Bootyhunter
Jedi Master
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2014
- Messages
- 928
SAVORY100 said:
PM coming
Am I the only one?
- Thread starter weasel
- Start date
PM coming
Richard_H
Grand Master
Not a fan of Prince but I appreciate others did so I get it
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2014
- Messages
- 8,782
Stop beating around the bush weasel and just tell us what you really think. :lol:
A lot of people will feel that some of these celebs have been part of their life, even thought they never met or even listened to the music/saw them perform in years ...or ever!
The most shocking celebrity deaths I can think of that have happened in my life time would probably have been Lady Di and John Lennon. Lady Di's was shocking whether you liked her or not. Someone with everything to live for. Someone who was so adored by many. Tragic.
John Lennon's murder, even though I was too young to remember it, must have been terribly shocking to many at the time. I love the Beatles and his solo stuff and even now I think his death was very sad. I always think of Bill Hicks when he said "have you ever noticed how we let the demons run amock? But the good guys, what do we do? We kill those guys?"
But the point is that if people want to feel grief about the passing of someone they hardly knew but maybe who was familiar to them, then they should be allowed.
The most shocking celebrity deaths I can think of that have happened in my life time would probably have been Lady Di and John Lennon. Lady Di's was shocking whether you liked her or not. Someone with everything to live for. Someone who was so adored by many. Tragic.
John Lennon's murder, even though I was too young to remember it, must have been terribly shocking to many at the time. I love the Beatles and his solo stuff and even now I think his death was very sad. I always think of Bill Hicks when he said "have you ever noticed how we let the demons run amock? But the good guys, what do we do? We kill those guys?"
But the point is that if people want to feel grief about the passing of someone they hardly knew but maybe who was familiar to them, then they should be allowed.
x-pack said:
Ohh aye, don't get me wrong, of course people are entitled to mourn, I wouldn't want it any other way. I just don't get why every minor celeb gets 24 hours blanket media coverage.
Or in the case of Princess Di, a bloody week of it.
weasel said:
Some of the ones from this year are, or were at least, major celebrities. OK (for example) Victoria Wood isn't exactly current but there's no doubt she was mega in the 80's. My mum thought she was great. I didn't. The 'Let's Do It' song was, um ...ok I suppose :? The ladies used to dig it back in the day for some reason. I bet Tina Turner ****in loved Victoria Wood (my mum loved her as well!).
Alan Rickman. Mega. Bowie. Absolute legend. Ronnie Corbett. Well I liked him
Prince is a strange one. Not really a legend, but we all know him and probably enjoy a few of his tunes. At least we know the answer to what he was doing with his spare time now - doing a **** load of drugs at his party mansion! Still rock and rolling 8)
jedisearcher
Sith Lord
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 1,450
Prince only sold 150 million or so records, plus several million more undisclosed and several million more downloads. He'd have sold more if he was any good :lol: :lol:
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2014
- Messages
- 8,782
jedisearcher said:
Put this into context, Micheal Jackson sold over 100 million copies of Thriller.
Celebrate life.
_Lee_
Sith Lord
- Joined
- May 7, 2008
- Messages
- 2,387
You aint a sick **** Weasel
I myself have a dislike of the headlines when someone famous passes. Yes its sad, and some are made worse by the age but its part of life. I dislike the Monarchy and was well and truly ****ed off in 1997 when Diana died because from people rushing to BP, Elton releasing a song for her :roll: and so on, it got a bit tedious.
Id also agree with what Ben said, someome like Paul Daniels passing tugged at my heart strings a little, as he was part of our childhoods, now he was a great man .
i dont even want to start on Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris ( this **** is obviously still alive though) and the like who have tarnished our childhood memories because of their crimes that have come to light. I hop they burn in hell for eternity.
I actually get a little sad when someone else from the Star Wars world passes. Now that is obviously part of my life, and whether or not its an actor,extra or behind the scenes it affects me. Its kind of like a Star Wars world built out of blocks and when each death comes a little bit falls away and in to me it makes me appreciate SW even more.
Finally, Prince was a bloody amazing musician and i hope he rests in peace.
I myself have a dislike of the headlines when someone famous passes. Yes its sad, and some are made worse by the age but its part of life. I dislike the Monarchy and was well and truly ****ed off in 1997 when Diana died because from people rushing to BP, Elton releasing a song for her :roll: and so on, it got a bit tedious.
