Yawl know that my opinion of your fearless leader -- is not -- well simply he isn't funny

[earlsi...@gmail.com]

And he keeps on proving it.I try to catch the opening of the show
and the top 10. Tell me with a str8 face ..that the Top 10 is still funny.
Good nite...We dont like to the fall from grace .. but it happens and oh
yes...the Dude is just tired. All in my opinion of course.

[Twibil]

Trolls like you are ten cents a dozen......and overpriced at that.

[R H Draney]

earlsi...@gmail.com filted:

Please answer me one question: why aren't you watching Leno?...r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Twibil]

On Thursday, September 27, 2012 3:23:23 AM UTC-7, R H Draney wrote:
>
>
> Please answer me one question: why aren't you watching Leno?...r

He's been chained to the wall of Dave's green room for the last three years, and the monitor only shows Dave re-runs; 24-7.

Wiseguy Hell.

[Marv]

Morehits4u from the glory days of AFL......good to see a familiar
face.....don't ever hesitate to come in here and complain about Dave
mailing it in.........always good to hear from you.

[Wiseguy]

R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote in
news:k419...@drn.newsguy.com:

The intolerance of Letterman fans here toward anyone who doesn't agree
with them is hilarious.

[Wiseguy]

Marv <mrv...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:b8499bdb-88f7-4d19...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

> On Sep 27, 1:16 pm, Twibil <nowayjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 3:23:23 AM UTC-7, R H Draney wrote:
>>
>> > Please answer me one question: why aren't you watching Leno?...r
>>
>> He's been chained to the wall of Dave's green room for the last three
>> yea
> rs, and the monitor only shows Dave re-runs; 24-7.
>>
>> Wiseguy Hell.

And the majority of the American audience.

[blowout preventer]

Wiseguy wrote: 'The intolerance of Letterman fans here toward anyone who

doesn't agree with them is hilarious. "

**************************************

That is what makes this such an odd discussion room.
I am quite sure many people have come into this room because they see
Letterman as a great comedian and TV personality -- whose show,
meanwhile, has had unbelievably bad writing for years ("Will it Float?"
etc) and the commensurate Nielsen ratings with it.
And when someone comes in here with the intention of addressing this
glaringly-serious problem, their concerns are rarely entertained nor
even tolerated.
Instead they are labeled as a troll, are told to change the channel,
etc.
This of course is a rude affront to the person who, innocently,
thought he was going to engage in a discussion with a group of people
who have similar interests, i.e. David Letterman. Critique the show, if
you will.
So then the new person, who doesn't have anything invested in this
group, snipes back at the offending party(s) -- and it's on from there.
And the more rude the regulars in here are, the more incensed the
newby gets at their rudeness (who probably would have otherwise simply
left right away). Hence he now sticks around to engage in smart-ass
banter with a group he has realized is actually not all that clever, and
it's pretty easy to piss them off. So call them trolls if you want --
but you have afforded them a troll's paradise.
And the show, meanwhile, has so many things wrong with it as to afford
an almost limitless amount of ammunition -- trolls paradise.
Not to mention the obvious: you keep reading their posts and
responding to them. And most of your replies are so un-clever that it
provokes another slam, etc.
And as I said, many people probably who came in here probably really
liked Letterman and were interested in discussing how the show could be
made better -- but you guys won't hear it. It really is pathetic.

[Twibil]

On Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:59:15 PM UTC-7, Wiseguy wrote:
>
>
> The intolerance of Letterman fans here toward anyone who doesn't agree
> with them is hilarious.

Um, you keep on endlessly repeating that nobody here -Letterman included- is *ever* funny, but now suddenly you find AFL "hilarious"?

You need to either look up "hilarious" or make up your mind.

[R H Draney]

Wiseguy filted:

This is not about agree or disagree...this is not about fans or not fans...this
is not about tolerance or intolerance...this is not about funny or not
funny...this is not about tired or not tired....

I simply want earlsigoloff to give me a simple answer to a simple question:

If you don't like Letterman, why are you watching him instead of something else?

....r

[lpfeffa]

Anyway, I thought Donz was our fearless leader.

[Wiseguy]

R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote in

news:k454n...@drn.newsguy.com:

Maybe he doesn't like anything better. Maybe he likes the hot
newscaster on the news preceding Letterman and is too lazy to change the
station. Could be any number of reasons.

[Twibil]

On Friday, September 28, 2012 10:55:10 PM UTC-7, Wiseguy wrote:
>
>
> Maybe he doesn't like anything better. Maybe he likes the hot
>
> newscaster on the news preceding Letterman and is too lazy to change the
>
> station. Could be any number of reasons.

Could be.

But nobody asked you a question.

