Tell Me :
Talk
Overrated? Only by new generation revisionists. Ask John Madden or Bill Walsh (when he was alive) if they thought Joe Namath was overrated. It was a different game back then. Today, the playing field is tilted heavily in favor of the passing game. Just about every Tom, Drew, and Harry, are throwing well above 60% these days. Namath had the most beautiful set up and one of the quickest releases ever. He was the first to throw for 4000 yards. He was as gutsy as they come and had to play on gimpy knees throughout his professional career. Because of that he had a very narrow window of excellence. If Namath was playing today (under today's rules, and with two healthy knees) he would be one of the best.
Is the fuzz-tone She Loves You session among the wiped/lost tapes? I'd read that some early takes from the Please Please me album session suffered that fate, but from what I've read the fuzz takes of She Loves You and Don't Bother Me simply haven't surfaced. After the Please Please Me album I've read that every session was saved. The earliest takes available of Don't Bother Me are take 10 ["take 10--we're calling it a remake...."], so those experimental fuzz-tone versions must be takes 1 to 9.
Yes, you could say that Still I'm Sad is more of a Gregorian chant thing, but with the backing track it always reminded me of something more Eastern sounding--I don't know, for some reason I hear Egyptian pyramids and the like when listening to it. But yeah, that Jeff Beck era was their more experimental--and most interesting--period. My favorite Yardbirds tracks are from the 1965 and 1966 period.
Back again to distorted guitar sounds, there is some accidental "fuzz" from John Lennon's guitar on Chains, from their first album, it comes in and out throughout the song, and was a bit of tube distortion, the result of a faulty guitar cable most likely.
Also, though not distorted, the rhythm guitar in Hold Me Tight, also recorded the same day as Don't Bother Me, has a pretty dirty sound to it.
Not great at copping feels was he? Sounds like he sucked at quarterbacking too.
You obviously have no knowledge about how the game has changed over the decades.
Not sure, but I guess we haven't stopped.
Who cares? I say good riddance to those that are so insecure that they have to label the opinions of others they disagree with as insane and annoying ramblings. I suggest you pack up your toys and go home. Either that, or grow up and accept the fact that this is a message board where all opinions are welcome.
Gumboot, I have told you (and others like you that also lack vision) repeatedly to just ignore my comments if they bother you so much. Why continue to torture yourself? Are you masochistic?
Didn't they call Lamonica "The Mad Bomber"?
Well, if you are not embarrassed..........
"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"
Very nice. Maybe we should just call it a tie and all go home happy?
I'm going to guess it's not a mystery.
You both realize that I didn't start this thread, right? And, long after I am gone (and I will be gone very soon) this subject will rise again and again. You guys really need to accept the fact that if you are going to hang around here for years this subject is going to come up on a regular basis.
You both think I am full of BS but I tell you exactly like I see it. Do you want me to tell you that I am kidding about the Sons of the Beatles? I would be lying if I told you that. I firmly believe it can happen. It should happen! And, I will do everything in my power to make it happen! It would bring joy to millions. Why would any decent person be opposed to something that would bring joy to millions? Just because you can't see something doesn't mean that others can't see it. So stop with your petty attacks.
OK I agree that Skippy & Stompin' Tom need to settle down (Gumboot, where is your trademark Canadian tolerance?), but for the love of all that is sweet and good will you please stop it with the sons of beatles nonsense?
I enjoy a lot of your posts but when you keep going there you do yourself a disservice. I can even handle your idolization of James McCartney (although I don't get it...a put on perhaps?) and the 'Stones have finally surpassed the Beatles at Glastonbury' but leave those poor sons ofbitches beatles alone!
Lamonica was the Mad Bomber.
But I like Kenny The Snake" Stabler better !!!!
Yes indeed. Bombs to Warren Wells, Fred Biletnikoff, et al
The Snake was one of the best.
Like Joe Willie, another Alabama QB.
I can't guarantee anything except that my one year is up at the stroke of midnight on Halloween night.
we all know all that means is that you will shed the old cocoon (we'll never grow old and we'll never die) and that you'll rise like a phoenix from the ashes of burnt pumpkin and have evolved into a shiny and new stones fruit or vegetable.
