![]() |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
1 of 3
Quote:
At least it's clear, now, why you didn't have a clue about what I have and haven't said in my "insanely long posts." You can't be bothered to read them! No wonder you were so far off-base! For your convenience, and because you don't give a shit about what I have to say (and would apparently rather jump to your own conclusions about it), I broke my reply into three shorter posts and peppered them with quotes from you. Maybe that will hold your interest long enough to suffer through my response. If not, c'est la vie. |
2 of 3
Quote:
But where's the fun in that? JMO, but I personally think that this picture provides a closer visual analogy to the situation we were discussing than your cute little puppy does. It’s not quite as obvious, of course; so, it might challenge some ppl; but I'm sure you will find it to be a piece of cake. I'll give you a hint, though, just in case. The completed image has something to do with Bon Jovi. Attachment 1593 I should probably mention that some of the numbers may be out of order, and some may be missing altogether. And, oh yeah, the dots only cover part of the picture. (I stopped counting at 100, because I got bored. But you're so good at seeing the big picture when pieces of the puzzle might still be missing, I'm sure 100 dots will be more than enough to go on. If not, you could ask RDK for help, because what he said about the split applies here, too: Jon's already told us everything there is to know about it and filled in all the gaps. I have to say that it's damned gracious of Jon to provide all the answers for everyone, so they don’t ever have to think for themselves, or worry about any nasty little contradictions. And if he leaves out a detail here or there, observant guys like you and RDK should still be able to figure it out. After all, it’s just common sense; and too many facts would just confuse the issue, right?) Be sure to come back and let us all know what it is after you've connected all the dots. (Or to tell us that you "ignored" this one, too, so we'll know you didn't have an answer for it, either.) Happy connecting! |
3 of 3
Quote:
My bad. But anyway... I'm not overly concerned about any 'real statements' from Jon or Richie. But I wouldn’t be surprised at all, if after the tensions die down and he’s finished using the situation to promote his own agenda, Jon doesn’t get around to telling most of what happened or explaining it away somehow, if he can find a way to spin it. He tends to admit to lots of things - after he thinks people don’t care any longer and he can toss it out as a joke or laugh it off like it’s nothing. I could give specific examples but you probably already know them as well as I do, and you’ve probably stopped reading anyway. IF you ever bothered to start. Don’t kid yourself, Seb. I’m not as blind or ignorant as you (and RDK) seem to think. I see the things you see. And I agree, that if everything is as it appears, you're probably right; which is why I don't remember telling anyone that their assumptions are wrong. It's also why I don’t try to paint Richie as an innocent victim. He could very well be just as black-hearted and messed up as you guys see him. I don't know the man. I just recognize that there is a possibility, however slim or nonexistent you think it is, that there’s more to the picture than we see now. If you're right and we never hear the whole truth from Jon and Richie, it won’t bother me. I’m perfectly content with saying, from now on if necessary, “I don’t know what happened." I’m not married to any possible outcome in anyone’s favor because I don’t have a horse in that race. I’m not pissed off with anyone, so I don’t have to justify my anger by assuming that anyone’s at fault. And I don't have a burning need to make any judgment calls. So here’s an idea: Why don’t YOU quit judging ME and telling me how my posts (that you don't read) are full of shit and what you think my purpose is in posting them, or listing all the ways that MY conclusions are wrong? Because, contrary to what you seem to think, I don't HAVE any hard fast conclusions, only multiple theories that can change with each new bit of information. So, there ya go! Those are the facts that you totally missed in your original post. Believe it or not. Take it or leave it. Makes no difference to me. At any rate, I hope you're having a better day, today. :) |
Just listening to the Target CD from 2002 for the first time in probably a decade. Damn there was some quite good material left off Bounce :rolleyes:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I just don't understand why he keeps doing it. It can't realistically be excused by saying "it's because the reporters ask about it." Even if the questions haven't been vetted prior to the interviews, Jon is still savvy enough to know how to avoid questions, unless it's something he just wants to discuss. He doesn't have to be rude. A simple "He just didn't show up. But that's old news. I'd rather talk about now..." would move it on without all the details. It's not like anybody cares anymore. Like you say, that's almost 5 years ago. Even most of the people here are sick of it, so you know the casuals don't care, and the general population probably doesn't even remember there was a walk out. Granted, they may be reminded of it when the question about whether Richie and Alec will play at the HoF comes up, but that doesn't mean Jon has to go over the whole history again. When somebody asks if Richie will be there, Jon seems to think that "They're being invited to play" is sufficient. He doesn't go into a whole detailed monologue about all the reasons why they may or may not show up. And people are a LOT more interested in that, these days, than they are about what happened in 2013. So why does he spend more time talking about the past than he does about the current question? It honestly makes me think of how one parent in a divorce keeps reminding the kids that the other parent is the bad guy. Triangulation at its finest. Or brainwashing and indoctrination. ("Richie is a bad man... Richie is a bad man... Richie let us all down... Richie let us all down...") :) |
I just discovered the weirdest use of a Bon Jovi song ever.
So the Stephen King novel "It" got turned into an Indian TV series in the late nineties, and I was watching the scene where "Georgie" is killed by the clown (in the original version this is the part at the beginning with the paper boat), when the music started to sound very familiar. After a few seconds thought I realized that the music is actually a (very poor) edit of the drum intro to Lay Your Hands On Me. Thought that was weird as hell and that someone might find it interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=Ie6L_Ls65lY |
Quote:
What's the best way to get the material from the Bounce era? Singles are a rather expensive way since the tracks are scattered all over the place and postage also comes in. Was there ever another compilation akin to the Target EP released? |
| All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11.
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.