[R H Draney]

Wiseguy filted:
>
>R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote in
>news:k454n...@drn.newsguy.com:
>
>> Wiseguy filted:
>>>
>>>R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote in
>>>news:k419...@drn.newsguy.com:
>>>
>>>> earlsi...@gmail.com filted:
>>>>>
>>>>>And he keeps on proving it.I try to catch the opening of the show
>>>>>and the top 10. Tell me with a str8 face ..that the Top 10 is still
>>>>>funny. Good nite...We dont like to the fall from grace .. but it
>>>>>happens and oh yes...the Dude is just tired. All in my opinion of
>>>>>course.
>>>>
>>>> Please answer me one question: why aren't you watching Leno?...r
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>The intolerance of Letterman fans here toward anyone who doesn't agree
>>>with them is hilarious.
>>
>> This is not about agree or disagree...this is not about fans or not
>> fans...this is not about tolerance or intolerance...this is not about
>> funny or not funny...this is not about tired or not tired....
>>
>> I simply want earlsigoloff to give me a simple answer to a simple
>> question:
>>
>> If you don't like Letterman, why are you watching him instead of
>> something else?
>

>Maybe he doesn't like anything better. Maybe he likes the hot
>newscaster on the news preceding Letterman and is too lazy to change the
>station. Could be any number of reasons.

This, I failed to add, is not about maybe, nor is it about "could be"....r

[Wiseguy]

R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote in

news:k4641...@drn.newsguy.com:

You also fail to be clever or funny in any way.

Sarcastic, yes. Funny, no.
And sarcastic is not something to be proud of the way you wear it like
a badge.

I answered your question. Deal with it.

[Twibil]

On Saturday, September 29, 2012 5:05:25 AM UTC-7, Wiseguy wrote:
>
>
> I answered your question. Deal with it.

Only problem is, the question was asked of the OP, not of Wiseguy; which leaves us with only two possibilities:

1.) Earlsigiloff *IS* Wiseguy, posting under different names -which, knowing Wiseguy, is not only possible but quite likely. (Unlike real life, you can be your own crowd of sycophants on Usenet with ease.)

2.) He really *does* think of himself as being plural -or that he speaks for everyone else; which explains his constant use of phrases such as "we think", "everyone knows", and "you've showed everyone here".

Can you say "personality disorder"?

[R H Draney]

You didn't answer it, you just offered a couple of guesses...if a cop pulls you
over and asks "have you been drinking tonight?", saying "maybe I like to drink"
and "maybe there are people on this highway who have been drinking" does not
qualify as an answer....

At any rate, I didn't ask *you* for an answer, and I've had no answer at all
from the person I did ask....

There's no sarcasm involved...it's a very simple matter, and I'm genuinely
puzzled:

1. earlsigoloff watches Dave.
2. earlsigoloff doesn't like Dave.
3. Why, given point number 2, is point number 1 true?

[Twibil]

On Saturday, September 29, 2012 3:33:36 PM UTC-7, R H Draney wrote:
>
>
> There's no sarcasm involved...it's a very simple matter, and I'm genuinely
> puzzled:
>
> 1. earlsigoloff watches Dave.
>
> 2. earlsigoloff doesn't like Dave.
>
> 3. Why, given point number 2, is point number 1 true?

A crippling case of masochism?

[Jess Band-EE-Coot]

No one owes you or anyone else an explanation as to *why* they watch Dave,
and to demand an answer to such a question is not only invasive, it's
also irrelevant to the discussion.

The point of the group is to DISCUSS David Letterman.
Endless sycophantic praise is not a "discussion" per se.




--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Did you ever once show me any kind of friendship?
Ask my help with a personal problem?
Include me in one of your little bull sessions?
Can you imagine what it feels like to walk by this tent
and hear you laughing and know... that I'm not welcome?
Did you ever once offer me a lousy cup of coffee?"
-- Major Margaret Houlihan "M*A*S*H" ("The Nurses")
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Twibil]

On Saturday, September 29, 2012 8:01:35 PM UTC-7, Jess Band-EE-Coot wrote:
>
>
> >>>>>>> Please answer me one question: why aren't you watching Leno?...r
>

> No one owes you or anyone else an explanation as to *why* they watch Dave,
>
> and to demand an answer to such a question is not only invasive, it's
>
> also irrelevant to the discussion.

Jess, try telling the truth for once. (It's how you earn respect. Something that you seem to want very badly.)

Politely asking a question -see "please"; above- isn't "demanding" anything, it doesn't assume that anything is owed, it isn't "invasive", and it isn't "irrelevant" either.

It's just an honest question being asked by a poster who'd like to know the answer to an obvious question, and you don't get to frame a Usenet thread you didn't even originate so that everyone else has to post according to rules that you've just made up on the spot.

Sheesh.

[Wiseguy]

R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote in

news:k47sv...@drn.newsguy.com:

Which is still an answer.

> if a cop
> pulls you over and asks "have you been drinking tonight?", saying
> "maybe I like to drink" and "maybe there are people on this highway
> who have been drinking" does not qualify as an answer....
>

Irrelevant. The cop would be asking me about my behavior directly. I
wouldn't answer with a question. I was giving supposed reasons for
earlsigoloff watching Dave. Which is still an answer to your question.

> At any rate, I didn't ask *you* for an answer, and I've had no answer
> at all from the person I did ask....

Last I checked, you didn't own the internet. I can answer any question
I want, whether directed at me or not. I don't need your permission.
You can complain if you've never answered a question not directed to
you. Answer "Yes I have" or you're lying.


>
> There's no sarcasm involved...


To quote you: "Yeah, right." Sarcasm is your middle name and you're
very proud of it.

> It's a very simple matter, and I'm

> genuinely puzzled:
>
> 1. earlsigoloff watches Dave.
> 2. earlsigoloff doesn't like Dave.
> 3. Why, given point number 2, is point number 1 true?
>
> ....r
>
>

And I answered the question. As I said, deal with it.

[Twibil]

On Saturday, September 29, 2012 11:10:46 PM UTC-7, Wiseguy wrote:
>
>
> And I answered the question. As I said, deal with it.

The sad part is that he really and truly doesn't understand why he can't answer questions for other people. It's as if he thinks everyone else is automatically going to answer the same way he does, so *his* answer is going to be the same as if they had said it themselves. Sort of the ultimate step in self-entitlement: "I'm answering the question in his place and you have no right to question that."

One of the smartest guys I know defines "fanatic" not in terms of politics or religion but by pointing out that all fanatics share two things in common:

1.) They have absolutely no doubt that they are right about everything that matters.

2.) Deep down inside they really truly believe that everyone else (who matters) thinks exactly the same way that they do......if only they'd admit it.

[Jess Band-EE-Coot]

Lead by example and stop your *own* lies and fabrications.
Making rules for what *I* can or can't do? Sheesh!

My statement contained no "rules", as you call them.
Rule: No smoking except outside
Statement: Everything you say is bullshit.

What I said was that anyone who comes here should not feel any
obligation to justify why they are here to you, or anyone else.

[Twibil]

On Sunday, September 30, 2012 6:09:49 PM UTC-7, Jess Band-EE-Coot wrote:
>
>
> Lead by example and stop your *own* lies and fabrications.

Lies? Fabrications? Plese provide examples.

> Making rules for what *I* can or can't do? Sheesh!

Um, so what's sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander? I.E. you can do it but others can't?

I was but following your lead, and now you claim that you don't like it when someone does it to you.

Note: Please don't try to claim that you weren't trying to tell Ser Drainey how he should be posting when you said "No one owes you or anyone else an explanation as to *why* they watch Dave, and to demand an answer to such a question is not only invasive, it's also irrelevant to the discussion."

Understanding your intent isn't exactly difficult. You were telling him he shouldn't have asked the question, and rationalizing it in any other way is what we call "making an excuse".

[Jess Band-EE-Coot]

Look, I don't give a rat's ass about your little interpretations of my
comments. You'd argue an apple isn't sweet just to hear yourself prattle on.

I can post whatever I like, and if I feel like calling someone out for
implying someone doesn't "deserve" to post here, then I will do so.
As I said, NO ONE owes YOU or any other ninny here an explanation as to
why they watch the show.

End of story.

[Twibil]

On Monday, October 1, 2012 5:28:07 PM UTC-7, Jess Band-EE-Coot wrote:
>
>
> >> Lead by example and stop your *own* lies and fabrications.
>
> > Lies? Fabrications? Plese provide examples.
>

> Look, I don't give a rat's ass about your little interpretations of my
>
> comments. You'd argue an apple isn't sweet just to hear yourself prattle on.

Oh, but wait! You were just about to provide examples of my "lies and fabrications", Jess; and you seem to have forgotton all about that for some reason.

You wouldn't want people to think you were just making things up again, would you?

[Wiseguy]

Jess Band-EE-Coot <BandE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:506a3502$0$1236$607e...@cv.net:

Twibil loses again.

[Twibil]

On Monday, October 1, 2012 8:09:27 PM UTC-7, Wiseguy wrote:
>
>
> Twibil loses again.

<G>

[Jess Band-EE-Coot]

Actually he wins ... at being "The Biggest Twat on AFL",
a title previously held for several years by Steve Curtis.

[Steve Curtis]

"Jess Band-EE-Coot" wrote:

>Wiseguy wrote:

>>Twibil loses again.

>Actually he wins ... at being "The Biggest
>Twat on AFL", a title previously held for
>several years by Steve Curtis.

Posting insults doesn't help your credibility.

Didn't then, and doesn't now.

[Twibil]

On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 7:57:44 PM UTC-7, Jess Band-EE-Coot wrote:
>
>
> > Twibil loses again.
>
> Actually he wins ... at being "The Biggest Twat on AFL",
>
> a title previously held for several years by Steve Curtis.

Dear Jess,

Contrary to what many people think, the intellectual potential we were born with is not the true measure of our ignorance or intelligence as individuals. Instead, it's how well we've learned to *use* whatever potential we were originally gifted with.

People who consistently repeat the same actions over and over again -when those actions invariably lead to negative outcomes- can be said to have a very slow learning curve, and thus are not terribly bright -no matter how high their IQs might be. Similarly, folks who are easily able to redirect their ineffective actions to get results they enjoy can be said to be quite intelligent indeed -even though their IQs might be rated considerably lower than those of group number one.