I've got several suggestions if you have a few moments and are prepared to indulge me.
I give you:
Honky Tonk Watermelon,
She's So Cucumber,
Paint It, Aubergine
Wild Berries
She's a Rutabaga
Anybody Seen My Squash
Cherry Oh Baby (oh, wait...)
Tumbling Figs
Choose what you like but when you choose, make sure it is firm (squeeze it) and make sure it has a good vibrant colour (except if it's Paint It, Aubergine, then the darker the better).
Good luck and be sure to let us know what you choose!
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
ash
()
Date: October 7, 2013 20:07
Great post Stonehearted.
She Loves You with a fuzz box !! Shame that's one of the sessions where the tapes were wiped/lost and i was joking about George Martin's reaction to the fuzzbox but apparently i was spot on.
Some engineer apparently once said over the talk back at an early Jimi Hendrix session "we seem to be getting a lot of distortion in here Jimi" to which Chas Chandler said "that's his style".
Oh and the comment about Still I'm Sad being Eastern, isn't it more of a gregorian chant type thing ...Yardbirds were brilliant till Page and Most got hold of them. If only they'd manage to keep Page and Beck together on twin lead...one of my timetravel concert choices would be the Stones/Yardbirds 1966...bet that was awesome.
She Loves You with a fuzz box !! Shame that's one of the sessions where the tapes were wiped/lost and i was joking about George Martin's reaction to the fuzzbox but apparently i was spot on.
Some engineer apparently once said over the talk back at an early Jimi Hendrix session "we seem to be getting a lot of distortion in here Jimi" to which Chas Chandler said "that's his style".
Oh and the comment about Still I'm Sad being Eastern, isn't it more of a gregorian chant type thing ...Yardbirds were brilliant till Page and Most got hold of them. If only they'd manage to keep Page and Beck together on twin lead...one of my timetravel concert choices would be the Stones/Yardbirds 1966...bet that was awesome.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: October 7, 2013 20:44
Quote
michaelsavageQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
michaelsavageStones are by far the greatest. It is not even close.Quote
NICOS
IMO there is no versus the Beatles they outdid them all
I agree that the Stones are the greatest, but it isn't a runaway. The Beatles were a tough nut to crack. Mick may not realize it, but when he walked off the stage at Glastonbury (and raised his index finger to the heavens) he was actually signaling the end of the Beatles reign! Reminded me of Joe Namath as he ran off the field after Super Bowl III. Long live the new kings of rock 'n roll!
Ironically joe Namath is one of the most overrated players ever. In fact he did not deserve the mvp of that game.he did nothing in that game.notice a trend? "Overrated"
Overrated? Only by new generation revisionists. Ask John Madden or Bill Walsh (when he was alive) if they thought Joe Namath was overrated. It was a different game back then. Today, the playing field is tilted heavily in favor of the passing game. Just about every Tom, Drew, and Harry, are throwing well above 60% these days. Namath had the most beautiful set up and one of the quickest releases ever. He was the first to throw for 4000 yards. He was as gutsy as they come and had to play on gimpy knees throughout his professional career. Because of that he had a very narrow window of excellence. If Namath was playing today (under today's rules, and with two healthy knees) he would be one of the best.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: October 7, 2013 20:56
Quote
ash
Great post Stonehearted.
She Loves You with a fuzz box !! Shame that's one of the sessions where the tapes were wiped/lost and i was joking about George Martin's reaction to the fuzzbox but apparently i was spot on.
Some engineer apparently once said over the talk back at an early Jimi Hendrix session "we seem to be getting a lot of distortion in here Jimi" to which Chas Chandler said "that's his style".
Oh and the comment about Still I'm Sad being Eastern, isn't it more of a gregorian chant type thing ...Yardbirds were brilliant till Page and Most got hold of them. If only they'd manage to keep Page and Beck together on twin lead...one of my timetravel concert choices would be the Stones/Yardbirds 1966...bet that was awesome.
