The Who and two Rush's; Progress?

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

>Oh puh-leez…..While I much prefer The Who to Rush, I think it is a bit
>presumptuous to suggest that Rush fans only give a "surface listen" to the

Mickey:

That is NOT what I said; I said that people who think The Who and Rush are
the same have only given the music (that would be BOTH bands) a surface
listen: "Some people think there's little difference,
but only if they give a surface listen and no more." See?

>music and that EVERYONE accepts that the "The Who are easily the superior
>band."  The Who are my favorite band and Rush is more of a second tier
group
>for me

That would be accepting that The Who are the superior, wouldn't it?

>long distance treks, ranks Rush as high or higher than The Who for himself.

I hope for his eventual salvation. Some people think Michael Jackson is
ranked higher, too.

>The Rush fans also generally tend have more respect for The Who than I’ve
>seen Rush get here.

Well, NATURALLY!

> There seems to be a certain strain of Who fans who are
>strangely contemptuous of some generally respectable rock bands (Zeppelin,
>Sabbath, Rush, Stones, Floyd, etc.…)

That does make sense, if you think about it. These bands are constantly
being given credit for what The Who actually did, and that does tend to get
old after a while.

>to reason that those of us who are drawn to The Who’s musicianship might
also
>enjoy Geddy Lee’s bass playing or Neil Peart’s drumming?

No. There is no parallel. One is inspired and original, the other by the
book.

>how anyone can see one candidate as a saint and another  so contemptible to

No one has done that.

>incomprehensible to vote for the guy who will "leave you alone the most?"

It IS if you don't want to be bothered with nonsense. Too bad...

>favor of the largest tax increase in the nation’s history.

Excuse me, that was Duh-bya's daddy's tax increase.

> I don’t recall
>favoring bigger government and higher taxes as being a prerequisite for
being
>a Who fan.

Government grew under Reagan/Bush, shrank under Clinton/Gore (check the
number of people employed by the government). Don't believe everything Rush
(L.) says. He lies, you know. What I said was Bush is like Rush, rather
ordinary and not great, and Gore is like The Who...intelligent, inspiring
and easily the superior. You don't see Gore "reassuring" the Congress that
he knows the difference between the executive and legislative branches of
governent. The fact Bush felt obligated to say it speaks volumes. With
anyone else who's President, it's a given! But not him!

>Stop it, stop it now.

Toby:

Please post your list of acceptable topics of discussion so we'll know what
not to talk about.

>It's true that progressive groups often incorporate older styles, but I
>always thought "progressive" meant a willingness to experiment and
disregard
>for artificial musical barriers.

Keets:

And I thought "progressive" was taking music forward. The Who would then
qualify as a Progressive Rock band, especially considering Tommy, WN, and
Quad.

>Gee - let's measure that success.

Greg:

OK. She's a world player and you and I are not. That's pretty much it. The
people of NY wanted her; learn to live with it. You are free to regurgitate
Rush Limbagh all you like, but I won't respond in kind because you've given
me a lot of reasons to be happy, but then she's done as much in that
direction so I will leave it there. Boy, in some circles it's a crime to be
an intelligent, successful woman! What a shame!

>Uhh...the will of the people of Florida was, in all the counts and recounts
I
>saw on the news and read about, to elect George Bush.  He was ahead in
EVERY
>count and recount I saw!

The law of Florida is if a candidate requests a manual recount, he gets one.
Gore asked, and he got a single complete county and part of two others...and
this changed Bush's lead from almost 2000 to 154. The counting was halted
again and again by Bush's legal tactics. You never saw a real recount. Not
ONE. You never saw the will of the people, officially.

>their attempts to toss out 25,000 absentee military ballots, especially
after

Excuse me, as I told you privately Al Gore and his team had NOTHING to do
with that lawsuit. He was asked to join the suit and declined. Don't
perpetuate outright lies, Greg! Or PROVE that he did!

>Then, when the FLA Supreme Court overstepped its bounds in terms of what a
>court is supposed to do

No, they reinstated Floirda law which IS their job!

> the US Supreme Court stepped in and slapped them but

The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with them (funny definition of being
"slapped") but gave them only 4 hours to set a statewide standard for the
count (instead of relying on the legal standard already in place) and count
ALL of the ballots too. Impossible to do. That IS what happened, Greg, no
matter how you may wish to characterize it differently. Gore was within his
rights to continue, but chose not to. And we all know Bush would not have
handled the reverse of the situation nearly as well.

>once - when I was a lot younger and a LOT lesser wiser!

Sorry, your claim to growth is questionable at best and there is no evidence
of it in your post. It appears to me more like you have retreated into a
place wherein you can throw all the mud you like by supporting a candidate
who has no chance in Hell to have to actually produce anything, and so no
matter what happens you can't be blamed. "I vote LIbertarian!" And?

>Well Mark - that's an "F" in any Civics or government class I can think of!

Greg, this is 2001 not 1801. If the teachers haven't caught up, that's
hardly my fault.

>It is NOT a historical document - it IS the supreme law of the United
States

It IS, having been written by and for only caucasian male landowners (the
only ones intended to vote by the document). Thankfully this is no longer
the case. We stand on the edge of a new millenium, Greg. It's OK to move
forward. It's past time to do so.

>As to the assault rifles nonsense - muskets with bayonets were assault
rifles
>in their time!

And they could kill hundreds of people in a minute? A nonsensical
comparison.

>The problem with the anti-gun people is, they use only emotional outbursts
to
>make their case

That is a misrepresentation; you don't have to be "anti-gun" (I'm not) to
recognize that an assault rifle has no reason to be owned by an individual,
any more than a Scud missle does.

>successful would Hitler's "Final Solution" had been if the 11 million
people
>he murdered been armed and able to fight back????

You can give every US citizen an assault rifle and the Government would
still win. Technology is the key, now.

>Which is why I vote LIbertarian!

You know, if they'd even gotten the percentage of votes Buchannan did (less
than 1%) I might be able to accept that the party may become a factor
EVENTUALLY...but as it stands, they quite obviously are NOT what the people
of this country want. So what's there to be proud of, exactly? It's easy to
take the high road when you know you'll never be called on it. I can at
least see why Jim is proud to have voted for Bush, as silly as I think it is
to admit in public, but what you are doing is like saying: "This is why I
stand on my head!" "This is why I used cheese for bait instead of worms."
Whatever, dude...


"Pot is an herb, Bush is a dope."

               Cheers                 ML