All of which means it's incumbent upon each of us to ask ourselves from time to time whether or not we're getting what we want out of our lives, and, if the answer is "no", consider what it is that we might have been doing wrong and how we might go about correcting it.

Since -for example- you've recently been complaining about being excluded from the AFL group, I'd suggest that you might profit from seeking a little insight as to exactly why that might be and how you might go about changing it. And since you cannot make everyone else change to get the results you claim to want, it's going to have to be you that changes.

If your immediate reaction is that you don't want to change, you cannot change, or that you should not *have* to change, then you need to understand that being included in the main AFL group is simply not high enough on your list of priorities to be worth your spending so much time and worry on the subject. People who truly *want* something are invariably willing to work towards that goal, and work invariably involves self-sacrifice of one sort or another.

Those who are not willing to work, who think they should be automatically entitled to have whatever it is that they want -and who blame everyone else for their failures to get it- generally never get the things that they want in life because they are, alas, among the very slow learners; no matter how bright they may be.

~Pete

[Jess Band-EE-Coot]

Nice speech but you've mistaken me for someone who gives a crap.

[Jess Band-EE-Coot]

I think I'll get by without your love.

[Steve Curtis]

"Jess Band-EE-Coot" wrote:

>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>"Jess Band-EE-Coot" wrote:

>>>Wiseguy wrote:


>>>>Twibil loses again.

>>>Actually he wins ... at being "The
>>>Biggest Twat on AFL", a title
>>>previously held for several years by
>>>Steve Curtis.

>>Posting insults doesn't help your
>>credibility.

>>Didn't then, and doesn't now.

>I think I'll get by without your love.

Ask me if I give a rat's ass about how you'll get by.

[Twibil]

On Thursday, October 4, 2012 10:51:08 PM UTC-7, Jess Band-EE-Coot wrote:
>
>
> Nice speech but you've mistaken me for someone who gives a crap.

Oh, but you do.

Otherwise you'd never have complained to AFL in general about being left behind when most everyone else decamped to Facebook, and you *certainly* wouldn't have ever adopted your pity-party MASH sig line. ("Denial ain't just a river in Egypt" -Stuart Smalley)

You remind me of an advanced guitar student I taught not too long ago.

She was an *extremely* talented song writer and a gifted singer who wanted to take her already more-than-adequate guitar skills up to the next level in anticipation of going full-time professional, and I taught her for several months. She was also a lesbian of the lumberjack persuasion; who invariably shunned makeup, sported a blonde crew cut, dressed in work boots, levis, and plaid flannel shirts, smoked cigars, and cussed like a trooper.

After a couple of months of lessons she confided to me that she'd been auditioning at clubs all over southern California for the past year and asked me why I thought she never got any gigs. (Do you see it coming?)

I told her the same thing the best booker in las Vegas once told me when I asked her how I could get out of playing the casino lounges and break into the big showrooms. She said "You've got to recognise that "business" is the most important word in the phrase "show business", and that's why you're never going to get into the showrooms. "The casinos are selling a product, that product has a certain glossy 'Vegas' look, and you don't have that look and you never will. "It isn't that you aren't a good enough performer; you are. "It's just that you aren't the sort of product they want to sell".
(She was absolutely on the money, and after I thought about it for a while I was grateful to her that she'd prevented me from beating my head against an unyielding wall and getting depressed because I'd unknowingly chosen the wrong target.)

But my guitar student absolutely refused to believe that her image was keeping her from being hired by mainstream venues, and in fact said that she didn't see why she should have to compromise her lifestyle in order to get work.

Eventually she went her way, still complaining that her talent was being ignored by the Phillistines who ran the music venues (and she was right about that) but completly failing to understand that entertainers are a product and that packaging counts for a lot when you put yourself out there on the market. (Rachel Maddow understands this concept perfectly and has done well for herself thereby.)

Fact is, if you can get what you want by compromising -and yet refuse to do so- you didn't really want the goal all that badly to begin with.

~Pete

[Donz5]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 3:51:40 AM UTC-4, Twibil wrote, in part:

> Eventually she went her way, still complaining that her talent was being ignored by the Phillistines who ran the music venues (and she was right about that) but completly failing to understand that entertainers are a product and that packaging counts for a lot when you put yourself out there on the market. (Rachel Maddow understands this concept perfectly and has done well for herself thereby.)

I think most successful artists understand this concept. You alluded to Rachel Maddow. I'd offer The Beatles, who, against their own natural instincts, acceded to Epstein's managerial sense and replaced their leather jackets for suits. Even the Stones, considered way back then as "the bad boys," wore suits early on, then quickly abandoned them once their success began to take hold.

Have you kept up with your student? Is she playing anywhere?

[Twibil]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 8:02:22 AM UTC-7, Donz5 wrote:
>
>
> I think most successful artists understand this concept.
> You alluded to Rachel Maddow. I'd offer The Beatles,
> who, against their own natural instincts, acceded to
> Epstein's managerial sense and replaced their leather
> jackets for suits. Even the Stones, considered way back
> then as "the bad boys," wore suits early on, then quickly
> abandoned them once their success began to take hold.

The Beatles also did a lot of covers on their early recordings; including a McCartney version of "'Til There Was You" (!) and realistically waited until they'd built a solid fan base before venturing into all-original territory.
It was a good marketing decision (probably Epstein's) but I still get a chuckle when I listen to my old Beatles albums and hear Paul warbling a broadway show tune... :-D

> Have you kept up with your student? Is she playing anywhere?

Last I heard she'd moved to West Hollywood and faded into the gay club scene. If she's working anywhere I'm not aware of it; and that's a pity.

~Pete

[R H Draney]

Twibil filted:

>
>On Friday, October 5, 2012 8:02:22 AM UTC-7, Donz5 wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think most successful artists understand this concept.
>> You alluded to Rachel Maddow. I'd offer The Beatles,
>> who, against their own natural instincts, acceded to
>> Epstein's managerial sense and replaced their leather
>> jackets for suits. Even the Stones, considered way back
>> then as "the bad boys," wore suits early on, then quickly
>> abandoned them once their success began to take hold.
>
>The Beatles also did a lot of covers on their early recordings; including a
>McCartney version of "'Til There Was You" (!) and realistically waited until
>they'd built a solid fan base before venturing into all-original territory.
>It was a good marketing decision (probably Epstein's) but I still get a chuckle
>when I listen to my old Beatles albums and hear Paul warbling a broadway show
>tune... :-D

I'll bet it's not half the chuckle I get when I slip on the "Silver Beatles"
collection and hear George doing "The Sheik of Araby" or Paul on "Besame
Mucho"....r

[lpfeffa]

I have Ringo's "Sentimental Journey" album - where he
recorded all his Mum's fave songs. Fab!

[Twibil]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 4:05:44 PM UTC-7, R H Draney wrote:
>
>
> > I still get a chuckle when I listen to my old Beatles albums
> > and hear Paul warbling a broadway show tune... :-D

>
> I'll bet it's not half the chuckle I get when I slip on the "Silver Beatles"
>
> collection and hear George doing "The Sheik of Araby" or Paul on "Besame
>
> Mucho"....r

There's an argument to be made that it was the Fab Four's catholic tastes in music which enabled them to write so many tunes later on that explored new musical territory -at least for Rock. "Live and Let Die", for instance, isn't much like anything that had gone before.

When you borrow from one composer it's called plagiarism. When you borrow from several dozen it's called "research".

~Pete

[Donz5]

It is a pity.

Turns out that the Beatles' rendition of "Til There Was You" was actually a musical tour de force for Paul -- check out their Royal Variety Performance from early November '63 and watch how he checks his bass playing during analogous sections in the song, making sure he doesn't screw it up. To both sing a melody like that and play a bass line like that takes some real brain/vocal chords/fingers coordination. That boy had talent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUUUJLaSNOs

[Donz5]

Though that was Paul's post-Beatles composition written especially for the Bond film. And I can't listen to the song without cringing at his immortal line, "world in which we live in."

[Twibil]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 8:54:43 PM UTC-7, Donz5 wrote:
>
>
> That boy had talent.

??

"Had"? <G>

[Twibil]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 8:57:45 PM UTC-7, Donz5 wrote:
>
>
> > "Live and Let Die", for instance, isn't much like anything that had gone before.
>

> I can't listen to the song without cringing at his immortal line, "world in which we live in."

Boy! If it bothers you all that much you'd probably *really* hate hearing the song done as part of a clawhammer banjo medely...

http://www.banjohangout.org/myhangout/music.asp?id=54939

~Pete

[R H Draney]

lpfeffa filted:

>
>On 10/5/2012 7:05 PM, R H Draney wrote:
>> Twibil filted:

>>>It was a good marketing decision (probably Epstein's) but I still get a chuckle
>>>when I listen to my old Beatles albums and hear Paul warbling a broadway show
>>> tune... :-D
>>
>> I'll bet it's not half the chuckle I get when I slip on the "Silver Beatles"
>> collection and hear George doing "The Sheik of Araby" or Paul on "Besame
>> Mucho"....r
>>
>>
>I have Ringo's "Sentimental Journey" album - where he
>recorded all his Mum's fave songs. Fab!

I was in Fry's Electronics earlier tonight picking up a hard-drive enclosure and
spent even more time digging through the $5 CD bins...if I didn't already own a
copy, it would have been a great time to pick up "A Little Touch of Schmilsson
in the Night" which has a similar format....

As it was, I bought discs by Simon and Garfunkle, Will Smith, Shel Silverstein,
and the Box Tops (and considered, but passed over some by Les Paul, Sinatra, the
Kinks, A Flock of Seagulls and Jerry Reed)...nobody can say my musical taste is
one-sided....r

[lpfeffa]

But at least Harry could sing. Ringo was/is my favorite
Beatle, but I was always aware of his limitations. ;-)

[Donz5]

Pe

Pete, I went to the site but couldn't find L&LD in there. The songs are in alphabetical order, and it skips from "Laura's Theme" to "Memphis Tennessee."

