> On Sep 3, 8:00 am, JohnB tinyworld.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On 3 Sep, 13:50, Raja gmail.com> wrote:

>

>>> On Sep 2, 10:13 pm, Dale Houstman skypoint.com> wrote:

>

>>>> Raja wrote:

>>>>> On Sep 2, 6:45 pm, Dale Houstman skypoint.com> wrote:

>

>>>>>>Raja wrote:

>

>>>>>>>On Sep 2, 8:36 am, Tracy_Bar...@frontiernet.net wrote:

>

>>>>>>>>On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 03:55:22 -0500, Dale Houstman skypoint.com>
>>>>>>>>wrote:

>

>>>>>>>>>Raja wrote:

>

>>>>>>>>>>Quite accurate list, this...

>

>>>>>>>>>What does "accurate" mean in a subjective evaluation?

>

>>>>>>>>Because he dreams that it is official.

>

>>>>>>>There is no official list. But reasonable ones.

>

>>>>>>How is this list "accurate" and "reasonable" beyond having the first
>>>>>>dozen or so be the usual suspects, whuich anyone could have achieved.

>

>>>>> Well the usual suspects are there, so fairly reasonable.

>

>>>> Sheesh - you're thick. Of course, the "usual suspects" are there
>>>> (surrounded by an abundance of also-rans and non-starters). But that
>>>> isn't the point is it? The point is how does this list of 150 bands
>>>> represent an accurate picture of the British Invasion once it leaves off
>>>> being an act of desperately boring obviousness? In other words - why is
>>>> this list posted AT ALL? It is either a dull millionth reiteration of
>>>> common knowledge or (as we move beyond 30 or so) a wildly subjective and
>>>> often highly debatable list. To be "accurate" it would have to include
>>>> EVERY band that had even the slightest connection with the so-called
>>>> "British Invasion" and - really - much of what is in the list doesn't
>>>> represent what most people mean by the term. It's a wide net that
>>>> catches a lot of mackerel. It's a mess from whatever angle one views it.

>

>>>> dmh

>

>>> Okay show us a better list then. What a wanker

>

>> A better list would be numbers 1 to 9 plus number 14 and call it a top
>> ten.  The whole point is that making the list that big makes it a bit
>> of a nonsense - and just because someone points that out quite
>> clearly, you think that entitles you to go in for childish name-
>> calling?  What a silly billy.- Hide quoted text -

>

>> - Show quoted text -

>
> What an asshole. You bitched about the list. I asked you whether you
> have a better list. You dodged the entire question. If your point is
> there shld never be any lists of any kind, then why dont you ignore
> list related threads?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -