On Thu, 13 May 2010 14:04:40 -0700 (PDT), Neil X <neilxk@yahoo.com> wrote: On May 13, 4:24 pm, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote: On Thu, 13 May 2010 09:47:30 -0700 (PDT), Neil X <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote: People disagree with your interpretation, but it is an illogical leap on your part to suggest that folks here don't have empathy and understanding
On Thu, 13 May 2010 06:31:36 -0700 (PDT), marcman <marcmanstudios@gmail.com> wrote: On May 13, 12:26 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote: On Tue, 11 May 2010 14:09:01 -0700 (PDT), marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote: Dude, you should only fucking know what my "barrage of posts" would have looked like if I really didn't like you or was being
On Thu, 13 May 2010 05:44:01 -0700 (PDT), volkfolk <volkfolk1@verizon.net> wrote: As I've said numerous times before, and employee or proprietor listening to the radio for his own enjoyment IS NOT a commercial performance. Just because a bunch of lawyers sitting in a room say it is doesn't make it so. The airwaves are publicly owned and as a private business they have the right to listen
On Thu, 13 May 2010 11:12:21 +0200, Kirk McElhearn <kirkmc (at) mac (dot) wrote: On 2010-05-13 10:23:01 +0200, Pepe Papon <hitmeister@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> said: Wow. Just wow. It's truly amazing the extent to which people refuse to acknowledge that there songwriters are facing even an itty bitty little problem with the status quo. If it's that bad, find a
On Thu, 13 May 2010 06:48:53 -0700 (PDT), marcman <marcmanstudios@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you, Sherry, for being the first to actually answer the question. I didn't realize it would be such a stumper. Ohhhh, now I get it! Everybody else that answered the question not to your liking didn't actiually answer the question, but the one person that answered it the way you would
