Temper
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Also, musicians/entertainers do have agendas based on their own beliefs so why should I trust them anymore than a politician? because musicains don't have bombs, police, spies, laws and our tax dollars. i'm not saying you should believe them (we agree on that). i'm just saying with a musician, you can take them or leave them, but you don't have to worry about who's pulling the strings. -c
As always, it's bread and circuses. And while bread is down right now, circuses are way up.
Chris Losinger wrote: i'm just saying with a musician, you can take them or leave them, but you don't have to worry about who's pulling the strings. Don't be naive... Commercially viable musicians are slaves to record sales and record companies. Ones with talent use that talent to create art that is sellable. Those without talent resort to shock and controversy. You be the judge as to which we are refering to here. ;)
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
Racism: A problem everywhere. Fortunately, a majority of white people don't practice it anymore so why lump all of America into the racist stereotype. War: Every country has a right to self defense. Iraq invaded Kuwait, so we helped them. In Grenada, American medical students where being held, so we freed them. Policing the World: I'm all for stopping. Let the UN and Europe handle their own problems. "Crazed loonies all walk the streets" - another generalization which isn't true everywhere in America. "Missing children on milk cartons" - this is a good thing. we're tryin to find them. "Mother selling child for crack " - there are some screwed up people but America isn't filled with them. David Wulff wrote: Hurts doesn't it. We have problems but its nothing the rest of the world doesn't experience.
Jason Henderson
start page
articles
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Sir Winston ChurchillJason Henderson wrote: Racism: A problem everywhere. Fortunately, a majority of white people don't practice it anymore so why lump all of America into the racist stereotype I can't believe you just said that - racism is NOT all about White v's Black, and whatever has happened in your nation's two hundred years of history doesn't change that. Jason Henderson wrote: War: Every country has a right to self defense. Iraq invaded Kuwait, so we helped them. In Grenada, American medical students where being held, so we freed them. So? So? Jason Henderson wrote: "Crazed loonies all walk the streets" - another generalization which isn't true everywhere in America. What part of that said everyone on the streets is a crazed loony as you seem to be suggesting? Ditto for the others. You've missed the point by a very large margin. Jason Henderson wrote: We have problems but its nothing the rest of the world doesn't experience That's not what I emant, what I meant is that it hurts to be told that America isn't holier than my arse. Not to all people you must understand - I do not pretend to believe that for a moment - but to some. Personally I don't give a damn what my country (Britain) does or does not do but I damned well expect them to look further than our own shores when so much of what they do has global consequences.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
TOTD: Doubleclicking a personalised menu will remove the personalisation.
-
Paul Riley wrote: I think you overestimate the power music has over people. I listen to music and am not swayed, but others are. Some people watch violent tv and go shoot up a restaurant. I'm not blaming the musician or the tv show writer. It's the irrational person that they influence that should be blamed. Paul Riley wrote: David listens to System of a Down and takes the words seriously. This is not because he's stupid or believing blindly in the words of a rock band. This is because he's already made an informed decision as to where he stands How do you know it is an informed decision? Think about. Do you think GWB is really out to rule the world? If he want the oil for his buddies, why didn't Bush Sr. take it in '90? All I'm saying is don't be so gullible. Paul Riley wrote: Is your opinion any more valid than David's? Of course. ;P
Jason Henderson
start page
articles
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Sir Winston ChurchillJason Henderson wrote: Some people watch violent tv and go shoot up a restaurant. Only violent people. If a movie didn't trigger that tendency, something else would. Jason Henderson wrote: It's the irrational person that they influence that should be blamed. Agreed. Jason Henderson wrote: How do you know it is an informed decision? Because I've talked to David before and I know that even when he doesn't agree with me, he's at least thought it out. I have no problem with anyone who doesn't agree with me as long as they're ready to back their opinion. The world would be a tedious place without a range of opinions. Jason Henderson wrote: Think about. Do you think GWB is really out to rule the world? If he want the oil for his buddies, why didn't Bush Sr. take it in '90? All I'm saying is don't be so gullible. Personally... okay, you've asked for it, I've avoided offering opinions on this here, I only try to play devil's advocate. But here's what I honestly believe: I don't think GWB is after the oil (God, I hope not!). I also think that his war effort against Iraq is with all the best intentions... but we all know what best intentions