Beat Off

ML@Coyote · Post by **ML@Coyote** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:53 pm

Dee Snutz wrote:for those that think that the talent pool could never be too watered down and that the contemporary music scene is healthy and thriving. Taylor Swift has six Grammy's. Pink Floyd has no less than ZERO Grammy's. Led Zeppelin has one "Whoops, sorry we missed back when you were actually vital" Lifetime Achievement Grammy in 2005. As does the Who from 2001. Taylor Swift has 4 more Grammys than Floyd, Zep, and the Who combined (if you count those "pity" Grammy's). And she's only 22. That disparity will probably grow exponentially over the next few yrs.

This seems more an indictment of the Grammys than it is of the current state of music.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:12 pm

Dee Snutz wrote:To paraphrase Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, talent recognizes talent, genius recognizes genius, and mediocrity can't see beyond itself.

Maybe these will help:

Dee Snutz · Post by **Dee Snutz** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:03 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:
Dee Snutz wrote:To paraphrase Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, talent recognizes talent, genius recognizes genius, and mediocrity can't see beyond itself.
Maybe these will help:

Nah, I'm good. But maybe if Page and Plant had them they wouldn't have been reduced to utter larceny.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:39 pm

Van wrote:Their primary influences predate Mayall by decades...

I meant that Mayall and Zeppelin shared many of the same influences.

Zeppelin didn't break any new ground with blues/folk/rock. They just cranked the absurdity up to eleven and ripped the knob off.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:39 am

Yes, Mayall and Zep obviously shared many similar influences. The Beatles and Zeppelin? Not so much, and it's clear in each band's music. The Beatles started out strictly as a maker of cute pop songs that were nothing like early Zeppelin's Willie Dixon-based blues howlings.

Because of this, yes, there would definitely have been a Led Zeppelin even in the absence of The Beatles. And to B Smack's point, Peter Grant is responsible for Zeppelin becoming stadium giants. The Beatles didn't pave the way for that guy. He did it entirely his way. No one had ever dared to dictate to promoters (and get away with it) the way that that pushy fat fuck did. He was the pioneer of making sure bands got their fair share of much larger gates.

ML@Coyote · Post by **ML@Coyote** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:09 am

And LZ never had their own Saturday AM cartoon.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:12 am

Van wrote:Yes, Mayall and Zep obviously shared many similar influences. The Beatles and Zeppelin? Not so much, and it's clear in each band's music. The Beatles started out strictly as a maker of cute pop songs that were nothing like early Zeppelin's Willie Dixon-based blues howlings.

Not really a fair comparison though, early Zeppelin to early Beatles. When the Beatles were covering 'Red Sails In The Sunset', Page and Jones were backing up Jet Harris on Duane Eddy covers.

EDIT: I don't think you can claim more sophistication of influence, they're different decades. Before Zeppelin was re-discovering Willie Dixon, The Beatles were introducing middle eastern influences. In terms of a pissing contest, that should have ramifications.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:30 am

Top 5 reasons why Led Zeppelin fans suck iguana testicles:

1. They won't cop to the fact that Robert Plant turned into a screeching douchebag when he "found" his voice

2. Plagiarism is "no big deal"

3. They only appreciate Bonham's most ham-fisted work, never his more subtle and intricate compositions

4. Page's wizard pants...like they never happened

5. Jones' contributions are largely glossed over because he's "only the bass player"

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:42 am

Martyred wrote:Page's wizard pants...like they never happened

Zep liked Tolkien, you gots a problem with that?

Jones' contributions are largely glossed over because he's "only the bass player"

Bullshit. No serious Zep fan glosses over JPJ. You're making crap up, throwing it against the wall, hoping to see some of it stick.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:53 am

War Wagon wrote: You're making crap up, throwing it against the wall, hoping to see some of it stick.

HOW DARE YOU!

I've seen some low accusations, but this one... this is inexcusable.

~gulp~

Dee Snutz · Post by **Dee Snutz** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:13 am

Van wrote: And to B Smack's point, Peter Grant is responsible for Zeppelin becoming stadium giants. The Beatles didn't pave the way for that guy. He did it entirely his way. No one had ever dared to dictate to promoters (and get away with it) the way that that pushy fat fuck did. He was the pioneer of making sure bands got their fair share of much larger gates.

