+- Pink Floyd Online Forums (http://www.pinkfloydonline.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Other Stuff (/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Outside The Wall (/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: "List Stuff That's Better Than The Beatles" Thread (/showthread.php?tid=7479)
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-28-2006 12:15 AM
Pie is better than The Beatles. :D
- Three Different Ones - 10-28-2006 12:16 AM
this'll be the shortest thread ever, seeing as there's nothing better :)
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-28-2006 12:16 AM
Milk is better than The Beatles.
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-28-2006 12:16 AM
Pointy's acne medication is better than The Beatles.
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-28-2006 12:17 AM
Three Different Ones Wrote:this'll be the shortest thread ever, seeing as there's nothing better :)LALALAALALALALALALALALALALA!!!
:p
:music:
- Three Different Ones - 10-28-2006 12:18 AM
That's right Aaron, run away from the truth
YEAH THAT'S RIGHT, i called you by your real name! What now, pal?
- lozzyjay - 10-28-2006 02:54 AM
everything is better
- Philintheflesh - 10-28-2006 03:55 AM
lozzyjay Wrote:everything is betterlozzy darling, have you really thought this one through? :D
- ha_ha_charade_you_are - 10-28-2006 04:32 AM
Pink Floyd is better than the Beatles.
- Echoes73 - 10-28-2006 05:35 AM
ha_ha_charade_you_are Wrote:Pink Floyd is better than the Beatles.I was wondering how long it would take, someone beat me to it though.
- ImTheFloor - 10-28-2006 06:05 AM
Ice cream tastes better than the Beatles.
Wait.
- FreshBrains - 10-28-2006 06:07 AM
Paul McCartney's divorce cases are more interesting than The Beatles.
Quote of the year:
"Those breasts belong to ME!"
- etphonehomeyo - 10-28-2006 09:36 AM
i can't think of anything.
god?
yeah, i guess god is better than the beatles.
wait. they are god.
nope, nothing is better.
- Morglor9 - 10-28-2006 10:04 AM
Neil Young is better than the Beatles.
And I take it I'm not the only person here who has a problem with each Beatle having his own Appreciation Thread (two in the case of John Lennon). Even Peter Best or whatever his name is has one. Honestly, I've been meaning to say... WTF? A single Beatles Apprecitation Thread would suffice.
- Three Different Ones - 10-28-2006 10:26 AM
ha_ha_charade_you_are Wrote:Pink Floyd is better than the Beatles.You sir are a liar!
- cevor - 10-28-2006 10:38 AM
hmmm...uh...errr..let me get back to you...
- Three Different Ones - 10-28-2006 11:25 AM
cevor Wrote:hmmm...uh...errr..let me get back to you...don't bother, cause you won't think of anything =)
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-28-2006 02:08 PM
Morglor9 Wrote:Neil Young is better than the Beatles.Co-signed.
- Three Different Ones - 10-28-2006 02:32 PM
Woof Oink Baaa Wrote:FixedMorglor9 Wrote:Neil Young is better than the Beatles.I disagree, the Beatles are the best band ever
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-28-2006 02:53 PM
If they were so great, how come they only lasted a decade and didn't tour after '66?!
Huh?!
HUH?!
:p
- Three Different Ones - 10-28-2006 04:17 PM
But in that decade they broke more ground, more records, and did so much more in terms of innovations than any other band. Oh and in that decade the Beatles made the same amount of albums that Floyd did in 20 years :cigar:
In 66 they decided to become more dedicated to the studio
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-28-2006 04:39 PM
So, in more realistic and less Beatles ass-kissery terms, they were a bunch of lazy f*cks?
- IbanezIsTheColour - 10-28-2006 04:52 PM
my guitar picks are probably better than the Beatles and their guitar picks...french toast is better than the Beatles as well
- Topazzz - 10-28-2006 04:56 PM
Hey Woofie, what's with all the Beatle hatred all of a sudden? ??? (Not that there's anything wrong with that. I mean, I like The Beatles, they were my first "favorite band" and will always have a special place in my heart, but I realize they weren't perfect...I guess I'm just wondering where this came from.) *shrugs* Anyway. Peace out!
(Peace is better than The Beatles, yeah?) :;):
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-28-2006 06:10 PM
Topazzz Wrote:Hey Woofie, what's with all the Beatle hatred all of a sudden? ??? (Not that there's anything wrong with that. I mean, I like The Beatles, they were my first "favorite band" and will always have a special place in my heart, but I realize they weren't perfect...I guess I'm just wondering where this came from.) *shrugs* Anyway. Peace out!It's not that I hate The Beatles, it's just that I think they're immensely overrated. I wish people would start seeing them for what they were: a group of four decent musicians that happened to have a good sense of melody. They were very innovative, yes, but not a great band by any means.
(Peace is better than The Beatles, yeah?) :;):
- Three Different Ones - 10-28-2006 06:17 PM
Woof Oink Baaa Wrote:So, in more realistic and less Beatles ass-kissery terms, they were a bunch of lazy f*cks?No. They just decided to become more focused on creating more complex albums in the studio. That's it.
and they're not overrated at all, but I won't get into that
Edited By Three Different Ones on 1162089237
- ImTheFloor - 10-28-2006 06:40 PM
French toast tastes like forks.
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-28-2006 06:49 PM
Three Different Ones Wrote:Because they're overrated?Woof Oink Baaa Wrote:So, in more realistic and less Beatles ass-kissery terms, they were a bunch of lazy f*cks?No. They just decided to become more focused on creating more complex albums in the studio. That's it.
and they're not overrated at all, but I won't get into that
- ImTheFloor - 10-28-2006 06:52 PM
Now, now, now. Let's all hold hands and spin in a circle and agree that Devo's outfits were better than the Beatles outfits.
Could George pull off such a snazzy hat? Hmm? HMM?!
- IbanezIsTheColour - 10-28-2006 07:04 PM
Woof Oink Baaa Wrote:yeah, I respect the Beatles for their influence on other musicians, but I don't think they are amazing on any levelTopazzz Wrote:Hey Woofie, what's with all the Beatle hatred all of a sudden? ??? (Not that there's anything wrong with that. I mean, I like The Beatles, they were my first "favorite band" and will always have a special place in my heart, but I realize they weren't perfect...I guess I'm just wondering where this came from.) *shrugs* Anyway. Peace out!It's not that I hate The Beatles, it's just that I think they're immensely overrated. I wish people would start seeing them for what they were: a group of four decent musicians that happened to have a good sense of melody. They were very innovative, yes, but not a great band by any means.
(Peace is better than The Beatles, yeah?) :;):
- Three Different Ones - 10-28-2006 07:05 PM
Worst thread ever? I think so.
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-28-2006 07:09 PM
Three Different Ones Wrote:Worst thread ever? I think so.Because you have nothing worth contributing? I think so.
