T1B

Screw_Michigan wrote:

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

Where did you come from? Tards.net?

Oh great...now you've done it...

Screw_Michigan

Dee, Screw_Michigan wants to know where you come from. He thinks you're from Tards.net.

What shall I tell him?

You are one wordy bastard Jay, I'll give you that. It's like you get paid by the run on sentence, or paragraph. Shit, you make Mike the Lab Rat look like he's filing an associated press brief in comparison.

I'll play along just a bit, but perhaps not the way you wanted. I told you I was done kicking you in the cunt (and by extension, this ML @Coyote feller you seem to venerate) for comparing The Beatles to Justin Beiber, and I mean that.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:
So, you don't care about image, eh? Well you should. Because now everyone reading this...

oh, snap!

You pulled out the "everyone" card, in a yet another "misguided" attempt at recruiting reinforcements. The cavalry should be along here at any moment to prop up your Beatles "image" take....

wait, that hasn't happened yet. How long shall we wait, another week or two?

And yes, I really care about my image here... I wait for dorks like you to tell me what I'm supposed to think so I can regurgitate 7 years and 17,934 posts about it.

Get lost, chump. I've got a baseball and a football game to watch.

I think if Jay and ML actually just got a guitar and learned how to play a couple Beatles songs, all their stupid takes on music and their frustration and intolerance for other people's opinions would just disappear. It's always good to have a talent for a crutch to fall back on when you'r morbidly devoid of a personality. Trust me, the internet's not doing much to hide your inadequacies.

Dee and Wags fly again!

ML@Coyote wrote:

Dee and Wags fly again!

Aren't you a little old to be this unoriginal? When you're almost 60, you'd think you'd have encountered some wit in your life. Maybe achieved some osmosis. Instead you seem like some loser that's been living on an island like Tom Hanks with a fucking volleyball.

I'm sorry Dee. I thought you weren't reading any more of my posts.

ML@Coyote wrote:Dee and Wags fly again!

I know little of this Dee person, never seen him around before. Seems ok for the most part, kinda' new to smack board lingo, perhaps a bit naive, but well spoken nonetheless.

You, well... you're a legend or so I've heard... from Jay mostly. Went a few rounds with Jay back in the day. Decent sort, seems to have lost his way lately, but at least I know somewhat of him from years ago.

Now, what do I see? I see you two giving each other reach arounds, probably PMing each other giving high 5's about how you showed back up at T1B recently and showed us just what the fuck was up.

Like, what board went TNW and caused you two losers to show back up here at approximately the same time?

Their loss is our gain loss but you could have at least brought Ana along with you, ingrates.

War Wagon wrote:

ML@Coyote wrote:Dee and Wags fly again!

I know little of this Dee person, never seen him around before. Seems ok for the most part, kinda' new to smack board lingo, perhaps a bit naive, but well spoken nonetheless.

You, well... you're a legend or so I've heard... from Jay mostly. Went a few rounds with Jay back in the day. Decent sort, seems to have lost his way lately, but at least I know somewhat of him from years ago.

Now, what do I see? I see you two giving each other reach arounds, probably PMing each other giving high 5's about how you showed back up at T1B recently and showed us just what the fuck was up.

Like, what board went TNW and caused you two losers to show back up here at approximately the same time?

Their loss is our gain loss but you could have at least brought Ana along with you, ingrates.

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

lalalalalalalalalalala - i can't hear you.

Remind you of someone?

regarding The Beatles vs. The Beiber. I won't speak to that again. Wasn't that clear enough?

Please try to keep up.

Dee Snutz wrote:got a guitar and learned how to play a couple Beatles songs...

That's a good point, btw.

I took some guitar lessons as a kid, never stayed with it, but the first 3 chords the instructor taught me to play were My Sweet Lord by George Harrison.

Pretty simple stuff, really.

War Wagon wrote:regarding The Beatles vs. The Beiber. I won't speak to that again. Wasn't that clear enough?

Fuck it, I lied.

This... is just like Justin Beiber. 10 years from now.

~ML & Jay

Again you completely misrepresent what was being said. No suprise here.

Can I ask you a question about the Beatles unrelated to JB? What do you suppose McCartney meant when he said the following regarding their Ed Sullivan Show appearance:

"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."

Really curious to know what your take is.

This... is just like Justin Beiber, 25 years from now.

~ML & Jay





ok, I'm piling on now.

War Wagon wrote:ok, I'm piling on now.

No, actually you just avoiding my question.

War Wagon wrote:

Dee Snutz wrote:got a guitar and learned how to play a couple Beatles songs...

That's a good point, btw.

I took some guitar lessons as a kid, never stayed with it, but the first 3 chords the instructor taught me to play were My Sweet Lord by George Harrison.

Pretty simple stuff, really.

Well, not really. That Gm barre is a big thing to achieve as a fledgling guitarist. If you found it easy, you probably gave up too early because everything after that is much easier. But how much fun was it to play that riff? It was empowerment, no?

ML@Coyote wrote:Again you completely misrepresent what was being said. No suprise here.