What's this "stadium giants" talk? LZ played to arenas and soccer fields. 18'000 was probably their biggest night save for a festival. The Beatles filled Shea at 55K. And yes, that's a very small club that's accomplished that.

Dee Snutz · Post by **Dee Snutz** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:27 am

Papa Willie wrote:John Paul Jones was (and still is) the most important member of LZ - certainly the most talented. And before everybody starts barking farts - he's the only one that could hold all of that together. Ya - they stole, but what came out was something nobody else could do...

I gotta be honest, I would say Bonham was probably the most talented of that group. Zeppelin has never really reformed resembling a shadow of themselves since. And they never will.I watched that show in 1970 at Albert Hall and was stunned at his performance. This was a musician on another level. And I'm a guy that doesn't give a shit about drummers. I watched that Moby Dick solo which was technically perfect and the man was just an absolute blur. I've never seen a musician since Hendrix know his instrument so well. A guy on alcohol or drugs could not do what he did that night. I wonder what happened in the ensuing yrs.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:06 am

Dee Snutz wrote:
Van wrote: And to B Smack's point, Peter Grant is responsible for Zeppelin becoming stadium giants. The Beatles didn't pave the way for that guy. He did it entirely his way. No one had ever dared to dictate to promoters (and get away with it) the way that that pushy fat fuck did. He was the pioneer of making sure bands got their fair share of much larger gates.
What's this "stadium giants" talk? LZ played to arenas and soccer fields. 18'000 was probably their biggest night save for a festival. The Beatles filled Shea at 55K. And yes, that's a very small club that's accomplished that.

Wow. Dude, just go ahead and tap out now.

Sin,
The Pontiac Silverdome, Tampa Stadium, and the Guinness Book of World Records

Phibes, considering the two bands began only five years apart I would hardly say Zep and The Beatles were from different decades. They were practically contemporaries, and in the cases of Page and Jones with their vast experience in the London music scene this was even more true.

So, anyway, who was the best player in Zep? The most important? Those can obviously be two very different things. Without a doubt Page has always been the most important member of Zeppelin. This cannot even be debated. He is Zeppelin. He is its driving force. It was his creation, he produced nearly everything, he wrote the majority of the songs, and he's the guy who has always handled their various post-Bonham ventures.

He was also the seminal Rock Guitar God: Caucasian Version. Yes, Clapton was called "God," but in terms of stage presence and setting the example for a bazillion Joe Perry's and Slash's to follow, Page is Ground Zero. He's the brand, and the true icon of the band.

The most talented? Hmmm. Page and Jones are certainly the best all-around musicians. There's precious little Jones can't do, and Page at his best was a hellacious composer, producer, performer and player. He's probably the greatest riff writer in the history of rock, and that is definitely a type of talent.

However, to borrow a sports analogy, Bonzo was the most dominant at his position. To this day he remains more revered as a rock drummer than Plant, Page or Jones are in terms of their respective instruments. He's also the guy who pushed them over the top. Zeppelin doesn't exist without Page's genius, yet they're also not the '27 Yankees without Bonham back there playing Lou Gehrig to Page's Babe Ruth.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:18 am

Yeah, exactly. "Best" is a little difficult to quantify with these guys. "Most important," though, is easy. Page was nearly as important to Led Zeppelin as Hendrix was to The Jimi Hendrix Experience.

Seriously, think of it this way. John Entwistle was a badass. Daltry was a strong frontman. Moon was Moon. With all that being said, there is no The Who without Pete Townshend, and Page is easily that guy and a whole lot more for Zeppelin.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:21 am

I always sort of wondered just how off the rails you'd go if you were ever in that position. A fabulously wealthy 'Spray jetting around the globe, stopping here and there to play before 70,000 loons who think you're Muhammed on wheels? A mansion on Lake Geneva, a chateau in the Loire Valley, a fuck flat in Kensington decked out in WDE colors? Gold-plated Evinrudes on your fleet of fishing frigates? Break a string on your '60 LP...toss the whole guitar into the fire and pull out a '59? When your Bentley runs out of gas you just pop a cap in it and send out Carson to grab you, oh, maybe a blue one this time?

And the food. Lord...the food. Fried cheerleader assholes topped with beauty pageant runner-up liquid joy.