pave :) However, I do understand why people believe that. Because of his oil connections, GW is clearly more aware of Iraq than of other nations with similar problems. He justifies the potential war with talk about attrocities against the populace of Iraq while ignoring much worse atrocities in Rwanda and other African nations. He talks about the evil dictator while growling quietly at SOME of the other evil dictators in the world. He talks about the fact that Iraq has invaded Iran and Kuwait, ignoring the fact that they were on our side against the former and at the very least allowed to believe that no one would get involved over the latter. He talks about humanitarian issues while ignoring China and a long list of other countries. He talks about weapons of mass destruction while he must be aware that just having such weapons is not enough, they need to have a delivery system. Why bother when you can just fly a plane into a tall building? He talks about the UN resolutions, but if the UN don't want to enforce them then that's not his problem. A lot of the UN wants to tell Israel to calm down but no one bothers proposing resolutions any more in the absolute knowledge that they will be vetoed by the US. You can't bl
-
Jason Henderson wrote: I agree totally. Its just that we shouldn't except these guys as credible anymore than Dubya. Sure. The only problem is that these guys have no power with which to control the political shape of the world and that makes them a whole lot less scary than the Shrub. Remember that those who listen and agree with everything they say probably already agree with them before they ever listen to the music. And they do write some kick-ass toons :-D Paul
Paul Riley wrote: Remember that those who listen and agree with everything they say probably already agree with them before they ever listen to the music. I think you'll find very very few people will do that for anyone; it goes against human nature not to at least question what you are told even if you do not do so vocally. Paul Riley wrote: And they do write some kick-ass toons They write cartoons? :omg: :-D
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
TOTD: Doubleclicking a personalised menu will remove the personalisation.
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Racism: A problem everywhere. Fortunately, a majority of white people don't practice it anymore so why lump all of America into the racist stereotype I can't believe you just said that - racism is NOT all about White v's Black, and whatever has happened in your nation's two hundred years of history doesn't change that. Jason Henderson wrote: War: Every country has a right to self defense. Iraq invaded Kuwait, so we helped them. In Grenada, American medical students where being held, so we freed them. So? So? Jason Henderson wrote: "Crazed loonies all walk the streets" - another generalization which isn't true everywhere in America. What part of that said everyone on the streets is a crazed loony as you seem to be suggesting? Ditto for the others. You've missed the point by a very large margin. Jason Henderson wrote: We have problems but its nothing the rest of the world doesn't experience That's not what I emant, what I meant is that it hurts to be told that America isn't holier than my arse. Not to all people you must understand - I do not pretend to believe that for a moment - but to some. Personally I don't give a damn what my country (Britain) does or does not do but I damned well expect them to look further than our own shores when so much of what they do has global consequences.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
TOTD: Doubleclicking a personalised menu will remove the personalisation.
David Wulff wrote: what I meant is that it hurts to be told that America isn't holier than my arse I don't think America is holier than your arse. It has problems just like the rest of the world. Why then, do people pick on America?!
Jason Henderson
start page
articles
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Sir Winston Churchill -
Chris Losinger wrote: i'm just saying with a musician, you can take them or leave them, but you don't have to worry about who's pulling the strings. Don't be naive... Commercially viable musicians are slaves to record sales and record companies. Ones with talent use that talent to create art that is sellable. Those without talent resort to shock and controversy. You be the judge as to which we are refering to here. ;)
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: Those without talent resort to shock and controversy. Bah! Utter tripe. I don't disagree with most of your sentiment here but most artists who are considered classics (Beatles, Elvis, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, etc) have been controversial at some point in time. Would you contend that all these have been talentless bums resorting to controversy to sell records? Paul
-
Paul Riley wrote: Remember that those who listen and agree with everything they say probably already agree with them before they ever listen to the music. I think you'll find very very few people will do that for anyone; it goes against human nature not to at least question what you are told even if you do not do so vocally. Paul Riley wrote: And they do write some kick-ass toons They write cartoons? :omg: :-D
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
TOTD: Doubleclicking a personalised menu will remove the personalisation.