[Rod Fernandez]

> It is a pity.
>
> Turns out that the Beatles' rendition of "Til There Was You" was actually a musical tour de force for Paul -- check out their Royal Variety Performance from early November '63 and watch how he checks his bass playing during analogous sections in the song, making sure he doesn't screw it up. To both sing a melody like that and play a bass line like that takes some real brain/vocal chords/fingers coordination. That boy had talent.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUUUJLaSNOs

Sophie Tucker would agree.

[Twibil]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 3:53:24 AM UTC-7, Lucy wrote:
>
>
> Ringo was/is my favorite Beatle, but I was always aware of his limitations. ;-)

Fortunately, so was he...

[Twibil]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 10:08:44 AM UTC-7, Donz5 wrote:
>
>
> Pete, I went to the site but couldn't find L&LD in there. The songs are in alphabetical order, and it skips from "Laura's Theme" to "Memphis Tennessee."

Whoops, sorry.

It's under "The Spy Medely": Secret Agent Man, the James Bond theme, and Live & Let Die.

This is what musicians do when they're bored: Try to figure out how to play something that's completely unsuited to whatever instrument they happen to be holding at the time.

~Pete

[Jess Band-EE-Coot]

Then why bother responding?

[Jess Band-EE-Coot]

On 10/5/2012 3:51 AM, Twibil wrote:
> On Thursday, October 4, 2012 10:51:08 PM UTC-7, Jess Band-EE-Coot wrote:
>>
>>
>> Nice speech but you've mistaken me for someone who gives a crap.
>
> Oh, but you do.

Don't proceed to tell someone else how they feel.
It's a sure way to lose an argument.

[Donz5]

Ah, there it is. I love it! Any competent banjo player has my utmost respect, regardless of the tune.

[Steve Curtis]

"Jess Band-EE-Coot" wrote:

>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>"Jess Band-EE-Coot" wrote:

>>>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>>>"Jess Band-EE-Coot" wrote:

>>>>>Wiseguy wrote:

>>>>>>Twibil loses again.

>>>>>Actually he wins ... at being "The
>>>>>Biggest Twat on AFL", a title
>>>>>previously held for several years by
>>>>>Steve Curtis.

>>>>Posting insults doesn't help your
>>>>credibility.

>>>>Didn't then, and doesn't now.

>>>I think I'll get by without your love.

>>Ask me if I give a rat's ass about how
>>you'll get by.

>Then why bother responding?

Why bother responding to my response?

[Twibil]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 2:35:25 PM UTC-7, Jess Band-EE-Coot wrote:
>
>
> >> Nice speech but you've mistaken me for someone who gives a crap.
>
> > Oh, but you do.
>
> Don't proceed to tell someone else how they feel.
>
> It's a sure way to lose an argument.

Your fingers may type no-no-no, but your actions say yes-yes-yes.

And haven't you learned *anything* from reading Wiseguy's repeated Charlie Sheen claims of having "won"?

[Twibil]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 3:34:03 PM UTC-7, Donz5 wrote:
>
>
> Ah, there it is. I love it! Any competent banjo player has my utmost respect, regardless of the tune.

Gee! You suppose I might be up for the Steve Martin prize next year? :P

~Pete

[Wiseguy]

Jess Band-EE-Coot <BandE...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:5070a41d$0$9807
$607e...@cv.net:

> On 10/5/2012 3:51 AM, Twibil wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 4, 2012 10:51:08 PM UTC-7, Jess Band-EE-Coot
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Nice speech but you've mistaken me for someone who gives a crap.
>>
>> Oh, but you do.
>
> Don't proceed to tell someone else how they feel.
> It's a sure way to lose an argument.
>
>
>

Twibil loses again.

[Jess Band-EE-Coot]

You really are an infant.

[Jess Band-EE-Coot]

The only losers here are the old regulars who refuse to allow open
discourse about the show.

Is there a place where people actually want to talk about THE SHOW and
not bicker about how big their dicks are?

[Wiseguy]

Jess Band-EE-Coot <BandE...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:5073a102$0$6059$607e...@cv.net:

> On 10/6/2012 8:34 PM, Twibil wrote:
>> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 2:35:25 PM UTC-7, Jess Band-EE-Coot
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Nice speech but you've mistaken me for someone who gives a crap.
>>>
>>>> Oh, but you do.
>>>
>>> Don't proceed to tell someone else how they feel.
>>>
>>> It's a sure way to lose an argument.
>>
>> Your fingers may type no-no-no, but your actions say yes-yes-yes.
>>
>> And haven't you learned *anything* from reading Wiseguy's repeated
>> Charlie Sheen claims of having "won"?
>
>
> The only losers here are the old regulars who refuse to allow open
> discourse about the show.
>
> Is there a place where people actually want to talk about THE SHOW and
> not bicker about how big their dicks are?
>

I win because Twibil loses...always.