And the tits. Oh no, we can't forget the tits. Your Airforce One Concorde would have to be festooned with giant-orbed slutholes flipping God and sundry the bird while sharting from platinum bidets.

You need to become rock royalty.

Dee Snutz · Post by **Dee Snutz** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:05 pm

Van wrote:
Dee Snutz wrote:
Van wrote: And to B Smack's point, Peter Grant is responsible for Zeppelin becoming stadium giants. The Beatles didn't pave the way for that guy. He did it entirely his way. No one had ever dared to dictate to promoters (and get away with it) the way that that pushy fat fuck did. He was the pioneer of making sure bands got their fair share of much larger gates.
What's this "stadium giants" talk? LZ played to arenas and soccer fields. 18'000 was probably their biggest night save for a festival. The Beatles filled Shea at 55K. And yes, that's a very small club that's accomplished that.
Wow. Dude, just go ahead and tap out now.

Sin,
The Pontiac Silverdome, Tampa Stadium, and the Guinness Book of World Records

Ok, I guess I gotta own that. Two pretty famous stadium shows. Regardless, stadium shows are not the greatest thing to happen to r&r. In fact, they were a detriment, imo. First, there's nothing exciting about watching a band from 3 city blocks away (well, maybe Pink Floyd's Momentary/Division Bell stadium shows weren't disappointing). Secondly, as bands graduated from theaters, to arenas, and then to stadiums, they started composing and recording for bigger venues. Subtlety and dynamics got tossed for riff oriented anthems. Springsteen comes to mind.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:17 pm

With as often as you move the goalposts, it must be like watching football games on acid.

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 7:10 pm

Dee Snutz wrote:
Jay in Phoenix wrote:The Beatles are the quintessence of modern pop and rock. Yet, in the beginning of the groundswell of their success, lies a nifty little processed package wrapped up in haircuts and matching suits. In that very specific sense, how does that differ from what we see today?
Well, if you discount the fact that they actually wrote their own songs and arranged them and performed all the instrumentation (save for the occasional George Martin piano contribution). And that the songs were way advanced for 20-22 year old kids. I guess they don't differ.

Dee, you and Wags are still not grasping the main, and most specific point in what ML and I have been asserting here. To whit, we are indeed taking the songwriting and performing skills out of the equation, only to explore the fundamental similarities between the early Beatles and the fill-in-the-blank, superficially created media pop star of the moment. This contrast is meant to set aside musicianship, not ignore it, only for this one moment of comparison. I will repeat my own question, quoted above..."In that very specific sense, how does that differ from what we see today?" Meaning, how does the reaction to the packaging of the Beatles, and the packaging itself, with their own endorsement no less, by their fans and the media, differ from what is going on with teeny poppers of today? And to facilitate this point, keep in mind the cartoon which ML referred to about the Beatles. I repeat, this is a specific contrast that is meant to set aside the music. This discussion is about popularity based on packaging. If indeed, the Beatles had never gone down the road of matching suits, haircuts, cartoons and silly movies ('A Hard Days Night' not included), would the little girls have been just as fanatical as they were? Would Beatlemania have been the same insane moment in time as it was? Maybe, but maybe not. At least not as over-the-top.

The Beatles are always going to stand the test of time by their performances, skill as musicians and songwriting. They have no specific, discernable equal. Especially given the meteoric rise and maturity of their songwriting in the very brief time they existed. The differences from say, "Meet the Beatles" from 1964, to "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver" from '65-'66 respectively is mind boggling. I cannot think of any other group who morphed that quickly.

Now then, taking a few steps backward, let's return to the topic at hand, Beatlemania vs. Biebermania. Image vs. image. Outfits vs. outfits and especially, haircuts vs. haircut. The music takes a backseat to the boys, because that is what the kiddies are responding to. This brings us back to "A Hard Days Night". If you have seen the movie, and I can't imagine anyone reading this thread who hasn't, the film was meant as a big old middle finger of dismissal to the very process of super stardom they were undergoing. "Are you a mod or a rocker?'' Ringo is asked at a press conference in the movie. "I'm a mocker,'' he responds. They understood the media buildup and ultra-hyping of their image and wanted nothing more than to smash it to pieces. They hated what they were being molded into, while a Justin Bieber or a Selena Gomez simply embraces it. They have to, it's all they've really got. The key to this is, they were being molded, clipped and tucked into shiny, little popbots. And because of this, the whirlwind of gibbering, drooling maniacal girls were going bat shit crazy over what they looked like as opposed to who they were. The music they played was secondary. Thankfully, it was only a very brief moment in time. The Beatles blew it all apart and rebuilt themselves as they saw fit. While "A Hard Days Night" was and still is a love-letter to their audience, albeit one very much tongue tucked-in-cheek, it was the first major step towards dismissing their images. And image is the entire point of this argument.

