Re: Superbowl aka U Too

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

> > Also, was I the only one wishing it was The Who playing at half-time
instead
> > of U2?
> >
>
> Kevin you were not alone here, my friend!

I don't understand any of this. U2 at the Superbowl made me lose a lot of
respect for U2. It sickens me, actually. It's a lot like when Cyndi Lauper
brought wrestling to MTV; it ruined it and MTV was never the same again...it
was the start of the game show run which continues today.
Rock music used to be dangerous and anti-establishment. Football is the
establishment. Britney Spears I can understand. U2 (or The Who) is
blasphamy.

> Seems logical that either Jimmy Page or Robt Plant or both will make
> appearances on thursday and or Fri at RAH, since they are going on
Saturday

Kevin Mc:

Oh, let's hope not! The last thing that The Who need is that spector of Led
Zeppelin hanging over their shoulders again.
Besides, P&P are pretty much crap now. Let them remain completely over.


> Hey man, lucky you.  Maybe I ought to move to your neck of the woods.

Jim:

I don't know about that. I want to move to the Smoky Mountains, which is
definitely a more educated and cultured area than here. But I have plenty of
customers who are exploring early Rock music.

> Thank you for proving my point.  Our side is right and the other is wrong.

Nice try, but claiming the sanctity of life yet insisting on the death
penalty is not logical or even well thought out. Forcing a cerain religion's
prayers on all students, putting a religious document on the wall as a
"historic document," or turning religious doctrine into a "science" called
"Creationism."
Nothing proves MY point better than the hypocrasy of the right by claiming
Cheney "deserves his privacy" in a political forum after relentlessly
hounding and exposing every little sordid detail of Clinton's private
relationship with Monica Lewinsky. I would think at this point anyone would
be too ashamed to admit they're a conservative.

> I also hate those ultra liberals who say it's okay to do your own thing
and
> other people's freedoms be damned.

You just contridicted yourself. Doing your own thing is called freedom, and
not damning someone else's. Anything one does can be twisted to infringe on
someone else's rights, including listening to The Who. Ultra-sensitivty is a
conservative (read: childish) trait. What about making a big deal out of
smoking Pot (a misdemeanor) and ignoring cocaine use (a felony)? Kinda ruins
your point, doesn't it?

> Wow, talk about generalizations.  Instant gratification comes from people
> who only care about themselves.

We were talking about kids, remember? And I have to generalize to some
degree, or the reply would be the entire digest.

> but I think the majority of people who crave instant gratification were
> probably born selfish - period.

Not "born," but taught early on certainly...by those who are only interested
in their own rather than the good of the majority of the people...once
again, immature, short-sighted behavior.

> Give them an internship with Mother Theresa

They MIGHT be taught differently. Or they might remain selfish.

> I've since re-thought that name, and I think I'm changing to "antichrist".

Too late; it's been copyrighted by Marilyn Manson.

> Wow, how deep.  Here's one in my words:  "That kid is a prick.  And he
> earned that title through his actions."

It's a bit "deeper" if you know the song. I was, as I often do, referencing
something that might prompt a little research in an area most Who fans might
enjoy and appreciate.
All I can say, as a parent, is that it's usually easy to see why the kids
who are pricks end up that way, when you look at what's going on in the
home. The only exceptions might be a chemical imbalance, but even there a
lot of times it's just easier for them to drug their kids rather than deal
with them. WHO would drug their kids????? JE-ZUZ!


    "They have miscalculated me as a leader."
             George "Mr. Salty" Bush


               Cheers                 ML