roundhay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ..The comment that makes me finally delete IORR
> from my desktop..
>
> "Nowadays girls want wimps that go to Africa to
> help those skinny kids on telivision. "Hey look at
> me! I have sympathy for poor Africans kids!"
> d
> At least they are trying to bring the fate of
> thousands of children to the eyes and minds of the
> rest of the world....

Hey mate, it's great he's helping them. But actually exploiting those kids on television like that just makes me sick! Just like those stupid wristbands "hey look at me I paid 1 whole dollar for kids in Africa now i'm cool!!". Giving to charity is lovely, but exploiting it for yourself is just disgusting.

@#$%& U2. I hate them and hope they are never brought up on this board again. I just never liked their sound and still picture Bono with a mullet. And I never liked the band members. Not even close to the Stones. Now they are a big touring act and I see U2 as a rival to the Stones, like Yankees/Red Sox. So now I truely hate them.

"You'll be studying history and you'll be down the gym. And I'll be down the pub, probably playing pool and drinking."

A lot of closed-minded people on this board. U2 is an amazing band. They still write their own music and continue to have #1 albums and top singles. They get as much attention for touring as the Stones do. They are different musically than the Stones, but they are still very good. After 1989, U2 decided to embark on a journey that would allow them to dabble in more styles of music and they succeeded. If you asked any member of the Stones what they thought of U2 you'd get a positive response. If you asked anyone in the music industry what they thought of U2 u'd get a positive response. You guys are just jealous you can't sing as well as Bono or play guitar as well as the Edge. And don't any of you say they can't play or sing. You know damn well they can. U2 is a fabulous band and they will definitely be one of the most successful bands of all time. No one can deny that. They are just amazing. If you don't like U2 after 1987 you're stuck in a time warp. They still record fantastic albums and put on amazing shows. I respect U2 just as much as any band out there.

Oh and Aerosmith is a great band too. Don't dog on them. Steven Tyler is a very underrated songwriter and performer.

Maybe you didn't hear me, I said I don't like their sound. That doesn't make me closed minded. If I don't like U2 I am closed minded?

"You'll be studying history and you'll be down the gym. And I'll be down the pub, probably playing pool and drinking."

well mickjagger1009 i wasn't directly commenting on your comment, but i will say ur comment was quite harsh and sorta petty. maybe you just hate them because you know how damn good they are?

"u2 has released just a fraction of material compared to the rolling stones.
time will tell..."

It's a fairly large fraction when you consider that the Stones debuted on record 16 years before U2. The Stones have released 331 different songs on record since 1963 compared to U2's 198 since 1979.

U2 should be able to into their 60s, as long as that is what they want. They have been together with the same lineup for 29 years since their forming in September 1976.

Besides their continued great commercial success, a strong thing keeping them together is none of them want to make solo albums. The only U2 solo album is The Edge's soundtrack to the movie Captive which was 19 years ago.

Mick Jagger keeps on wanting to make solo albums, which has caused friction in the Stones. As long as Bono doesn't let his humanitarian work outside the band become too time consuming, U2 should be able to avoid all the friction that the Stones had in the 80s.