> On Sep 3, 11:14 am, Me yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On Sep 3, 12:06 pm, Raja gmail.com> wrote:

>

>>> 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 -

>

>> People don't ignore your lists because they just love to tell you to

>

>> Fuck off Raja. And get me a cherry slurpy.- Hide quoted text -

>

>> - Show quoted text -

>
> SHUT THE FUCK UP- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -