Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Thu Oct 02, 2014 6:36 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 356 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 15  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:33 am
Posts: 3554
Disco Boy wrote:
Because the particular definition of "disposable" you were utilizing, is just as subjective as the word "subjective" is when discussing one's own personal tastes. This is especially true of you, since you think U2 is strictly a pop band. This confirms, at least to me, that you don't know U2's music from a hole in a wall...


Excellent! Thanks for the confirmation that I was correct and we are in agreement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4827
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
What a fitting description of my view of U2's music: "A hole in the wall"!

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 12:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 3156
Location: Between the Badges
Should we start a U2 thread? :shock:

I kinda look at U2 along the same lines as REM. Both play a mainstream form of rock, while dabbling in various styles. Both have guitarists who are considered above average players, but often get forgotten by critics. Both bass players and drummers are forgettable. Really, I can't think of any of the 4 names off the top of my head, ok, now I'm thinking of a couple... And of course, both have vocalists that really want to be prophets saving the world.

DB... what does U2 do the best? Seriously, I'm curious what your answer will be.

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 5:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3571
Location: Vancouver, BC
brainpang wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
Because the particular definition of "disposable" you were utilizing, is just as subjective as the word "subjective" is when discussing one's own personal tastes. This is especially true of you, since you think U2 is strictly a pop band. This confirms, at least to me, that you don't know U2's music from a hole in a wall...


Excellent! Thanks for the confirmation that I was correct and we are in agreement.


But you're not and we're not. Because I'm talking about the stylistic description of U2's music (which, when doing so, is far less subjective, if at all) and NOT anyone's personal taste. There's a difference.

The Forum Killed Arkay wrote:
Should we start a U2 thread? :shock:

I kinda look at U2 along the same lines as REM. Both play a mainstream form of rock, while dabbling in various styles. Both have guitarists who are considered above average players, but often get forgotten by critics. Both bass players and drummers are forgettable. Really, I can't think of any of the 4 names off the top of my head, ok, now I'm thinking of a couple... And of course, both have vocalists that really want to be prophets saving the world.


I think that's fair and I can agree with this to a certain extent.

The Forum Killed Arkay wrote:
DB... what does U2 do the best? Seriously, I'm curious what your answer will be.


That's a pretty loaded and very subjective but good question. For me, it's mostly to do with how excellent most of their songs are. But I am also impressed by how, during the '90s, they took major risks and completely reinvented their sound, yet still generally remained very successful (though, at the time, Pop became their lowest selling studio album). It's very interesting to me how all of a sudden U2 started creating music that, for the most part and at least to me, was very experimental and innovative, but still managed to sustain their commercial success AND critical acclaim from the '80s. Most artists NEVER possess 3 of those things, let alone 2. While some don't even get close to 1 of them. So, for U2 to possess all 3, was astonishing to me. It's almost as if they were trying to throw their fans off their backs and not be popular. U2 truly were an anomaly during this era of their career.

However, nowadays, I can't even stand to listen to their past 3 bland, pedestrian, utilitarian and uninspiring albums. I don't think I've ever seen such a great band drive right off the creative musical cliff with such haste, like U2 have. I know they're doing it because of Pop's lacklustre sales performance...and it pisses me off because I know they're capable of producing better, more creative music. U2 have now become the ultimate sell-outs...

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 2302
The Forum Killed Arkay wrote:
Both have guitarists who are considered above average players....

.....by 6 out of every 10 McDonalds customers.


:mrgreen:
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 8:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4827
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Disco Boy wrote:
It's very interesting to me how all of a sudden U2 started creating music that, for the most part and at least to me, was very experimental and innovative, but still managed to sustain their commercial success AND critical acclaim from the '80s. Most artists NEVER possess 3 of those things, let alone 2. While some don't even get close to 1 of them. So, for U2 to possess all 3, was astonishing to me. It's almost as if they were trying to throw their fans off their backs and not be popular. U2 truly were an anomaly during this era of their career.