Is the fuzz-tone She Loves You session among the wiped/lost tapes? I'd read that some early takes from the Please Please me album session suffered that fate, but from what I've read the fuzz takes of She Loves You and Don't Bother Me simply haven't surfaced. After the Please Please Me album I've read that every session was saved. The earliest takes available of Don't Bother Me are take 10 ["take 10--we're calling it a remake...."], so those experimental fuzz-tone versions must be takes 1 to 9.
Yes, you could say that Still I'm Sad is more of a Gregorian chant thing, but with the backing track it always reminded me of something more Eastern sounding--I don't know, for some reason I hear Egyptian pyramids and the like when listening to it. But yeah, that Jeff Beck era was their more experimental--and most interesting--period. My favorite Yardbirds tracks are from the 1965 and 1966 period.
Back again to distorted guitar sounds, there is some accidental "fuzz" from John Lennon's guitar on Chains, from their first album, it comes in and out throughout the song, and was a bit of tube distortion, the result of a faulty guitar cable most likely.
Also, though not distorted, the rhythm guitar in Hold Me Tight, also recorded the same day as Don't Bother Me, has a pretty dirty sound to it.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
ash
()
Date: October 7, 2013 23:34
Yes i believe unfortunately the She Loves You tapes are long gone. That's why there's never been a true stereo mix of both that and it's b-side I'll Get You.
Don't have access to my books but the major missing studio tapes are - Love me do single sessions,please please me single session,she loves you session,2 of 5 1st album sessions, a few from With The Beatles and a couple from A Hard Days Night and Beatles for sale album sessions. After that pretty much everything is accounted for.
I've already said it a few times but i wish we had some idea what the situation is for the Stones 60s output. Depending on your view (in this thread) it represents the most important or second most important recording catalogue of the post 1962 British era.
At least the Stones weren't on Pye, there'd be nothing left.
Don't have access to my books but the major missing studio tapes are - Love me do single sessions,please please me single session,she loves you session,2 of 5 1st album sessions, a few from With The Beatles and a couple from A Hard Days Night and Beatles for sale album sessions. After that pretty much everything is accounted for.
I've already said it a few times but i wish we had some idea what the situation is for the Stones 60s output. Depending on your view (in this thread) it represents the most important or second most important recording catalogue of the post 1962 British era.
At least the Stones weren't on Pye, there'd be nothing left.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
michaelsavage
()
Date: October 8, 2013 03:16
Namath had 3 very good years. That's It. and that's a fact. You can look it up.He completed 50% of his asses and his QB rating sucksQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
michaelsavageQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
michaelsavageStones are by far the greatest. It is not even close.Quote
NICOS
IMO there is no versus the Beatles they outdid them all
I agree that the Stones are the greatest, but it isn't a runaway. The Beatles were a tough nut to crack. Mick may not realize it, but when he walked off the stage at Glastonbury (and raised his index finger to the heavens) he was actually signaling the end of the Beatles reign! Reminded me of Joe Namath as he ran off the field after Super Bowl III. Long live the new kings of rock 'n roll!
Ironically joe Namath is one of the most overrated players ever. In fact he did not deserve the mvp of that game.he did nothing in that game.notice a trend? "Overrated"
Overrated? Only by new generation revisionists. Ask John Madden or Bill Walsh (when he was alive) if they thought Joe Namath was overrated. It was a different game back then. Today, the playing field is tilted heavily in favor of the passing game. Just about every Tom, Drew, and Harry, are throwing well above 60% these days. Namath had the most beautiful set up and one of the quickest releases ever. He was the first to throw for 4000 yards. He was as gutsy as they come and had to play on gimpy knees throughout his professional career. Because of that he had a very narrow window of excellence. If Namath was playing today (under today's rules, and with two healthy knees) he would be one of the best.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: October 8, 2013 03:17
Quote
michaelsavageNamath had 3 very good years. That's It. and that's a fact. You can look it up.He completed 50% of his asses and his QB rating sucksQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
michaelsavageQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
michaelsavageStones are by far the greatest. It is not even close.Quote
NICOS
IMO there is no versus the Beatles they outdid them all
I agree that the Stones are the greatest, but it isn't a runaway. The Beatles were a tough nut to crack. Mick may not realize it, but when he walked off the stage at Glastonbury (and raised his index finger to the heavens) he was actually signaling the end of the Beatles reign! Reminded me of Joe Namath as he ran off the field after Super Bowl III. Long live the new kings of rock 'n roll!
