20
   

If the Beatles weren't cute, they would have been just another band.

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Sep, 2009 03:20 pm
@spendius,
Cripes. A programme about the FF on BBC2 tonight.

I just saw I Wanna Hold Your Hand on the Ed Murrow show. 1963

Embarrassing I'm afraid.

There was a scene with them bobbing up and down in a nightclub presumably in NYC and tha band they were dancing to blew them away.

Dylan's 1963 Freewheelin' had this lot-

Blowin' In The Wind
Girl From The North Country
Masters Of War
Down The Highway
Bob Dylan's Blues
A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall
Don't Think Twice, It's All Right
Bob Dylan's Dream
Oxford Town
Corrina Corrina
Talkin' World War III Blues
Honey, Just Allow Me One More Chance
I Shall Be Free

Blimey!!
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Sep, 2009 03:24 pm
@spendius,
I think you are trying to compare brandy and beer, spendi.

one of them does not require an aging process...
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Sep, 2009 03:32 pm
@Rockhead,
No. I like both brandy and beer. If they served beer in the pub as bad as the Beatles are it would be devoid of clients.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Sep, 2009 05:08 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

No. I like both brandy and beer. If they served beer in the pub as bad as the Beatles are it would be devoid of clients.

The usual cheap play for attention.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Sep, 2009 05:19 pm
@Brandon9000,
Well- it had a point. You have no point. Your's is a really cheap play for attention.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Sep, 2009 06:27 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Well- it had a point. You have no point. Your's is a really cheap play for attention.

Bad logic. The fact that I say that you are making your typical cheap play for attention, does not, in fact indicate that I am making a cheap play for attention. There are many explanations for why I might accuse you of this, and one of them is that I am simply stating the truth. I say that you are making your typical cheap play for attention by being contrary, simply because it's so. One wonders what sort of upbringing would result in a personality which habitually tries to cause a negative reaction in order to be the center of attention.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 11:15 am
@Brandon9000,
Why do you single me out in this respect? Isn't everybody who comes on any of these sites seeking attention?

Or anybody who has their hair primped, or their face made up, or their clothes having a striking nature either of expensive refinement or conspicuous vulgarity, or their motor car containing embellishments unnecessary to the operation of a transportation machine, or the environs of their breeding hutch tarted up and subjected to meticulous care in the service of the Goddess of Order and Good Taste, or lards their conversation with words associated the military valour or esoteric expertise, or who display aspects of their sexual attributes or, if I am to get this sentence finished before you nod off, such is the list I might compose of the vanities of my fellow human beings, anything whatsoever which falls outside the compass of sitting quietly in their room, as Goethe recommended, and therefore including your own activities which, when they resort to the ridiculous assertion "bad logic" and the crass ignorance of " I am simply stating the truth" as telling arguments, are really nothing to write home about even on a post-modern holiday postcard posted in Bognor Regis on a miserably cold Tuesday afternoon before the pubs have opened and the chorus girls have risen from their beds.

I would guess from my scientific understanding of the American psyche that you probably make a cheap play for attention on a more or less continuous basis during your hours of waking and I daresay you sleep amidst an array of symbolic representations of your being worthy of attention as an object of emulation.

It is not me who is the cause of negative reactions. It was the bloody Beatles and their asinine appeal to the budding sexuality of young, white lower-middle-class females to whom they speciously offered a model of masculine virtues from which we have not yet recovered.

That I Wanna Hold Your Hand was embarrassing. I agree with Kicky's starter and I am contributing to the thread by doing so and providing some justifications. I don't see you as providing any refutations so your presence on here can only be so you can draw attention to yourself.

And don't instruct me on logic.
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 01:13 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
Why do you single me out in this respect? Isn't everybody who comes on any of these sites seeking attention?...It is not me who is the cause of negative reactions. It was the bloody Beatles and their asinine appeal to the budding sexuality of young, white lower-middle-class females to whom they speciously offered a model of masculine virtues from which we have not yet recovered.

That I Wanna Hold Your Hand was embarrassing. I agree with Kicky's starter and I am contributing to the thread by doing so and providing some justifications. I don't see you as providing any refutations so your presence on here can only be so you can draw attention to yourself.

And don't instruct me on logic.


What I don't do is to act out behaviors I know will cause a negative reaction in those around me expressly for the purpose of gaining attention. You do. I've seen you do it here many times in your posts. Say what you like, it's the truth.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 03:00 pm
@Brandon9000,
I was giving a positive reaction to kicky's starter post. It was only negative in your eyes and that of other fans of the Fad Four. Those who agree with kicky, and all the blokes I know do, think your reaction is negative.

You have failed to suggest any reason why drawing attention to oneself is a fault despite my taking some trouble to provoke you into doing. And if it is not a fault you are being negative about it.

The Beatles were not all that much different from a wedding cake from a confectionary point of view. They looked like their Mums had got them ready. They were wooden. The music was trite and the lyrics downright dangerous.

Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 05:02 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

I was giving a positive reaction to kicky's starter post. It was only negative in your eyes and that of other fans of the Fad Four. Those who agree with kicky, and all the blokes I know do, think your reaction is negative.

You have failed to suggest any reason why drawing attention to oneself is a fault despite my taking some trouble to provoke you into doing. And if it is not a fault you are being negative about it.

The Beatles were not all that much different from a wedding cake from a confectionary point of view. They looked like their Mums had got them ready. They were wooden. The music was trite and the lyrics downright dangerous.

I'm not talking about the Beatles. I'm talking about the fact that you have long tried to get attention by trying to provoke a negative reaction. For instance at: http://able2know.org/topic/61995-10

Member Swimpy asks for advice about travel:

Swimpy wrote:
I've never booked travel on Priceline, but I want to give it a try. What things should I know before I book a trip? Do you have any horror stories or great success stories to tell?


Several people try to help him/her, when you pop in with:

spendius wrote:
Why don't you all just stay home and save yourselves all this hassle.

Home is where the heart is after all. You can't beat your own bed.

Another of your cheap plays for attention. I'm accusing you of trying to provoke negative reactions to get attention simply because it's true.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 05:14 pm
@Brandon9000,
Carry on then. It's no skin off my nose. Feel free to accuse me of anything that takes your fancy.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 07:20 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Carry on then. It's no skin off my nose. Feel free to accuse me of anything that takes your fancy.

Oh, thanks, but no thanks. I'll just accuse you of things that are true.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 04:15 am
@Brandon9000,
You quoted this old post of mine--

Quote:
Why don't you all just stay home and save yourselves all this hassle.

Home is where the heart is after all. You can't beat your own bed.


as being an example of negativity.

I think it is positive. It is in line with Mr Bush's State of the Union speech about the US being "addicted" to oil use. And it is in line with the habits of the majority of the population who do stay home in the main. It is positive in the sense that it tries to encourage people not to travel so much and to dicourage them from boasting about travelling and thus encouraging others to travel which is negative in regard to Mr Bush's words.

Quote:
I'll just accuse you of things that are true.


Well, if you define negativity to suit yourself it is to be expected you will define true in the same way.

You began on this thread --"You are 100% wrong" . You went on to tell kicky that he "couldn't win with that argument" and you got very close to giving the impression that kicky is a liar.

That's the sort of stuff the Beatles do to folks heads. They were shite.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 06:52 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

You quoted this old post of mine--

Quote:
Why don't you all just stay home and save yourselves all this hassle.

Home is where the heart is after all. You can't beat your own bed.


as being an example of negativity.

I think it is positive. It is in line with Mr Bush's State of the Union speech about the US being "addicted" to oil use. And it is in line with the habits of the majority of the population who do stay home in the main. It is positive in the sense that it tries to encourage people not to travel so much and to dicourage them from boasting about travelling and thus encouraging others to travel which is negative in regard to Mr Bush's words.

Quote:
I'll just accuse you of things that are true.


Well, if you define negativity to suit yourself it is to be expected you will define true in the same way.

You began on this thread --"You are 100% wrong" . You went on to tell kicky that he "couldn't win with that argument" and you got very close to giving the impression that kicky is a liar.

That's the sort of stuff the Beatles do to folks heads. They were shite.

On the contrary. Disagreeing with someone in a thread is not the same thing as stating something contrary for the express purpose of getting a rise out of people to get attention, which is what you do.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 07:27 am
@Brandon9000,
That's ridiculous Brandon. What gives you the right to assert that my making of an argument against someone is done for the purpose of "getting a rise out of people to get attention".

Anyone could say that about anybody who states a point of view contrary to their own. It's a bloody gagging order. Piss off.

And you still have failed to respond to my request to explain what is wrong with seeking attention. It might be said to be the energy source of capitalism.

How do you distinguish between "Disagreeing with someone in a thread" and "stating something contrary for the express purpose of getting a rise out of people to get attention"?

Judge Brandon finds it easy I suppose.

Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 07:38 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

That's ridiculous Brandon. What gives you the right to assert that my making of an argument against someone is done for the purpose of "getting a rise out of people to get attention".

Anyone could say that about anybody who states a point of view contrary to their own. It's a bloody gagging order. Piss off.

And you still have failed to respond to my request to explain what is wrong with seeking attention. It might be said to be the energy source of capitalism.

How do you distinguish between "Disagreeing with someone in a thread" and "stating something contrary for the express purpose of getting a rise out of people to get attention"?

Judge Brandon finds it easy I suppose.

Sometimes it's not too hard. For instance, at: http://able2know.org/topic/133815-1#post-3694280 member Ogionik says that he'll be going to college soon and fears failing. Another member steps in to try and comfort him, and predicts that he'll do well. You then jump in with this sympathetic contribution:

spendius wrote:

Gee Ogi- and I thought you were a revolutionary. My cousin Georgina could have written that.


And I'm not trying to impose a "gagging order." I'm just pointing out what you habitually do in threads.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 08:04 am
@Brandon9000,
It was Ogi who presented himself as a revolutionary. I was taking the piss out of revolution as a serious argument. Do you object to that? Revolutionaries don't go to college. According to Dylan the National Bank at a profit sells road maps for the soul to the old folks home and the college.

How can A2Kers comfort anyone? Do you believe in miracle working magic incantations?

Are we to sit on our hands when someone promotes revolution for fear that people like you will accuse us of attention seeking.

Again you fail to give reasons why attention seeking is a fault. How many more times are you going to do that? You have been asked three times now and have taken the easy way out by ignoring the question and your whole position is based on attention seeking being disreputable.

I'm saying that attention seeking is a virtue in our society and you are treating it negatively. Why? Most modest people have plenty to be modest about.

Was Lennon's "Bed-in" attention seeking?

Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 08:45 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

It was Ogi who presented himself as a revolutionary. I was taking the piss out of revolution as a serious argument. Do you object to that? Revolutionaries don't go to college. According to Dylan the National Bank at a profit sells road maps for the soul to the old folks home and the college.

How can A2Kers comfort anyone? Do you believe in miracle working magic incantations?

Are we to sit on our hands when someone promotes revolution for fear that people like you will accuse us of attention seeking.

Again you fail to give reasons why attention seeking is a fault. How many more times are you going to do that? You have been asked three times now and have taken the easy way out by ignoring the question and your whole position is based on attention seeking being disreputable.

I'm saying that attention seeking is a virtue in our society and you are treating it negatively. Why? Most modest people have plenty to be modest about.

Was Lennon's "Bed-in" attention seeking?

Here's your answer. To habitually try to do something negative to provoke a reaction in order to get attention is merely an unpleasant psychological mechanism indicating some childhood developmental problem, and far inferior to trying to get attention by being interesting, helpful, nice, etc.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 09:21 am
@Brandon9000,
Sulking and not answering and trying to have the last word with insults and psuedo-psychological crap indicates spoilt brat syndrome.

What's wrong with attention seeking? That's the fourth time you have been asked and you have no case if it is a virtue in our society as I think it is.

You were negative about kicky's post. You were negative about kicky having no argument and you were negative about his integrity. And you are negative about answering the key question which you yourself have raised. Nobody mentioned attention seeking until you did.

And you're negative about Lennon's ridiculous publicity stunt in the bed at Montreal with a woman he was committing adultery with after deserting his bride, who he had thumped, and his first kid. Which is why he wanted to ban the Pope.

His first son said that Lennon had told him that he had come out of a whisky bottle.

He was a toss-pot and his lyrics are trite shite. What's negative about facts?

The US Goverment tried to deport him as an undesireable.

Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 10:21 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Sulking and not answering and trying to have the last word with insults and psuedo-psychological crap indicates spoilt brat syndrome.

What's wrong with attention seeking? That's the fourth time you have been asked and you have no case if it is a virtue in our society as I think it is.

You were negative about kicky's post. You were negative about kicky having no argument and you were negative about his integrity. And you are negative about answering the key question which you yourself have raised. Nobody mentioned attention seeking until you did.

And you're negative about Lennon's ridiculous publicity stunt in the bed at Montreal with a woman he was committing adultery with after deserting his bride, who he had thumped, and his first kid. Which is why he wanted to ban the Pope.

His first son said that Lennon had told him that he had come out of a whisky bottle.

He was a toss-pot and his lyrics are trite shite. What's negative about facts?

The US Goverment tried to deport him as an undesireable.

You can rationalize it all you want, but I'm not talking about indicating disagreement in posts, which is fine, or even indicating strong disagreement, which is also fine. I'm talking about habitually making negative posts to try and get a rise out of people. That's not a virtue of of any sort. It's simply an indication of a psychological problem.

And just for the record, my posts were about music, not the lives of the musicians.
 

Related Topics

Favorite Beatles Song - Discussion by Brandon9000
Are the Beatles the best band? - Question by Riddler101
Dick Rowe and the Infamous Decca Audition - Discussion by Brandon9000
Beatles History - Discussion by Brandon9000
Something - Discussion by edgarblythe
50 Years ago today. The Beatles - - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2022 at 04:05:22