Like the Monkees really - except they had to wait a bit for the critical acclaim.
Why one as a listener should be interested in the latter has always puzzled me somewhat.
BTW not all critics loved them. Christgau thought both Achtung Baby and Pop were bombs.

http://robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=u2

Mind you, he hated Zappa as well...

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Last edited by Caputh on Mon Sep 09, 2013 8:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 8:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:07 am
Posts: 1573
Disco Boy wrote:
However, nowadays, I can't even stand to listen to their past 3 bland, pedestrian, utilitarian and uninspiring albums. I don't think I've ever seen such a great band drive right off the creative musical cliff with such haste, like U2 have. I know they're doing it because of Pop's lacklustre sales performance...and it pisses me off because I know they're capable of producing better, more creative music. U2 have now become the ultimate sell-outs...


Now how would you define selling out then? For every artist-this-sold-out-with-album-or-hit-single-this claim you have disbelievers in such notions. Personally I remember when "All You Can't Leave Behind" came out 13 years ago, some reviewers hailed it as a "return to form" basically, perhaps implying that "Pop" sort of deviated from the form.

Even with Zappa the waters were murky. For many disgruntled aging hippies, "Over-Nite Sensation" was a crass bid for commercialism or even an attempt to record a soft-core porno LP in lieu of "real art-rock". Others, disappointed with Flo & Eddie years and the jazz-fusion experimentation of 1972, hailed "Sensation" as a return to form.

_________________
Lies are like quicksand, soft and comfortable, but they will swallow us. Truth is like bedrock, hard and uncomfortable, but we can always stand on it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:33 am
Posts: 3554
Disco Boy wrote:
But you're not and we're not. Because I'm talking about the stylistic description of U2's music (which, when doing so, is far less subjective, if at all) and NOT anyone's personal taste. There's a difference.


I called 'em pop and you yourself called 'em pop.
I called 'em disposable as they are of the stadium garden variety,
and you bemoaned the music, then citing massive ticket sales.
You scoff: But I was referring to the latest turn of the band!
But I don’t buy that. I just see/hear them from a different perspective than you.
U2 always been about Bongo singing on top of whatever to radio-friendly track lengths, with the
"right," very expensive "sound" and manipulative lyrics. You need to embrace the entire catalog. Love the Pop Star. He is expert at it. He can play with art concepts all he wants, but at the end of the day he remains a Pop Star (there's money in that racket). I'm not gonna let him skirt that because he hired William Burroughs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 2302
Image

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3571
Location: Vancouver, BC
Ed Organus Maximus wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
However, nowadays, I can't even stand to listen to their past 3 bland, pedestrian, utilitarian and uninspiring albums. I don't think I've ever seen such a great band drive right off the creative musical cliff with such haste, like U2 have. I know they're doing it because of Pop's lacklustre sales performance...and it pisses me off because I know they're capable of producing better, more creative music. U2 have now become the ultimate sell-outs...


Now how would you define selling out then? For every artist-this-sold-out-with-album-or-hit-single-this claim you have disbelievers in such notions. Personally I remember when "All You Can't Leave Behind" came out 13 years ago, some reviewers hailed it as a "return to form" basically, perhaps implying that "Pop" sort of deviated from the form.


Uh, I've already your above question in part of the post you quoted. I don't know how much more clearer I could've made it?

Ed Organus Maximus wrote:
Even with Zappa the waters were murky. For many disgruntled aging hippies, "Over-Nite Sensation" was a crass bid for commercialism or even an attempt to record a soft-core porno LP in lieu of "real art-rock". Others, disappointed with Flo & Eddie years and the jazz-fusion experimentation of 1972, hailed "Sensation" as a return to form.


I personally don't know why ANY Zappa fan would think that. Especially since I not only consider OS to be one of FZ's top 5 albums, but also because stylistically, it's all over the map...

brainpang wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
But you're not and we're not. Because I'm talking about the stylistic description of U2's music (which, when doing so, is far less subjective, if at all) and NOT anyone's personal taste. There's a difference.