Ironically joe Namath is one of the most overrated players ever. In fact he did not deserve the mvp of that game.he did nothing in that game.notice a trend? "Overrated"
Overrated? Only by new generation revisionists. Ask John Madden or Bill Walsh (when he was alive) if they thought Joe Namath was overrated. It was a different game back then. Today, the playing field is tilted heavily in favor of the passing game. Just about every Tom, Drew, and Harry, are throwing well above 60% these days. Namath had the most beautiful set up and one of the quickest releases ever. He was the first to throw for 4000 yards. He was as gutsy as they come and had to play on gimpy knees throughout his professional career. Because of that he had a very narrow window of excellence. If Namath was playing today (under today's rules, and with two healthy knees) he would be one of the best.
Not great at copping feels was he? Sounds like he sucked at quarterbacking too.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: October 8, 2013 07:02
Quote
michaelsavageNamath had 3 very good years. That's It. and that's a fact. You can look it up.He completed 50% of his asses and his QB rating sucksQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
michaelsavageQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
michaelsavageStones are by far the greatest. It is not even close.Quote
NICOS
IMO there is no versus the Beatles they outdid them all
I agree that the Stones are the greatest, but it isn't a runaway. The Beatles were a tough nut to crack. Mick may not realize it, but when he walked off the stage at Glastonbury (and raised his index finger to the heavens) he was actually signaling the end of the Beatles reign! Reminded me of Joe Namath as he ran off the field after Super Bowl III. Long live the new kings of rock 'n roll!
Ironically joe Namath is one of the most overrated players ever. In fact he did not deserve the mvp of that game.he did nothing in that game.notice a trend? "Overrated"
Overrated? Only by new generation revisionists. Ask John Madden or Bill Walsh (when he was alive) if they thought Joe Namath was overrated. It was a different game back then. Today, the playing field is tilted heavily in favor of the passing game. Just about every Tom, Drew, and Harry, are throwing well above 60% these days. Namath had the most beautiful set up and one of the quickest releases ever. He was the first to throw for 4000 yards. He was as gutsy as they come and had to play on gimpy knees throughout his professional career. Because of that he had a very narrow window of excellence. If Namath was playing today (under today's rules, and with two healthy knees) he would be one of the best.
You obviously have no knowledge about how the game has changed over the decades.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: October 8, 2013 15:28
"Only by new generation revisionists" said the person who compared Mick Jagger to JOE NAMATH and keeps "revising" "history" to "make" the Stones the better "team"? Who thinks that when Jagger "walked off the stage at Glastonbury (and raised his index finger to the heavens) he was actually signaling the end of the Beatles reign"?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
What "reign" do The Beatles have anyway? You must be confusing "reign" with "reality". Do you mean the reality that is more people know of The Beatles than The Rolling Stones? or that more people have bought Beatles albums than Stones? or that The Beatles are the most highly regarded band to ever exist? or that more people can tell you what The Beatles' newest release is (LET IT BE) but have no idea about the Stones' newest release (A BIGGER BANG)?
Shall I go on? Nah. It actually doesn't matter. In the real word. But in WhackOMole's little world he's continually collecting Rolling Stones baseball cards just so he can make sure he has more than the Beatles fan that has none - Beatles baseball cards that is.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
What "reign" do The Beatles have anyway? You must be confusing "reign" with "reality". Do you mean the reality that is more people know of The Beatles than The Rolling Stones? or that more people have bought Beatles albums than Stones? or that The Beatles are the most highly regarded band to ever exist? or that more people can tell you what The Beatles' newest release is (LET IT BE) but have no idea about the Stones' newest release (A BIGGER BANG)?