Wags, when you said, "Point being, comparing The Beatles to Justin Bieber is ludicrous, no matter how hard Jay tries to equivocate that statement in his earnest, but misguided effort at defending you." you reveal your myopic view of this matter. The comparison is not only fair, in regard to image only, it is dead-on. Hardly misguided. I grew up with the Beatles, I remember those events as if they were...yesterday. Unless you were a part of that time and witnessed it firsthand, it's pretty hard to get a real feel for what it was like.

My argument is about image, not musicianship. In that, the early media-shaped image of the Beatles, not the band itself, is a perfect template for what we see in Justin Bieber today. Without it having happened, we might never have had the Archies, or more accurately, the Monkess and their ilk thrust upon us. The Beatles always wanted to be known for their music, not their looks. However, for a very brief window in time, they existed as eye candy. Let's be thankful that they had the sense to deconstruct themselves and shun their live images. We can embrace them instead for being perhaps the greatest band that ever was, and ever will be.

ML@Coyote · Post by **ML@Coyote** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:53 pm

On the Beatles first appearance with Ed Sullivan,

add the following quote from Paul McCartney to Jay's post:

"Seventy-three million people were reported to have watched the first show. It is still supposed to be one of the largest viewing audiences ever in the States. It was very important. We came out of nowhere with funny hair, looking like marionettes or something. That was very influential. I think that was really one of the big things that broke us - the hairdo more than the music, originally."

Dee Snutz · Post by **Dee Snutz** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 12:26 am

I've been hearing this "The Beatles were the original boy band" for years now. It originated from some publicist, probably the Backstreet Boys or Nsync, who was simply trying to validate their clients. I just hate to hear intelligent people, like Jay, parrot that ridiculous contention. And as I've said, nobody will ever dispute that image was a big part of the Beatles appeal. Or any celebrity for that matter. Hell, John Lennon even tried to hide that he was married.

I just prefer to not continue to see Justin Bieber's name in the same sentence w the Beatles. He's not that good and they don't deserve it. I had a tough enough time w The Rolling Stones sharing the stage w Justin Timberlake and Christina Aguilera.

ML@Coyote · Post by **ML@Coyote** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:04 am

Dee Snutz wrote:I just prefer to not continue to see Justin Bieber's name in the same sentence w the Beatles. He's not that good and they don't deserve it.

Bieber's not as good as the Beatles? Really? I would never have guessed. Thanks, Dee, for clearing that up. I knew your music expertise would come in handy.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:15 am

Mention The Beatles to old ma Phibes (blues snob) and the pots and pans start flying around. She's mellowed, but if you liked anything else you were sh*t out of luck. A lot of good bands got blown out of the water or couldn't get a look in. Best story is going to The Gardens with two friends on a lark and they just completely lost it with the mob, not Beatles fans at all.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:19 am

what Snutz said, I agree with.

Jay, while that was a really nice post and all, I still believe the comparison is ludicrous. Not only ludicrous, but insulting, image be damned. I don't care about image.

just shaking my head over here I'm still typing words about this. Seriously?

I refuse to engage in this conversation anymore....

lalalalalalalalalalala - i can't hear you.

Dee Snutz · Post by **Dee Snutz** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:25 am

ML@Coyote wrote:
Dee Snutz wrote:I just prefer to not continue to see Justin Bieber's name in the same sentence w the Beatles. He's not that good and they don't deserve it.
Bieber's not as good as the Beatles? Really? I would never have guessed. Thanks, Dee, for clearing that up. I knew your music expertise would come in handy.