[Steve Curtis]

"Jess Band-EE-Coot" wrote:

>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>"Jess Band-EE-Coot" wrote:

>>>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>>>"Jess Band-EE-Coot" wrote:

>>>>>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>>>>>"Jess Band-EE-Coot" wrote:

>>>>>>>Wiseguy wrote:

>>>>>>>>Twibil loses again.

>>>>>>>Actually he wins ... at being "The
>>>>>>>Biggest Twat on AFL", a title
>>>>>>>previously held for several years
>>>>>>>by Steve Curtis.

>>>>>>Posting insults doesn't help your
>>>>>>credibility.

>>>>>>Didn't then, and doesn't now.

>>>>>I think I'll get by without your love.

>>>>Ask me if I give a rat's ass about how
>>>>you'll get by.

>>>Then why bother responding?

>>Why bother responding to my
>>response?

>You really are an infant.

You really are clueless.

[Twibil]

On Monday, October 8, 2012 10:05:32 PM UTC-7, Wiseguy wrote:
>
>
> I win because Twibil loses...always.

It must be nice to live in Cloud-Cuckoo Land along with Charlie Sheen and all those other winners.

[Twibil]

On Monday, October 8, 2012 8:58:58 PM UTC-7, Jess Band-EE-Coot wrote:
>
>
> The only losers here are the old regulars who refuse to allow open
> discourse about the show.

No, Jess; that's a lie. There's no such thing as "allow" on Usenet. You can post absolutely anything you wish, do it as often as you like, and no one can prevent you from doing so. (And the fact that you'd use the word "allow" in this context demonstrates that you're picturing yourself as the helpless victim here, which is hardly the case.)

The real translation of your plaint is "Nobody here will do what I tell them to do, so I'll try my best to ruin it for everyone else." (Insert foot-stamping and anguished tears a-la Houlihan.)

> Is there a place where people actually want to talk about THE SHOW and
> not bicker about how big their dicks are?

And of course trying to play the tough bull-dyke type *always* makes people want to be your friends and play with you according to your own rules. Good thinking.

Sigh.

[Donz5]

On Monday, October 8, 2012 11:58:58 PM UTC-4, Jess Band-EE-Coot wrote:
> Is there a place where people actually want to talk about THE SHOW and
>
> not bicker about how big their dicks are?

Yes, there is.

[Jess Band-EE-Coot]

That all sounds great on paper, however, you are a prime example of
someone with zero tolerance for dissension and "Freedom to post
whatever". Practice what you preach.

[Jess Band-EE-Coot]

And you'll prattle on for the sole reason of getting the last word in,
regardless of the fact that you have nothing to say. Ever.

[Twibil]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 8:49:09 PM UTC-7, Jess Band-EE-Coot wrote:
>
>
> That all sounds great on paper, however, you are a prime example of
> someone with zero tolerance for dissension and "Freedom to post
> whatever". Practice what you preach.

You are confusing the freedom to post what you like -which you have- with the freedom to post what you like -and have nobody ever tell you that you're wrong.

The self-entitled notion that people should only be allowed to do what Jess wants outlines exactly what's wrong with you.

[Steve Curtis]

And you do have something to say? Give me a break. The only things you
have to say are juvenile insults and name calling for those that
disagree with you. Don't believe me? Let Google Groups archives for your
AFL posting history be your enlightenment as well as your response to
"Wiseguy" above, bringing my name into it, complete with insult. You
brought it on Babycakes.

[Wiseguy]

Jess Band-EE-Coot <BandE...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:5074f035$0$9816$607e...@cv.net:

> On 10/9/2012 2:50 AM, Twibil wrote:
>> On Monday, October 8, 2012 8:58:58 PM UTC-7, Jess Band-EE-Coot wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The only losers here are the old regulars who refuse to allow open
>>> discourse about the show.
>>
>> No, Jess; that's a lie. There's no such thing as "allow" on Usenet.
>> You can post absolutely anything you wish, do it as often as you
>> like, and no one can prevent you from doing so. (And the fact that
>> you'd use the word "allow" in this context demonstrates that you're
>> picturing yourself as the helpless victim here, which is hardly the
>> case.)
>>
>> The real translation of your plaint is "Nobody here will do what I
>> tell them to do, so I'll try my best to ruin it for everyone else."
>> (Insert foot-stamping and anguished tears a-la Houlihan.)
>>
>>> Is there a place where people actually want to talk about THE SHOW
>>> and not bicker about how big their dicks are?
>>
>> And of course trying to play the tough bull-dyke type *always* makes
>> people want to be your friends and play with you according to your
>> own rules. Good thinking.
>>
>> Sigh.
>
>
> That all sounds great on paper, however, you are a prime example of
> someone with zero tolerance for dissension and "Freedom to post
> whatever". Practice what you preach.
>

Twibil loses again. Heh. Tsk.

Again with his lies. Only Twibilshit tells the truth. Heh heh. Tsk
Tsk.

We're the ones who's sighing. Over twibilshit's condescending and
arrogant behavior.