David Wulff wrote: I think you'll find very very few people will do that for anyone; it goes against human nature not to at least question what you are told even if you do not do so vocally. I may be misreading you here, but aren't you agreeing with me? Paul
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Some people watch violent tv and go shoot up a restaurant. Only violent people. If a movie didn't trigger that tendency, something else would. Jason Henderson wrote: It's the irrational person that they influence that should be blamed. Agreed. Jason Henderson wrote: How do you know it is an informed decision? Because I've talked to David before and I know that even when he doesn't agree with me, he's at least thought it out. I have no problem with anyone who doesn't agree with me as long as they're ready to back their opinion. The world would be a tedious place without a range of opinions. Jason Henderson wrote: Think about. Do you think GWB is really out to rule the world? If he want the oil for his buddies, why didn't Bush Sr. take it in '90? All I'm saying is don't be so gullible. Personally... okay, you've asked for it, I've avoided offering opinions on this here, I only try to play devil's advocate. But here's what I honestly believe: I don't think GWB is after the oil (God, I hope not!). I also think that his war effort against Iraq is with all the best intentions... but we all know what best intentions pave :) However, I do understand why people believe that. Because of his oil connections, GW is clearly more aware of Iraq than of other nations with similar problems. He justifies the potential war with talk about attrocities against the populace of Iraq while ignoring much worse atrocities in Rwanda and other African nations. He talks about the evil dictator while growling quietly at SOME of the other evil dictators in the world. He talks about the fact that Iraq has invaded Iran and Kuwait, ignoring the fact that they were on our side against the former and at the very least allowed to believe that no one would get involved over the latter. He talks about humanitarian issues while ignoring China and a long list of other countries. He talks about weapons of mass destruction while he must be aware that just having such weapons is not enough, they need to have a delivery system. Why bother when you can just fly a plane into a tall building? He talks about the UN resolutions, but if the UN don't want to enforce them then that's not his problem. A lot of the UN wants to tell Israel to calm down but no one bothers proposing resolutions any more in the absolute knowledge that they will be vetoed by the US. You can't bl
Paul Riley wrote: He justifies the potential war with talk about attrocities against the populace of Iraq while ignoring much worse atrocities in Rwanda and other African nations. I agree this is not right. We should treat all atrocities equally. Paul Riley wrote: He talks about weapons of mass destruction while he must be aware that just having such weapons is not enough, they need to have a delivery system. Why bother when you can just fly a plane into a tall building? Who needs a delivery system when you can send a nuke over in ship and park it off the coast of NY. Or put Anthrax on a plane and spread it over a city. Saddam is unstable, he hates us, he has supported terrorism. I believe he is the first on a list of people we need to take out. The gov't of Iran is second. Paul Riley wrote: But I'll defend my right, your right, David's right and System of a Down's right to tell it as we see it until the day I die. I'm not saying we should make SoaD not speak their beliefs. I just want everyone to think things out before believing everything they say. If David has, great! We'll agree to disagree.
Jason Henderson
start page
articles
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Sir Winston Churchill -
Chris Losinger wrote: i'm just saying with a musician, you can take them or leave them, but you don't have to worry about who's pulling the strings. Don't be naive... Commercially viable musicians are slaves to record sales and record companies. Ones with talent use that talent to create art that is sellable. Those without talent resort to shock and controversy. You be the judge as to which we are refering to here. ;)
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: Commercially viable musicians are slaves to record sales and record companies don't be blind. there's a whole world of musicians who aren't corporate whores. and so what if brittney is beholden to her corporate masters? when was the last time a record company used her to convince you of the need to raise your property taxes? or sent Eminem on a mission to garner support for yet another sub-division without putting in enough roads to support it? had Lil Kim advocating the overthrow of the government of another country? or employed Ricky Martin to canvass your neighborhood trying to pass a law making it illegal for two consenting adults to do whatever they want to each other? musicians can stir up trouble. but they're not even in the same leauge as politicians . -c
As always, it's bread and circuses. And while bread is down right now, circuses are way up.
