Exile on Main St

[Raja, The Great]

Heard this entirely once more... just to see what the fuss is all
about... although I must admit the album has a raw rock n roll (mixed
with some country, gospel and soul) feel to it, that alone doesn't
make the album great.

If an album has 18 songs I expect at least 12 albums to be great,
thats 2/3rd's of an album... that is all I ask. So going through all
the songs these are the ONLY songs I like... the rest are mediocre at
best....

Rocks Off
Rip This Joint
Shake Your Hips (nice cover)
Tumbling Dice
Torn And Frayed (best song)
Happy
Let It Loose
All Down The Line

Thats just 8 songs out of 18. Some of the songs are terribly annoying
like Turd On the Run, Ventilator Blues, Soul Survivor). Those 8 songs
if they were on the album and nothing else, I would say it would be
the greatest Stones album ever. But unfortunately those 8 are
scattered a lot of mediocre junk.

Sorry but I will take Out Of Our Heads, Aftermath, Beggars Banquet,
Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers to this turkey anyday. And the best
Rolling Stones album is still HOT ROCKS. Better singles band!

[poisoned rose]

"Raja, The Great" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Sorry but I will take Out Of Our Heads, Aftermath, Beggars Banquet,
> Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers to this turkey anyday.

Trolling once again. Why can't you just give your real opinions, minus
the straining-to-annoy exaggeration?

An album where you like 4/9 of the tracks is not a "turkey." Sorry,
that's just the way it is. Stop pleading for attention.

> And the best
> Rolling Stones album is still HOT ROCKS. Better singles band!

Exile is an album more about the overall "vibe" -- more than the sum of
its parts. Assessing the album by your usual autistic "counting" method
doesn't really fly. I do prefer a couple of other Stones albums myself,
but saying an album is "only" among the Rolling Stones' top three is
hardly much of an insult.

[Raja, The Great]

On Mar 17, 9:10 pm, poisoned rose <***@ward-duty.com> wrote:
> "Raja, The Great" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry but I will take Out Of Our Heads, Aftermath, Beggars Banquet,
> > Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers to this turkey anyday.
>
> Trolling once again. Why can't you just give your real opinions, minus
> the straining-to-annoy exaggeration?

Thats my real opinion. The earlier Stones on albums like Out Of Our
Heads and Aftermath weren't doing any sophisticated stuff or making an
artistic statement by merging blues, country, gospel and rock like on
this album (just because you are exploring other genres, it doesn't
mean you can get away with writing mediocre stuff)... but at least
they wrote good memorable songs and were most of all... ENTERTAINING!

>
> An album where you like 4/9 of the tracks is not a "turkey." Sorry,
> that's just the way it is. Stop pleading for attention.

How in the world can 4/9 be good? You have low standards! No wonder
you like the 80s indie shit. It is less than 50%. If I scored less
than 50% in my exams when I was a kid, my dad would have belted me.
>
> > And the best
> > Rolling Stones album is still HOT ROCKS. Better singles band!
>
> Exile is an album more about the overall "vibe" -- more than the sum of
> its parts. Assessing the album by your usual autistic "counting" method
> doesn't really fly. I do prefer a couple of other Stones albums myself,
> but saying an album is "only" among the Rolling Stones' top three is
> hardly much of an insult.

I will settle for 6th best.

[poisoned rose]

"Raja" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> If you put 18 songs on a record,
> they better be all good.

Actually, I think most people would reason that putting many tracks on
an album makes it more forgivable to include a couple of weak ones. I
sure would.

If someone put three songs on a record, would you care less if one of
them was bad? Is some crummy 10-minute track less objectionable than a
crummy two-minute one?

You don't think any of your arguments through. You just fire shots.

> > > Sorry but I will take Out Of Our Heads, Aftermath, Beggars Banquet,
> > > Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers to this turkey anyday.
> >
> > Trolling once again. Why can't you just give your real opinions, minus
> > the straining-to-annoy exaggeration?
>
> Thats my real opinion.

No, it isn't. Because you've already contradicted it, as you typically
do. Your "headline" strains to be abrasive, then the underlying
justification is the real opinion.

> > An album where you like 4/9 of the tracks is not a "turkey." Sorry,
> > that's just the way it is. Stop pleading for attention.
>
> How in the world can 4/9 be good?

Why waste our time being stupid, Raja? Why pretend "not a turkey" is
synonymous with "good"?

Here are some descriptors which might fit your real opinion:

mediocre
uneven
disappointing

But not "turkey." That's just trolling.

> You have low standards! No wonder
> you like the 80s indie shit.

Fuck off, troll. You've more than adequately proved that you have
absolutely no credibility discussing that subject.

[Raja, The Great]

On Mar 17, 9:25 pm, poisoned rose <***@ward-duty.com> wrote:
> "Raja" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > If you put 18 songs on a record,
> > they better be all good.
>
> Actually, I think most people would reason that putting many tracks on
> an album makes it more forgivable to include a couple of weak ones. I
> sure would.

I wouldnt because I am not stupid. If I were to buy a double album. I
will be paying twice. So basically I am getting ripped off
double!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> If someone put three songs on a record, would you care less if one of
> them was bad? Is some crummy 10-minute track less objectionable than a
> crummy two-minute one?

No. I go by percentages. Crummy 10 minute song is a lot more
objectionable.
>
> You don't think any of your arguments through. You just fire shots.
>
> > > > Sorry but I will take Out Of Our Heads, Aftermath, Beggars Banquet,
> > > > Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers to this turkey anyday.
>
> > > Trolling once again. Why can't you just give your real opinions, minus
> > > the straining-to-annoy exaggeration?
>
> > Thats my real opinion.
>
> No, it isn't. Because you've already contradicted it, as you typically
> do. Your "headline" strains to be abrasive, then the underlying
> justification is the real opinion.
>
> > > An album where you like 4/9 of the tracks is not a "turkey." Sorry,
> > > that's just the way it is. Stop pleading for attention.
>
> > How in the world can 4/9 be good?
>
> Why waste our time being stupid, Raja? Why pretend "not a turkey" is
> synonymous with "good"?

How is 8/18 good. If it was 4/18, I would have called it horrendous. I
am not saying Exile on Main St is a horrendous. I am just calling it a
turkey.

>
> Here are some descriptors which might fit your real opinion:
>
> mediocre
> uneven
> disappointing
>
> But not "turkey." That's just trolling.

Hey turkey doesn't mean it is horrible. Turkey means a flop. It is a
flop by Rolling Stones standards. By Poison's standards, this would be
amazing. But I expect a lot more from one of the greatest rock bands
ever.


>
> > You have low standards! No wonder
> > you like the 80s indie shit.
>
> Fuck off, troll. You've more than adequately proved that you have
> absolutely no credibility discussing that subject.

lol you are sensitive about the indie stuff. I tell you that stuff is
gonna die soon and you are gonna look like a jackass for defending it
in about 30 years.

[poisoned rose]

"Raja, The Great" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Actually, I think most people would reason that putting many tracks on
> > an album makes it more forgivable to include a couple of weak ones. I
> > sure would.
>
> I wouldnt because I am not stupid. If I were to buy a double album. I
> will be paying twice. So basically I am getting ripped off
> double!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exile on Main Street is contained on one CD, doofus.

> > If someone put three songs on a record, would you care less if one of
> > them was bad? Is some crummy 10-minute track less objectionable than a
> > crummy two-minute one?
>
> No. I go by percentages.

Numbers again. Naturally.

> > > > An album where you like 4/9 of the tracks is not a "turkey." Sorry,
> > > > that's just the way it is. Stop pleading for attention.
> >
> > > How in the world can 4/9 be good?
> >
> > Why waste our time being stupid, Raja? Why pretend "not a turkey" is
> > synonymous with "good"?
>
> How is 8/18 good.

How can you be this STUPID? Seriously.

Why waste our time, Raja? Why pretend "not a turkey" is
synonymous with "good"?

> > Here are some descriptors which might fit your real opinion:
> >
> > mediocre
> > uneven
> > disappointing
> >
> > But not "turkey." That's just trolling.
>
> Hey turkey doesn't mean it is horrible.

Yes, it does.

> Turkey means a flop. It is a
> flop by Rolling Stones standards.

It absolutely is NOT a flop by Stones standards. And Raja has 2,389
"all-time" lists bookmarked as evidence.

It is only a flop by Self-Involved, Autistic Raja standards.

> > > You have low standards! No wonder
> > > you like the 80s indie shit.
> >
> > Fuck off, troll. You've more than adequately proved that you have
> > absolutely no credibility discussing that subject.
>
> [Derisive LOL] you are sensitive about the indie stuff. I tell you that stuff is
> gonna die soon and you are gonna look like a jackass for defending it
> in about 30 years.

Fuck off, troll. Don't post about music you don't know anything about.
If you had any real sense of your limitations, you wouldn't post about
anything except dinosaur rock of the '70s. Beyond that wee range, you're
only *pretending* to have competency.

[Raja, The Great]

On Mar 17, 9:10 pm, poisoned rose <***@ward-duty.com> wrote:
> "Raja, The Great" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry but I will take Out Of Our Heads, Aftermath, Beggars Banquet,
> > Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers to this turkey anyday.
>
> Trolling once again. Why can't you just give your real opinions, minus
> the straining-to-annoy exaggeration?
>
> An album where you like 4/9 of the tracks is not a "turkey." Sorry,
> that's just the way it is. Stop pleading for attention.
>
> > And the best
> > Rolling Stones album is still HOT ROCKS. Better singles band!
>
> Exile is an album more about the overall "vibe"

I don't care for the overall vibe. If you put 18 songs on a record,
they better be all good.

[DGDevin]

"Raja, The Great" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:28be46e0-3f07-44a6-b785-***@b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

>> Exile is an album more about the overall "vibe"

> I don't understand the overall vibe.

FTFY.

[richforman]

On Mar 17, 10:10 pm, poisoned rose <***@ward-duty.com> wrote:
> "Raja, The Great" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry but I will take Out Of Our Heads, Aftermath, Beggars Banquet,
> > Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers to this turkey anyday.
>
> Trolling once again. Why can't you just give your real opinions, minus
> the straining-to-annoy exaggeration?
>
> An album where you like 4/9 of the tracks is not a "turkey." Sorry,
> that's just the way it is. Stop pleading for attention.
>
> > And the best
> > Rolling Stones album is still HOT ROCKS. Better singles band!
>
> Exile is an album more about the overall "vibe" -- more than the sum of
> its parts. Assessing the album by your usual autistic "counting" method
> doesn't really fly. I do prefer a couple of other Stones albums myself,
> but saying an album is "only" among the Rolling Stones' top three is
> hardly much of an insult.

Seems to me you're really feeding this troll unnecessarily PR - giving
him the attention he craves but doesn't merit. The point for me at
this point is: okay, we all get it, Raja, you don't think Exile is a
great album, we really don't care that much!, you're not gonna
convince anybody who does dig it that they're wrong; and your posts
about it just aren't interesting to those of us who *are* interested
in the music and the band.

richforman

[troglodog]

On Mar 18, 12:56 pm, "Raja, The Great" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Heard this entirely once more... just to see what the fuss is all
> about... although I must admit the album has a raw rock n roll (mixed
> with some country, gospel and soul) feel to it, that alone doesn't
> make the album great.
>
> If an album has 18 songs I expect at least 12 albums to be great,
> thats 2/3rd's of an album... that is all I ask. So going through all
> the songs these are the ONLY songs I like... the rest are mediocre at
> best....
>
> Rocks Off
> Rip This Joint
> Shake Your Hips (nice cover)
> Tumbling Dice
> Torn And Frayed (best song)
> Happy
> Let It Loose
> All Down The Line
>
> Thats just 8 songs out of 18. Some of the songs are terribly annoying
> like Turd On the Run, Ventilator Blues, Soul Survivor). Those 8 songs
> if they were on the album and nothing else, I would say it would be
> the greatest Stones album ever. But unfortunately those 8 are
> scattered a lot of mediocre junk.
>
> Sorry but I will take Out Of Our Heads, Aftermath, Beggars Banquet,
> Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers to this turkey anyday. And the best
> Rolling Stones album is still HOT ROCKS. Better singles band!

I'm guessing then that you don't think this is good news:

http://www.nme.com/news/the-rolling-stones/49963

Personally, I've always loved Ventilator Blues (which is also a lot of
fun to play) and Turd On The Run - even before I knew what a "turd"
was (my much older brother was a Stones fan).

[Ray]

On Mar 17, 10:37 pm, troglodog <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 12:56 pm, "Raja, The Great" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Heard this entirely once more... just to see what the fuss is all
> > about... although I must admit the album has a raw rock n roll (mixed
> > with some country, gospel and soul) feel to it, that alone doesn't
> > make the album great.
>
> > If an album has 18 songs I expect at least 12 albums to be great,
> > thats 2/3rd's of an album... that is all I ask. So going through all
> > the songs these are the ONLY songs I like... the rest are mediocre at
> > best....
>
> > Rocks Off
> > Rip This Joint
> > Shake Your Hips (nice cover)
> > Tumbling Dice
> > Torn And Frayed (best song)
> > Happy
> > Let It Loose
> > All Down The Line
>
> > Thats just 8 songs out of 18. Some of the songs are terribly annoying
> > like Turd On the Run, Ventilator Blues, Soul Survivor). Those 8 songs
> > if they were on the album and nothing else, I would say it would be
> > the greatest Stones album ever. But unfortunately those 8 are
> > scattered a lot of mediocre junk.
>
> > Sorry but I will take Out Of Our Heads, Aftermath, Beggars Banquet,
> > Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers to this turkey anyday. And the best
> > Rolling Stones album is still HOT ROCKS. Better singles band!
>
> I'm guessing then that you don't think this is good news:
>
> http://www.nme.com/news/the-rolling-stones/49963
>
> Personally, I've always loved Ventilator Blues (which is also a lot of
> fun to play) and Turd On The Run - even before I knew what a "turd"
> was (my much older brother was a Stones fan).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I love that album from beginning to end, it's as perect a rock and
roll record as was ever recorded and represents the band at their
zenith.

I'm not much for making lists and compiling statistics, but that ranks
far above any 'prog rock' in my collection. The only thing I can think
of that I would always place ahead of it is Abbey Road.


There you have it folks, my top two albums of all time:

1. Abbey Road by The Beatles (100% genius, all killer no filler kick
ass rock record of all time)
2. Exile On Main Street by The Rolling Stones (Just like that only not
in as conentrated a form as AR)

Somebody tell the resident virgin I can make lists too, I'm in his
imaginary killfile.

[Steven Sullivan]

Fuck off, Raja.

[progea]

Stone off, Raja!

[Rob Allen]

On Mar 17, 10:18�pm, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> wrote:

> Fuck off, Raja.


I wonder why you even bother.


Rob "*feed* that troll" Allen

[Alert]

>>There you have it folks, my top two albums of all time:


>>1. Abbey Road by The Beatles (100% genius, all killer no filler kick
>>ass rock record of all time)
>>2. Exile On Main Street by The Rolling Stones (Just like that only not
>>in as conentrated a form as AR)

This is a good list, Ray!

I absolutely love Exile on Main Street.

Aside from the songs mentioned earlier, "Shine a Light, and "Loving
Cup" are two of my favorites. Also, "Sweet Virginia" has barroom
country stomp thing going on that's really enjoyable.

Overall, I love the murky, drug and sex and booze-soaked vibe of this
album more than any other by the band. But what do I know? I like a
lot of the stuff on "Goats Head Soup," too -- and that's considered
(by critics) to be a poor Stones album...

[richforman]

On Mar 18, 12:20 pm, Alert <***@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>There you have it folks, my top two albums of all time:
> >>1. Abbey Road by The Beatles (100% genius, all killer no filler kick
> >>ass rock record of all time)
> >>2. Exile On Main Street by The Rolling Stones (Just like that only not
> >>in as conentrated a form as AR)
>
> This is a good list, Ray!
>
> I absolutely love Exile on Main Street.
>
> Aside from the songs mentioned earlier, "Shine a Light, and "Loving
> Cup" are two of my favorites. Also, "Sweet Virginia" has barroom
> country stomp thing going on that's really enjoyable.
>
> Overall, I love the murky, drug and sex and booze-soaked vibe of this
> album more than any other by the band. But what do I know? I like a
> lot of the stuff on "Goats Head Soup," too -- and that's considered
> (by critics) to be a poor Stones album...

I like it too, also "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" (the album) I REALLY like,
Black and Blue, also Voodoo, Bridges to Babylon and to a lesser extent
but still enjoy it, A Bigger Bang (all of which are dogged I think by
a lot of critics and fans). About the only two Stones albums I think
kind of suck are Dirty Work (I think the general consensus is with me
there) and also Steel Wheels which I think is overrated although at
the same time it contains two tracks that are absolute killers IMO,
"Mixed Emotions" and the sublime "Almost Hear You Sigh" (otherwise
largely dreck I think).

richforman

richforman

[Ray]

On Mar 18, 2:31 pm, richforman <***@msn.com> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 12:20 pm, Alert <***@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>There you have it folks, my top two albums of all time:
> > >>1. Abbey Road by The Beatles (100% genius, all killer no filler kick
> > >>ass rock record of all time)
> > >>2. Exile On Main Street by The Rolling Stones (Just like that only not
> > >>in as conentrated a form as AR)
>
> > This is a good list, Ray!
>
> > I absolutely love Exile on Main Street.
>
> > Aside from the songs mentioned earlier, "Shine a Light, and "Loving
> > Cup" are two of my favorites. Also, "Sweet Virginia" has barroom
> > country stomp thing going on that's really enjoyable.
>
> > Overall, I love the murky, drug and sex and booze-soaked vibe of this
> > album more than any other by the band. But what do I know? I like a
> > lot of the stuff on "Goats Head Soup," too -- and that's considered
> > (by critics) to be a poor Stones album...
>
> I like it too, also "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" (the album) I REALLY like,
> Black and Blue, also Voodoo, Bridges to Babylon and to a lesser extent
> but still enjoy it, A Bigger Bang (all of which are dogged I think by
> a lot of critics and fans).  About the only two Stones albums I think
> kind of suck are Dirty Work (I think the general consensus is with me
> there) and also Steel Wheels which I think is overrated although at
> the same time it contains two tracks that are absolute killers IMO,
> "Mixed Emotions" and the sublime "Almost Hear You Sigh" (otherwise
> largely dreck I think).
>
> richforman
>
> richforman- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I like Continental Drift as well.

[Me]

On Mar 18, 2:58 pm, Ray <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2:31 pm, richforman <***@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 18, 12:20 pm, Alert <***@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>There you have it folks, my top two albums of all time:
> > > >>1. Abbey Road by The Beatles (100% genius, all killer no filler kick
> > > >>ass rock record of all time)
> > > >>2. Exile On Main Street by The Rolling Stones (Just like that only not
> > > >>in as conentrated a form as AR)
>
> > > This is a good list, Ray!
>
> > > I absolutely love Exile on Main Street.
>
> > > Aside from the songs mentioned earlier, "Shine a Light, and "Loving
> > > Cup" are two of my favorites. Also, "Sweet Virginia" has barroom
> > > country stomp thing going on that's really enjoyable.
>
> > > Overall, I love the murky, drug and sex and booze-soaked vibe of this
> > > album more than any other by the band. But what do I know? I like a
> > > lot of the stuff on "Goats Head Soup," too -- and that's considered
> > > (by critics) to be a poor Stones album...
>
> > I like it too, also "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" (the album) I REALLY like,
> > Black and Blue, also Voodoo, Bridges to Babylon and to a lesser extent
> > but still enjoy it, A Bigger Bang (all of which are dogged I think by
> > a lot of critics and fans).  About the only two Stones albums I think
> > kind of suck are Dirty Work (I think the general consensus is with me
> > there) and also Steel Wheels which I think is overrated although at
> > the same time it contains two tracks that are absolute killers IMO,
> > "Mixed Emotions" and the sublime "Almost Hear You Sigh" (otherwise
> > largely dreck I think).
>
> > richforman
>
> > richforman- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I like Continental Drift as well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I like all of The Stones' albums. They all have more than just a
little bit of value in them. My least favorite is "Dirty Work".

[Ray]

On Mar 19, 6:26 am, Me <***@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2:58 pm, Ray <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 18, 2:31 pm, richforman <***@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 18, 12:20 pm, Alert <***@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >>There you have it folks, my top two albums of all time:
> > > > >>1. Abbey Road by The Beatles (100% genius, all killer no filler kick
> > > > >>ass rock record of all time)
> > > > >>2. Exile On Main Street by The Rolling Stones (Just like that only not
> > > > >>in as conentrated a form as AR)
>
> > > > This is a good list, Ray!
>
> > > > I absolutely love Exile on Main Street.
>
> > > > Aside from the songs mentioned earlier, "Shine a Light, and "Loving
> > > > Cup" are two of my favorites. Also, "Sweet Virginia" has barroom
> > > > country stomp thing going on that's really enjoyable.
>
> > > > Overall, I love the murky, drug and sex and booze-soaked vibe of this
> > > > album more than any other by the band. But what do I know? I like a
> > > > lot of the stuff on "Goats Head Soup," too -- and that's considered
> > > > (by critics) to be a poor Stones album...
>
> > > I like it too, also "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" (the album) I REALLY like,
> > > Black and Blue, also Voodoo, Bridges to Babylon and to a lesser extent
> > > but still enjoy it, A Bigger Bang (all of which are dogged I think by
> > > a lot of critics and fans).  About the only two Stones albums I think
> > > kind of suck are Dirty Work (I think the general consensus is with me
> > > there) and also Steel Wheels which I think is overrated although at
> > > the same time it contains two tracks that are absolute killers IMO,
> > > "Mixed Emotions" and the sublime "Almost Hear You Sigh" (otherwise
> > > largely dreck I think).
>
> > > richforman
>
> > > richforman- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I like Continental Drift as well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I like all of The Stones' albums. They all have more than just a
> little bit of value in them. My least favorite is "Dirty Work".- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

True, but the Mick Taylor years will always be my favorite, those were
the records that really moved me the most. Especially Exile, Sticky
Fingers and Get Yer Ya Yas Out. That probably has as much to do with
timing as anything else, they were released around the time I started
buying records.

[Alert]

>
> I like it too, also "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" (the album) I REALLY like,
> Black and Blue,

I love "Black and Blue," too -- especially "Hand of Fate."

I've been a huge Stones fan through the years and have spent time
enjoying all the stages of their career up till about "Steel Wheels."

At different times I was convinced different era's were their best,
but I've finally settled on the Mick Taylor period as my favorite...

On a side note: I got my nine-year-old daughter an iPod last year and
one night after she'd gone to bed I went into her room to say good
night. She was listening to her iPod. I checked to see what she was
listening to; it was "Memory Motel."