Shall I go on? Nah. It actually doesn't matter. In the real word. But in WhackOMole's little world he's continually collecting Rolling Stones baseball cards just so he can make sure he has more than the Beatles fan that has none - Beatles baseball cards that is.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
GumbootCloggeroo
()
Date: October 8, 2013 17:21
I wonder how many people have stopped coming to this message board because of JumpinJackOLantern's insane and annoying ramblings.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
michaelsavage
()
Date: October 8, 2013 20:15
Quote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
michaelsavageNamath had 3 very good years. That's It. and that's a fact. You can look it up.He completed 50% of his asses and his QB rating sucks[/quotQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
michaelsavageQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
michaelsavageStones are by far the greatest. It is not even close.Quote
NICOS
IMO there is no versus the Beatles they outdid them all
I agree that the Stones are the greatest, but it isn't a runaway. The Beatles were a tough nut to crack. Mick may not realize it, but when he walked off the stage at Glastonbury (and raised his index finger to the heavens) he was actually signaling the end of the Beatles reign! Reminded me of Joe Namath as he ran off the field after Super Bowl III. Long live the new kings of rock 'n roll!
Ironically joe Namath is one of the most overrated players ever. In fact he did not deserve the mvp of that game.he did nothing in that game.notice a trend? "Overrated"
Overrated? Only by new generation revisionists. Ask John Madden or Bill Walsh (when he was alive) if they thought Joe Namath was overrated. It was a different game back then. Today, the playing field is tilted heavily in favor of the passing game. Just about every Tom, Drew, and Harry, are throwing well above 60% these days. Namath had the most beautiful set up and one of the quickest releases ever. He was the first to throw for 4000 yards. He was as gutsy as they come and had to play on gimpy knees throughout his professional career. Because of that he had a very narrow window of excellence. If Namath was playing today (under today's rules, and with two healthy knees) he would be one of the best.
You obviously have no knowledge about how the game has changed over the decades.
I am an expert on the NFL. Which is how I have so much knowledge about Namath. SO how many great seasons DID he have?
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
keefriffhard4life
()
Date: October 8, 2013 20:34
Quote
michaelsavageQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
michaelsavageNamath had 3 very good years. That's It. and that's a fact. You can look it up.He completed 50% of his asses and his QB rating sucks[/quotQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
michaelsavageQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
michaelsavageStones are by far the greatest. It is not even close.Quote
NICOS
IMO there is no versus the Beatles they outdid them all
I agree that the Stones are the greatest, but it isn't a runaway. The Beatles were a tough nut to crack. Mick may not realize it, but when he walked off the stage at Glastonbury (and raised his index finger to the heavens) he was actually signaling the end of the Beatles reign! Reminded me of Joe Namath as he ran off the field after Super Bowl III. Long live the new kings of rock 'n roll!
Ironically joe Namath is one of the most overrated players ever. In fact he did not deserve the mvp of that game.he did nothing in that game.notice a trend? "Overrated"
Overrated? Only by new generation revisionists. Ask John Madden or Bill Walsh (when he was alive) if they thought Joe Namath was overrated. It was a different game back then. Today, the playing field is tilted heavily in favor of the passing game. Just about every Tom, Drew, and Harry, are throwing well above 60% these days. Namath had the most beautiful set up and one of the quickest releases ever. He was the first to throw for 4000 yards. He was as gutsy as they come and had to play on gimpy knees throughout his professional career. Because of that he had a very narrow window of excellence. If Namath was playing today (under today's rules, and with two healthy knees) he would be one of the best.
You obviously have no knowledge about how the game has changed over the decades.
I am an expert on the NFL. Which is how I have so much knowledge about Namath. SO how many great seasons DID he have?
you clearly have no clue what you are talking about. namath was throwing the ball more than most QBs back then when it was primarily a running league. terry bradshaws numbers are not that much better than namaths. bradshaws numbers are only better because the last 4-5 years he played the league had turned into more of a passing league
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: October 8, 2013 20:37
Quick, somebody change the thread title to Namath v Bradshaw. There could be another 12 pages in the making here.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: October 8, 2013 20:38
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
I wonder how many people have stopped coming to this message board because of JumpinJackOLantern's insane and annoying ramblings.