I called 'em pop and you yourself called 'em pop.
I called 'em disposable as they are of the stadium garden variety,
and you bemoaned the music, then citing massive ticket sales.
You scoff: But I was referring to the latest turn of the band!
But I don’t buy that. I just see/hear them from a different perspective than you.
U2 always been about Bongo singing on top of whatever to radio-friendly track lengths, with the
"right," very expensive "sound" and manipulative lyrics. You need to embrace the entire catalog. Love the Pop Star. He is expert at it. He can play with art concepts all he wants, but at the end of the day he remains a Pop Star (there's money in that racket). I'm not gonna let him skirt that because he hired William Burroughs.


I don't give a shit if you "buy" what I stated or not. If you actually heard U2's entire catalogue, which you have NOT, you would understand why I said that, since, up until 2000, they CONSTANTLY evolved musically. Secondly, when I think of "disposable" music, I think of one-hit-wonders and boy bands, not 35+ year career-spanning artists like U2. Thirdly, wtf is the "right, very expensive sound"? And wtf are "manipulative lyrics"? Lastly, you seem to have a major problem with U2 (or other artists) being very popular, mostly utilizing non prog-rock track lengths (I say mostly because U2 were arguably prog-rock in the '90s, and with some song lengths that were over 5-6 minutes) and earning a living making music, as if that automatically diminishes the quality of their music. Why do you think like this? Judging the content of their music is what matters here. And why can't you just admit that you don't know U2's music from a hole in the wall and probably haven't heard more than a handful of tracks? Is it because it renders pretty much any criticism you've stated about them invalid? I think it does...

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4827
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Disco Boy's "discussion" with brainpang will obviously only be over if...
a) brainpang listens to all of U2's albums.
b) He agrees that they are not "disposable".
c) He agrees that they are not pop.
d) He doesn't like any of the albums after "Pop" (which not even U2 seem to like very much btw).
e) He admits that the Disco Boy's subjective taste is far superior to his own.
f) A meteorite crashes into earth, destroying all sentient life.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 8:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 20222
Location: Somewhere in time
Caputh wrote:
Disco Boy's "discussion" with brainpang will obviously only be over if...
a) brainpang listens to all of U2's albums.
b) He agrees that they are not "disposable".
c) He agrees that they are not pop.
d) He doesn't like any of the albums after "Pop" (which not even U2 seem to like very much btw).
e) He admits that the Disco Boy's subjective taste is far superior to his own.
f) A meteorite crashes into earth, destroying all sentient life.





LMFAO... :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 12:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:04 pm
Posts: 2851
Location: Chicago, sort of.
g) He agrees that the meteor must be filled with cream cheese and speaks fluent English, according to DB's research. :)

_________________
Everytime we picked a booger we'd flip it on this one winduh. Every night we'd contribute, 2, 3, 4 boogers. We had to use a putty knife, man, to get them damn things off the winduh. There was some goober ones that weren't even hard...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:33 am
Posts: 3554
I don’t need to hear the entire catalog to make an assessment. I’ve heard plenty, including full albums , and I GET IT. It’s not like it is difficult music that requires multiple plays to hear. It’s all RIGHT THERE; thus, it’s popularity. I will revise my “manipulative lyrics” statement to manipulative vocalization. It has the same effect on me as the most schmaltzy, cringe-inducing Hollywood saccharine fest. It toys with one on the basest level. I don’t like to submit to that. If I wanna shed an Irish tear, I have loads of records that will break and then uplift my heart. Ones that don’t insert corny post-modernist art concepts into the music when the heart-on-the-sleeve approach is out of favor.

Don’t get political on me, money has nothing to do with it. I spend a lot of time listening to classical music that requires huge capital and all that entails, from the scoring commission to the building it is performed in. And SUCCESS doesn’t upset me. My tastes are just not of the popular variety. I don’t care for THE SOUND that most mainstream radio-friendly success requires, unless it is Lady Gaga pure dance type stuff, then the production sounds great. That “SOUND” is basically a tone that resonates within ones body. A Hummmmmmmm that seems to sooth the minds of the masses but personally repels me. U2 is more Beyonce than Weezer. Weezer I like, not that I listen to them unless kids are around.