She looked up at me and said: "This is the greatest song in the
world."

[Peach]

On Mar 18, 1:53 pm, Alert <***@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I like it too, also "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" (the album) I REALLY like,
> > Black and Blue,
>
> I love "Black and Blue,"  too -- especially "Hand of Fate."

Love "Memory Motel" from that one, too!

>
> I've been a huge Stones fan through the years and have spent time
> enjoying all the stages of their career up till about "Steel Wheels."
>
> At different times I was convinced different era's were their best,
> but I've finally settled on the Mick Taylor period as my favorite...
>
> On a side note: I got my nine-year-old daughter an iPod last year and
> one night after she'd gone to bed I went into her room to say good
> night. She was listening to her iPod. I checked to see what she was
> listening to; it was "Memory Motel."

Well, what a coincidence.

>
> She looked up at me and said: "This is the greatest song in the
> world."

I like "Goats Head Soup," too, and I know a lot of people didn't....
"100 Year Ago" being my favorite from that one.

Peach

[DGDevin]

"Alert" <***@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e62bbf72-2db8-42d9-807d-***@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...

> I love "Black and Blue," too -- especially "Hand of Fate."

I very much enjoy "Hand of Hate"--the rest of the album, not so much. Black
and Blue was where I started to think the Stones were losing it, and within
a few years I'd lost enough interest that Emotional Rescue was the first
Stones album probably since Aftermath I didn't buy when it was released. I
was able to forgive them later however.

[Steven Sullivan]

In alt.music.yes Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 10:18?pm, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> wrote:

> > Fuck off, Raja.

> I wonder why you even bother.

I rarely do. But telling Raja to fuck off is
the least I could do.

> Rob "*feed* that troll" Allen

I'm doing it right now.


--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Rob Allen]

On Mar 18, 11:00�am, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> urped:
> In alt.music.yes Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 17, 10:18?pm, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> wrote:
> > > Fuck off, Raja.
> > I wonder why you even bother.
>
> I rarely do.


but still, kinda *too much*.


>But telling Raja to fuck off is
> the least I could do.


I suppose it interesting enough that you felt that you had to do
something with Raja.


> > Rob "*feed* that troll" Allen
>
> I'm doing it right now.


<snort>

Fuck off, Sullivan.


Rob "why would *anyone* _bother_ to do 37,734 posts to a single ng?"
Allen

[Ray]

On Mar 18, 2:12 pm, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 11:00 am, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> urped:
>
> > In alt.music.yes Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 17, 10:18?pm, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > Fuck off, Raja.
> > > I wonder why you even bother.
>
> > I rarely do.
>
> but still, kinda *too much*.
>
> >But telling Raja to fuck off is
> > the least I could do.
>
> I suppose it interesting enough that you felt that you had to do
> something with Raja.
>
> > > Rob "*feed* that troll" Allen
>
> > I'm doing it right now.
>
> <snort>
>
> Fuck off, Sullivan.
>
> Rob "why would *anyone* _bother_ to do 37,734 posts to a single ng?"
> Allen

I think we all know the answer to that.

[Steven Sullivan]

In alt.music.yes Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 11:00?am, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> urped:
> > In alt.music.yes Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mar 17, 10:18?pm, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > Fuck off, Raja.
> > > I wonder why you even bother.
> >
> > I rarely do.


> but still, kinda *too much*.

If you want me to never post here again, that puts you in the company of...
trolls and mental cases.


> >But telling Raja to fuck off is
> > the least I could do.


> I suppose it interesting enough that you felt that you had to do
> something with Raja.

Yes, it was just that interesting, and no more than that.


> > > Rob "*feed* that troll" Allen
> >
> > I'm doing it right now.


> <snort>

> Fuck off, Sullivan.


> Rob "why would *anyone* _bother_ to do 37,734 posts to a single ng?"
> Allen


I posted *a lot* to AMY in the past -- like you did and still do; I thought it was
worth bothering to do...then.

So when I wondered why Henry or Jemmett bother, I thought it would be obvious I mean: *now*.

I'm not wondering why you bother, because you seem to have found a mission, and appear to be
the only person here actually having *fun* carrying it out. OK, so it's daily public
expression of disgust with Yes, and contempt for anyone who doesn't share it -- but there's no
accounting for taste in *fun*.



--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Rob Allen]

On Mar 18, 3:59�pm, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> bothered:
> In alt.music.yes Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 18, 11:00?am, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> urped:
> > > In alt.music.yes Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 17, 10:18?pm, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > > Fuck off, Raja.
> > > > I wonder why you even bother.
>
> > > I rarely do.
> > but still, kinda *too much*.
>
> If you want me to never post here again, that puts you in the company of...
> trolls and mental cases.


if you can't understand a simple reference, that puts you in the
company of morons and *HSWesfans*.


> > >But telling Raja to fuck off is
> > > the least I could do.
> > I suppose it interesting enough that you felt that you had to do
> > something with Raja.
>
> Yes, it was just that interesting, and no more than that.


but still, kinda *too much*.


> > > > Rob "*feed* that troll" Allen
>
> > > I'm doing it right now.
> > <snort>
> > Fuck off, Sullivan.
> > Rob "why would *anyone* _bother_ to do 37,734 posts to a single ng?"
> > Allen
>
> I posted *a lot* to AMY in the past -- like you did and still do; I thought it was
> worth bothering to do...then. �


um, I've never and still don't, post to *any* ng like you did...and
apparently you still think it worth bothering to feed the Raja.



> So when I wondered why Henry or Jemmett bother, I thought it would be obvious I mean: *now*.


<gasp>

boy I sure am glad you bothered to explain that...I would have never
known.



> I'm not wondering why you bother, because you seem to have found a mission, and appear to be
> the only person here actually having *fun* carrying it out.


well it is my "mission" after all, WTF else should be having fun
carrying it out? Meanwhile, it's *very* clear that your boyfriend has
a mission as well, so why exactly is that you would wonder why *he*
would bother?



>OK, so it's daily public
> expression of disgust with Yes, and contempt for anyone who doesn't share it -- but there's no
> accounting for taste in *fun*.


This HSWes thing, along with the daily public expression of
transparently dishonest spin, is a laugh riot...and it's pretty easy
to account for why you won't see things that way.

But, to each his own, right?

Now, if you'd be kind enough...fuck off, Sullivan.


Rob Allen
NP: Them Crooked Vultures, "New Fang"

[Raja, The Great]

On Mar 19, 9:02 am, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 3:59 pm, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> bothered:
>
> > In alt.music.yes Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 18, 11:00?am, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> urped:
> > > > In alt.music.yes Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 17, 10:18?pm, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Fuck off, Raja.
> > > > > I wonder why you even bother.
>
> > > > I rarely do.
> > > but still, kinda *too much*.
>
> > If you want me to never post here again, that puts you in the company of...
> > trolls and mental cases.
>
> if you can't understand a simple reference, that puts you in the
> company of morons and *HSWesfans*.
>
> > > >But telling Raja to fuck off is
> > > > the least I could do.
> > > I suppose it interesting enough that you felt that you had to do
> > > something with Raja.
>
> > Yes, it was just that interesting, and no more than that.
>
> but still, kinda *too much*.
>
> > > > > Rob "*feed* that troll" Allen
>
> > > > I'm doing it right now.
> > > <snort>
> > > Fuck off, Sullivan.
> > > Rob "why would *anyone* _bother_ to do 37,734 posts to a single ng?"
> > > Allen
>
> > I posted *a lot* to AMY in the past -- like you did and still do; I thought it was
> > worth bothering to do...then.
>
> um, I've never and still don't, post to *any* ng like you did...and
> apparently you still think it worth bothering to feed the Raja.
>
> > So when I wondered why Henry or Jemmett bother, I thought it would be obvious I mean: *now*.
>
> <gasp>
>
> boy I sure am glad you bothered to explain that...I would have never
> known.
>
> > I'm not wondering why you bother, because you seem to have found a mission, and appear to be
> > the only person here actually having *fun* carrying it out.
>
> well it is my "mission" after all, WTF else should be having fun
> carrying it out?  Meanwhile, it's *very* clear that your boyfriend has
> a mission as well, so why exactly is that you would wonder why *he*
> would bother?
>
> >OK, so it's daily public
> > expression of disgust with Yes, and contempt for anyone who doesn't share it -- but there's no
> > accounting for taste in *fun*.
>
> This HSWes thing, along with the daily public expression of
> transparently dishonest spin, is a laugh riot...and it's pretty easy
> to account for why you won't see things that way.
>
> But, to each his own, right?
>
> Now, if you'd be kind enough...fuck off, Sullivan.
>
> Rob Allen
> NP:  Them Crooked Vultures, "New Fang"

I saw the video on youtube. The singer sucks. They can't write songs
either. JPJ better do something better. He is wasting his time with
clowns.

[DGDevin]

"Raja, The Great" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:57baef1b-6898-4b25-a48d-***@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

> I saw the video on youtube. The singer sucks. They can't write songs
> either. JPJ better do something better. He is wasting his time with
> clowns.

So "Raja" who has never played a note of music for anyone who paid to hear
it (and who never will) is telling someone with JPJ's musical
accomplishments that he's doing it all wrong.

Where else can you get this sort of comedy for free?

What's next, "Raja," are you going to tell Jimmy Page how to improve his
guitar playing? Maybe send him a list of your ten favorite chords and tell
him to use them more.

[Raja, The Great]

On Mar 19, 12:53 pm, "DGDevin" <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Raja, The Great" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:57baef1b-6898-4b25-a48d-***@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I saw the video on youtube. The singer sucks. They can't write songs
> > either. JPJ better do something better. He is wasting his time with
> > clowns.
>
> So "Raja" who has never played a note of music for anyone who paid to hear
> it (and who never will) is telling someone with JPJ's musical
> accomplishments that he's doing it all wrong.

His bass playing is excellent. He just needs to find a better band. I
didn't say bass playing is bad. I would listen to JPJ's solo albums
than this shit.

>
> Where else can you get this sort of comedy for free?
>
> What's next, "Raja," are you going to tell Jimmy Page how to improve his
> guitar playing?  Maybe send him a list of your ten favorite chords and tell
> him to use them more.

Page is a God just like JPJ, Plant and Bonzo are. I shall not fuck
with the Gods. The Hammer of the Gods will fall upon with mighty force
if you do that :)

[Ray]

On Mar 19, 1:57 pm, "Raja, The Great" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 12:53 pm, "DGDevin" <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "Raja, The Great" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:57baef1b-6898-4b25-a48d-***@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > I saw the video on youtube. The singer sucks. They can't write songs
> > > either. JPJ better do something better. He is wasting his time with
> > > clowns.
>
> > So "Raja" who has never played a note of music for anyone who paid to hear
> > it (and who never will) is telling someone with JPJ's musical
> > accomplishments that he's doing it all wrong.
>
> His bass playing is excellent. He just needs to find a better band. I
> didn't say bass playing is bad. I would listen to JPJ's solo albums
> than this shit.
>
>
>
> > Where else can you get this sort of comedy for free?
>
> > What's next, "Raja," are you going to tell Jimmy Page how to improve his
> > guitar playing?  Maybe send him a list of your ten favorite chords and tell
> > him to use them more.
>
> Page is a God just like JPJ, Plant and Bonzo are. I shall not fuck
> with the Gods. The Hammer of the Gods will fall upon with mighty force
> if you do that :)

Some god.

http://crappystruth.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/jimmy-the-slop-bucket-page-holy-shit-fuckin-sucks/

remember: you believe everything you read on the internet.

[DGDevin]

"Ray" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:48a15a94-d524-4adb-89ae-***@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...


http://crappystruth.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/jimmy-the-slop-bucket-page-holy-shit-fuckin-sucks/

It's blogs like that which support the belief that 99% of everything on the
internet is crap. That joker is every bit as clueless as "Raja," he
demonstrates that just because someone has the capability to put something
online doesn't mean it's worth reading. "Raja" and this clown should be
stranded on a small island together, they deserve each other.

[Raja, The Great]

On Mar 19, 3:32 pm, "DGDevin" <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Ray" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:48a15a94-d524-4adb-89ae-***@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://crappystruth.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/jimmy-the-slop-bucket-pa...
>
> It's blogs like that which support the belief that 99% of everything on the
> internet is crap.  That joker is every bit as clueless as "Raja," he
> demonstrates that just because someone has the capability to put something
> online doesn't mean it's worth reading.  "Raja" and this clown should be
> stranded on a small island together, they deserve each other.

you are a sad little fella. I don't write anything like that guy. I
think that guy is just having fun with other people. You as usual fell
for the bait.

[DGDevin]

"Raja, The Great" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b8c78e64-e642-4df3-b21b-***@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...


> you are a sad little fella. I don't write anything like that guy. I
> think that guy is just having fun with other people. You as usual fell
> for the bait.

There are two differences between you and that mutt: 1) he's more overt in
his foolishness, 2) he knows more about music than you do.

[Ringo Ono]

On Mar 19, 10:08 pm, "DGDevin" <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Raja, The Great" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:b8c78e64-e642-4df3-b21b-***@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > you are a sad little fella. I don't write anything like that guy. I
> > think that guy is just having fun with other people. You as usual fell
> > for the bait.
>
> There are two differences between you and that mutt: 1) he's more overt in
> his foolishness, 2) he knows more about music than you do.

I am baffled here? Is there some prize for knowing music more than the
next guy? Just because someone likes a particular style over another
does not fulfill knowing.. Taste is a preference and I think some of
us here forget that and confuse it with some concept of knowing
music.. Knowing music to some is nothing more than how it makes them
feel. I don't see much discussion here on music theory..That would be
another truth in knowing music. I prefer uncovering what people know
as opposed to what they do not!.. Then again..personality dictates
that path. Civility goes along way... It's not only you reading these
posts..Grandparents and kids may read here to..Lighten up folks.

[DGDevin]

"Ringo Ono" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b25ada41-8e27-417f-86c7-***@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

>> There are two differences between you and that mutt: 1) he's more overt
>> in
>> his foolishness, 2) he knows more about music than you do.

> I am baffled here?

Welcome to the club, it's a sign of the times.

> Is there some prize for knowing music more than the
> next guy? Just because someone likes a particular style over another
> does not fulfill knowing.. Taste is a preference and I think some of
> us here forget that and confuse it with some concept of knowing
music..

Absolutely, everyone is free to like what they like and dislike what they
dislike. Some people like chocolate, some like vanilla--no need for
explanations. If someone is crazy about The Monkees but hates The Beatles,
well that's just the way it is, no need for apologies.

However if you go beyond that and say that you hate The Beatles because
their music sucks, that they were bad composers and crappy performers and
that's where your dislike comes from--well that's a different matter. In
that case you need to be able to point to concrete examples of what you're
talking about--awkward chord progressions, or lyrics that don't scan, or bad
technique on an instrument--you need to back up your claim. Ditto with
something you like, if you claim Guitarist A is the best in the history of
rock you need to be able to offer evidence that neutral listeners would find
persuasive. Otherwise you're just passing gas.

Which brings us to "Raja". "Raja" makes claims that are frequently shown to
be factually incorrect, e.g. he recently claimed that the first original
Rolling Stones single was "Heart of Stone," and when I pointed out that is
not true his only response was to change the subject--the latest in a long
line of such blunders. He also makes specific judgments about music as if
there is clear evidence to back up his statements, and yet that evidence
never materializes. He labors under the impression that his *opinion*
unsupported by evidence or persuasive argument is all that is needed to
settle the matter (whatever the matter happens to be). And often his views
have obviously been borrowed from some website, you can almost see where
they have been cut & pasted.

As for those grandparents and kids who might read these posts, I'd rather
they didn't go away with some ludicrous misunderstanding because some clown
like "Raja" offered up his half-baked opinions as if they were gospel.
There are lots of people on Usenet who are highly knowledgeable about music,
I am glad when I can learn from such folks. But halfwits like "Raja" who
try to deliver lectures about something they know almost nothing about
provide no service to anyone, they merely serve as a bad example. So
pardon us for pointing out when these imbeciles spout their nonsense, it's
done in the spirit of preventing the permanent record from being corrupted
with bad data.

[Raja, The Great]

On Mar 20, 1:17 am, "DGDevin" <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Ringo Ono" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b25ada41-8e27-417f-86c7-***@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> There are two differences between you and that mutt: 1) he's more overt
> >> in
> >> his foolishness, 2) he knows more about music than you do.
> > I am baffled here?
>
> Welcome to the club, it's a sign of the times.
>
> > Is there some prize for knowing music more than the
> > next guy? Just because someone likes a particular style over another
> > does not fulfill knowing.. Taste is a preference and I think some of
> > us here forget that and confuse it with some concept of knowing
>
> music..
>
> Absolutely, everyone is free to like what they like and dislike what they
> dislike.  Some people like chocolate, some like vanilla--no need for
> explanations.  If someone is crazy about The Monkees but hates The Beatles,
> well that's just the way it is, no need for apologies.
>
> However if you go beyond that and say that you hate The Beatles because
> their music sucks, that they were bad composers and crappy performers and
> that's where your dislike comes from--well that's a different matter.  In
> that case you need to be able to point to concrete examples of what you're
> talking about--awkward chord progressions, or lyrics that don't scan, or bad
> technique on an instrument--you need to back up your claim.  Ditto with
> something you like, if you claim Guitarist A is the best in the history of
> rock you need to be able to offer evidence that neutral listeners would find
> persuasive.  Otherwise you're just passing gas.
>
> Which brings us to "Raja".  "Raja" makes claims that are frequently shown to
> be factually incorrect, e.g. he recently claimed that the first original
> Rolling Stones single was "Heart of Stone,"

You lying miserable cunt, I never said that. In the same post, I
pointed which was their first cover single and which one was the first
original single.

> and when I pointed out that is
> not true his only response was to change the subject--the latest in a long
> line of such blunders.  He also makes specific judgments about music as if
> there is clear evidence to back up his statements, and yet that evidence
> never materializes.  He labors under the impression that his *opinion*
> unsupported by evidence or persuasive argument is all that is needed to
> settle the matter (whatever the matter happens to be).  And often his views
> have obviously been borrowed from some website, you can almost see where
> they have been cut & pasted.

Another bullshit. My opinions are not pasted from anywhere.
>
> As for those grandparents and kids who might read these posts, I'd rather
> they didn't go away with some ludicrous misunderstanding because some clown
> like "Raja" offered up his half-baked opinions as if they were gospel.
> There are lots of people on Usenet who are highly knowledgeable about music,

And you aren't
> I am glad when I can learn from such folks.  But halfwits like "Raja" who
> try to deliver lectures about something they know almost nothing about
> provide no service to anyone, they merely serve as a bad example.   So
> pardon us for pointing out when these imbeciles spout their nonsense, it's
> done in the spirit of preventing the permanent record from being corrupted
> with bad data.

[DGDevin]

"Raja, The Great" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1d692d60-34a2-4acd-ba8e-***@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...

>> Which brings us to "Raja". "Raja" makes claims that are frequently shown
>> to
>> be factually incorrect, e.g. he recently claimed that the first original
>> Rolling Stones single was "Heart of Stone,"

> You lying miserable cunt, I never said that. In the same post, I
> pointed which was their first cover single and which one was the first
> original single.

Your exact words:

"The Who had a big hit with I Can't Explain as early as Jan 1965.
Rolling Stones' first original single Heart of Stone was in Dec
1964... just a month before The Who had their success."

In what alternate reality would, "Rolling Stones' first original single
Heart of Stone," not mean "HOS" was the first Stones single not composed by
them? Which of course it was not.

Even as a liar you're a failure.

>> And often his views
>> have obviously been borrowed from some website, you can almost see where
>> they have been cut & pasted.

> Another bullshit. My opinions are not pasted from anywhere.

Let's take a quick poll, everyone who thinks "Raja" heavily borrows from the
fanboi websites he haunts--let's see, that's everyone. And everyone who
thinks when one of "Raja's" rants suddenly has a passage written in a
markedly different style from his usual ESL fumbling that's just
coincidence--ummm, okay, that would be nobody. Sorry "Raja," nobody
believes you.

>> As for those grandparents and kids who might read these posts, I'd rather
>> they didn't go away with some ludicrous misunderstanding because some
>> clown
>> like "Raja" offered up his half-baked opinions as if they were gospel.
>> There are lots of people on Usenet who are highly knowledgeable about
>> music,

> And you aren't

As I said "Raja," I enjoy learning from those who know more than me. You,
on the other hand, presume to lecture people who grew up with rock music,
something you know almost nothing about.

Now run off and make another list "proving" Led Zeppelin were the best at
everything, you know you want to.

[Raja, The Great]

On Mar 20, 12:21 am, Ringo Ono <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 10:08 pm, "DGDevin" <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "Raja, The Great" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:b8c78e64-e642-4df3-b21b-***@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > you are a sad little fella. I don't write anything like that guy. I
> > > think that guy is just having fun with other people. You as usual fell
> > > for the bait.
>
> > There are two differences between you and that mutt: 1) he's more overt in
> > his foolishness, 2) he knows more about music than you do.
>
> I am baffled here? Is there some prize for knowing music more than the
> next guy? Just because someone likes a particular style over another
> does not fulfill knowing.. Taste is a preference and I think some of
> us here forget that and confuse it with some concept of knowing
> music.. Knowing music to some is nothing more than how it makes them
> feel. I don't see much discussion here on music theory..That would be
> another truth in knowing music. I prefer uncovering what people know
> as opposed to what they do not!.. Then again..personality dictates
> that path. Civility goes along way... It's not only you reading these
> posts..Grandparents and kids may read here to..Lighten up folks.

Good point. What is this knowledge bullshit. If you hear a bunch of
album multiple times, you can easily make out which you like and which
you don't. It all depends upon your taste. Anything you like is good
for you and anything you don't like is bad for you. As simple as
that.

[DGDevin]

"Raja, The Great" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4447e9fd-6f0d-40ac-9ba9-***@e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

>Good point. What is this knowledge bullshit.

Ladies and gentlemen--this sums up "Raja's" approach to music pefrectly, he
prefers *not* to know what he's talking about.

[bubba]

On Mar 20, 1:21 am, Ringo Ono <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 10:08 pm, "DGDevin" <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "Raja, The Great" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:b8c78e64-e642-4df3-b21b-***@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > you are a sad little fella. I don't write anything like that guy. I
> > > think that guy is just having fun with other people. You as usual fell
> > > for the bait.
>
> > There are two differences between you and that mutt: 1) he's more overt in
> > his foolishness, 2) he knows more about music than you do.
>
> I am baffled here? Is there some prize for knowing music more than the
> next guy? Just because someone likes a particular style over another
> does not fulfill knowing.. Taste is a preference and I think some of
> us here forget that and confuse it with some concept of knowing
> music.. Knowing music to some is nothing more than how it makes them
> feel. I don't see much discussion here on music theory..That would be
> another truth in knowing music. I prefer uncovering what people know
> as opposed to what they do not!.. Then again..personality dictates
> that path. Civility goes along way... It's not only you reading these
> posts..Grandparents and kids may read here to..Lighten up folks.

I am baffled here? (why are you asking us?) Is there some prize for
knowing music more than the
next guy? (there are many) Just because someone likes a particular
style over another
does not fulfill knowing. (you must understand that raja must not be
allowed to post lies on Usenet)
Taste is a preference and I think some of us here forget that and
confuse it with some concept of
knowing music.(you will never convince raja of this fact so why waste
your time)
Knowing music to some is nothing more than how it makes them feel.
(another concept that will forever elude raja) I don't see much
discussion here on music theory.
(you need to have taken that class to discuss it, most here haven't)
That would be another truth in
knowing music. (no, it would be a theory) I prefer uncovering what
people know as opposed to
what they do not! (you cannot do one without the other) Then
again..personality dictates
that path. Civility goes along way...(yet does not work with raja)
It's not only you reading these
posts..Grandparents and kids may read here to..(may read here to what?
to what? to go away from here with false knowledge which you allowed
raja to spew all over Usenet??) Lighten up folks.(again that will
never work with raja and please stop feeding the monkeys)

[Raja, The Great]

On Mar 19, 1:34 pm, Ray <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 1:57 pm, "Raja, The Great" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 12:53 pm, "DGDevin" <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > "Raja, The Great" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:57baef1b-6898-4b25-a48d-***@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > I saw the video on youtube. The singer sucks. They can't write songs
> > > > either. JPJ better do something better. He is wasting his time with
> > > > clowns.
>
> > > So "Raja" who has never played a note of music for anyone who paid to hear
> > > it (and who never will) is telling someone with JPJ's musical
> > > accomplishments that he's doing it all wrong.
>
> > His bass playing is excellent. He just needs to find a better band. I
> > didn't say bass playing is bad. I would listen to JPJ's solo albums
> > than this shit.
>
> > > Where else can you get this sort of comedy for free?
>
> > > What's next, "Raja," are you going to tell Jimmy Page how to improve his
> > > guitar playing?  Maybe send him a list of your ten favorite chords and tell
> > > him to use them more.
>
> > Page is a God just like JPJ, Plant and Bonzo are. I shall not fuck
> > with the Gods. The Hammer of the Gods will fall upon with mighty force
> > if you do that :)
>
> Some god.
>
> http://crappystruth.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/jimmy-the-slop-bucket-pa...
>
> remember: you believe everything you read on the internet.

I don't believe in anything I read on the Internet. Especially the
ones coming from you.

[DGDevin]

"Raja, The Great" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1c03b269-7434-480b-a4d0-***@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

> His bass playing is excellent.

In what respect? What exactly makes his bass playing excellent vs. merely
good? Surely someone who claims to be "gifted" when it comes to knowing
good music from bad can explain to us what a bass player's job is and how
JPJ's playing on this track is such a superior example of that. Come on
"Raja," what should we look for in that video so we can understand how you
came to that conclusion?

> He just needs to find a better band. I
> didn't say bass playing is bad. I would listen to JPJ's solo albums
> than this shit.

He's playing with the band he wants to be playing with, and he is an
infinitely better judge of musical quality than you.

> What's next, "Raja," are you going to tell Jimmy Page how to improve his
> guitar playing? Maybe send him a list of your ten favorite chords and tell
> him to use them more.

> Page is a God just like JPJ, Plant and Bonzo are. I shall not fuck
> with the Gods. The Hammer of the Gods will fall upon with mighty force
> if you do that :)

If Plant, Jones and Bonzo hadn't joined LZ you'd probably never have heard
of them. That Page and Jones haven't exactly set the world on fire
post-Zeppelin suggests they aren't quite as godlike as your childish
imagination wants to believe.

[poisoned rose]

> If Plant, Jones and Bonzo hadn't joined LZ you'd probably never have heard
> of them. That Page and Jones haven't exactly set the world on fire
> post-Zeppelin suggests they aren't quite as godlike as your childish
> imagination wants to believe.

Hey, at least Jones produced the Butthole Surfers...one of those shitty
'80s indie bands which Raja blindly dismisses.

[Raja, The Great]

On Mar 19, 3:28 pm, poisoned rose <***@ward-duty.com> wrote:
> > If Plant, Jones and Bonzo hadn't joined LZ you'd probably never have heard
> > of them.  That Page and Jones haven't exactly set the world on fire
> > post-Zeppelin suggests they aren't quite as godlike as your childish
> > imagination wants to believe.
>
> Hey, at least Jones produced the Butthole Surfers...one of those shitty
> '80s indie bands which Raja blindly dismisses.

Thanks for admitting they are shitty :-)

[Raja, The Great]

On Mar 19, 3:22 pm, "DGDevin" <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Raja, The Great" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1c03b269-7434-480b-a4d0-***@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > His bass playing is excellent.
>
> In what respect?  What exactly makes his bass playing excellent vs. merely
> good?  Surely someone who claims to be "gifted" when it comes to knowing
> good music from bad can explain to us what a bass player's job is and how
> JPJ's playing on this track is such a superior example of that.  Come on
> "Raja," what should we look for in that video so we can understand how you
> came to that conclusion?

I don't have to explain anything to you. Explain to me what is good
about Quadrophenia. You have done too much of questioning. How about
some explaining?
>
> > He just needs to find a better band. I
> > didn't say bass playing is bad. I would listen to JPJ's solo albums
> > than this shit.
>
> He's playing with the band he wants to be playing with, and he is an
> infinitely better judge of musical quality than you.

He is probably bored and wants to flex his muscles a bit. He is fully
aware this is not the second coming of Led Zeppelin. I would still
like to see him with good songwriters.

>
> > What's next, "Raja," are you going to tell Jimmy Page how to improve his
> > guitar playing? Maybe send him a list of your ten favorite chords and tell
> > him to use them more.
> > Page is a God just like JPJ, Plant and Bonzo are. I shall not fuck
> > with the Gods. The Hammer of the Gods will fall upon with mighty force
> > if you do that :)
>
> If Plant, Jones and Bonzo hadn't joined LZ you'd probably never have heard
> of them.  That Page and Jones haven't exactly set the world on fire
> post-Zeppelin suggests they aren't quite as godlike as your childish
> imagination wants to believe.

They are the Gods when they come together. Take one of them away and
it is not the same.

[DGDevin]

"Raja, The Great" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:50a06aa3-b7f1-43e1-b7e7-***@j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

>> > His bass playing is excellent.
>
>> In what respect? What exactly makes his bass playing excellent vs. merely
>> good? Surely someone who claims to be "gifted" when it comes to knowing
>> good music from bad can explain to us what a bass player's job is and how
>> JPJ's playing on this track is such a superior example of that. Come on
>> "Raja," what should we look for in that video so we can understand how
>> you
>> came to that conclusion?

> I don't have to explain anything to you.

Bwahahahahahaha! Perfect, absolutely perfect. You get a chance to show
that you have some musical knowledge and you run away crying--what more is
there to say other than that you're a total fraud? JPJ could have been
playing a freakin' mandolin for all you'd know the difference.

"Gifted"--what a laugh.

[Chris Jemmett]

On Mar 19, 1:14 pm, "Raja, The Great" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 9:02 am, Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 18, 3:59 pm, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> bothered:
>
> > > In alt.music.yes Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 18, 11:00?am, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> urped:
> > > > > In alt.music.yes Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 17, 10:18?pm, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Fuck off, Raja.
> > > > > > I wonder why you even bother.
>
> > > > > I rarely do.
> > > > but still, kinda *too much*.
>
> > > If you want me to never post here again, that puts you in the company of...
> > > trolls and mental cases.
>
> > if you can't understand a simple reference, that puts you in the
> > company of morons and *HSWesfans*.
>
> > > > >But telling Raja to fuck off is
> > > > > the least I could do.
> > > > I suppose it interesting enough that you felt that you had to do
> > > > something with Raja.
>
> > > Yes, it was just that interesting, and no more than that.
>
> > but still, kinda *too much*.
>
> > > > > > Rob "*feed* that troll" Allen
>
> > > > > I'm doing it right now.
> > > > <snort>
> > > > Fuck off, Sullivan.
> > > > Rob "why would *anyone* _bother_ to do 37,734 posts to a single ng?"
> > > > Allen
>
> > > I posted *a lot* to AMY in the past -- like you did and still do; I thought it was
> > > worth bothering to do...then.
>
> > um, I've never and still don't, post to *any* ng like you did...and
> > apparently you still think it worth bothering to feed the Raja.
>
> > > So when I wondered why Henry or Jemmett bother, I thought it would be obvious I mean: *now*.
>
> > <gasp>
>
> > boy I sure am glad you bothered to explain that...I would have never
> > known.
>
> > > I'm not wondering why you bother, because you seem to have found a mission, and appear to be
> > > the only person here actually having *fun* carrying it out.
>
> > well it is my "mission" after all, WTF else should be having fun
> > carrying it out?  Meanwhile, it's *very* clear that your boyfriend has
> > a mission as well, so why exactly is that you would wonder why *he*
> > would bother?
>
> > >OK, so it's daily public
> > > expression of disgust with Yes, and contempt for anyone who doesn't share it -- but there's no
> > > accounting for taste in *fun*.
>
> > This HSWes thing, along with the daily public expression of
> > transparently dishonest spin, is a laugh riot...and it's pretty easy
> > to account for why you won't see things that way.
>
> > But, to each his own, right?
>
> > Now, if you'd be kind enough...fuck off, Sullivan.
>
> > Rob Allen
> > NP:  Them Crooked Vultures, "New Fang"
>
> I saw the video on youtube. The singer sucks. They can't write songs
> either. JPJ better do something better. He is wasting his time with
> clowns.

As is anyone who reads your tripe.

Do fuck off. Maybe try listening to some music for a change.

... quarterly feeding...

[Chris Jemmett]

On Mar 18, 6:59 pm, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> wrote:
> In alt.music.yes Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 18, 11:00?am, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> urped:
> > > In alt.music.yes Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 17, 10:18?pm, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > > Fuck off, Raja.
> > > > I wonder why you even bother.
>
> > > I rarely do.
> > but still, kinda *too much*.
>
> If you want me to never post here again, that puts you in the company of...
> trolls and mental cases.
>
> > >But telling Raja to fuck off is
> > > the least I could do.
> > I suppose it interesting enough that you felt that you had to do
> > something with Raja.
>
> Yes, it was just that interesting, and no more than that.
>
> > > > Rob "*feed* that troll" Allen
>
> > > I'm doing it right now.
> > <snort>
> > Fuck off, Sullivan.
> > Rob "why would *anyone* _bother_ to do 37,734 posts to a single ng?"
> > Allen
>
> I posted *a lot* to AMY in the past -- like you did and still do; I thought it was
> worth bothering to do...then.  
>
> So when I wondered why Henry or Jemmett bother, I thought it would be obvious I mean: *now*.

So basically we don't actually HAVE to know why and there really
doesn't even have to BE a why.
That won't keep people from wondering about the whys of others but it
does point to what has been lost.


>
> I'm not wondering why you bother, because you seem to have found a mission, and appear to be
> the only person here actually having *fun* carrying it out.

Not that people here have never before had missions which they had fun
carrying out on a regular basis, everything from keyboard players to
eras of Yes music to the relative worth of various songs to political
views or religious and philosophical views.

> OK, so it's daily public expression of disgust with Yes, and contempt for anyone who doesn't share it

Expressions of disgust and contempt around a.m.y are certainly nothing
new and if anyone knows that, I would have though it might be you.

As for this current version of Yes, disgust and contempt will have to
be continued for some time before it approaches the levels previously
expressed toward:

Yeswest, George Bush, Trevor Rabin, Drama, God, Awaken,Capitalism,
Tony (pizza delivery) Kaye, you, <insert name of past reg of choice>,
Wakeman's sound, Howe's sound, Squire's habits, etc, etc, etc...

>-- but there's no accounting for taste in *fun*.

No but there's an absence of fun where there used to be some degree
of fun. It's like a dark period.
Dark for more than just Yes.

This was kinda fun.


...shorter and funnier, please...


> We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Steven Sullivan]

Chris Jemmett <***@rogers.com> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 6:59?pm, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> wrote:
> > In alt.music.yes Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:

> So basically we don't actually HAVE to know why and there really
> doesn't even have to BE a why.
> That won't keep people from wondering about the whys of others but it
> does point to what has been lost.


> >
> > I'm not wondering why you bother, because you seem to have found a mission, and appear to be
> > the only person here actually having *fun* carrying it out.

> Not that people here have never before had missions which they had fun
> carrying out on a regular basis, everything from keyboard players to
> eras of Yes music to the relative worth of various songs to political
> views or religious and philosophical views.

> > OK, so it's daily public expression of disgust with Yes, and contempt for anyone who doesn't share it

> Expressions of disgust and contempt around a.m.y are certainly nothing
> new and if anyone knows that, I would have though it might be you.

> As for this current version of Yes, disgust and contempt will have to
> be continued for some time before it approaches the levels previously
> expressed toward:

> Yeswest, George Bush, Trevor Rabin, Drama, God, Awaken,Capitalism,
> Tony (pizza delivery) Kaye, you, <insert name of past reg of choice>,
> Wakeman's sound, Howe's sound, Squire's habits, etc, etc, etc...

Thanks for the recap, but I wasn't arguing that there's never been
contempt of disgust expressed on AMY.


> >-- but there's no accounting for taste in *fun*.

> No but there's an absence of fun where there used to be some degree
> of fun. It's like a dark period.
> Dark for more than just Yes.

> This was kinda fun.

> ...shorter and funnier, please...

"Awaken sucks"?

Ok, short but not funny, just true. I'm tired tonight.

But in the reply I read before yours,
Rob wrote that he's never posted anywhere
like I have to AMY.

I thought that was kinda *funny*. Will that work for you?



--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Rob Allen]

On Mar 20, 5:40 pm, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> wrote:
> Chris Jemmett <***@rogers.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 18, 6:59?pm, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> wrote:
> > > In alt.music.yes Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
> > So basically we don't actually HAVE to know why and there really
> > doesn't even have to BE a why.
> > That won't keep people from wondering about the whys of others but it
> > does point to what has been lost.
>
> > > I'm not wondering why you bother, because you seem to have found a mission, and appear to be
> > > the only person here actually having *fun* carrying it out.
> > Not that people here have never before had missions which they had fun
> > carrying out on a regular basis, everything from keyboard players to
> > eras of Yes music to the relative worth of various songs to political
> > views or religious and philosophical views.
> > > OK, so it's daily public expression of disgust with Yes, and contempt for anyone who doesn't share it
> > Expressions of disgust and contempt around a.m.y are certainly nothing
> > new and if anyone knows that, I would have though it might be you.
> > As for this current version of Yes, disgust and contempt will have to
> > be continued for some time before it approaches the levels previously
> > expressed toward:
> > Yeswest, George Bush, Trevor Rabin, Drama, God, Awaken,Capitalism,
> > Tony (pizza delivery) Kaye, you, <insert name of past reg of choice>,
> > Wakeman's sound, Howe's sound, Squire's habits, etc, etc, etc...
>
> Thanks for the recap, but I wasn't arguing that there's never been
> contempt of disgust expressed on AMY.
>
> > >-- but there's no accounting for taste in *fun*.
> > No but  there's an absence of fun where there used to be some degree
> > of fun. It's like a dark period.
> > Dark for more than just Yes.
> > This was kinda fun.
> > ...shorter and funnier, please...
>
> "Awaken sucks"?
>
> Ok, short but not funny, just true.  I'm tired tonight.
>
> But in the reply I read before yours,
> Rob wrote that he's never posted anywhere
> like I have to AMY.
>
> I thought that was kinda *funny*. Will that work for you?


I'll guess that whatever is effecting Henry's ability with numbers and
reasoning, is effecting Sullivan as well. Let's see how kinda *funny*
the numbers look;

Sullivan's posting history - a.m.y 39799, r.m.p 15118, a.m.p-f 9356

Those are just the top three on a long list of big usenet posting
numbers. Of course some of those to r.m.p and a.m.p-f might be
crossposts from that huge number of posts to a.m.y. The kinda *funny*
fact is, nobody has, or will *ever* _bother_ to post to a.m.y like
Sullivan.

Rob's posting history - a.m.y 13502, a.s.f-detroitlions 641, r.m.p
151. My top three...and those to r.m.p are likely crossposts.

If I maintained my current rate posting to a.m.y, it would take over
34 years for me to amass numbers similar to Sullivan. I'm thinking
that's likely to happen.


Rob "well, he *was* tired when he wrote that" Allen

[A***@ease]

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 05:22:23 -0700 (PDT), Rob Allen once again
distorted the real truth and wrote:


>
>If I maintained my current rate posting to a.m.y, it would take over
>34 years for me to amass numbers similar to Sullivan. I'm thinking
>that's likely to happen.
>
>
You may have passed him months ago. You haven't taken into account the
*wordiness* of your posts. Sullivan, for the most part, keeps it brief
and to the point. You, on the other hand, have to respond to every
portion of every post that you reply to. So, looking at sheer volume
(i.e. total words or even sentences) you might have Steve beaten by
at least a two to one margin.

[Rob Allen]

On Mar 21, 6:48 am, ***@ease urped:
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 05:22:23 -0700 (PDT), Rob Allen once again
> distorted the real truth and  wrote:
>
>
>
> >If I maintained my current rate posting to a.m.y, it would take over
> >34 years for me to amass numbers similar to Sullivan.  I'm thinking
> >that's likely to happen.
>
> You may have passed him months ago. You haven't taken into account the
> *wordiness* of your posts. Sullivan, for the most part, keeps it brief
> and to the point. You, on the other hand, have to respond to every
> portion of every post that you reply to. So, looking at sheer volume
> (i.e. total words or even sentences) you might  have Steve beaten by
> at least a two to one margin.


you don't give Sullivan nearly enough credit, moron. Sullivan is a
highly intelligent person who has demonstrated that he's equally adept
at long posts, point by point debate, short concise answers, as well
as his often exceptional one-liners.

I'll never be as prolific a poster as Sullivan has been...nor will I
be as appreciated (because he actually *does things* for Yes fans), or
as hated (if only because his volume of posts managed to attract a
larger number of morons like you).

Of course, I don't expect you to understand any of that..._moron_.


Rob Allen
NP: Fish, _13th Star_

[A***@ease]

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 11:45:21 -0700 (PDT), Rob Allen <***@aol.com>
wrote:

>On Mar 21, 6:48 am, ***@ease urped:
>> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 05:22:23 -0700 (PDT), Rob Allen once again
>> distorted the real truth and  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >If I maintained my current rate posting to a.m.y, it would take over
>> >34 years for me to amass numbers similar to Sullivan.  I'm thinking
>> >that's likely to happen.
>>
>> You may have passed him months ago. You haven't taken into account the
>> *wordiness* of your posts. Sullivan, for the most part, keeps it brief
>> and to the point. You, on the other hand, have to respond to every
>> portion of every post that you reply to. So, looking at sheer volume
>> (i.e. total words or even sentences) you might  have Steve beaten by
>> at least a two to one margin.
>
>
>you don't give Sullivan nearly enough credit, moron. Sullivan is a
>highly intelligent person who has demonstrated that he's equally adept
>at long posts, point by point debate, short concise answers, as well
>as his often exceptional one-liners.
>
>I'll never be as prolific a poster as Sullivan has been...nor will I
>be as appreciated (because he actually *does things* for Yes fans), or
>as hated (if only because his volume of posts managed to attract a
>larger number of morons like you).
>
>Of course, I don't expect you to understand any of that..._moron_.
>
I understand perfectly. And I think that you, as well as Sullivan, are
highly intelligent. The reason you are not appreciated is that you are
a smug, mean spirited asshole that doesn't respect other people's
opinions.

[beekay]

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:44:21 -0400, ***@ease wrote
(in article <***@4ax.com>):

> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 11:45:21 -0700 (PDT), Rob Allen <***@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 21, 6:48 am, ***@ease urped:
>>> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 05:22:23 -0700 (PDT), Rob Allen once again
>>> distorted the real truth and  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> If I maintained my current rate posting to a.m.y, it would take over
>>>> 34 years for me to amass numbers similar to Sullivan.  I'm thinking
>>>> that's likely to happen.
>>>
>>> You may have passed him months ago. You haven't taken into account the
>>> *wordiness* of your posts. Sullivan, for the most part, keeps it brief
>>> and to the point. You, on the other hand, have to respond to every
>>> portion of every post that you reply to. So, looking at sheer volume
>>> (i.e. total words or even sentences) you might  have Steve beaten by
>>> at least a two to one margin.
>>
>>
>> you don't give Sullivan nearly enough credit, moron. Sullivan is a
>> highly intelligent person who has demonstrated that he's equally adept
>> at long posts, point by point debate, short concise answers, as well
>> as his often exceptional one-liners.
>>
>> I'll never be as prolific a poster as Sullivan has been...nor will I
>> be as appreciated (because he actually *does things* for Yes fans), or
>> as hated (if only because his volume of posts managed to attract a
>> larger number of morons like you).
>>
>> Of course, I don't expect you to understand any of that..._moron_.
>>
> I understand perfectly. And I think that you, as well as Sullivan, are
> highly intelligent. The reason you are not appreciated is that you are
> a smug, mean spirited asshole that doesn't respect other people's
> opinions.

Yes, Robbo is all that-- and he has a man crush for Jon.

-beekay

[Rob Allen]

On Mar 21, 7:09�pm, beekay <***@aol.com> drooled:
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:44:21 -0400, ***@ease wrote
> (in article <***@4ax.com>):
>
>
> > On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 11:45:21 -0700 (PDT), Rob Allen <***@aol.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On Mar 21, 6:48�am, ***@ease urped:
> >>> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 05:22:23 -0700 (PDT), Rob Allen once again
> >>> distorted the real truth and �wrote:
>
> >>>> If I maintained my current rate posting to a.m.y, it would take over
> >>>> 34 years for me to amass numbers similar to Sullivan. �I'm thinking
> >>>> that's likely to happen.
>
> >>> You may have passed him months ago. You haven't taken into account the
> >>> *wordiness* of your posts. Sullivan, for the most part, keeps it brief
> >>> and to the point. You, on the other hand, have to respond to every
> >>> portion of every post that you reply to. So, looking at sheer volume
> >>> (i.e. total words or even sentences) you might �have Steve beaten by
> >>> at least a two to one margin.
>
> >> you don't give Sullivan nearly enough credit, moron. �Sullivan is a
> >> highly intelligent person who has demonstrated that he's equally adept
> >> at long posts, point by point debate, short concise answers, as well
> >> as his often exceptional one-liners.
>
> >> I'll never be as prolific a poster as Sullivan has been...nor will I
> >> be as appreciated (because he actually *does things* for Yes fans), or
> >> as hated (if only because his volume of posts managed to attract a
> >> larger number of morons like you).
>
> >> Of course, I don't expect you to understand any of that..._moron_.
>
> > I understand perfectly. And I think that you, as well as Sullivan, are
> > highly intelligent. The reason you are not appreciated is that you are
> > a smug, mean spirited asshole that doesn't respect other people's
> > opinions.
>
> Yes, Robbo is all that-- and he has a man crush for Jon.


lol, two moronic peas in a pod.