-
Paul Riley wrote: He justifies the potential war with talk about attrocities against the populace of Iraq while ignoring much worse atrocities in Rwanda and other African nations. I agree this is not right. We should treat all atrocities equally. Paul Riley wrote: He talks about weapons of mass destruction while he must be aware that just having such weapons is not enough, they need to have a delivery system. Why bother when you can just fly a plane into a tall building? Who needs a delivery system when you can send a nuke over in ship and park it off the coast of NY. Or put Anthrax on a plane and spread it over a city. Saddam is unstable, he hates us, he has supported terrorism. I believe he is the first on a list of people we need to take out. The gov't of Iran is second. Paul Riley wrote: But I'll defend my right, your right, David's right and System of a Down's right to tell it as we see it until the day I die. I'm not saying we should make SoaD not speak their beliefs. I just want everyone to think things out before believing everything they say. If David has, great! We'll agree to disagree.
Jason Henderson
start page
articles
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Sir Winston ChurchillJason Henderson wrote: Who needs a delivery system when you can send a nuke over in ship and park it off the coast of NY. And who needs a nuke when you can fly a plane into a building? There is always a potential for attack from any direction at any time. America has simply been unaware of this until a year ago. Jason Henderson wrote: Saddam is unstable, he hates us, he has supported terrorism. I believe he is the first on a list of people we need to take out. The gov't of Iran is second. This is where our opinions part, I'm afraid. Attacking another nation without direct provocation is wrong unless the UN can agree that they pose a genuine threat. You can call it self-defense as much as you like but if you call my fork a spoon then it's still a fork. :) Yes, this attitude may cost lives; yes, this attitude may cost MY life. But I'd rather that than try to fight a war of morality from the moral low-ground. Besides, if you want a list of unstable foreign leaders who hate either the US or the UK, this is going to be a very long war. X| Paul
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Who needs a delivery system when you can send a nuke over in ship and park it off the coast of NY. And who needs a nuke when you can fly a plane into a building? There is always a potential for attack from any direction at any time. America has simply been unaware of this until a year ago. Jason Henderson wrote: Saddam is unstable, he hates us, he has supported terrorism. I believe he is the first on a list of people we need to take out. The gov't of Iran is second. This is where our opinions part, I'm afraid. Attacking another nation without direct provocation is wrong unless the UN can agree that they pose a genuine threat. You can call it self-defense as much as you like but if you call my fork a spoon then it's still a fork. :) Yes, this attitude may cost lives; yes, this attitude may cost MY life. But I'd rather that than try to fight a war of morality from the moral low-ground. Besides, if you want a list of unstable foreign leaders who hate either the US or the UK, this is going to be a very long war. X| Paul
Paul Riley wrote: Attacking another nation without direct provocation is wrong unless the UN can agree that they pose a genuine threat. If the UN charter says that we must go through the UN before responding to another nation's attack on us, then its time we parted company. If the UK sent spies (or supported terrorists) to destroy a building of ours or to blow up one of our ships, I believe we have a right to defend ourselves no matter what the UN says. Iraq supported the terrorists that brought down the WTC. Note to other countries: If you want to alienate yourselves from the US, then just try to make us go through the UN when we feel we have a right to self defense.
Jason Henderson
start page
articles
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Sir Winston Churchill -
Mike Mullikin wrote: Those without talent resort to shock and controversy. Bah! Utter tripe. I don't disagree with most of your sentiment here but most artists who are considered classics (Beatles, Elvis, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, etc) have been controversial at some point in time. Would you contend that all these have been talentless bums resorting to controversy to sell records? Paul
Paul Riley wrote: ...most artists who are considered classics (Beatles, Elvis, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, etc) have been controversial at some point in time. Would you contend that all these have been talentless bums resorting to controversy to sell records? Not at all. But there is a big difference between creating a little shock and controversy to prove a point or help a cause and generating a lot of shock by insulting an entire nation. The cynic in me, sees the latter as a deperate attempt to garner attention despite a lack of talent. After reading those lyrics I would put "System of a Down" in the same league as most current rap artists - "talentless bums resorting to controversy to sell records".