- Three Different Ones - 10-28-2006 07:10 PM
Because it's a stupid excuse to put down a great band? I think so.
- ImTheFloor - 10-28-2006 07:17 PM
Well you wanna know what I THINK?!
I like Frank Zappa more than the Beatles. I actually like quite a few bands more than the Beatles. You may close the thread now.
- Three Different Ones - 10-28-2006 07:18 PM
I second the motion to close this stupid thread.
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-28-2006 07:19 PM
Three Different Ones Wrote:Because it's a stupid excuse to put down a great band? I think so.I think it's stupid to have Stu Sutcliffe and Pete Best appreciation threads. :upside:
- ImTheFloor - 10-28-2006 07:19 PM
I meant it as a "my reply is the definative reply, so nothing new can be said" kind of statement, but whatever.
I think this thread is silly and I like silly.
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-28-2006 07:20 PM
Three Different Ones Wrote:I second the motion to close this stupid thread.I third this motion since Einstein here can't give me one legitimate reason why The Beatles were SO great.
- Three Different Ones - 10-28-2006 07:21 PM
Or more like Einstein doesn't want to re-state something he's already said countless times in other threads.
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-28-2006 07:22 PM
Three Different Ones Wrote:Or more like Einstein doesn't want to re-state something he's already said countless times in other threads.See if you get any presents from Santa this year.
Edited By Woof Oink Baaa on 1162092191
- ImTheFloor - 10-28-2006 07:23 PM
I think it's because they did The White Album, which has been determined as the official album of RAWK.
Officially. By internet nerds. And, my dear brothers, if internet nerds are wrong, I truly do not want to know what right is!
Except, everyone really knows that the greatest album of all time is the B-52's first album, aptly called "The B-52's".
Edited By ImTheFloor on 1162092300
- Three Different Ones - 10-28-2006 07:45 PM
You know what makes the Beatles so great? It's a lot of things. Sure they technically weren't the four most talented musicians, but together, as a cohesive unit, they were one of the best goddamn bands there was/will be. Backed with the songwriting team of Lennon and McCartney, the guitar of George Harrison, and the drumming of Ringo Starr, they grabbed hold of the American fanbase, and didn't let go till 1970, their demise.
See if you look on the surface, or just at the Beatles' number one hits, you're not even getting half the story of why the Beatles were great. Their number ones don't even scrape the surface of their legacy. What makes the Beatles so great was how they worked as a cohesive unit, and how they all completed each other so well to the point where as a cohesive unit, they were unstoppable.
During the beginning, Lennon and McCartney wrote simple rock n roll songs that could be considered pop-ish, and for this they often get the stereotype of being a 'boy band' which isn't true at all. That's what was popular at the time. They took what was popular and added their own sound to it. They created their own feel, which would be continuously improved on throughout the years. Even the jump from their debut Please Please Me to their second album With the Beatles is an amazing breakthrough, in terms of studio innovations, guitar parts, (listen to John's rythym on "All My Loving") Also, by the time their second album was being put together, they were spending more time putting together 14 track lps. (Their debut was put together in a very short amount of time). Studio effects such as double-tracking lead vocals were being used. Not to mention that their songwriting had improved. By the time With the Beatles came out, the Beatles had already achieved success in England, and were on the brink of achieving huge success in America. Their single "I Want to Hold Your Hand" is one of the most important songs of 1964, because of the impact it had on the American audiences. It was the song that introduced them to the Beatles. "Meet the Beatles" is one of the most important albums in America, despite whether or not you agree with the idea of Capitol tampering with the Beatles' original albums. To America, in 1964, they saw the Beatles as a young, fresh group with their own sound. And Meet the Beatles not only showcased the advancement of studio techniques seen in With the Beatles, but showcased the songwriting talents of John and Paul early on.
In 1964, the same year that they achieved HUGE success in America, many things started to change. For example, with their third album, A Hard Day's Night they began to write songs quicker, and their lyrics started to change, and in many cases became more introspective, especially with John Lennon, which is a pre-cursor to John's writing on Beatles for Sale, which is very personal to John and would be a recurring theme for John in years to come.
Now that I've gotten past that, I'm going to try and summarise as best I can why I love the Beatles so much. I think what makes the Beatles so great is the songwriting team of John Lennon and Paul McCartney who were experts at writing song lyrics, and wriitng great melodies for their lyrics, along with George Harrison's guitar, and Ringo's creative, and unique drumming style. Not to mention their great ability for track orders, the producer they had (George Martin) is an amazing producer, and always knew what was best. Their music just means a lot to me, they were the first band that I fell in love with. What I love about John's lyrics is that though they were usually used to describe his feelings, they can be applied to other things. Paul was a master at writing feel-good happy songs, but at the time could write beautiful piano ballads. Not to mention John and Paul's songwriting, but George's songwriting definitely became a factor in the latter half of their career. It's fun to see how much George developed as a songwriter over the years, and how much he added to the sound of the Beatles' records.
Really all the Beatles worked together, so that no Beatles' record really belonged to a certain member. Really, it may have been more one Beatle's than another's (Pepper and Abbey Road come to mind) but not to the point to say that it belongs to one Beatle. Each Beatle brought something to each song and each album, whether it be a melody, lyrics, sound effects, an idea, a spoken bit, a little something to each song, to make it something special. So in closing, what i love about the Beatles' is their ability as a cohesive unit. How they compliment each other so well, while not being the technically best musicians. They were just a band..that made it very very big, that's all. : )
- pointmeatthesky - 10-28-2006 09:56 PM
This Eric-Aaron fued is taking up too much space.
- Morglor9 - 10-29-2006 12:37 AM
Woof Oink Baaa Wrote:Agreed. Basically, the Beatles have some good hits. That's my opinion of them. They were influential, and they had good hits. That's about it.Topazzz Wrote:Hey Woofie, what's with all the Beatle hatred all of a sudden? ??? (Not that there's anything wrong with that. I mean, I like The Beatles, they were my first "favorite band" and will always have a special place in my heart, but I realize they weren't perfect...I guess I'm just wondering where this came from.) *shrugs* Anyway. Peace out!It's not that I hate The Beatles, it's just that I think they're immensely overrated. I wish people would start seeing them for what they were: a group of four decent musicians that happened to have a good sense of melody. They were very innovative, yes, but not a great band by any means.
(Peace is better than The Beatles, yeah?) :;):
As for the "concept" album point that is sometimes brought up, I wonder what this means... Sgt Peppers? Ya, right. If that's a concept album, so is my Jefferson Airplane: White Rabbit & Other Hits album (aside from being a greatest hits compilation). Not only is the concept poorly backed, but aside from the famous songs, it pretty much sucks. I mean, it's filler. I've had the thing since early July, and continually tried to get into it and... no. It's overrated.
- Sadie - 10-29-2006 02:15 AM
Woofie you're being very provocative. Or trying to be. Well, we refuse to rise.