Rob Allen
Dispatch, "The General"

[Rob Allen]

On Mar 21, 4:44�pm, ***@ease whimpered:
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 11:45:21 -0700 (PDT), Rob Allen <***@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >On Mar 21, 6:48�am, ***@ease urped:
> >> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 05:22:23 -0700 (PDT), Rob Allen once again
> >> distorted the real truth and �wrote:
>
> >> >If I maintained my current rate posting to a.m.y, it would take over
> >> >34 years for me to amass numbers similar to Sullivan. �I'm thinking
> >> >that's likely to happen.
>
> >> You may have passed him months ago. You haven't taken into account the
> >> *wordiness* of your posts. Sullivan, for the most part, keeps it brief
> >> and to the point. You, on the other hand, have to respond to every
> >> portion of every post that you reply to. So, looking at sheer volume
> >> (i.e. total words or even sentences) you might �have Steve beaten by
> >> at least a two to one margin.
>
> >you don't give Sullivan nearly enough credit, moron. �Sullivan is a
> >highly intelligent person who has demonstrated that he's equally adept
> >at long posts, point by point debate, short concise answers, as well
> >as his often exceptional one-liners.
>
> >I'll never be as prolific a poster as Sullivan has been...nor will I
> >be as appreciated (because he actually *does things* for Yes fans), or
> >as hated (if only because his volume of posts managed to attract a
> >larger number of morons like you).
>
> >Of course, I don't expect you to understand any of that..._moron_.
>
> I understand perfectly. And I think that you, as well as Sullivan, are
> highly intelligent. The reason you are not appreciated is that you are
> a smug, mean spirited asshole that doesn't respect other people's
> opinions.


I can't speak for Sullivan, but you really shouldn't expect people to
respect the opinions of a moron. For me, your opinion stands
respected up to the point you demonstrate full moron.

As it's gone, you demonstrated full moron on your very first post. So
yeah, no respect for you or your opinion.


Rob Allen
NP: Dispatch, "The General"

[Steven Sullivan]

Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 5:40?pm, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> wrote:
> > Chris Jemmett <***@rogers.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 18, 6:59?pm, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > In alt.music.yes Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
> > > So basically we don't actually HAVE to know why and there really
> > > doesn't even have to BE a why.
> > > That won't keep people from wondering about the whys of others but it
> > > does point to what has been lost.
> >
> > > > I'm not wondering why you bother, because you seem to have found a mission, and appear to be
> > > > the only person here actually having *fun* carrying it out.
> > > Not that people here have never before had missions which they had fun
> > > carrying out on a regular basis, everything from keyboard players to
> > > eras of Yes music to the relative worth of various songs to political
> > > views or religious and philosophical views.
> > > > OK, so it's daily public expression of disgust with Yes, and contempt for anyone who doesn't share it
> > > Expressions of disgust and contempt around a.m.y are certainly nothing
> > > new and if anyone knows that, I would have though it might be you.
> > > As for this current version of Yes, disgust and contempt will have to
> > > be continued for some time before it approaches the levels previously
> > > expressed toward:
> > > Yeswest, George Bush, Trevor Rabin, Drama, God, Awaken,Capitalism,
> > > Tony (pizza delivery) Kaye, you, <insert name of past reg of choice>,
> > > Wakeman's sound, Howe's sound, Squire's habits, etc, etc, etc...
> >
> > Thanks for the recap, but I wasn't arguing that there's never been
> > contempt of disgust expressed on AMY.
> >
> > > >-- but there's no accounting for taste in *fun*.
> > > No but ?there's an absence of fun where there used to be some degree
> > > of fun. It's like a dark period.
> > > Dark for more than just Yes.
> > > This was kinda fun.
> > > ...shorter and funnier, please...
> >
> > "Awaken sucks"?
> >
> > Ok, short but not funny, just true. ?I'm tired tonight.
> >
> > But in the reply I read before yours,
> > Rob wrote that he's never posted anywhere
> > like I have to AMY.
> >
> > I thought that was kinda *funny*. Will that work for you?


> I'll guess that whatever is effecting Henry's ability with numbers and
> reasoning, is effecting Sullivan as well. Let's see how kinda *funny*
> the numbers look;

> Sullivan's posting history - a.m.y 39799, r.m.p 15118, a.m.p-f 9356

> Those are just the top three on a long list of big usenet posting
> numbers. Of course some of those to r.m.p and a.m.p-f might be
> crossposts from that huge number of posts to a.m.y. The kinda *funny*
> fact is, nobody has, or will *ever* _bother_ to post to a.m.y like
> Sullivan.

> Rob's posting history - a.m.y 13502, a.s.f-detroitlions 641, r.m.p
> 151. My top three...and those to r.m.p are likely crossposts.

> If I maintained my current rate posting to a.m.y, it would take over
> 34 years for me to amass numbers similar to Sullivan. I'm thinking
> that's likely to happen.


Ah, numbers. Henry's better at this sort of exercise than I am, but I gave it a shot.

I get slightly different numbers for AMY posts:
me from Jan 1996 to now: 39192
you from Jan 1998 to now: 16500

Those are the using all the email addresses I could mine for me and you,
and then taking the monthly AMY numbers for those addressed, from
Google Groups' 'posting history' calendar charts,
going as far back as I could with them (for me that was 1996, for
you, 1998)

For the period where I have numbers for both of us:
me from Jan 1998 to now: 31885

So, you've posted half as many times to AMY as I have, in the
same period...but half in this case still means over 16,000 times.
You really wanna play the 'hey lookit him he posts too much HAR HAR' card?

That's what I found *funny*.

But now there's this too: usenet groups about other music, science, audio,
stuff that's not Yes -- yessir, I've definitely been interested in that sort
of thing all along too.....whereas you.....maybe *not so much*. Alert the
media.

And as for the 'no one has ever bothered' and the 'at my current rate' spins,
you've bothered to pretty consistently beat my posting rate here for
the past two years at every level -- daily, weekly, monthly, yearly. You've
bothered to match or beat all but the yearly a few times in the past decade too.
Hell,someone 'bothered' to beat my then-awesome yearly tally back in the late 1990s:
Henry Potts. (Don't you remember the posting stat threads he used to put up?)


Anyway. The thing trawling through Google reminds me of,
is that even while Dr. Potts and I were apparently
hogging bandwidth all those years (with you tagging along somewhere in
the top 5, IIRC) there was still a couple of dozen fun people posting
along, who *weren't* mental cases, feeble-minded, trolls, crossposters,
or all of those combined.

Now, not so much, eh?



--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Rob Allen]

On Mar 21, 11:23�pm, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> wrote:
> Rob Allen <***@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 20, 5:40?pm, Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> wrote:

> > > Ok, short but not funny, just true. ?I'm tired tonight.
>
> > > But in the reply I read before yours,
> > > Rob wrote that he's never posted anywhere
> > > like I have to AMY.
>
> > > I thought that was kinda *funny*. Will that work for you?
> > I'll guess that whatever is effecting Henry's ability with numbers and
> > reasoning, is effecting Sullivan as well. �Let's see how kinda *funny*
> > the numbers look;
> > Sullivan's posting history - a.m.y 39799, r.m.p 15118, a.m.p-f 9356
> > Those are just the top three on a long list of big usenet posting
> > numbers. �Of course some of those to r.m.p and a.m.p-f might be
> > crossposts from that huge number of posts to a.m.y. �The kinda *funny*
> > fact is, nobody has, or will *ever* _bother_ �to post to a.m.y like
> > Sullivan.
> > Rob's posting history - a.m.y 13502, a.s.f-detroitlions 641, r.m.p
> > 151. �My top three...and those to r.m.p are likely crossposts.
> > If I maintained my current rate posting to a.m.y, it would take over
> > 34 years for me to amass numbers similar to Sullivan. �I'm thinking
> > that's likely to happen.
>
> Ah, numbers. Henry's better at this sort of exercise than I am, but I gave it a shot.


oddly, Henry's numbers wheels seem to have fallen off lately...or he
just never bothered to check before suggesting that HSWes is currently
on a similar track to Yes in '97.


> I get slightly different numbers for AMY posts: �
> me from Jan 1996 to now: 39192
> you from Jan 1998 to now: 16500
>
> Those are the using all the email addresses I could mine for me and you,
> and then taking the monthly AMY numbers for those addressed, from
> Google Groups' 'posting history' calendar charts,
> going as far back as I could with them (for me that was 1996, for
> you, 1998)


lol, that's some little bit of bother there, Sullivan. I was only
happy to click on "About this group" and lift the numbers from
there...not a lot of research involved, but with more or less the same
result...I never did post like you...only kinda *half* like you.


> For the period where I have numbers for both of us:
> me from Jan 1998 to now: �31885
>
> So, you've posted half as many times to AMY as I have, in the
> same period...but half in this case still means over 16,000 times.
> You really wanna play the 'hey lookit him he posts too much HAR HAR' card?


um, I'm not playing any card at all...I've only said that I've never
posted like you. Your numbers support that _fact_, so what's the
argument?


> That's what I found *funny*.


lol, right...of course that's what you found *funny*.

I found it *funny* that in your recent posting mode you would wonder
why people would bother to post at all, and then proceed to bother to
feed the Raja.

And now, you'd like to argue...I find that kinda *funny* too.


> But now there's this too: usenet groups about other music, science, audio,
> stuff that's not Yes -- yessir, I've definitely been interested in that sort
> of thing all along too.....whereas you.....maybe *not so much*. �Alert the
> media.


perhaps you shld just _alert the Sullivan_, because he's the only guy
suggesting that that *anybody* has ever posted like him.


> And as for the 'no one has ever bothered' and the 'at my current rate' spins,
> you've bothered to pretty consistently beat my posting rate here for
> the past two years at every level -- daily, weekly, monthly, yearly.


if I can somehow keep that up for the next two or three decades,
*then*...I still would never have managed to post like you.


>ou've
> bothered to match or beat all but the yearly a few times in the past decade too.


so if you scratch hard enough, you can find something that looks about
half like you.

I'm convinced.


> Hell,someone 'bothered' to beat my then-awesome yearly tally back in the late 1990s:
> Henry Potts. (Don't you remember the posting stat threads he used to put up?)


that really is something, Sullivan.

Still, it's clear that *I've* never really managed to post like you.


> Anyway. The thing trawling through Google reminds me of,
> is that even while Dr. Potts and I were apparently
> hogging bandwidth all those years (with you tagging along somewhere in
> the top 5, IIRC) there was still a couple of dozen fun people posting
> along, who *weren't* mental cases, feeble-minded, trolls, crossposters,
> or all of those combined.


yeah, I remember that.


