Re: Definitions for J

J ([email protected])
Sun, 9 Aug 1998 23:52:34 -0700 (PDT)

>The 'silly 'binding' phrase is exactly what the word means, if you
>prefer a generic wattered down version, thenyour version has as much
>weight as a non-bonding appeal. :)

There you g again Rob, imposing your own definitions of arrogance to
Wire. Just because the rest of us don't follow your definition of the
word doesn't mean we are using "generic watered down versions".

>Simply said Luminous Times was far superior to Holy Joe, you prefer to
>use the word 'dirt' but that's your very own fabrication which we're
>used to.

Stop using your repetitive "simply said" phrases. It's never simple
when one deal with rational being who aren't robots like you and see
things black and white. Some people like some songs and some don't.
Some prefer With Or Without You over Bad and vice versa. Some would
think that Sweetest Thing should haev made the album over a particular
song, etc. Arguments like that go on forever simply because of
subjectivity. People have different opinions so respect them Rob.
It's not that simple to say one song is better than another.

>I gave credit to 90's U2 but not across the board, I'd just like to
>them take more creative risks and not play it safe.

You always seem to contradict yourself. Don't you think U2 is taking
more creative risks now than ever as evidenced by Pop? Well, the era
you worshipped (JT Era) was less of a creative risk than now because
they pretty much were a four man-band with now "experimental" loops,
syths etc. but of course I am not saying it is worse than Pop.

Argue sensibly Rob and straighten up. Your name is getting more
notorious on Wire nowadays..


Get your free address at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Sun Aug 09 1998 - 23:54:17 PDT