[Wiseguy]

Jess Band-EE-Coot <BandE...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:5074f06d$0$9826
$607e...@cv.net:

He and twibil should the C&C Club: Clueless and Condescending.

[Steve Curtis]

"Wiseguy" wrote:

>He and twibil should the C&C Club:
>Clueless and Condescending.

Says the one who's clueless about not including a verb in his post.

[Twibil]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:30:03 AM UTC-7, Steve Curtis wrote:
>
>
> >He and twibil should the C&C Club: Clueless and Condescending.
>
> Says the one who's clueless about not including a verb in his post.

Ees-hay ot-nay ery-vay ite-bray.

[Jess Band-EE-Coot]

You're mistaking me calling you out on your bullshit with telling you
what to do. Two *very* different things, deary.

[Jess Band-EE-Coot]

I do have plenty to say about the show, and yes, most of it is negative.
You, on the other hand, seldom post about the show (Google is YOUR
enlightenment there). Instead, you prefer to engage in infantile call
and response because you refuse to ever not have the last word....ever.

[Twibil]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 8:09:27 PM UTC-7, Jess Band-EE-Coot wrote:
>
>
> >> That all sounds great on paper, however, you are a prime example of
>
> >> someone with zero tolerance for dissension and "Freedom to post
>
> >> whatever". Practice what you preach.
>
> >
>
> > You are confusing the freedom to post what you like -which you have- with the freedom to post what you like -and have nobody ever tell you that you're wrong.
>
> > The self-entitled notion that people should only be allowed to do what Jess wants outlines exactly what's wrong with you.
>
> You're mistaking me calling you out on your bullshit with telling you
> what to do. Two *very* different things, deary.

No, Jess, that's another lie. You didn't "call me out on my bullshit"; you lied and said I had "zero tolerance for dissention" -which is untrue- and suggested that I have no tolerance for "the freedom to post whatever", which is just plain silly.

You're still beating the same old dead horse by pretending that people who don't want to waste time on replying to your threads are "intolerant" and that you're a victim.

They're not "intolerant", they're simply disinterested in what you have to offer. And that doesn't make you anyone's victim, unless you are your own.

[Steve Curtis]

The problem is, anyone disagreeing with you, is subject to ridicule in
the form of insulting grade-school mentality name calling. Got a reason
for that?

>You, on the other hand, seldom post
>about the show (Google is YOUR
>enlightenment there).

Which means you haven't been "enlightened" by GG archives on my AFL
posting history. Go ahead, do your research and back up your claim with
some statistics.

>Instead, you prefer to engage in infantile
>call and response because you refuse to
>ever not have the last word....ever.

Oh, you want the "last word"? Go ahead, be my guest. It'll undoubtedly
contain some element of an insult, most likely in the form of some
expletive name calling that's become your usual and predictable routine.
But, that's ok, it's truly a character revelation about you. But, then
again, what have you got to lose since you can get away with it by
posting under a "veil" of anonymity without revealing who you really
are. Boy, that takes guts.

[Jess Band-EE-Coot]

Do you ever get tired of hearing yourself prattle on?

[Jess Band-EE-Coot]

Really, dude? Like there aren't 2,000,000 "Steve Curtis'" in the world?

[Steve Curtis]

"Jess Band-EE-Coot" wrote:

>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>...But, then again, what have you got to

>>lose since you can get away with it by
>>posting under a "veil" of anonymity
>>without revealing who you really are.
>>Boy, that takes guts.

>Really, dude? Like there aren't 2,000,000
>"Steve Curtis'" in the world?

There's only one with the particular e-mail address listed in the header
Toots.

[Twibil]

On Sunday, October 14, 2012 9:50:03 AM UTC-7, Steve Curtis wrote:

> "Jess Band-EE-Coot" wrote:
>
>
> >>...But, then again, what have you got to
>
> >>lose since you can get away with it by
>
> >>posting under a "veil" of anonymity
>
> >>without revealing who you really are.
>
> >>Boy, that takes guts.
>
>
>
> >Really, dude? Like there aren't 2,000,000
>
> >"Steve Curtis'" in the world?
>
>
>
> There's only one with the particular e-mail address listed in the header
>
> Toots.

Not to worry, Steve.

Pretty much everyone except Jess knows that you're really you.

~Pete

[Jess Band-EE-Coot]

On 10/14/2012 5:16 PM, Twibil wrote:
=-

> Not to worry, Steve.
>
> Pretty much everyone except Jess knows that you're really you.
>
> ~Pete

Oh, snicker!! You both are such a joy!

[Twibil]

On Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:59:15 PM UTC-7, Jess Band-EE-Coot wrote:
>
>
> Oh, snicker!! You both are such a joy!

To someone who's looking for a battle, it's easy to mistake a windmill for a giant.

But of course Donz Quixote wasn't afraid to reveal who he was.

[Jess Band-EE-Coot]

Why so anxious to know who everyone is?
I couldn't give a crap who someone claims to be on the internet.
Yeah, yeah, I know....Pete Rowling from blah, blah, blah.
That definitely gives you credibility.

*snore*