> Now, not so much, eh?


clearly...and so I suppose it might be fair to wonder why some folks
would continue to post here. But at the same time, there's folks
(Henry included, to say the very least) posting to similar forums,
which IMO are far goofier that even what a.m.y has become...and they
might be doing that just because they want to...they don't see it as a
bother, but instead as something else.

Meanwhile, I still only wondered why you would bother to feed the
Raja. I guess I now also wonder why you would bother to argue all
this...and why you wouldn't just fuck off when politely asked to do
so.


Rob "ok, I do wonder, but I don't really want to know" Allen

[Paul Goodwin]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
> I get slightly different numbers for AMY posts:
> me from Jan 1996 to now: 39192
> you from Jan 1998 to now: 16500

lol-- "usenet dick-waving!!! It's the new sport!!!"

>
> Anyway. The thing trawling through Google reminds me of,
> is that even while Dr. Potts and I were apparently
> hogging bandwidth all those years (with you tagging along somewhere in
> the top 5, IIRC) there was still a couple of dozen fun people posting
> along, who *weren't* mental cases, feeble-minded, trolls, crossposters,
> or all of those combined.
>
> Now, not so much, eh?

Not so much at all. Between the list-troll twit & all the morons that
cannot resist replying to his every thread, the wereo nutjob & his
pedophilia-obsessed minions, there's not a whole lot left.

In some ways, I can't help but think the state of the NG mirrors the
band today.

--

Paul

[Chet]

Re: Exile on Main St

Group: alt.music.yes Date: Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 9:01am From:
***@hotmail.com (Paul Goodwin)
Steven Sullivan wrote:
I get slightly different numbers for AMY posts: me from Jan 1996 to now:
39192
you from Jan 1998 to now: 16500
lol-- "usenet dick-waving!!! It's the new sport!!!"
Anyway. The thing trawling through Google reminds me of, is that even
while Dr. Potts and I were apparently hogging bandwidth all those years
(with you tagging along somewhere in the top 5, IIRC) there was still a
couple of dozen fun people posting along, who *weren't* mental cases,
feeble-minded, trolls, crossposters, or all of those combined.
Now, not so much, eh?
Not so much at all. Between the list-troll twit & all the morons that
cannot resist replying to his every thread, the wereo nutjob & his
pedophilia-obsessed minions, there's not a whole lot left.
In some ways, I can't help but think the state of the NG mirrors the
band today.
--
Paul
---

That proves what a pessimist you are. Godless atheists, like you, sure
in Hell, did a job at this offical atheist site, but they can't make YES
stop. Too bad for you and the devil. Hahahahahahaha. People still
enjoy YES whether you like it or not.

[Orang]

"Paul Goodwin" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QS4rn.137$***@newsfe20.iad...
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>
>> I get slightly different numbers for AMY posts: me from Jan 1996 to now:
>> 39192
>> you from Jan 1998 to now: 16500
>
> lol-- "usenet dick-waving!!! It's the new sport!!!"
>
>>
>> Anyway. The thing trawling through Google reminds me of, is that even
>> while Dr. Potts and I were apparently hogging bandwidth all those years
>> (with you tagging along somewhere in
>> the top 5, IIRC) there was still a couple of dozen fun people posting
>> along, who *weren't* mental cases, feeble-minded, trolls, crossposters,
>> or all of those combined.
>>
>> Now, not so much, eh?
>
> Not so much at all. Between the list-troll twit & all the morons that
> cannot resist replying to his every thread, the wereo nutjob & his
> pedophilia-obsessed minions, there's not a whole lot left.

Especially when what's left is Paul "I'm better than you" Goodwin.

Kill yourself...please...

[Chris Jemmett]

On Mar 26, 11:38 pm, "Orang" <***@ribs.com> wrote:
> "Paul Goodwin" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:QS4rn.137$***@newsfe20.iad...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
> >> I get slightly different numbers for AMY posts:  me from Jan 1996 to now:
> >> 39192
> >> you from Jan 1998 to now: 16500
>
> > lol-- "usenet dick-waving!!! It's the new sport!!!"
>
> >> Anyway. The thing trawling through Google reminds me of, is that even
> >> while Dr. Potts and I were apparently hogging bandwidth all those years
> >> (with you tagging along somewhere in
> >> the top 5, IIRC) there was still a couple of dozen fun people posting
> >> along, who *weren't* mental cases, feeble-minded, trolls, crossposters,
> >> or all of those combined.
>
> >> Now, not so much, eh?
>
> > Not so much at all. Between the list-troll twit & all the morons that
> > cannot resist replying to his every thread, the wereo nutjob & his
> > pedophilia-obsessed minions, there's not a whole lot left.
>
> Especially when what's left is Paul "I'm better than you"  Goodwin.

and you are ... ?

> Kill yourself...please...

better idea, you could just fuck off and pretend he did

is it a b or b k or some other dip-shit? or is it "why bother"?

[Chris Jemmett]

On Mar 26, 12:01 pm, Paul Goodwin <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
> > I get slightly different numbers for AMY posts:  
> > me from Jan 1996 to now: 39192
> > you from Jan 1998 to now: 16500
>
> lol-- "usenet dick-waving!!! It's the new sport!!!"


This is an odd round. It is Reverse Waving.

"Yours is huge", "Ya but yours is really, really huge", " Nah, and if
you look at it this way, yours is bigger than mine".

... there is no why...

>
>
>
> > Anyway. The thing trawling through Google reminds me of,
> > is that even while Dr. Potts and I were apparently
> > hogging bandwidth all those years (with you tagging along somewhere in
> > the top 5, IIRC) there was still a couple of dozen fun people posting
> > along, who *weren't* mental cases, feeble-minded, trolls, crossposters,
> > or all of those combined.
>
> > Now, not so much, eh?
>
> Not so much at all. Between the list-troll twit & all the morons that
> cannot resist replying to his every thread, the wereo nutjob & his
> pedophilia-obsessed minions, there's not a whole lot left.

Don't forget the name shifting anonymous shills and leg-humpers

> In some ways, I can't help but think the state of the NG mirrors the
> band today.

It's a dark period, for sure.

The "lets pretend they are having great success" brigade is pretty
sad. I could happily leave them be but when they start trying to twist
that poorly attended, tribute singer version tour into an illusion of
success, someone needs to speak up. That's only one reason to bother.


Noted pattern of discussions for some time now:

"They are doing great" -
"no, the numbers show they are not"

"well they are down because yes saturated the market by over touring"-
" no, they hadn't toured for years"

"the numbers are down because they have been away for so long"-
"either way, they are down"

"well then I don't care, a band doesn't have to play to a big crowd
for me to like them"-

"whatever..."

Never mind all the "sounds just like Jon" tripe or the "at least they
are doing something". That is a whole other dark topic.

Also, I can see that musicians of any ilk could be happy playing to a
few hundred people when it comes too that but have to wonder about
pretending that thousands are simply not attending because of foolish
and embarrassing choices.

[Chet]

Wave your dick at me and I'll kick it up your atheist hinny. These are
the sort of people who hate the band YES. I'll wave my middle finger to
them

[Steven Sullivan]

Chris Jemmett <***@rogers.com> wrote:

> It's a dark period, for sure.

> The "lets pretend they are having great success" brigade is pretty
> sad. I could happily leave them be but when they start trying to twist
> that poorly attended, tribute singer version tour into an illusion of
> success, someone needs to speak up. That's only one reason to bother.

Because goshblammit if no one speaks up, well......SOMETHING.



--
-S
Usenet: the other reason to bother

[j***@gmail.com]

I prefer "Goats head soup", which is very underrated, and their last great album, Imo...

[s***@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 12, 2014 1:40:15 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> I prefer "Goats head soup", which is very underrated, and their last great album, Imo...

&& I been waiting FOUR YEARS for that reply!

[Marnny Festation]

Steven Sullivan <***@panix.com> wrote:

> I rarely do. But telling Raja to fuck off is
> the least I could do.
> I'm doing it right now.

[s***@comcast.net]

I've never been a bif fan of EXILE either. I think it would have been
much better as a single album with:

"Rocks Off"
"Rip This Joint"
"Tumbling Dice"
"Sweet Virginia"
"Happy" 3:04
"All Down the Line"

I prefer GOAT'S HEAD SOUP myself. I actually like UNDERCOVER and
DIRTY WORK more than most as well.

[bubba]

On Mar 17, 9:56 pm, "Raja, The Great" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Heard this entirely once more... just to see what the fuss is all
> about... although I must admit the album has a raw rock n roll (mixed
> with some country, gospel and soul) feel to it, that alone doesn't
> make the album great.
>
> If an album has 18 songs I expect at least 12 albums to be great,
> thats 2/3rd's of an album... that is all I ask. So going through all
> the songs these are the ONLY songs I like... the rest are mediocre at
> best....
>
> Rocks Off
> Rip This Joint
> Shake Your Hips (nice cover)
> Tumbling Dice
> Torn And Frayed (best song)
> Happy
> Let It Loose
> All Down The Line
>
> Thats just 8 songs out of 18. Some of the songs are terribly annoying
> like Turd On the Run, Ventilator Blues, Soul Survivor). Those 8 songs
> if they were on the album and nothing else, I would say it would be
> the greatest Stones album ever. But unfortunately those 8 are
> scattered a lot of mediocre junk.
>
> Sorry but I will take Out Of Our Heads, Aftermath, Beggars Banquet,
> Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers to this turkey anyday. And the best
> Rolling Stones album is still HOT ROCKS. Better singles band!

Your tiny EASTERN mind does not have sufficient knowledge of the West
or refernce points to even BEGIN to comprehend any of which you babble
about. Pleas kill yourself.

[Nutella]

When I was getting into the Stones at age 12 in 1978, I was getting
heavily into them, walking down to the Roosevelt Mall in Northeast
Philly every Saturday morning to buy a different LP. Exile was one of
the last of the albums I purchased right before Some Girls came out.
It was a double album and I needed to save a little extra money to buy
it. Up to that point, I always figured two albums on two different
weekends was better than one double album. At that point, there wasn't
anything available for me to read out album reviews for existing
material. There was just some older brothers and older neighbors who
used to point me in a certain direction regarding Stones, Bealtes,
Who, Doors, Zep, etc. albums.

When I made the decision to purchase Exile, it was the day before I
got grounded for getting into a fight at school. So, I had five days
to do nothing but sit in my room and sort baseball cards, stack 7-11
Slurpee football cups on top of one another, count S&H Green Stamps,
etc.

All the while, I kept playing each side of Exile over and over again,
not understanding anything about what the songs were about. I had no
previous understanding of Blues or Country music, so as far as I was
concerned, the Stones invented this music.

These days, I don't give a damn about what the critics say about the
album, whether it should have been a 10 song album, whether it's
poorly produced or whatever. All I care about, is that during a five
day stint in my bedroom in 1978, I fell in love with the album, and
listening to it brings back a time in my youth when such joys like
reading the back of a Milwaukee Brewers Team Checklist to see how many
cards I still needed for a complete team (I had about 9 Ed Farmer
cards and just couldn't get that Sal Bando card to complete the
team).

In the end, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks of the album, it's
what YOU think of it. Is the world 1% better for having Exile in it? I
think so. Would Tattoo You be EVEN 1% BETTER for having an Exile
outtake on it. You bet it would. And it's pretty hard to make Tattoo
You even better for an outtakes release.

"Exile on Main Street, it's a strange street to walk down"