The only musical expertise is if you know your fucking scales. Everything else is subjective. Sorry if I offended your sensibilities.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:35 am

It's a social as well as a formal science, you stupid, silly twat. You brought that up in your first post in the thread.

Dee Snutz · Post by **Dee Snutz** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:52 am

Dr_Phibes wrote:It's a social as well as a formal science, you stupid, silly twat. You brought that up in your first post in the thread.

I don't believe I've ever used the phrase "social as well as a formal science". But thanks for putting your own emotionally and developmentally stunted disposition on display. It'll save me time of ever reading any more of your posts.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:54 am

Dee Snutz wrote:It'll save me time of ever reading any more of your posts.

~~Dinsdale~~
~~Dr_Phibes~~

:|

Dee Snutz · Post by **Dee Snutz** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:21 am

Martyred wrote:
Dee Snutz wrote:It'll save me time of ever reading any more of your posts.
~~Dinsdale~~
~~Dr_Phibes~~

:|

Frustrated losers w adequacy issues on the internet were funny ten years ago. Now they're just yawn inducing.

ML@Coyote · Post by **ML@Coyote** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:36 am

Dee Snutz wrote:
ML@Coyote wrote:
Dee Snutz wrote:I just prefer to not continue to see Justin Bieber's name in the same sentence w the Beatles. He's not that good and they don't deserve it.
Bieber's not as good as the Beatles? Really? I would never have guessed. Thanks, Dee, for clearing that up. I knew your music expertise would come in handy.
The only musical expertise is if you know your fucking scales. Everything else is subjective. Sorry if I offended your sensibilities.

Oh, you didn't offend me. Actually you made me laugh. I sort of like the way you operate, the way you lift your dopey head high above the fray and state the fucking obvious, then posturing yourself as though you're making some sort of meaningful statement.

Here, I'll do it for you:

~~ML@Coyote~~

Dee Snutz · Post by **Dee Snutz** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:43 am

ML@Coyote wrote:
Oh, you didn't offend me. Actually you made me laugh. I sort of like the way you operate, the way you lift your dopey head high above the fray and state the fucking obvious, then posturing yourself as though you're making some sort of meaningful statement.

Here, I'll do it for you:

~~ML@Coyote~~

TIA

Edit: Btw, I really got a laugh out of you conveying to us what cool was in 1964. At the age of nine. I guess that's the typical age when boys become savvy.

Hey girl, hollaback!

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:56 pm

Van wrote:Because of this, yes, there would definitely have been a Led Zeppelin even in the absence of The Beatles. And to B Smack's point, Peter Grant is responsible for Zeppelin becoming stadium giants. The Beatles didn't pave the way for that guy. He did it entirely his way. No one had ever dared to dictate to promoters (and get away with it) the way that that pushy fat fuck did. He was the pioneer of making sure bands got their fair share of much larger gates.

Of course Grant expanded on the concept. That was Zeppelin's MO across the board. Hear a riff from a Spirit song you like? Then turn it into Stairway to Heaven. See the Beatles play to stadiums? Then play stadiums yourself but make sure the band takes home 90% of their record setting gate. But let me make this very clear, without Brian Epstein promoting the Beatles there is no precedent for a stadium tour. None. Zero. Nada. Without Shea Stadium you don't have Tampa 1973 or the Silverdome in 1977. Even Elvis didn't play football stadiums. You know why? Because it defied all common sense. NOBODY did it. It took a complete fucking loon like Brian Epstein, jacked out of his mind on sperm and speed to even dare think it possible.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:19 pm

Dee Snutz wrote:I just prefer to not continue to see Justin Bieber's name in the same sentence w the Beatles.

Then quit writing 'em.

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:46 pm

Dee Snutz wrote:I've been hearing this "The Beatles were the original boy band" for years now. It originated from some publicist, probably the Backstreet Boys or Nsync, who was simply trying to validate their clients. I just hate to hear intelligent people, like Jay, parrot that ridiculous contention. And as I've said, nobody will ever dispute that image was a big part of the Beatles appeal. Or any celebrity for that matter. Hell, John Lennon even tried to hide that he was married. I just prefer to not continue to see Justin Bieber's name in the same sentence w the Beatles. He's not that good and they don't deserve it. I had a tough enough time w The Rolling Stones sharing the stage w Justin Timberlake and Christina Aguilera.