:D
Seriously. I suspect most of you know better. Either that or you really don't know a thing about music and pop culture. Not being into them is one thing. Not being able to grasp why they are considered great and are most certainly not overrated is something completely different. Maybe a book or two on the subject would enlighten those having difficulty understanding that they were a hell of a lot more than just some band that had some hits. Yeah, and Beethoven just wrote some pretty good symphonies or something. I guess he had a good sense of melody too but what has he done for us lately? So sad.
- cevor - 10-29-2006 04:12 AM
cevor Wrote:hmmm...uh...errr..let me get back to you...uhhhhh...mmmmm....????????.....nothing still....oh yea! how about..no...
yea, yea, sex is better than the Beatles...that is all....please follow Floors instructions as you usually do Woofie! :p
- ImTheFloor - 10-29-2006 06:40 AM
What am I, his master? :Oo:
- cevor - 10-29-2006 06:48 AM
no, he just acts that way Floor
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-29-2006 06:50 AM
Sadie Wrote:Woofie you're being very provocative. Or trying to be. Well, we refuse to rise.A book?! I have to read a book to understand The Beatles' music?!
:D
Seriously. I suspect most of you know better. Either that or you really don't know a thing about music and pop culture. Not being into them is one thing. Not being able to grasp why they are considered great and are most certainly not overrated is something completely different. Maybe a book or two on the subject would enlighten those having difficulty understanding that they were a hell of a lot more than just some band that had some hits. Yeah, and Beethoven just wrote some pretty good symphonies or something. I guess he had a good sense of melody too but what has he done for us lately? So sad.
Ludicrous! :laugh:
- ImTheFloor - 10-29-2006 08:40 AM
I love how SERIOUS everyone is acting about this. Seriously. Taking a silly little thread and turning it into "GAAAAHHHH NO ONE CAN HATE THE BEATLES, YOU STUPID FACE!!!!!"
I'm just gonna go on record by saying, whatever the Beatles did, Frank Zappa did first. And even if he didn't do it first, he did it better. :)
- Sadie - 10-29-2006 10:39 AM
Woof Oink Baaa Wrote:That was sarcasm Woof. I was being facetious. As I'm sure you were being when you started this thread. Believe me, I'm not taking it seriously.Sadie Wrote:Woofie you're being very provocative. Or trying to be. Well, we refuse to rise.A book?! I have to read a book to understand The Beatles' music?!
:D
Seriously. I suspect most of you know better. Either that or you really don't know a thing about music and pop culture. Not being into them is one thing. Not being able to grasp why they are considered great and are most certainly not overrated is something completely different. Maybe a book or two on the subject would enlighten those having difficulty understanding that they were a hell of a lot more than just some band that had some hits. Yeah, and Beethoven just wrote some pretty good symphonies or something. I guess he had a good sense of melody too but what has he done for us lately? So sad.
Ludicrous! :laugh:
:p
- Three Different Ones - 10-29-2006 10:51 AM
and my long post again goes ignored..
- cevor - 10-29-2006 10:54 AM
Three Different Ones Wrote:You know what makes the Beatles so great? It's a lot of things. Sure they technically weren't the four most talented musicians, but together, as a cohesive unit, they were one of the best goddamn bands there was/will be. Backed with the songwriting team of Lennon and McCartney, the guitar of George Harrison, and the drumming of Ringo Starr, they grabbed hold of the American fanbase, and didn't let go till 1970, their demise.stroke...it was a really great post
See if you look on the surface, or just at the Beatles' number one hits, you're not even getting half the story of why the Beatles were great. Their number ones don't even scrape the surface of their legacy. What makes the Beatles so great was how they worked as a cohesive unit, and how they all completed each other so well to the point where as a cohesive unit, they were unstoppable.
During the beginning, Lennon and McCartney wrote simple rock n roll songs that could be considered pop-ish, and for this they often get the stereotype of being a 'boy band' which isn't true at all. That's what was popular at the time. They took what was popular and added their own sound to it. They created their own feel, which would be continuously improved on throughout the years. Even the jump from their debut Please Please Me to their second album With the Beatles is an amazing breakthrough, in terms of studio innovations, guitar parts, (listen to John's rythym on "All My Loving") Also, by the time their second album was being put together, they were spending more time putting together 14 track lps. (Their debut was put together in a very short amount of time). Studio effects such as double-tracking lead vocals were being used. Not to mention that their songwriting had improved. By the time With the Beatles came out, the Beatles had already achieved success in England, and were on the brink of achieving huge success in America. Their single "I Want to Hold Your Hand" is one of the most important songs of 1964, because of the impact it had on the American audiences. It was the song that introduced them to the Beatles. "Meet the Beatles" is one of the most important albums in America, despite whether or not you agree with the idea of Capitol tampering with the Beatles' original albums. To America, in 1964, they saw the Beatles as a young, fresh group with their own sound. And Meet the Beatles not only showcased the advancement of studio techniques seen in With the Beatles, but showcased the songwriting talents of John and Paul early on.
In 1964, the same year that they achieved HUGE success in America, many things started to change. For example, with their third album, A Hard Day's Night they began to write songs quicker, and their lyrics started to change, and in many cases became more introspective, especially with John Lennon, which is a pre-cursor to John's writing on Beatles for Sale, which is very personal to John and would be a recurring theme for John in years to come.
Now that I've gotten past that, I'm going to try and summarise as best I can why I love the Beatles so much. I think what makes the Beatles so great is the songwriting team of John Lennon and Paul McCartney who were experts at writing song lyrics, and wriitng great melodies for their lyrics, along with George Harrison's guitar, and Ringo's creative, and unique drumming style. Not to mention their great ability for track orders, the producer they had (George Martin) is an amazing producer, and always knew what was best. Their music just means a lot to me, they were the first band that I fell in love with. What I love about John's lyrics is that though they were usually used to describe his feelings, they can be applied to other things. Paul was a master at writing feel-good happy songs, but at the time could write beautiful piano ballads. Not to mention John and Paul's songwriting, but George's songwriting definitely became a factor in the latter half of their career. It's fun to see how much George developed as a songwriter over the years, and how much he added to the sound of the Beatles' records.
Really all the Beatles worked together, so that no Beatles' record really belonged to a certain member. Really, it may have been more one Beatle's than another's (Pepper and Abbey Road come to mind) but not to the point to say that it belongs to one Beatle. Each Beatle brought something to each song and each album, whether it be a melody, lyrics, sound effects, an idea, a spoken bit, a little something to each song, to make it something special. So in closing, what i love about the Beatles' is their ability as a cohesive unit. How they compliment each other so well, while not being the technically best musicians. They were just a band..that made it very very big, that's all. : )
stroke...you have a great face for radio...
it was awesome!!