Not sure, but I guess we haven't stopped.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
michaelsavage
()
Date: October 8, 2013 20:38
Yes, funny. How about Namath vs Lamonica?
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: October 8, 2013 21:29
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
I wonder how many people have stopped coming to this message board because of JumpinJackOLantern's insane and annoying ramblings.
Who cares? I say good riddance to those that are so insecure that they have to label the opinions of others they disagree with as insane and annoying ramblings. I suggest you pack up your toys and go home. Either that, or grow up and accept the fact that this is a message board where all opinions are welcome.
Gumboot, I have told you (and others like you that also lack vision) repeatedly to just ignore my comments if they bother you so much. Why continue to torture yourself? Are you masochistic?
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: October 8, 2013 21:45
Quote
michaelsavageQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
michaelsavageNamath had 3 very good years. That's It. and that's a fact. You can look it up.He completed 50% of his asses and his QB rating sucks[/quotQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
michaelsavageQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
michaelsavageStones are by far the greatest. It is not even close.Quote
NICOS
IMO there is no versus the Beatles they outdid them all
I agree that the Stones are the greatest, but it isn't a runaway. The Beatles were a tough nut to crack. Mick may not realize it, but when he walked off the stage at Glastonbury (and raised his index finger to the heavens) he was actually signaling the end of the Beatles reign! Reminded me of Joe Namath as he ran off the field after Super Bowl III. Long live the new kings of rock 'n roll!
Ironically joe Namath is one of the most overrated players ever. In fact he did not deserve the mvp of that game.he did nothing in that game.notice a trend? "Overrated"
Overrated? Only by new generation revisionists. Ask John Madden or Bill Walsh (when he was alive) if they thought Joe Namath was overrated. It was a different game back then. Today, the playing field is tilted heavily in favor of the passing game. Just about every Tom, Drew, and Harry, are throwing well above 60% these days. Namath had the most beautiful set up and one of the quickest releases ever. He was the first to throw for 4000 yards. He was as gutsy as they come and had to play on gimpy knees throughout his professional career. Because of that he had a very narrow window of excellence. If Namath was playing today (under today's rules, and with two healthy knees) he would be one of the best.
You obviously have no knowledge about how the game has changed over the decades.
I am an expert on the NFL. Which is how I have so much knowledge about Namath. SO how many great seasons DID he have?
How many "snaps" (behind center) have you taken in your life? I have taken thousands.
You obviously didn't read the part where I said Namath had a very narrow window of excellence due to injuries. However, I believe he was all pro as late as 1972. That was the year he threw for over 400 yards twice. One of those games was a 496 yard six touchdown performance in a defeat of the great Johnny Unitas and the Baltimore Colts.
If Namath came into the league today with two sound knees and had the benefit of playing in a good system with a good supporting cast of receivers he could easily complete upwards of 65% of his passes. It's just a different game today with different rules all geared to increase scoring and pass efficiency.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
GumbootCloggeroo
()
Date: October 8, 2013 21:49
cute.Quote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
GumbootCloggeroo
I wonder how many people have stopped coming to this message board because of JumpinJackOLantern's insane and annoying ramblings.
Who cares? I say good riddance to those that are so insecure that they have to label the opinions of others they disagree with as insane and annoying ramblings. I suggest you pack up your toys and go home. Either that, or grow up and accept the fact that this is a message board where all opinions are welcome.
Gumboot, I have told you (and others like you that also lack vision) repeatedly to just ignore my comments if they bother you so much. Why continue to torture yourself? Are you masochistic?
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: October 8, 2013 21:54
Quote
michaelsavage
Yes, funny. How about Namath vs Lamonica?
Didn't they call Lamonica "The Mad Bomber"?
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: October 8, 2013 21:57
Quote
GumbootCloggeroocute.Quote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
GumbootCloggeroo
I wonder how many people have stopped coming to this message board because of JumpinJackOLantern's insane and annoying ramblings.