Can I ask you a question about the Beatles unrelated to JB? What do you suppose McCartney meant when he said the following regarding their Ed Sullivan Show appearance:

"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."

Really curious to know what your take is.

McCartney was being humble. That's a trait you should learn. In fact, at 57, why haven't you? What the fuck is wrong w you that you can't recognize this?

ML@Coyote wrote:
Can I ask you a question about the Beatles unrelated to JB? What do you suppose McCartney meant when he said the following regarding their Ed Sullivan Show appearance:

"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."

Really curious to know what your take is.

I doubt you care what my take is, but I'll play.

I suppose Paul meant exactly what he said.... at the time he said it, what, 45 years ago?

Doesn't mean you or Jay get a pass for comparing them to Justin Bieber, if that's where you're trying to go with this.

For fucks sake, compare them to The Osmond Brothers or something. I might be able to relate a little bit more to that.

War Wagon wrote:

ML@Coyote wrote:
Can I ask you a question about the Beatles unrelated to JB? What do you suppose McCartney meant when he said the following regarding their Ed Sullivan Show appearance:

"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."

Really curious to know what your take is.

I suppose Paul meant exactly what he said.... at the time he said it, what, 45 years ago?

That'll do.

With trite confections like "I Want To Hold Your Hand" and this...



...yeah, in the beginning they were pretty much the Justin Biebers of their day. Their audience was almost nothing but screaming teen girls who only cared how the band looked and behaved, and the music was silly little bubble gum pop.

Of course they soon grew out of this phase and became, well, The Beatles, but at this early point in their careers they were mostly fluff.

Van wrote:With trite confections like "I Want To Hold Your Hand" and this...

Trite, but they were in on the joke. As innocuous as Please, Please Me sounded, it was about asking for a blow job. And while I Want To Hold Your Hand was published w the bridge verse stating "I can't hide, I can't hide...." They were actually singing "I get high".

Dee Snutz wrote:And while I Want To Hold Your Hand was published w the bridge verse stating "I can't hide, I can't hide...." They were actually singing "I get high".

Is this supposed to be news, or something?

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Dee Snutz wrote:And while I Want To Hold Your Hand was published w the bridge verse stating "I can't hide, I can't hide...." They were actually singing "I get high".

Is this supposed to be news, or something?

I don't presume to know what others consider news.

Dee Snutz wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Dee Snutz wrote:And while I Want To Hold Your Hand was published w the bridge verse stating "I can't hide, I can't hide...." They were actually singing "I get high".

Is this supposed to be news, or something?

I don't presume to know what others consider news.

The whole idea of the social contract of participating in a message board is that you're allowed to make an assumption based on perceived fact occasionally. It makes for lively debate.

Dinsdale honed the "contrarian nuisance" schtick to a fine art long, long ago. You can knock it off already.

Martyred wrote:

The whole idea of the social contract of participating in a message board is that you're allowed to make an assumption based on perceived fact occasionally. It makes for lively debate.

Dinsdale honed the "contrarian nuisance" schtick to a fine art long, long ago. You can knock it off already.

The only thing Dinsdale has honed is how to be a socially autistic loser. Do you have another point to make?

Dee Snutz wrote:Do you have another point to make?

No, sorry. I'm not a vending machine for your neurosis.

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

War Wagon wrote:did some body say something?

I didn't think so.

Dee and Wags, the unoriginal odd couple.

You twin idiots have ducked and avoided direct questions and facts like a couple of childish cowards. Wags is quite literally shoving his booger encrusted fingers in his ears and lalalaing his way into lunacy. And Dee Snutzjob twiddles his thumbs and claims he doesn't read my posts while reacting and attacking like a three-legged cat trying to bury his bullshit in a frozen pond of stupidity. Give yourselves a hand boys, a nice little golf clap of failure. Neither of you can intelligently address what ML and I and others have discussed and dissected. All we've done, very honestly and simply, is to highlight the image of the Beatles early career, something the Beatles themselves acknowledge and make fun of, and contrast it to today's pop idols. We haven't compared talent, music or legacy, just a brief and early image. It is only you two dumbfucks who can't and won't recognize it. So be it. My god, at this point, you aren't good enough to be A.P. Now that must suck.

Dee and Wags do make for a curious little pair of retards. The TweedleDee and TweedleDumb continue to hold hands and bury their twin pointed heads in the sands of ignorance. I can just picture them in their matching suits and bowl haircuts (kinda like feeble Beatles--no wonder they're so offended!), skipping and chanting along...


TweedleWags and TweedleDee
Agreed to have a battle;
For TweedleWags said TweedleDee
Had spoiled his nice new rattle.

Just then flew down a monstrous crow,
As black as a tar-barrel;
Which frightened both the heroes so,
They quite forgot their quarrel.


TweedleDee and TweedleWags, trying to understand truth and logic.

Jay in Phoenix wrote: Dee and Wags, the unoriginal odd couple.

You twin idiots have ducked and avoided direct questions and facts like a couple of childish cowards.

You're confusing avoiding your questions w not giving a shit about your questions. Seriously, reading your tomes of repetitive, mind numbing, coma inducing drivel is only slightly more enjoyable than an unanesthetized root canal. Brevity is the soul of wit. learn it.