- Three Different Ones - 10-29-2006 10:55 AM
lol thank you cevor :D
- cevor - 10-29-2006 10:55 AM
Three Different Ones Wrote:lol thank you cevor :D:D
- Echoes73 - 10-29-2006 10:59 AM
Three Different Ones Wrote:Pink Floyd is.... WAYYYYYYY better than The Beatles, they're not even that good, just a commercialized band by the critics that just happens to claim the name of the beginning of Rock and Rollha_ha_charade_you_are Wrote:Pink Floyd is better than the Beatles.You sir are a liar!
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-29-2006 11:14 AM
Penis.
- Echoes73 - 10-29-2006 11:15 AM
Woof Oink Baaa Wrote:Penis.are you calling me a penis, or implying that it is better than The Beatles? ???
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-29-2006 11:25 AM
No. I'm hijacking this mofo and now we're all going to randomly name naughty parts.
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-29-2006 11:25 AM
Cervix.
- Three Different Ones - 10-29-2006 11:28 AM
Echoes73 Wrote:That's not true at all.Three Different Ones Wrote:Pink Floyd is.... WAYYYYYYY better than The Beatles, they're not even that good, just a commercialized band by the critics that just happens to claim the name of the beginning of Rock and Rollha_ha_charade_you_are Wrote:Pink Floyd is better than the Beatles.You sir are a liar!
ANYWAYS
vagina
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-29-2006 11:39 AM
Sphincter.
- Jumpy - 10-29-2006 12:05 PM
The Smiths. That was funny. The Smiths.
I can't trust a lead singer who doesn't like sex.
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-29-2006 12:34 PM
Jumpy Wrote:The Smiths. That was funny. The Smiths.But he's asexual!
I can't trust a lead singer who doesn't like sex.
It's pretty much the greatest thing ever.
It's like he goes to the bathroom and buds off little Morrissey's off his shoulder. Army of Darkness style.
Clitoris.
- Sadie - 10-29-2006 02:08 PM
asshole
I'm killing two birds with one stone there.
:p
- Dragonrider - 10-29-2006 02:11 PM
Well I was going to say PF but it seems not many people think that. Let me remind you that it's my opinion.'
And everything I can't live without, including my favourite teddy.
- Echoes73 - 10-29-2006 02:29 PM
clitoris
- cevor - 10-29-2006 02:30 PM
Dragonrider Wrote:Well I was going to say PF but it seems not many people think that. Let me remind you that it's my opinion.'awwwwwwwww... :D
And everything I can't live without, including my favourite teddy.
- ImTheFloor - 10-29-2006 02:45 PM
Allow me to name the naughtiest of all naughty parts:
PLACENTA
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-29-2006 03:13 PM
Echoes73 Wrote:clitorisI already said that!
Scrotum.
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-29-2006 03:14 PM
Heh. "cevor" kinda sounds like "cervix."
- Dragonrider - 10-29-2006 03:14 PM
ImTheFloor Wrote:Allow me to name the naughtiest of all naughty parts:reminds me of that 'Live' song.
PLACENTA
- Grguitarfreek100 - 10-29-2006 03:16 PM
led zeppelin
pink floyd
rush
porcupine tree
ted eddison
dave matthews
bela fleck and the flectones
and nearly every song by those bands.
- cevor - 10-29-2006 03:16 PM
Woof Oink Baaa Wrote:Heh. "cevor" kinda sounds like "cervix.""at your cervix woofie"
- rolanddoe - 10-29-2006 03:28 PM
Jesus Christ's hooooly navel is better than the Beatles.
I can't believe you all missed that.
I'll check in briefly to see if you're doing any better tomorrow.
- ImTheFloor - 10-29-2006 06:13 PM
Grguitarfreek100 Wrote:dave matthewsYou are disqualified. Please play again sometime.
- ha_ha_charade_you_are - 10-29-2006 06:17 PM
ImTheFloor Wrote:I like Frank Zappa more than the Beatles.****, Zappa's decaying skeleton is better than The Beatles.
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-29-2006 06:19 PM
I think it's fully decayed at this point. :D
- ImTheFloor - 10-29-2006 06:19 PM
ha_ha_charade_you_are Wrote:I assume that goes without saying.ImTheFloor Wrote:I like Frank Zappa more than the Beatles.****, Zappa's decaying skeleton is better than The Beatles.
And I'll repeat what I said before: "Everything the Beatles did, Frank Zappa did first. And if he didn't do it first, he did it better."
But I do love the Beatles, although they're not really in my regular rotation.
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-29-2006 06:19 PM
ImTheFloor Wrote:Frank Zappa did everything first, if you think about it.ha_ha_charade_you_are Wrote:I assume that goes without saying.ImTheFloor Wrote:I like Frank Zappa more than the Beatles.****, Zappa's decaying skeleton is better than The Beatles.
And I'll repeat what I said before: "Everything the Beatles did, Frank Zappa did first. And if he didn't do it first, he did it better."
But I do love the Beatles, although they're not really in my regular rotation.
- ImTheFloor - 10-29-2006 06:21 PM
Frank Zappa didn't give birth to me first!
...D-did he?
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-29-2006 06:24 PM
ImTheFloor Wrote:Frank Zappa didn't give birth to me first!Frank Zappa, you are the father!
...D-did he?
:O
- ImTheFloor - 10-29-2006 06:26 PM
So, Floormom + Zappadaddy= Floorpa?
- sjmcd - 10-30-2006 02:06 AM
Chuck Norris is better than The Beatles.
(Sorry if this has been posted already, I can't be bothered reading through the entire thread)
Edit: I don't really think he is better, I just like Chuck Norris jokes because they're stupid
Edited By sjmcd on 1162202840
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-30-2006 02:41 AM
sjmcd Wrote:Chuck Norris is better than The Beatles.Six months ago called. They want their jokes back. :D
(Sorry if this has been posted already, I can't be bothered reading through the entire thread)
Edit: I don't really think he is better, I just like Chuck Norris jokes because they're stupid
- sea green queen - 10-30-2006 02:49 AM
Dead end streets, whiplash at a air show, having to walk home in the rain. These just apply to John & Paul only.
Edited By sea green queen on 1162205407
- ImTheFloor - 10-30-2006 04:41 AM
Vin Diesel jokes > chuck Norris jokes.
- Marixpress - 10-30-2006 06:40 AM
ha_ha_charade_you_are Wrote:Pink Floyd is better than the Beatles.ditto
- Sadie - 10-30-2006 06:43 AM
ImTheFloor Wrote:Yes, you keep repeating it! And if all of you clap your hands real hard to show that you DO believe in fairytales maybe it'll really come true!ha_ha_charade_you_are Wrote:I assume that goes without saying.ImTheFloor Wrote:I like Frank Zappa more than the Beatles.****, Zappa's decaying skeleton is better than The Beatles.
And I'll repeat what I said before: "Everything the Beatles did, Frank Zappa did first. And if he didn't do it first, he did it better."
