reviews

["Jeff House" <whocasa@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

mc said  "This is another writer spouting poorly researched opinions.  I'm
tired of it,
frankly,"

There is something very funny about your arguing with people who won't argue
back with you.  I never tire of it.  Please keep it up :-D

One of our senior listers (Mark) holds this same view.  Perhaps you might
like to debate him on the subject of whether the band should continue or if
they are betraying their "legacy".  I have.  His conclusions are the
opposite of mine, but he's got a right to his opinion.  He won't change his
mind.  Neither will I.  I suspect you are equally stubborn.

BTW, how do you know what research this writer has done?  I don't agree with
his conclusions or his conjecture, but it looks to me like he's got his
facts straight.  Calling the current act a "review" is a perfectly valid
word.  How did you decide that "review" = "hits"?  There is no hint of your
definition in the article.  You've twisted his words.  Would "retrospective"
work better for you?  It means the same thing as review.  The band has no
new songs, which implies that the set lists are review.

mc said "...thank you to Brian for always posting them here.  We don't tell
him this enough (at least I don't)."

You might want to tell him directly or post your thanks to another list.  He
doesn't read this one.

Jeff