|
|
Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Salvador AstuciaSalvador Astucia
Date: Jan 7, 2007 20:29
White Shadow wrote:
> On 6 Jan 2007 21:32:50 -0800, "Salvador Astucia"
> cs.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>White Shadow wrote:
>>> Thought you might enjoy the article linked below. It may be old, but
>>> then so is Yoko.
>>>
>>> I can't help wondering if she'll ever understand that there's no crime
>>> in being 73, unless you try to act like you're 23. Or, to put it
>>> another way, there's no fool like an old fool.
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/y88upc
>>
>>How is Yoko trashing the notion of growing old gracefully? The article
>>you cited doesn't mention anything about that. She had a hit. How is
>>that trashing the notion of growing old gracefully?
>>
>>Salvador ...
|
| Show full article (1.08Kb) |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: Bernie WoodhamBernie Woodham
Date: Jan 7, 2007 20:29
> Bernie Woodham wrote:
>
>> you cannot sit there and LIE about how the United States did not want
>> Iran to lose and Iraq to win.
>
> You're forgetting about Iran-Contra. Operation Praying Mantis was only
> after Iran was attacking oil tankers in the Persian Gulf.
>
This is just stupid. The truth of Iran-Contra is unknown to this day, but
there is no way you can refer to this as "aid" to Iran. The first deal
seems to have been done in exchange for hostages and the second for money.
But both instances were illegal, were NOT government policy and it's never
been proven Reagan even knew about the sales.
For you to use this as evidence that the US was "aiding" Iran in their war
with Iraq shows your desperation for defending your position. Flimsy. Very
flimsy.
|
| Show full article (1.03Kb) |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: Salvador AstuciaSalvador Astucia
Date: Jan 7, 2007 20:21
F Parella wrote:
> Salvador Astucia wrote:
>>> Salvador Astucia wrote:
>>>> BlackMonk wrote:
>>>>> "Dale Houstman" skypoint.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:459E750B.3040400@skypoint.com...
>>>>>>> Confusing - you agree that it is a statement "of contempt...but not art"
>>>>>> and yet say that it is "using art"? There seems to be a lacuna there...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This argument has become a bit absurd. How many fallacies would you say are
>>>>> in the statement "This piece of modern art means A because the artist who
>>>>> created it said it means A?"
>>>>
>>>> I don't think John or Yoko have ever claimed the nude photo itself was
>>>> art. It was just the cover of their album, and if you didn't like the
>>>> album's music (frankly, I never listened to it, so I can't judge), then
>>>> that's fine.
>>>> ...
|
| Show full article (4.50Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: JimbaceJimbace
Date: Jan 7, 2007 20:20
> In reference to John swearing on Hey Jude, I've only been to hear it on
> the vinyl version with headphones. You have to listen with headphones,
> then it's audible, but barely. The radio show "Beatles Brunch"
> occasionally does a segment on it where they use a technique to isolate
> the vocal and it sounds like John, not Paul.
>
>
The words have always been easy to hear on the song. In fact I always
thought it was Paul saying something, but it was only recently that I
learned (and listened closer to hear) it was indeed swearing. Sounds like
John to me.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: Bernie WoodhamBernie Woodham
Date: Jan 7, 2007 20:13
> UsurperTom wrote:
>
>> they were tried by the Allies who beat them in a war
That is true. And the Allies formed the "International Military Tribunal"
for the trials. The authority of the courts were based on the unconditional
surrender given by the German high command.
For you to to just try to reword this seems a bit of sophistry.
>>and Adolf Eichmann was tried in an Israeli court.
This is irrelevant. The United States at no time had custody of Eichmann
and was not involved with the capture, transport, detainment, trial or
execution of Eichmann.