But I do love the Beatles, although they're not really in my regular rotation.
- azza200 - 10-30-2006 09:49 AM
The Who
The Doors
kelly clarkson
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-30-2006 10:04 AM
azza200 Wrote:kelly clarksonDouble ditto.
Vaginal flaps.
- ComfortablyNumb212 - 10-30-2006 12:42 PM
Marixpress Wrote:Double Ditto!!!ha_ha_charade_you_are Wrote:Pink Floyd is better than the Beatles.ditto
- ImTheFloor - 10-30-2006 12:48 PM
Jefferson Airplane > Beatles
However, Beatles > Jefferson Starship
Jefferson Airplane = Frank Zappa.
Frank Zappa > Pretty much everything
- azza200 - 10-30-2006 02:40 PM
Thin Lizzy
Formula 1
PS2/PS3
Porn
- Three Different Ones - 10-30-2006 03:31 PM
azza200 Wrote:The WhoIn no way in terms of importance, innovation, etc are the Doors' 60 or so songs, and about 6 albums better than the Beatles' 12 studio albums.
The Doors
kelly clarkson
The Who are a bit different, in the respect that they made more, and had a longer career, but I still wouldn't say they're more important than the Beatles or better in terms of importance, innovations, or songwriting talent, though Entwistle is a hell of a bassist, Moon is a great drummer, and Roger is a hell of a vocalist.
- The_Marching_Hammers - 10-30-2006 03:35 PM
This topic fails. You're entitled to your opinions, but honestly this Beatles bashing sucks.
- Three Different Ones - 10-30-2006 03:37 PM
The_Marching_Hammers Wrote:This topic fails. You're entitled to your opinions, but honestly this Beatles bashing sucks.Dittoed. This has to be the stupidest and worst excuse to put down a truly legendary and important band that I've ever seen in a long time. This topic is truly useless.
- The_Marching_Hammers - 10-30-2006 03:45 PM
Don't like the Beatles? Fine. THink PF or antyhing band is better? That's cool. But don't go calling them stupid pop-junk or overrated or un-talented, cause that's just dumb.
- Three Different Ones - 10-30-2006 03:47 PM
The_Marching_Hammers Wrote:Don't like the Beatles? Fine. THink PF or antyhing band is better? That's cool. But don't go calling them stupid pop-junk or overrated or un-talented, cause that's just dumb.If one thing bothers me about the conception that fans of other groups have of the Beatles, it's that they believe they're just a 'pop group' and they get stereotyped as such by a lot of their number ones, but when you look deeper, they're a lot more than that.
- Funky Dung - 10-30-2006 04:21 PM
Morglor9 Wrote:And I take it I'm not the only person here who has a problem with each Beatle having his own Appreciation Thread (two in the case of John Lennon). Even Peter Best or whatever his name is has one. Honestly, I've been meaning to say... WTF? A single Beatles Apprecitation Thread would suffice.I've been wondering about this too. I mean, I understand for the hardcore Beatles fans here want to have an appreciation thread, or threads in this case, but I doubt too many people here will contribute much information about Pete Best or Stu Sutcliffe. I'm not trying to start any arguments here, and this is the Outside The Wall section, but I would save that for a Beatles message board. :)
- Three Different Ones - 10-30-2006 04:24 PM
In defense, the first John Lennon appreciation thread was hijacked by some idiot, pointing out every fault John had when it was supposed to be an appreciation thread. So that's why a second one was made for John
- Funky Dung - 10-30-2006 04:33 PM
Three Different Ones Wrote:it's that they believe they're just a 'pop group' and they get stereotyped as such by a lot of their number ones, but when you look deeper, they're a lot more than that.I agree with this. Only in The Beatles' early years were they a pop group, then they pretty much used the studio as a technique, utilising different sound effects and approaches on albums like Sgt. Pepper's & The White Album. I myself prefer The Beatles period from 1966-1970.
- ImTheFloor - 10-30-2006 04:50 PM
3DO makes me laugh. Seriously, dude. Woof is a strange little man who you know from a MESSAGE BOARD. If someone made a thread that was like "List Things better than Phish" or whatever, would I be mad? Maybe a little. But I wouldn't be all "OMG PHISH ARE THE BEST BAND EVER AN' TREY & MIKE & PAGE & JON ARE UBERGENIUSES AND YOU MUSN'T DISAGREE!!!"
It's really a joke thread. 'Kay?
Disclaimer: I love the Beatles. I'm actually listening to them right now.
Another disclaimer: I know Phish are MAYBE not in the same league as the Beatles, but I just used them as an example. :;):
Edited By ImTheFloor on 1162256088
- Three Different Ones - 10-30-2006 05:16 PM
Well, i was just responding to the fact that this joke went really too far, and it's getting annoying. And Woof asked me earlier to explain what I see in them, so I did so. That's all i'm doing, as well, it just seems like that if this thread's a joke, it seems to have turned into unnecessary Beatle-bashing
- Three Different Ones - 10-30-2006 05:17 PM
ImTheFloor Wrote:3DO makes me laugh. Seriously, dude. Woof is a strange little man who you know from a MESSAGE BOARD. If someone made a thread that was like "List Things better than Phish" or whatever, would I be mad? Maybe a little. But I wouldn't be all "OMG PHISH ARE THE BEST BAND EVER AN' TREY & MIKE & PAGE & JON ARE UBERGENIUSES AND YOU MUSN'T DISAGREE!!!"I never said you can't disagree, I just explained what I saw in them. That's a bit extreme, don't you think?
It's really a joke thread. 'Kay?
Disclaimer: I love the Beatles. I'm actually listening to them right now.
Another disclaimer: I know Phish are MAYBE not in the same league as the Beatles, but I just used them as an example. :;):
- Sadie - 10-30-2006 05:19 PM
Funky Dung Wrote:Basically all those threads were started by different people getting into the spirit of the thing. So maybe they got carried away, but most of those threads will die a natural death. As to it belonging only on a Beatles forum. I don't think that threads started on Outside the Wall should matter. So there happens to be a lot of Beatles threads at the moment. No big deal really as long as it stays on Outside the Wall. There's a lot of game threads too. Are they really all needed? And on the Beatles forum I go to there are MANY Pink Floyd threads and no ones EVER complained. More than Beatles threads here even. So maybe people who tend to be fans of one of those bands also tend to be fans of the other. So who cares if people want to discuss them at length if it's in the appropriate section.Morglor9 Wrote:And I take it I'm not the only person here who has a problem with each Beatle having his own Appreciation Thread (two in the case of John Lennon). Even Peter Best or whatever his name is has one. Honestly, I've been meaning to say... WTF? A single Beatles Apprecitation Thread would suffice.I've been wondering about this too. I mean, I understand for the hardcore Beatles fans here want to have an appreciation thread, or threads in this case, but I doubt too many people here will contribute much information about Pete Best or Stu Sutcliffe. I'm not trying to start any arguments here, and this is the Outside The Wall section, but I would save that for a Beatles message board. :)
Oh and check it out. Zappa and band doing I Am the Walrus. Sounds pretty good.
Zappa's I Am the Walrus
Edited By Sadie on 1162258736
- Morglor9 - 10-30-2006 05:34 PM
Three Different Ones Wrote:I could easily put all of the Beatles material that I enjoy onto six albums... with a lot of room to spare.azza200 Wrote:The WhoIn no way in terms of importance, innovation, etc are the Doors' 60 or so songs, and about 6 albums better than the Beatles' 12 studio albums.
The Doors
kelly clarkson
The Who are a bit different, in the respect that they made more, and had a longer career, but I still wouldn't say they're more important than the Beatles or better in terms of importance, innovations, or songwriting talent, though Entwistle is a hell of a bassist, Moon is a great drummer, and Roger is a hell of a vocalist.
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-30-2006 05:37 PM
Morglor9 Wrote:Six albums?! I could easily turn all The Beatles' discography into a corned beef sandwich, eat it, fart for two or three seconds, and I would STILL have the experience of listening to their entire discography! :pThree Different Ones Wrote:I could easily put all of the Beatles material that I enjoy onto six albums... with a lot of room to spare.azza200 Wrote:The WhoIn no way in terms of importance, innovation, etc are the Doors' 60 or so songs, and about 6 albums better than the Beatles' 12 studio albums.
The Doors
kelly clarkson
The Who are a bit different, in the respect that they made more, and had a longer career, but I still wouldn't say they're more important than the Beatles or better in terms of importance, innovations, or songwriting talent, though Entwistle is a hell of a bassist, Moon is a great drummer, and Roger is a hell of a vocalist.
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-30-2006 06:10 PM
You wanna know what else is better than The Beatles?!
COOKIE IS BETTER THAN THE BEATLES!
C is for cookie
It's good enough for me
C is for cookie
It's good enough for me
C is for cookie
It's good enough for meeeeeeee
OH!
COOKIE COOKIE COOKIE STARTS WITH C!
- ImTheFloor - 10-30-2006 06:31 PM
Trey Anastasio's beard > Beatles
Now, that may seem derogatory, but have you seen his beard, my friends? It's astounding!
- Woof Oink Baaa - 10-30-2006 06:33 PM
Zappa 'stache > Anastasio's beard
- ImTheFloor - 10-30-2006 06:37 PM
True, true. But it's close.
- PsychedelicLuciferSam - 10-31-2006 12:51 AM
Lindt chocolate...damn those Swiss, so neutral but so tasty
- Morglor9 - 10-31-2006 04:31 PM
Apocalypse Now is better than the Beatles.
- Three Different Ones - 10-31-2006 04:35 PM
letting this thread die is better than the Bea-
wait nevermind
- FreshBrains - 10-31-2006 04:47 PM
The Who is better than The Beatles.
*Puts up flame-shield*
- Three Different Ones - 10-31-2006 05:00 PM
FreshBrains Wrote:The Who is better than The Beatles.I disagree with that. In terms of importance to pop culture, in terms of innovation, and the way that functioned as a cohesive unit, the Who aren't better, though their individual members may be skilled at their individual instruments
*Puts up flame-shield*
- FreshBrains - 10-31-2006 05:04 PM
Oh, I know. I just like them more.
- Morglor9 - 10-31-2006 06:13 PM
Three Different Ones Wrote:But, they're a band, and so while you bring up the influences and stuff, you forget the key element: MUSIC!FreshBrains Wrote:The Who is better than The Beatles.I disagree with that. In terms of importance to pop culture, in terms of innovation, and the way that functioned as a cohesive unit, the Who aren't better, though their individual members may be skilled at their individual instruments
*Puts up flame-shield*
So, I'd go with The Who as well.
- Sadie - 10-31-2006 06:28 PM
Morglor9 Wrote:What's that mean? Their music speaks for itself. :ghostface:Three Different Ones Wrote:But, they're a band, and so while you bring up the influences and stuff, you forget the key element: MUSIC!FreshBrains Wrote:The Who is better than The Beatles.I disagree with that. In terms of importance to pop culture, in terms of innovation, and the way that functioned as a cohesive unit, the Who aren't better, though their individual members may be skilled at their individual instruments
*Puts up flame-shield*
So, I'd go with The Who as well.
Edited By Sadie on 1162348176
- chromeboomerang - 10-31-2006 08:30 PM
"the first John Lennon appreciation thread was hijacked by some idiot, pointing out every fault John had"
with an IQ around 150.
& someone else accused me of posting stuff like this, dunno why.
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=8831
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=8831
Edited By chromeboomerang on 1162357067
- Three Different Ones - 10-31-2006 08:44 PM
I said you're an idiot, because you made a point to hijack an APPRECIATION thread to point out every fault that he had, thus ruining it for other people.
I'm sorry, you're right, you're not an idiot, you're just an asshole
- chromeboomerang - 10-31-2006 08:58 PM
You just don't "appreciate" his crummier qualities. & if I hadn't chimed in, the thread would've died, & there would've been nothing to appreciate.
Edited By chromeboomerang on 1162357226
- Three Different Ones - 10-31-2006 09:54 PM
No you're just an asshole. You ruined a thread where people were aiming to appreciate John's life his legacy. It's not so much that you did it in the first place, but you KEPT doing it over and over.
- chromeboomerang - 10-31-2006 11:30 PM
No way dude, My dads bigger than your dad.
- Three Different Ones - 10-31-2006 11:39 PM
chromeboomerang Wrote:No way dude, My dads bigger than your dad.Hey dude, i totally care about your opinion and what you have to say
...wait I lied, no I don't.
- pointmeatthesky - 10-31-2006 11:45 PM
Whoa, nice comeback.
- chromeboomerang - 10-31-2006 11:52 PM
Did anyone notice this post from the beginning of the John Lennon appreciation thread?, ( page 2 ). & lame comeback.
John Lennon was a musical genius but as a person he was a self-obsorbed, nasty, spitefull, drug fuelled twat.
Sorry to rain on your parade guys but the Lennon that started the Beatles was not the same guy that was shot outside the Dakota building in 1980. I used to think highly of him but the more I learned about the man the more I relised that my view of Lennon was obscured by the media and there idolization of him.
One thing that cannot be ignored is that his creative talent was unique and he was a musical genius, hes just not deserving of a good samaritan award.
Edited By chromeboomerang on 1162367682
- chromeboomerang - 11-01-2006 12:44 AM
http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/lennon.html
The info here is not from Goldman. The author was awarded a peace medal,"was awarded the United Nations Association of Australia Media Peace Award."
http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/resume.html
We can't overlook, either, Lennon's pronouncements on affluence, such as "Imagine no possessions/It's easy if you try"). Hollow words, produced as they were for the toiling masses, from the magnificent halls of Lennon-Ono mansions in English shires and American upstate woodlands.
Lennon's pontifications on peace seemed at the time, to this writer (though a Lennon fan), profoundly hypocritical. He claimed publicly that he regretted the lyric in Revolution that said
"When you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao,
you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow."
This was around the same time that Mao Zedong entered the Guinness Book of Records as the world's greatest all-time mass murderer - estimates of the deaths attributed to Mao and his Communist Party vary from 30 million to 100 million and more.
And here's a bonus.
http://www.goofball.com/news/20000111002
Edited By chromeboomerang on 1162371496
- ImTheFloor - 11-01-2006 04:39 AM
I think it's true that John Lennon was NOT a saint, he was an asshole, like we all are...but most of us know that, you didn't need to go on about it.
- etphonehomeyo - 11-01-2006 06:43 AM
from my experience, whenever a person points to his/her IQ to show that he/she is smart, that usually means that this person is an idiot.
- ImTheFloor - 11-01-2006 12:57 PM
etphonehomeyo Wrote:from my experience, whenever a person points to his/her IQ to show that he/she is smart, that usually means that this person is an idiot.Yes. Who knows their IQ? I have no idea what mine is.
- cevor - 11-01-2006 01:20 PM
damn chrome, we've all read your opinions over and over and over...please don't kill another thread!!
- pointmeatthesky - 11-01-2006 04:34 PM
Marxism-Leninism is better then the Beatles.
Edited By pointmeatthesky on 1162427714
- Woof Oink Baaa - 11-01-2006 04:49 PM
The Dude: It's like what Lenin said... you look for the person who will benefit, and, uh, uh...
Donny: I am the walrus.
The Dude: You know what I'm trying to say...
Walter Sobchak: That ******* bitch...
The Dude: Oh yeah!
Donny: I am the walrus.
Walter Sobchak: Shut the **** up, Donny! V.I. Lenin. Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov!
Donny: What the **** is he talking about, Dude?
- chromeboomerang - 11-01-2006 07:40 PM
Not in this case Etphone. I scored 142 at age 14. Sorry to disapoint.
"damn chrome, we've all read your opinions over and over and over"
Not my opinion, rather the educated view of a professional award winning author.
Edited By chromeboomerang on 1162439030
- Sadie - 11-01-2006 07:47 PM
etphonehomeyo Wrote:from my experience, whenever a person points to his/her IQ to show that he/she is smart, that usually means that this person is an idiot.True. And you would also think that a person who boasts such a high IQ would also know the difference in usage between their and there and make sure their spelling is correct. I mean, if you're going to go on about how intelligent you are, wouldn't you at least check your posts for stupid errors? It's so disaPPointing.
Edited By Sadie on 1162439485
- Woof Oink Baaa - 11-01-2006 07:48 PM
If you're going to boast how intelligent you are in this thread, you really are a moran.
- Dragonrider - 11-01-2006 07:48 PM
Quote:Not in this case Etphone. I scored 142 at age 14. Sorry to disapoint.
I'm afraid you're wrong there mate.
A high IQ doesn't define how intelligent you are (The American army made that mistake once)
My brother who's a f***in' genius had a average IQ. It can tell ever how good your memory is (Barry Jones - 182) or it can show how adaptive and imaginative you are.
Some of the most intelligent minds in the world are 100% useless at other things... You're IQ might be misrepresented all because you're no good at words or can't imagine the picture...
It's a waste of time and money in the end cause all you have is a piece of paper that's only good for boasting about and wiping your arse!
- chromeboomerang - 11-01-2006 09:04 PM
Yes imagination "is" the most important aspect of intelligence, that's true. Always had loads of it. Spell checks are for article writing & book writing. Have had some articles printed for what it's worth, history & music mags. Sorry to disapoint yet again. & do know the difference between their & there.
A moran eh? Hee hee. & truth be told, it is the ones who engage in personal immature attacks who qualify for that title. Not me.
& being unable to accept the truth about Lennon or any historical figure for that matter is not the mark of an advanced mind.
Edited By chromeboomerang on 1162444279
- Woof Oink Baaa - 11-01-2006 09:41 PM
chromeboomerang Wrote:Yes imagination "is" the most important aspect of intelligence, that's true. Always had loads of it. Spell checks are for article writing & book writing. Have had some articles printed for what it's worth, history & music mags. Sorry to disapoint yet again. & do know the difference between their & there.Holy hell. Quit licking your own ass and get over yourself. Look who you're talking to here. I mean, most of us are within the age range of 15-25. Not to mention, this is a JOKE TOPIC on a freaking MESSAGE BOARD.
A moran eh? Hee hee. & truth be told, it is the ones who engage in personal immature attacks who qualify for that title. Not me.
& being unable to accept the truth about Lennon or any historical figure for that matter is not the mark of an advanced mind.
You've got some real ******* brains, bud.
- chromeboomerang - 11-01-2006 10:10 PM
Yes indeed. What do y'all do if your kid spills a glass of milk? poke em in the eye with a pencil?
Get over it already.
- pointmeatthesky - 11-01-2006 10:26 PM
chromeboomerang Wrote:Yes indeed. What do y'all do if your kid spills a glass of milk? poke em in the eye with a pencil?What does that have to do with anything?
Get over it already.
You have too much time on your hands. Maybe you should take up masturbating.
- ImTheFloor - 11-02-2006 04:38 AM
I think that's good advice for just about anyone who wastes their time on a message board.
- Jumpy - 11-02-2006 06:45 AM
chromeboomerang Wrote:Yes imagination "is" the most important aspect of intelligence, that's true. Always had loads of it.When are you going to start demonstrating it? All you do is cut-and-paste.
- Marixpress - 11-02-2006 07:10 AM
What the hell is going on in here :upside:
- Jumpy - 11-02-2006 07:32 AM
Marixpress Wrote:What the hell is going on in here :upside:Pest control.
- Three Different Ones - 11-02-2006 10:42 AM
someone needs to eliminate this pest, quick
there should be a "list things less annoying than chromeboomerang" thread :cigar:
- Jumpy - 11-02-2006 10:50 AM
Three Different Ones Wrote:someone needs to eliminate this pest, quick:D
there should be a "list things less annoying than chromeboomerang" thread :cigar:
ghonorrhea
- etphonehomeyo - 11-02-2006 12:09 PM
chromeboomerang Wrote:Not in this case Etphone. I scored 142 at age 14. Sorry to disapoint.uhhhh i don't think so. i'm pretty sure you're an idiot. i never said you didn't have a high IQ (although i do think yours is actually average at best). i said you were an idiot. think about it. does someone like albert einstein get in arguments and say, "i have a high IQ"? the answer is no. and that is my point. only dumbasses bring something like that up.