In Sum: U2 is not Art of Merit. Therefore: disposable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 2302
You just haven't heard the right albums!

Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3571
Location: Vancouver, BC
brainpang wrote:
I don’t need to hear the entire catalog to make an assessment. I’ve heard plenty, including full albums , and I GET IT. It’s not like it is difficult music that requires multiple plays to hear. It’s all RIGHT THERE; thus, it’s popularity. I will revise my “manipulative lyrics” statement to manipulative vocalization. It has the same effect on me as the most schmaltzy, cringe-inducing Hollywood saccharine fest. It toys with one on the basest level. I don’t like to submit to that. If I wanna shed an Irish tear, I have loads of records that will break and then uplift my heart. Ones that don’t insert corny post-modernist art concepts into the music when the heart-on-the-sleeve approach is out of favor.

Don’t get political on me, money has nothing to do with it. I spend a lot of time listening to classical music that requires huge capital and all that entails, from the scoring commission to the building it is performed in. And SUCCESS doesn’t upset me. My tastes are just not of the popular variety. I don’t care for THE SOUND that most mainstream radio-friendly success requires, unless it is Lady Gaga pure dance type stuff, then the production sounds great. That “SOUND” is basically a tone that resonates within ones body. A Hummmmmmmm that seems to sooth the minds of the masses but personally repels me. U2 is more Beyonce than Weezer. Weezer I like, not that I listen to them unless kids are around.

In Sum: U2 is not Art of Merit. Therefore: disposable.


Wtf did I say you had to listen to their entire catalogue to get it? And who gives a shit if it's not technical? That's not what music is about. And again, what do you mean when you state, "THE SOUND"? That's hardly a description at all, as is "manipulative" lyrics or vocalization. It's as though you think all U2 write are love songs? Also, if U2's success doesn't upset you, then why were you knocking it? And not that it's a good comparison but, musically speaking, U2 is far closer to Weezer than Beyonce.

In sum: disliking their music is fine. But when you ramble on about things you know NOTHING about, it's obvious to me that you still haven't found what you're looking for and don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about when describing U2's music. Just say you don't like it and be done with it. Because you're descriptions are so far beyond incorrect, it's laughable...

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 7:29 pm
Posts: 9593
Image

_________________
Image


Last edited by slime.oofytv.set on Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 9:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 2302
I've gotta hear that!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4827
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Wot? No backpedalling? I'll never bet again!

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:33 am
Posts: 3554
Disco Boy wrote:
brainpang wrote:
I don’t need to hear the entire catalog to make an assessment. I’ve heard plenty, including full albums , and I GET IT. It’s not like it is difficult music that requires multiple plays to hear. It’s all RIGHT THERE; thus, it’s popularity. I will revise my “manipulative lyrics” statement to manipulative vocalization. It has the same effect on me as the most schmaltzy, cringe-inducing Hollywood saccharine fest. It toys with one on the basest level. I don’t like to submit to that. If I wanna shed an Irish tear, I have loads of records that will break and then uplift my heart. Ones that don’t insert corny post-modernist art concepts into the music when the heart-on-the-sleeve approach is out of favor.

Don’t get political on me, money has nothing to do with it. I spend a lot of time listening to classical music that requires huge capital and all that entails, from the scoring commission to the building it is performed in. And SUCCESS doesn’t upset me. My tastes are just not of the popular variety. I don’t care for THE SOUND that most mainstream radio-friendly success requires, unless it is Lady Gaga pure dance type stuff, then the production sounds great. That “SOUND” is basically a tone that resonates within ones body. A Hummmmmmmm that seems to sooth the minds of the masses but personally repels me. U2 is more Beyonce than Weezer. Weezer I like, not that I listen to them unless kids are around.

In Sum: U2 is not Art of Merit. Therefore: disposable.