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Commercially viable musicians are slaves to record sales and record companies don't be blind. there's a whole world of musicians who aren't corporate whores. and so what if brittney is beholden to her corporate masters? when was the last time a record company used her to convince you of the need to raise your property taxes? or sent Eminem on a mission to garner support for yet another sub-division without putting in enough roads to support it? had Lil Kim advocating the overthrow of the government of another country? or employed Ricky Martin to canvass your neighborhood trying to pass a law making it illegal for two consenting adults to do whatever they want to each other? musicians can stir up trouble. but they're not even in the same leauge as politicians . -c
As always, it's bread and circuses. And while bread is down right now, circuses are way up.
Chris Losinger wrote: there's a whole world of musicians who aren't corporate whores. That's why I said "Commercially viable musicians". If you want to believe that these songwriters wrote those lyrics as an artistic expression of their beliefs rather than a cheap, easy way to make some money without actually using talent, so be it. Chris Losinger wrote: musicians can stir up trouble. but they're not even in the same leauge as politicians . Agreed! But I don't remember saying anything at all about politicians in this thread... :confused:
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
Paul Riley wrote: ...most artists who are considered classics (Beatles, Elvis, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, etc) have been controversial at some point in time. Would you contend that all these have been talentless bums resorting to controversy to sell records? Not at all. But there is a big difference between creating a little shock and controversy to prove a point or help a cause and generating a lot of shock by insulting an entire nation. The cynic in me, sees the latter as a deperate attempt to garner attention despite a lack of talent. After reading those lyrics I would put "System of a Down" in the same league as most current rap artists - "talentless bums resorting to controversy to sell records".
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: After reading those lyrics I would put "System of a Down" in the same league as most current rap artists - "talentless bums resorting to controversy to sell records". Ahh... the old "I don't like them, therefore they are talentless" argument. Ignore the millions of people who are entertained by them. In that case I'd better say that Elvis was talentless because I don't like his stuff. :-D Paul
-
Paul Riley wrote: Attacking another nation without direct provocation is wrong unless the UN can agree that they pose a genuine threat. If the UN charter says that we must go through the UN before responding to another nation's attack on us, then its time we parted company. If the UK sent spies (or supported terrorists) to destroy a building of ours or to blow up one of our ships, I believe we have a right to defend ourselves no matter what the UN says. Iraq supported the terrorists that brought down the WTC. Note to other countries: If you want to alienate yourselves from the US, then just try to make us go through the UN when we feel we have a right to self defense.
Jason Henderson
start page
articles
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Sir Winston ChurchillJason Henderson wrote: Iraq supported the terrorists that brought down the WTC. If Bush provides proof of this "fact", you'll see opinions in the UN change radically. Unfortunately this is nothing more than heresay right now. One minute it's OBL who funded the attacks, then when he goes missing it was Saddam. Jason Henderson wrote: Note to other countries: If you want to alienate yourselves from the US, then just try to make us go through the UN when we feel we have a right to self defense. And you ask why people pick on the US specifically? The US holds itself up as morally superior to its enemies and then use arguments like this when they don't get their own way. The UK and Israel are equally guilty of this. Saddam felt he was justified in attacking Kuwait because they were supposedly diagonal-drilling Iraqi oil. The rest of the world disagreed because he chose not to present a convincing case to the UN. How is this argument any different? As I said before, if we're going to fight a war on the grounds of morality then fine. Let's do it but let's hold ourselves to the highest moral standards or we've already lost. Paul
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: After reading those lyrics I would put "System of a Down" in the same league as most current rap artists - "talentless bums resorting to controversy to sell records". Ahh... the old "I don't like them, therefore they are talentless" argument. Ignore the millions of people who are entertained by them. In that case I'd better say that Elvis was talentless because I don't like his stuff. :-D Paul
Paul Riley wrote: Ahh... the old "I don't like them, therefore they are talentless" argument. Ignore the millions of people who are entertained by them. Absolutely. Judging talent is 100% purely subjective. There are no hard and fast rules. All I'm saying is that IMCO (in my cynical opinion) those lyrics were written to cause controversy in order to sell more units. If the somgwriters had talent they wouldn't have needed to use such tactics to sell their "art". I never proposed that they were wrong or illegal or should be banned or anything. They certainly have the right to write, perform and distribute their material to any audience who will listen. Likewise, I have the right to judge their talent and motivations. Agreed?