"damn chrome, we've all read your opinions over and over and over"
Not my opinion, rather the educated view of a professional award winning author.
- Three Different Ones - 11-02-2006 12:56 PM
Jumpy Wrote:homework, bitching little siblings, bitchy parents, cranky old people, genital wartsThree Different Ones Wrote:someone needs to eliminate this pest, quick:D
there should be a "list things less annoying than chromeboomerang" thread :cigar:
ghonorrhea
- ImTheFloor - 11-02-2006 01:16 PM
I would be very very sad if I were to find out that people like Hunter Thompson or Frank Zappa went around all the time bragging about how smart they are.
- Woof Oink Baaa - 11-02-2006 03:10 PM
Dweezil was wearing hot pink pants on Tuesday night.
Expect a review tomorrow.
- Three Different Ones - 11-02-2006 03:16 PM
Woof Oink Baaa Wrote:Dweezil was wearing hot pink pants on Tuesday night.Is that less annoying than chrome, or better than the Beatles? or both? :cigar:
Expect a review tomorrow.
- Woof Oink Baaa - 11-02-2006 03:28 PM
Three Different Ones Wrote:Better than The Beatles and very manpretty.Woof Oink Baaa Wrote:Dweezil was wearing hot pink pants on Tuesday night.Is that less annoying than chrome, or better than the Beatles? or both? :cigar:
Expect a review tomorrow.
- DeltaOfVenus - 11-02-2006 05:57 PM
Ridley Scott is better than the Beatles
- chromeboomerang - 11-02-2006 07:00 PM
"uhhhh i don't think so. i'm pretty sure you're an idiot. i never said you didn't have a high IQ (although i do think yours is actually average at best). i said you were an idiot. think about it. does someone like albert einstein get in arguments and say, "i have a high IQ"? the answer is no. and that is my point. only dumbasses bring something like that up."
Actually, only dumbasses call strangers names, which is a painfully obvious demonstration that they have nothing intelligent to say.
- DeltaOfVenus - 11-02-2006 07:37 PM
Hey chromeboomerang, who is this for? ???
- DeltaOfVenus - 11-02-2006 07:39 PM
oh, okay, I read the back posts. Yikes. :Oo:
At first, I thought you meant it for me, and I was like, 'Huh, WTF?' LOL.
Edited By DeltaOfVenus on 1162525204
- DeltaOfVenus - 11-02-2006 07:47 PM
C'mon folks, let's all try to get along. We are are PF fans. Isn't that enough proof of our intellect? :) :)
Let's lighten up. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Arguing is for the wee tots.
- Morglor9 - 11-02-2006 08:03 PM
DeltaOfVenus Wrote:C'mon folks, let's all try to get along. We are are PF fans. Isn't that enough proof of our intellect? :) :)Ah, thank you Venus. Well said. Let's not call names.
Let's lighten up. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Arguing is for the wee tots.
- pointmeatthesky - 11-02-2006 08:08 PM
chromeboomerang Wrote:"uhhhh i don't think so. i'm pretty sure you're an idiot. i never said you didn't have a high IQ (although i do think yours is actually average at best). i said you were an idiot. think about it. does someone like albert einstein get in arguments and say, "i have a high IQ"? the answer is no. and that is my point. only dumbasses bring something like that up."Wait...wouldn't that thne make you a dumbass?
Actually, only dumbasses call strangers names, which is a painfully obvious demonstration that they have nothing intelligent to say.
- DeltaOfVenus - 11-02-2006 08:12 PM
Morglor9 Wrote:Thanks Morglor9.DeltaOfVenus Wrote:C'mon folks, let's all try to get along. We are are PF fans. Isn't that enough proof of our intellect? :) :)Ah, thank you Venus. Well said. Let's not call names.
Let's lighten up. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Arguing is for the wee tots.
The Doors are better than the Beatles. I don't care if they only did make six studio albums. Blah!
Quantity doesn't equal quality.
But I do like the Beatles. It's just that the Doors have been my favorite band since I was old enough to vote.
Just my opinion though folks. :) Nobody get your shorts in a bundle.
Edited By DeltaOfVenus on 1162527906
- Morglor9 - 11-02-2006 08:31 PM
I'd say Neil Young and Pink Floyd are both better than the Beatles, right along with the Doors and Supertramp. It's my opinion.
- DeltaOfVenus - 11-02-2006 08:32 PM
Morglor9 Wrote:I'd say Neil Young and Pink Floyd are both better than the Beatles, right along with the Doors and Supertramp. It's my opinion.Oh no. Now you've done it! :D
- Buckethead - 11-03-2006 12:16 AM
i think there are many bands who are better than the beatles, especially floyd
- rolanddoe - 11-03-2006 06:49 AM
DeltaOfVenus Wrote:C'mon folks, let's all try to get along. We are are PF fans. Isn't that enough proof of our intellect? :) :)OK, I'll try. Despite my suspicion that you're all dumbass Beatle haters. And fat...definitely probably fat dumbass Beatle haters.
Let's lighten up. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Arguing is for the wee tots.
But that doesn't mean I don't love you all. :love:
Snif.
- etphonehomeyo - 11-03-2006 10:26 AM
chromeboomerang Wrote:Actually, only dumbasses call strangers namesthink about what you just said. that obviously isn't true.
Edited By etphonehomeyo on 1162578416
- DeltaOfVenus - 11-03-2006 10:48 AM
rolanddoe Wrote:Now see, rolanddoe, you have the right attitude. :pDeltaOfVenus Wrote:C'mon folks, let's all try to get along. We are are PF fans. Isn't that enough proof of our intellect? :) :)OK, I'll try. Despite my suspicion that you're all dumbass Beatle haters. And fat...definitely probably fat dumbass Beatle haters.
Let's lighten up. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Arguing is for the wee tots.
But that doesn't mean I don't love you all. :love:
Snif.
- Buckethead - 11-03-2006 11:34 AM
etphonehomeyo Wrote:ownedchromeboomerang Wrote:Actually, only dumbasses call strangers namesthink about what you just said. that obviously isn't true.
- ComfortablyNumb212 - 11-03-2006 12:57 PM
etphonehomeyo Wrote:KEKEKEKEKEKEEKE ^.^chromeboomerang Wrote:Actually, only dumbasses call strangers namesthink about what you just said. that obviously isn't true.
- Woof Oink Baaa - 11-03-2006 02:45 PM
ComfortablyNumb212 Wrote:KEKEKEKEKEKEEKE ^.^ROFL.
That's the first time I've heard that in two years. Thanks for that. :laugh:
- Thing-Fish - 08-26-2007 04:02 AM
Frank Zappa is better than The Beatles.
- Three Different Ones - 08-26-2007 07:00 AM
Thing-Fish Wrote:Frank Zappa is better than The Beatles.Bumping old, stupid threads is cool
and false.
- drk229 - 08-26-2007 04:48 PM
Aha!