The United States DID have custody of Hussein. And they were involved with
all of the above in re Saddam Hussein.
|
| Show full article (1.33Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: Bill KawalecBill Kawalec
Date: Jan 7, 2007 20:04
>> Beatles weren't above lifting things, and that makes them no different
>> from many others. "Birthday" is also heavily influenced by a song
>> called "20-75", another obscure R&B tune by Willie Mitchell (see
>> here...http://www.blues.co.nz/news/article.php?id=197) that was top 40
>> in 1964. In fact, I lived in St Louis at the time of the "White Album"
>> release and when I first heard "Birthday" all my band members and
>> myself looked at each other and said...'Hey, that's 2075!" ;)
>
> Is there an mp3 of that somewhere?
>
> Re: "Birthday"...
|
| Show full article (1.07Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: CindyCindy
Date: Jan 7, 2007 18:22
'The Unseen Beatles'
'The Unseen Beatles' reveals the truth about why, at the height of
their fame in 1966, the world's first supergroup performed their last
live concert and never toured again. Liberation Entertainment will
release "The Unseen Beatles" the DVD on 22nd January 2007 to tie in
with the BBC Two 'Timewatch' programme, 'Beatlemania' airing on 9th
January 2007.
Featuring previously unseen home footage and behind-the-scenes news
film, this unique documentary tells the story of how four musicians
inspired the birth of the modern touring industry, firmly established
youth culture and then split at the height of their success. Those who
met the Beatles were struck by their ordinariness and approachability.
'The Unseen Beatles' includes their personal eye-witness accounts.
Contributors include the Beatles' former roadie, Ed Freeman; Barry
Tashian, from their support band, 'The Remains'; Tony Barrow, the
band's press officer from 1962 through to 1966; and Tony Bramwell, The
Beatles' road manager from 1967 to 1970.
|
| Show full article (1.23Kb) |
|
2 Comments |
|
  |
Author: Andrew SchulmanAndrew Schulman
Date: Jan 7, 2007 17:14
fishandchips wrote:
> Someone explain the illness called Astucia and is there a cure?
>
>
f&c-
Turns out Astucia isn't an illness, it's a business located in the UK.
http://www.astucia.co.uk/
Glad I could be of assistance.
Andrew
|
| |
|
1 Comment |
|
  |
Author: ulyssesulysses
Date: Jan 7, 2007 17:06
Heather now claims Macca "ruined her career." What career??
Heather Mills wants almost everything Macca owns
Jan 07 2007:
"Heather Mills says she wants four of Paul McCartney's homes as part of
their divorce settlement.
Heather reportedly told her attorney's that she's willing to fight for
all four properties, which are located in London, New York, Sussex and
Los Angeles.
Sources say Heather also expects a hell of a lot of cash as well as
annual "allowance" - all because she believes her marriage to McCartney
destroyed her career.
"Throughout the marriage Heather told her friends and people she worked
with that nothing good has come out of marrying Paul. She says before
she met him she used to earn loads of money but being with him
destroyed her earning potential," a source was quoted by the Mirror, as
saying.
|
| Show full article (1.40Kb) |
|
2 Comments |
|
  |
|
|
  |
Author: F ParellaF Parella
Date: Jan 7, 2007 16:20
Salvador Astucia wrote:
>> Salvador Astucia wrote:
>>> BlackMonk wrote:
>>>> "Dale Houstman" skypoint.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:459E750B.3040400@skypoint.com...
>>>>>> Confusing - you agree that it is a statement "of contempt...but not art"
>>>>> and yet say that it is "using art"? There seems to be a lacuna there...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This argument has become a bit absurd. How many fallacies would you say are
>>>> in the statement "This piece of modern art means A because the artist who
>>>> created it said it means A?"
>>>
>>> I don't think John or Yoko have ever claimed the nude photo itself was
>>> art. It was just the cover of their album, and if you didn't like the
>>> album's music (frankly, I never listened to it, so I can't judge), then
>>> that's fine.
>>>
>>> The photo reveals that both John and Yoko believed the human body ...
|
| Show full article (3.43Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|