybody else.

oh for sure. but in the actual threads its like every other asshole is posting 4 lists per day until theyve covered every conceivable permutation, and decent commentary is getting lost in the spam

The worst are the "arguments" that consist of nothing but horseshit criteria breakdowns, as if it's some kind of foolproof defense.

yeah, they are the actual bane

That is Echoes' only defense mechanism when he's backed into a corner.

lets make a list of them !!

It's a short list, thankfully. But I hope my post made sense, and that it makes everyone think twice about making a bunch of lists without any explanation, and also giving the lists thumbs up without asking the person who made the list to explain why he or she did this. A list is worthless without constructive reasoning, no matter how logical the list of names may seem. The reason it's taken so many years to make the current list of rock guitarists is because it's not just a bunch of names with numbers. There is a logical explanation behind every placement, at least in the Top 100, and I only ask the people posting here to give the same kind of logical reasoning behind any requests or suggestions.

Good arguments will be noted, and stand a much bigger chance of resulting in a change of placements on the list than someone posting a bunch of vague requests over and over again, as if nagging is gonna make the editors listen to what the poster has to say. It doesn't work that way, and it shouldn't. It'd be like asking a girl to sleep with you again and again and again, until she finally says: "Alright! Let's just get it over with already!"

I'm the kind of girl who'll sooner ask the cops for a restraining order than even consider giving up and dropping my panties.

I wouldn’t go that far. I feel Metallica/Iron Maiden/Judas should be ahead of Mustaine. But Mustaine should be a lot closer to them. For example I think it makes more sense to have him ahead of Buckethead or tie with Dimebag.

It would be great if you and George would help more with other lists. For example your input would be highly appreciated at the Most Influential Rock guitarist list I am doing (which is at a dead-end right now because no one wants to make suggestions out of the top 10).

To be honest, I'm not really interested in actual positions on the other lists, but I'd be happy to offer my opinions on the various guitarists, as long as the criteria is one that people agree on.

@Echoes
Dude, Hetfield is not as complete of a player or as strong of a bandleader. He had help composing from Lars and he had a lead player in Kirk. Dave could do all that himself and for the first several records had very little help writing and played about as much lead as the other players, it's pretty straight forward. Dave is very close in influence and impact if not equal.

If someone can point out a flaw in that argument, please let me know what it is I'm missing.

From a songwriting perspective, I think Hetfield > Mustaine. I mean, Metallica have a lot of great rock guitar songs and albums. For example, there is a new list of Greatest Heavy Metal albums by year and Metallica is #1 on a lot of years.