Jay in Phoenix wrote: All we've done, very honestly and simply...

Again with the "we". Do you send your takes to ML first to have them proof read and edited for clarity? Apparently not, thus the rambling bullshit emanating from your keyboard. I can see the look of glee on your face, the twisted tongue, while you wasted at least 37 minutes pounding that out... whatever that was. It wasn't a take, it was Jay desperately trying to impress somebody.

"honestly and simply"... you're a tedious jerk off and I want the 5 minutes I spent reading and responding to it back.

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

Dee Snutz wrote:You're confusing avoiding your questions w not giving a shit about your questions.

War Wagon wrote:lalalalalalalalalalala - i can't hear you.

I get it.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:So be it.

And so does Jay.

I'm getting the impression we're done here.

You were "done" at least 5 pages ago.

What was this thread about again? I had to go back to page 1 & 2 to remember. The train left the tracks not long after.

Anyways, I liked Keith Moon. A lot. But even I realize (after having Van pound it in my dense skull umpteen times) that he was no Bonzo.

Van wrote:Bonham was a force of nature.

You've used Achilles Last Stand and Fool In The Rain as examples of his brilliance and while they're great tunes, I think this one exhibits his sheer power and skill as well as any. Hadn't listened to PG for awhile, but popped it in the CD player this morning on the way to work... and it was like I had never heard it before. Bonham just shreds on this tune, as well as the whole band, but Jesus, what a monster he truly is.

ML@Coyote wrote:

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

Dee Snutz wrote:You're confusing avoiding your questions w not giving a shit about your questions.

War Wagon wrote:lalalalalalalalalalala - i can't hear you.

I get it.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:So be it.

And so does Jay.

I'm getting the impression we're done here.

Are you in the habit of referring to strangers on the internet as "we"? And then proceeding to speak for them?

Keep working on it.

Okay TweedleTwins, I'm about as done with this thing as you 'tardlettes are. Dee is going to continue to duck and cower under the guise of not caring. Translate that into not having a cognizant or informed opinion to discuss with. Check.

Whitey is going with the 'I can't read all that, it's too long and rambling'. Translate that into his inability to hold onto an embellished train of thought combined with his inherent stupidity and obliviousness. Check.

Honestly and simply, you two couldn't grasp the obvious if it had super glue smeared on it. And while your quaint Shakespeare quote has some merit Dee, the counter is that brevity is the source of an ill-constructed argument. Perfect choice of phrasing though, as brevity quite literally defines your thought process.

We are indeed done here, as it is pointless to engage in a battle of wits with such pitifully unarmed dullards as you two. Enjoy your isolated, sad little sandbox kids. It suits you.

Now then, as Whitey wishes to return to the topic of drummers, I agree with the assessment that Bonham had a skill set that was masterful. He could not only shred, but as was pointed out earlier, his riffing on "Fool in the Rain" showed his diversity. There aren't that many drummers that can replicate his performance. One drummer who hasn't been mentioned so far is Danny Carey of Tool. While I wouldn't go so far as to say he is the best, his quantized style and unique time signatures set him apart from his contemporaries. I can't think of any other tympanum thrasher currently working who can match him.

Dee Snutz wrote:Are you in the habit of referring to strangers on the internet as "we"? And then proceeding to speak for them?

Are you bradhusker?

Jay in Phoenix wrote:Okay Twee....

Sorry, that's as far as I got before the blood began to evacuate my brain and I began to struggle remaining conscious.

Dee Snutz wrote:Sorry, that's as far as I got before the blood began to evacuate my brain I began to struggle remaining conscious.

No apology needed. I know you're brain-dead. No need to belabor the point.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:

Dee Snutz wrote:Sorry, that's as far as I got before the blood began to evacuate my brain I began to struggle remaining conscious.

No apology needed. I know you're brain-dead. No need to belabor the point.

Actually, brevity doesn't make you any more readable.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:Now then, as Whitey wishes to return to the topic of drummers, I agree with the assessment that Bonham had a skill set that was masterful. He could not only shred, but as was pointed out earlier, his riffing on "Fool in the Rain" showed his diversity. There aren't that many drummers that can replicate his performance. One drummer who hasn't been mentioned so far is Danny Carey of Tool. While I wouldn't go so far as to say he is the best, his quantized style and unique time signatures set him apart from his contemporaries. I can't think of any other tympanum thrasher currently working who can match him.

Dave Raun is pretty damn good.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Jay in Phoenix wrote:Now then, as Whitey wishes to return to the topic of drummers, I agree with the assessment that Bonham had a skill set that was masterful. He could not only shred, but as was pointed out earlier, his riffing on "Fool in the Rain" showed his diversity. There aren't that many drummers that can replicate his performance. One drummer who hasn't been mentioned so far is Danny Carey of Tool. While I wouldn't go so far as to say he is the best, his quantized style and unique time signatures set him apart from his contemporaries. I can't think of any other tympanum thrasher currently working who can match him.

Dave Raun is pretty damn good.

Not familiar with Raun, but, Danny Carey is pretty awesome.