Jack Thompson is a member of the German Parliament now?

Like any other instrument, you can do some pretty neat things with an autotune, or you can use it as a crutch.

I think the new Kanye West album is a good example of somebody really trying to do something new with it. Intentionally using the jarring, slightly inhuman vocals to create a sense of distance and isolation, something the album was intended to convey. Sort of an "uncanny valley" of voice. IMO, the song "Love Lockdown" is an excellent example of him really trying to make the autotuner into an instrument, and not just a tool. Now, the entire album is far from perfect, but I give him extra artist points for reach extending his grasp.

On the other hand, other pop songs use it horribly, and in such a way that it ruins the song. A good example there is the song "Nine in the Afternoon" by Panic! at the Disco. That song is supposed to have a warmth, and a little bit of a rough feel about it. It seems to have been written for a teenager in their room in a hormonal storm. And yet, the autotune, especially in the chorus, destroys that sense. It pulls you out of that feeling, and reminds you that it's not really the singers voice. Suddenly, he's not singing something you can commiserate with, he's singing words on a page.

"Any time someone tells you about something that happened in the past, you have to either BELIEVE that or not." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. When I use the word "believe," it's a concession to the evidence, which is strong enough to convince me. I try not to use it too much. I believe that the laws of physics were the same millions (and billions) of years ago because all the observable evidence of the universe points to the laws of physics being static, up until a few picoseconds after the initial event (beyond that, without data, I don't speculate. You may place any creators you wish within that box, but be prepared to be questioned about evidence). When someone says that they believe in ID, it (generally) means that they believe it in spite of the strong evidence suggesting that natural selection occurs, or believe it due to an erroneous or incomplete knowledge of the processes involved. Behe's irreducible complexity has already been discredited, for instance, yet the argument is commonly used to support the idea of ID as a scientific theory. The statement that all evidence from the past must be believed because it cannot be demonstrated is argumentative twaddle. Do you, then, believe that photographs, film, etc. are not really recordings of the past? How about physical measurements of blue shift, or argon-potassium dating? Do you believe that recorded evidence that says that experiments done to determine gravitation, velocity, etc. will end with different results than those previously recorded? I do not succumb to belief, I acknowledge evidence. When and if there is positive, reproducable, experimental evidence of ID, I will acknowledge it as well. Be well.

You didn't even have to RTFA, just the whole of the post: "She has requested a pre-motion conference in anticipation of making a summary judgment motion dismissing the complaint and awarding her attorneys fees under the Copyright Act."