Wtf did I say you had to listen to their entire catalogue to get it? And who gives a shit if it's not technical? That's not what music is about. And again, what do you mean when you state, "THE SOUND"? That's hardly a description at all, as is "manipulative" lyrics or vocalization. It's as though you think all U2 write are love songs? Also, if U2's success doesn't upset you, then why were you knocking it? And not that it's a good comparison but, musically speaking, U2 is far closer to Weezer than Beyonce.

In sum: disliking their music is fine. But when you ramble on about things you know NOTHING about, it's obvious to me that you still haven't found what you're looking for and don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about when describing U2's music. Just say you don't like it and be done with it. Because you're descriptions are so far beyond incorrect, it's laughable...


you misread just about everything and don't make much sense at all. very weak, not up to standard. it is clear to me that i have a much more objective view of u2 than udoo. thats it for me today, had a bike tumble and seemingly sprained a wrist and dealing with you is painful enough as it is without the physical adding to it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4827
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Get well soon, brainpang!

I wonder if DB can bring himself to insult someone who is in physical pain?

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 20222
Location: Somewhere in time
Caputh wrote:
Get well soon, brainpang!

I wonder if DB can bring himself to insult someone who is in physical pain?



The righteous give no Quarter... :smoke:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3571
Location: Vancouver, BC
brainpang wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
brainpang wrote:
I don’t need to hear the entire catalog to make an assessment. I’ve heard plenty, including full albums , and I GET IT. It’s not like it is difficult music that requires multiple plays to hear. It’s all RIGHT THERE; thus, it’s popularity. I will revise my “manipulative lyrics” statement to manipulative vocalization. It has the same effect on me as the most schmaltzy, cringe-inducing Hollywood saccharine fest. It toys with one on the basest level. I don’t like to submit to that. If I wanna shed an Irish tear, I have loads of records that will break and then uplift my heart. Ones that don’t insert corny post-modernist art concepts into the music when the heart-on-the-sleeve approach is out of favor.

Don’t get political on me, money has nothing to do with it. I spend a lot of time listening to classical music that requires huge capital and all that entails, from the scoring commission to the building it is performed in. And SUCCESS doesn’t upset me. My tastes are just not of the popular variety. I don’t care for THE SOUND that most mainstream radio-friendly success requires, unless it is Lady Gaga pure dance type stuff, then the production sounds great. That “SOUND” is basically a tone that resonates within ones body. A Hummmmmmmm that seems to sooth the minds of the masses but personally repels me. U2 is more Beyonce than Weezer. Weezer I like, not that I listen to them unless kids are around.

In Sum: U2 is not Art of Merit. Therefore: disposable.


Wtf did I say you had to listen to their entire catalogue to get it? And who gives a shit if it's not technical? That's not what music is about. And again, what do you mean when you state, "THE SOUND"? That's hardly a description at all, as is "manipulative" lyrics or vocalization. It's as though you think all U2 write are love songs? Also, if U2's success doesn't upset you, then why were you knocking it? And not that it's a good comparison but, musically speaking, U2 is far closer to Weezer than Beyonce.

In sum: disliking their music is fine. But when you ramble on about things you know NOTHING about, it's obvious to me that you still haven't found what you're looking for and don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about when describing U2's music. Just say you don't like it and be done with it. Because you're descriptions are so far beyond incorrect, it's laughable...


you misread just about everything and don't make much sense at all. very weak, not up to standard. it is clear to me that i have a much more objective view of u2 than udoo. thats it for me today, had a bike tumble and seemingly sprained a wrist and dealing with you is painful enough as it is without the physical adding to it.


Image

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4827
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Caputh wrote:
Get well soon, brainpang!

I wonder if DB can bring himself to insult someone who is in physical pain?


Disco Boy wrote:

Image


Yes, he can!

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 6:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:33 am
Posts: 3554
db. sorry, but you cannot discount my views. otherwise i will be forced to discount yours on what is considered experimental / progressive / innovative, etc. which you may not have any clue.

sorry, you lose again.

please go back to figuring out tax rates.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 356 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group