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
Chris Losinger wrote: there's a whole world of musicians who aren't corporate whores. That's why I said "Commercially viable musicians". If you want to believe that these songwriters wrote those lyrics as an artistic expression of their beliefs rather than a cheap, easy way to make some money without actually using talent, so be it. Chris Losinger wrote: musicians can stir up trouble. but they're not even in the same leauge as politicians . Agreed! But I don't remember saying anything at all about politicians in this thread... :confused:
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
Paul Riley wrote: Ahh... the old "I don't like them, therefore they are talentless" argument. Ignore the millions of people who are entertained by them. Absolutely. Judging talent is 100% purely subjective. There are no hard and fast rules. All I'm saying is that IMCO (in my cynical opinion) those lyrics were written to cause controversy in order to sell more units. If the somgwriters had talent they wouldn't have needed to use such tactics to sell their "art". I never proposed that they were wrong or illegal or should be banned or anything. They certainly have the right to write, perform and distribute their material to any audience who will listen. Likewise, I have the right to judge their talent and motivations. Agreed?
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: Absolutely. Judging talent is 100% purely subjective. Not true. Talent can be judged on whether one achieves the goals of the given discipline. In terms of a professional singer, that is to entertain. As a singer I would fail to entertain anyone, I have no musical talent. Elvis Presley entertained millions, still does. Just because he fails to entertain me doesn't remove anything from his musical talent. Britney Spears is a brean-dead bimbo whose voice grates on my nerves but I couldn't claim that she is talentless. Mike Mullikin wrote: Likewise, I have the right to judge their talent and motivations. Agreed? You may judge their motivations and I wouldn't argue with you. I do think that the shock value has a lot to do with hitting a target market and making lots of money. That doesn't render them talentless. Paul
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Absolutely. Judging talent is 100% purely subjective. Not true. Talent can be judged on whether one achieves the goals of the given discipline. In terms of a professional singer, that is to entertain. As a singer I would fail to entertain anyone, I have no musical talent. Elvis Presley entertained millions, still does. Just because he fails to entertain me doesn't remove anything from his musical talent. Britney Spears is a brean-dead bimbo whose voice grates on my nerves but I couldn't claim that she is talentless. Mike Mullikin wrote: Likewise, I have the right to judge their talent and motivations. Agreed? You may judge their motivations and I wouldn't argue with you. I do think that the shock value has a lot to do with hitting a target market and making lots of money. That doesn't render them talentless. Paul
Paul Riley wrote: Talent can be judged on whether one achieves the goals of the given discipline. In terms of a professional singer, that is to entertain. So if I could find enough people who would be entertained by seeing me bash my head with a hammer does that automatically mean that I posess some talent at bashing myself in the head? Not at all. It simply means I've found a bunch of people that want to be shocked by seeing some idiot bash himself in the head. Maybe SOAD's true talent is in finding a target audience and supplying something that audience wants. In other words, my original point. Paul Riley wrote: Britney Spears is a brean-dead bimbo whose voice grates on my nerves but I couldn't claim that she is talentless. As a singer, I would say she is talentless. As a dancer and pin-up girl I would say she is fairly talented. ;P Paul Riley wrote: I do think that the shock value has a lot to do with hitting a target market and making lots of money. That doesn't render them talentless. Maybe not but I actually found an MP3 of the song. X| X| X| Exactly which part shows any talent?
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
You can believe a nut but I won't. :)
Jason Henderson
start page
articles
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Sir Winston ChurchillNuts need bolts. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.