Who cares? I say good riddance to those that are so insecure that they have to label the opinions of others they disagree with as insane and annoying ramblings. I suggest you pack up your toys and go home. Either that, or grow up and accept the fact that this is a message board where all opinions are welcome.
Gumboot, I have told you (and others like you that also lack vision) repeatedly to just ignore my comments if they bother you so much. Why continue to torture yourself? Are you masochistic?
Well, if you are not embarrassed..........
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Deltics
()
Date: October 8, 2013 22:36
"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: October 8, 2013 22:52
Quote
Deltics
Very nice. Maybe we should just call it a tie and all go home happy?
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: October 9, 2013 03:48
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
I wonder how many people have stopped coming to this message board because of JumpinJackOLantern's insane and annoying ramblings.
I'm going to guess it's not a mystery.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: October 9, 2013 05:59
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
GumbootCloggeroo
I wonder how many people have stopped coming to this message board because of JumpinJackOLantern's insane and annoying ramblings.
I'm going to guess it's not a mystery.
You both realize that I didn't start this thread, right? And, long after I am gone (and I will be gone very soon) this subject will rise again and again. You guys really need to accept the fact that if you are going to hang around here for years this subject is going to come up on a regular basis.
You both think I am full of BS but I tell you exactly like I see it. Do you want me to tell you that I am kidding about the Sons of the Beatles? I would be lying if I told you that. I firmly believe it can happen. It should happen! And, I will do everything in my power to make it happen! It would bring joy to millions. Why would any decent person be opposed to something that would bring joy to millions? Just because you can't see something doesn't mean that others can't see it. So stop with your petty attacks.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: October 9, 2013 10:23
Quote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
GumbootCloggeroo
I wonder how many people have stopped coming to this message board because of JumpinJackOLantern's insane and annoying ramblings.
I'm going to guess it's not a mystery.
You both realize that I didn't start this thread, right? And, long after I am gone (and I will be gone very soon) this subject will rise again and again. You guys really need to accept the fact that if you are going to hang around here for years this subject is going to come up on a regular basis.
You both think I am full of BS but I tell you exactly like I see it. Do you want me to tell you that I am kidding about the Sons of the Beatles? I would be lying if I told you that. I firmly believe it can happen. It should happen! And, I will do everything in my power to make it happen! It would bring joy to millions. Why would any decent person be opposed to something that would bring joy to millions? Just because you can't see something doesn't mean that others can't see it. So stop with your petty attacks.
OK I agree that Skippy & Stompin' Tom need to settle down (Gumboot, where is your trademark Canadian tolerance?), but for the love of all that is sweet and good will you please stop it with the sons of beatles nonsense?
I enjoy a lot of your posts but when you keep going there you do yourself a disservice. I can even handle your idolization of James McCartney (although I don't get it...a put on perhaps?) and the 'Stones have finally surpassed the Beatles at Glastonbury' but leave those poor sons of
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
jjo
()
Date: October 9, 2013 16:06
Quote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
michaelsavage
Yes, funny. How about Namath vs Lamonica?
Didn't they call Lamonica "The Mad Bomber"?
Lamonica was the Mad Bomber.
But I like Kenny The Snake" Stabler better !!!!
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
michaelsavage
()
Date: October 10, 2013 20:15
Quote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
michaelsavage
Yes, funny. How about Namath vs Lamonica?
Didn't they call Lamonica "The Mad Bomber"?
Yes indeed. Bombs to Warren Wells, Fred Biletnikoff, et al
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
michaelsavage
()
Date: October 10, 2013 20:16
Quote
jjoQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
michaelsavage
Yes, funny. How about Namath vs Lamonica?
Didn't they call Lamonica "The Mad Bomber"?
Lamonica was the Mad Bomber.
But I like Kenny The Snake" Stabler better !!!!
The Snake was one of the best.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: October 11, 2013 05:02
Quote
michaelsavageQuote
jjoQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
michaelsavage
Yes, funny. How about Namath vs Lamonica?
