SpiderJerusalem said:
Ah, but there's the thing. Is Justin Bieber skilled in music? Sure, he performs songs written by others, composed by more talented people and in general is a product that is sold. So, in theory, he doesn't fit either qualification.
Just like Bob. The Justin Bieber of his kind.
Perhaps I should leave it lie, but I have to say the phraseology of your posts in this thread seem excessively venomous and would be difficult for me to pass by regardless of who it was directed at.
The Justin Bieber analogy does not seem to apply to this case, as your original claim was that Bob is not a critic (even if you stated it in a rather... unnecessary, spiteful manner that suggests certain emotions on the topic of Bob that I am as yet not privy to) and that Justin Bieber is not a musician because he isn't skilled at music and that is a part of the definition.
The definition of a critic, on the other hand, is different from that of a musician. In short, from dictionary.com it is "a person who judges, evaluates, or criticizes". You could claim he isn't a GOOD critic, but it's hard to make the case that he ISN'T one. Then we get into what makes a good critic versus a bad one, but that's a different subject.
Venom and spite aren't needed to get your point across. It's entirely possible to say "I don't think Bob's a good critic and here's why I don't agree with him this time:" instead of using sarcasm and veiled insults. In fact, as soon as I see someone use insult-tactics I don't WANT to believe them. I don't WANT to side with them no matter how good their points are. I have to fight just to remember that despite the venom and destructive criticism they might have a good argument.
Anyway, I know that saying all this may not accomplish anything, but I wanted to put it out there.