Dee, your innante ability to take my words out of the context of thier intent is staggering. I am not saying they were the "origingal boy band". I don't even echo that sentiment. I am saying for the umpteenth time now that there is a direct correlation between the early, quite deliberate crafting of their image and the one(s) that exist in todays tweenie popstars. To soothe the ruffled feathers that both you and War Wagon are both preening about with, I will no longer mention ~~Justing Biebers~~ name in the same sentence as the Fab Four. Hope you're happy. To dismiss the similarities in the crafting and selling of their images is an admission of plain, ungarnished ignorance. You two can bury your noggins in the sand till the Cowsills come home, the facts are the facts. By the very words and actions of the Beatles themselves, as ML and I have documented here, there is no disputing the parallel lines connecting the past to the present image making of these acts. Calling the Beatles a "boy band" is inaccurate and I have not done this. I have gone overboard in proclaiming them as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, groups in music history. Image is and has been the only aspect to which I am addressing this discussion. As I asked you before, take a step back from the Beatles as musicians and take a good long look at their early presentation as teen idols. You said you don't dispute that image was a large part of their early appeal. Why then, do you have such a difficult time digesting the contrast between the Beatles and J_____ B_____, when it comes to the marketing of their early image? Sorry if that is a tough pill to swallow. Try a Taste of Honey, it'll go down easier.

War Wagon wrote:what Snutz said, I agree with.

Jay, while that was a really nice post and all, I still believe the comparison is ludicrous. Not only ludicrous, but insulting, image be damned. I don't care about image.

just shaking my head over here I'm still typing words about this. Seriously?

I refuse to engage in this conversation anymore....

lalalalalalalalalalala - i can't hear you.

Believe what you like Whitey, because ignorance is bliss. And you are one blissful little moron, one who happens to know very little about good music. You deification of the Who's "Eminence Front" is proof of that. "It's Hard" was one of the weakest Who albums of all time, and that song is mediocre at best. A droning, repetitive guitar squiggle and truly banal lyrics. Yeah, great choice Wags. Your refusal to engage in further conversation is irrelevant, as you have brought nothing to the table worth mentioning. You haven't defended your position with facts or history, or even a well worded diatribe. You just want to sit there with your fingers in your ears saying "lalala - I can't hear you." Stunning.

The comparison is fair and accurate. If it is insulting, blame the Beatles for going along with their image making, if only for a short time.

So, you don't care about image, eh? Well you should. Because now everyone reading this has one of you with one thumb in your mouth while sitting on the fence, hitting yourself in the head with a hammer, like some damned village idiot. Bravo.

War Whitey, doing what he does best.

Dee Snutz · Post by **Dee Snutz** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:55 pm

Jay in Phoenix wrote:
Dee, your innante ability to take my words out of the context of thier intent is staggering.

Oh, I'm sorry. Were you under the impression that I read your posts?

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:57 pm

did some body say something?

I didn't think so.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:58 pm

Dee Snutz wrote:
Jay in Phoenix wrote:
Dee, your innante ability to take my words out of the context of thier intent is staggering.
Oh, I'm sorry. Were you under the impression that I read your posts?

Well, you quoted and replied to them. That might lead one to assume that you read them, you tedious little cunt. Yeah, I've still got all my teeth.

ML@Coyote · Post by **ML@Coyote** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:25 pm

Dee Snutz wrote:
Jay in Phoenix wrote:
Dee, your innante ability to take my words out of the context of thier intent is staggering.
Oh, I'm sorry. Were you under the impression that I read your posts?

~~Jay in Phoenix~~

Goob, you're next.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 10:04 pm

if F____ shows up, can someone please tell him the R_____ aren't from I____?

Dee Snutz · Post by **Dee Snutz** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:41 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:
Dee Snutz wrote:
Jay in Phoenix wrote:
Dee, your innante ability to take my words out of the context of thier intent is staggering.
Oh, I'm sorry. Were you under the impression that I read your posts?
Well, you quoted and replied to them. That might lead one to assume that you read them, you tedious little cunt. Yeah, I've still got all my teeth.

You're like a fucking retard w Tourettes.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:27 am

Dee Snutz wrote: You're like a fucking retard w Tourettes.

Where did you come from? Tards.net?