Didn't they call Lamonica "The Mad Bomber"?
Lamonica was the Mad Bomber.
But I like Kenny The Snake" Stabler better !!!!
The Snake was one of the best.
Like Joe Willie, another Alabama QB.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: October 11, 2013 05:17
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
GumbootCloggeroo
I wonder how many people have stopped coming to this message board because of JumpinJackOLantern's insane and annoying ramblings.
I'm going to guess it's not a mystery.
You both realize that I didn't start this thread, right? And, long after I am gone (and I will be gone very soon) this subject will rise again and again. You guys really need to accept the fact that if you are going to hang around here for years this subject is going to come up on a regular basis.
You both think I am full of BS but I tell you exactly like I see it. Do you want me to tell you that I am kidding about the Sons of the Beatles? I would be lying if I told you that. I firmly believe it can happen. It should happen! And, I will do everything in my power to make it happen! It would bring joy to millions. Why would any decent person be opposed to something that would bring joy to millions? Just because you can't see something doesn't mean that others can't see it. So stop with your petty attacks.
OK I agree that Skippy & Stompin' Tom need to settle down (Gumboot, where is your trademark Canadian tolerance?), but for the love of all that is sweet and good will you please stop it with the sons of beatles nonsense?
I enjoy a lot of your posts but when you keep going there you do yourself a disservice. I can even handle your idolization of James McCartney (although I don't get it...a put on perhaps?) and the 'Stones have finally surpassed the Beatles at Glastonbury' but leave those poor sons ofbitchesbeatles alone!
I can't guarantee anything except that my one year is up at the stroke of midnight on Halloween night.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: October 11, 2013 05:43
Quote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
treaclefingersQuote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
GumbootCloggeroo
I wonder how many people have stopped coming to this message board because of JumpinJackOLantern's insane and annoying ramblings.
I'm going to guess it's not a mystery.
You both realize that I didn't start this thread, right? And, long after I am gone (and I will be gone very soon) this subject will rise again and again. You guys really need to accept the fact that if you are going to hang around here for years this subject is going to come up on a regular basis.
You both think I am full of BS but I tell you exactly like I see it. Do you want me to tell you that I am kidding about the Sons of the Beatles? I would be lying if I told you that. I firmly believe it can happen. It should happen! And, I will do everything in my power to make it happen! It would bring joy to millions. Why would any decent person be opposed to something that would bring joy to millions? Just because you can't see something doesn't mean that others can't see it. So stop with your petty attacks.
OK I agree that Skippy & Stompin' Tom need to settle down (Gumboot, where is your trademark Canadian tolerance?), but for the love of all that is sweet and good will you please stop it with the sons of beatles nonsense?
I enjoy a lot of your posts but when you keep going there you do yourself a disservice. I can even handle your idolization of James McCartney (although I don't get it...a put on perhaps?) and the 'Stones have finally surpassed the Beatles at Glastonbury' but leave those poor sons ofbitchesbeatles alone!
I can't guarantee anything except that my one year is up at the stroke of midnight on Halloween night.
we all know all that means is that you will shed the old cocoon (we'll never grow old and we'll never die) and that you'll rise like a phoenix from the ashes of burnt pumpkin and have evolved into a shiny and new stones fruit or vegetable.
I've got several suggestions if you have a few moments and are prepared to indulge me.
I give you:
Honky Tonk Watermelon,
She's So Cucumber,
Paint It, Aubergine
Wild Berries
She's a Rutabaga
Anybody Seen My Squash
Cherry Oh Baby (oh, wait...)
Tumbling Figs
Choose what you like but when you choose, make sure it is firm (squeeze it) and make sure it has a good vibrant colour (except if it's Paint It, Aubergine, then the darker the better).
Good luck and be sure to let us know what you choose!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
jmd , kowalski , laertisflash , michaj , mrfancyman , niki , Quique-stone , RobertJohnson , rockdriguez67 , stonesurvive , StonyRoad , TheBluesHadaBaby , Topi
Guests:
1828
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10