[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Kinks...hijinks ? - T&N adds on TV - ohhhh the venom of Bushisims

>From: Marcus Surrealius <bushchoked@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Kinks...hijinks ?
>You guys only get 6 months of daylight up there in
>Vermont, right?

No, that's Alaska.  We get 6 months of snow though!  Yipppee!

>You wear those funny little light hats
>and all that, don't ya?

They're called Petzle head-lamps, and they strap onto yo head.
Hell, everyone should have one.  They're great for anything in the dark.
That's right....anything.  ;-)

>> We can look at charts from the time, but the real
>> measure is the 'test of
>> time'.  What is the overall ranking.
>If that's the case, then REO Suckwagon and Jour-nay
>and <snip - - bla, bla, bla> are ALL more important than The Who
>right now!  

What?  You be sniffing glue or something...
Here, read this posted just *yesterday* from The Telegraph:

>Subject: Telegraph Review of RAH (very positive)
>Paul Morley
>The Who have always been underdogs. Outshone by Led Zeppelin and Hendrix (caugh..bullshit!), 
>the bronze medallists to the gold Beatles and the silver Stones

What was that???

>the bronze medallists to the gold Beatles and the silver Stones

One more time for clarity and shits-and-giggles...

>the bronze medallists to the gold Beatles and the silver Stones

See, this is what I've been saying.
"Bronze medallists".  That's third.
Not fourth, or fith, or anything lower than.......*third*!
I have no idea where The Kinks would fall, but it's not third, or second, or first.
*This* is the overriding opinion of people who consider all of rock.
Again, it's not my fault.  It's just how it is.
As you've written in this thread..."Deal with it."  ;-)

>And 100 years from now, when they talk
>about The Who it'll be about Tommy and Quad, not WN.

I seriously doubt that, but we could bat conjecture back and forth all day, and still not get anywhere.

>From: JOELTLE515@xxxxxxx
>Subject: RGLB
>just to let you know, as I type here in the NYC area, they're playing RGLB on 
>the classic rock station here. 

I read on O&S this morning that Quebec is seeing advertisements on TV for Then and Now.
Hey, that's something!

>From: Sroundtable@xxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: venom extracting and Bushisms
>> Exactly my thought at your first 'venom' extracting post.  Thus my " ? "
>> reply.
>It was a one-line, light-hearted poke

Son, when you poke something (baa-aaa-aaa! ;-), don't do it light-heartedly.
But, I wouldn't have written anything had I not seen the Bushism below...

>> "Suiciders"....
>I was laughing aloud when I heard him use "suiciders"

Damn, Mc.  You've thrown me for a loop!  Where'd this sense of humor come from????
I was expecting a passionate defense!
I...I....I...don't know what to say!

>I need to get my hands on that.

I made those titles up.  But, there is a book called Bushisms that can be found with a quick Amazon search.

>Love him or hate him, he entertains.
You mean saddens, right?
(no need to answer....)

>From: "Scott Schrade" <schrade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Blah Blah "why were the Kinks banned in the U.S." Blah Blah Blah
>Fine.  Be that way.  I'll just assume that the Kinks were banned
>because they sucked.

DOH!   ;-o

Kevin (waiting for the wind to die to hit Jay Peak!) in VT

Confidentiality Notice:
This message, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, privileged, and/or protected from disclosure under state and federal laws that deal with the privacy and security of medical information. If you received this message in error or through inappropriate means, please reply to this message to notify the Sender that the message was received by you in error, and then permanently delete this message from all storage media, without forwarding or retaining a copy.