[ultimateclassicrock.com]

penny wise, pound foolish

Good! Next One.

Inappropriate, IMO. Bank Notes should be for important figureheads, not pop singers.

I agree. Ludicrous example of the overimportance of celebrity culture - and if they leave this nonsense to a public vote, you can only imagine the type of here today, gone tomorrow bubbleheads who'd come top of the poll.

Plus, I always thought you had to be dead before you could be on a banknote. I know thats the case with postage stamps.

why not gazza on a banknote instead?

'Celebrity Culture' rules supreme here in the UK, sadly. Children know more about TV personalities than actual history and important matters. I read recently that more British children associate Winston Churchill with a nodding dog than the country's most important Prime Minister. What a toilet we have become!

Quote
StonesTod
why not gazza on a banknote instead?

You'll have to kill me first.

Wouldn't it be ironic though to have a man notoriously known for refusing to pay taxes in the UK on a pound note?

Quote
Stoneage
Wouldn't it be ironic though to have a man notoriously known for refusing to pay taxes in the UK on a pound note?

to teach him a lesson, perhaps they'd use an image from his ill-advised steel wheels appearance

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Stoneage
Wouldn't it be ironic though to have a man notoriously known for refusing to pay taxes in the UK on a pound note?

to teach him a lesson, perhaps they'd use an image from his ill-advised steel wheels appearance

awesome that wit and fine comedic form are sure appreciated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What do I think? I think there is already a thread on this topic dated December 26:

www.iorr.org/talk/read.php?1,1754294

Quote
stonesnow
What do I think? I think there is already a thread on this topic dated December 26:

www.iorr.org/talk/read.php?1,1754294

this one's got legs though baby

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonesnow
What do I think? I think there is already a thread on this topic dated December 26:

www.iorr.org/talk/read.php?1,1754294

this one's got legs though baby

What it has is a more direct title--but that's all. Also, the title leaves out the other contemporary candidate for consideration. Nice to know duplicate threads are finally being accepted though.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-27 20:18 by stonesnow.

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonesnow
What do I think? I think there is already a thread on this topic dated December 26:

www.iorr.org/talk/read.php?1,1754294

this one's got legs though baby

What it has is a more direct title--but that's all. Also, the title leaves out the other contemporary candidate for consideration. Nice to know duplicate threads are finally being accepted though.

Nothing is automatic...we do this on a case by case basis, after much thought and consideration, and several layers of management approval.

It's a bit cumbersome, but it's the best system we have, let's embrace it.

The Stones on UK £ notes! What do you think ?

Gave up "thinking" per se a long time ago. It can get you into an awful lot of trouble. The less of it one does, the better off one is !!

There is a LET IT BLEED postage stamp out there, but the Glimmers on a banknote ? Nah, don't think so. Stick with Queenie & Co, that's what I reckon.

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]

it'd be collectable.

Quote
treaclefingers
it'd be collectable.

but.... should money be designed to be collectable? and what does it mean when they design it that way?... like stamps which they sell for a pretty penny knowing they will never be used (but also probably never go up in value).... This type of thing smells like scamming to me.

Money should be designed to fight counterfeiters and look official... but of course I am sure there are people who think the exact opposite



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-27 20:54 by Max'sKansasCity.

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonesnow
What do I think? I think there is already a thread on this topic dated December 26:

www.iorr.org/talk/read.php?1,1754294

this one's got legs though baby

What it has is a more direct title--but that's all. Also, the title leaves out the other contemporary candidate for consideration. Nice to know duplicate threads are finally being accepted though.

If one wishes to post something is it a pre-requisite that one trawls through the whole forum to make sure there isn't a similar thread? Ooooo, sounds a bit time consuming!

Quote
BlackHat

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonesnow
What do I think? I think there is already a thread on this topic dated December 26:

www.iorr.org/talk/read.php?1,1754294

this one's got legs though baby

What it has is a more direct title--but that's all. Also, the title leaves out the other contemporary candidate for consideration. Nice to know duplicate threads are finally being accepted though.

If one wishes to post something is it a pre-requisite that one trawls through the whole forum to make sure there isn't a similar thread? Ooooo, sounds a bit time consuming!

No, just a look at the previous 12 to 24 hours will do--and what's that, just glancing over the titles of the first 2 pages, 1 minute of research?

And it would appear that you've got more time to consume than most, if your bumping just today of the "Tonight there was a fight in my local chip shop" thread [thread started on August 10, 2008; last heard from on March 13, 2012] is any indication....

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
BlackHat

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonesnow
What do I think? I think there is already a thread on this topic dated December 26:

www.iorr.org/talk/read.php?1,1754294

this one's got legs though baby

What it has is a more direct title--but that's all. Also, the title leaves out the other contemporary candidate for consideration. Nice to know duplicate threads are finally being accepted though.

If one wishes to post something is it a pre-requisite that one trawls through the whole forum to make sure there isn't a similar thread? Ooooo, sounds a bit time consuming!

No, just a look at the previous 12 to 24 hours will do--and what's that, just glancing over the titles of the first 2 pages, 1 minute of research?

And it would appear that you've got more time to consume than most, if your bumping just today of the "Tonight there was a fight in my local chip shop" thread [thread started on August 10, 2008; last heard from on March 13, 2012] is any indication....

It being Christmas I am at home drinking cider. But really I am so sorry to inconvenience you with a duplicate thread. But as someone else said - this one has got legs!!

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonesnow
What do I think? I think there is already a thread on this topic dated December 26:

www.iorr.org/talk/read.php?1,1754294

this one's got legs though baby

What it has is a more direct title--but that's all. Also, the title leaves out the other contemporary candidate for consideration. Nice to know duplicate threads are finally being accepted though.

The title is why I didn't open the other thread. From the thread title (Laughing All The Way To The Bank?) it looked like just another "Ticket Prices Were Too High/The Stones Make Too Much Money" type thread.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-28 00:07 by NoCode0680.