Id also agree with what Ben said, someome like Paul Daniels passing tugged at my heart strings a little, as he was part of our childhoods, now he was a great man .
i dont even want to start on Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris ( this **** is obviously still alive though) and the like who have tarnished our childhood memories because of their crimes that have come to light. I hop they burn in hell for eternity.
I actually get a little sad when someone else from the Star Wars world passes. Now that is obviously part of my life, and whether or not its an actor,extra or behind the scenes it affects me. Its kind of like a Star Wars world built out of blocks and when each death comes a little bit falls away and in to me it makes me appreciate SW even more.
Finally, Prince was a bloody amazing musician and i hope he rests in peace.
stormcab
Sith Lord
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2015
- Messages
- 1,665
I'm with you on this front. I'm big into Twitter, and when someone dies or there's a big story I have to quickly mute the words/names otherwise that's all I'll see in my feed. I don't use the official Twitter app as you can't mute like this. I use one called Tweetbot. I've muted hundreds of things that don't interest me - sport, politics, many celebrities, reality TV shows etc. I only need to hear a news story once, but what happens on Twitter is first the breaking news, then EVERYONE giving it "OMG, xxxxxxx is dead, RIP". It's because most people don't have anything interesting to say usually, they just say random crap about their lives, or retweet something clever from someone else.
Isn't that what I do? I hear you ask. Yes a little, but I am a London cabby, and there are thousands of us on Twitter who have linked up. We're probably the most organised group of people on Twitter. We have several private Twitter channels where were broadcast work and traffic info to help our trade.
I was always a Michael Jackson fan, and in those conversations where we argued who was better, him or Prince, MJ always won. I appreciated Prince a little more as I aged, but to be honest, it was because so many people kept banging on that I should respect him. Thing is about music, like any art, taste is subjective. I've never suddenly changed how I feel about an art just because someone said "this is why you should" or "but what you're not getting is....". Basically, you either dig it or you don't.
I will feel a little sadness whenever I hear of someone famous who has died, but the only one I think will really hit home will be Billy Connolly. I didn't know any of these people personally, I've never met any of them, and most were not at the height of their popularity.
Isn't that what I do? I hear you ask. Yes a little, but I am a London cabby, and there are thousands of us on Twitter who have linked up. We're probably the most organised group of people on Twitter. We have several private Twitter channels where were broadcast work and traffic info to help our trade.
I was always a Michael Jackson fan, and in those conversations where we argued who was better, him or Prince, MJ always won. I appreciated Prince a little more as I aged, but to be honest, it was because so many people kept banging on that I should respect him. Thing is about music, like any art, taste is subjective. I've never suddenly changed how I feel about an art just because someone said "this is why you should" or "but what you're not getting is....". Basically, you either dig it or you don't.
I will feel a little sadness whenever I hear of someone famous who has died, but the only one I think will really hit home will be Billy Connolly. I didn't know any of these people personally, I've never met any of them, and most were not at the height of their popularity.
stormcab
Sith Lord
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2015
- Messages
- 1,665
weasel said:
That's another thing that f***s me right off - people that don't get things like lol or lmao are acronyms. In that article there's a snapshot from a tweet that reads lololololololol, so you're essentially saying "laugh out loud out loud out loud out loud out loud out loud". What, were you standing in a mountain range when you said that?
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2014
- Messages
- 8,782
Might as well post this here then. Am I the only one who doesn't think Leicester winning the league is a good thing for English Football. They play unattractive football relying on two centre halfs who bully anyone they come up against and have won to many games 1 - 0. If that was any of the top teams everyone would be complaining.
If Leicester played in any other major European league they would probably finish in the bottom half of the table, how is this a good thing for English Football? And no this is not sour grapes from a Man Utd supporter who is quit happy to see Leicester win the league instead of Man City or Liverpool.
Spurs winning the league however would be a good thing for English Football.
Pmp
If Leicester played in any other major European league they would probably finish in the bottom half of the table, how is this a good thing for English Football? And no this is not sour grapes from a Man Utd supporter who is quit happy to see Leicester win the league instead of Man City or Liverpool.
Spurs winning the league however would be a good thing for English Football.
Pmp
I take your point.
I suspect most people who are hoping Leicester win are sick and tired of the same 2/3/4* sides being involved in the title chase. TBF I can totally see where they are coming from. I support one of the 'bigger' sides in the league but even I am sick of it always being the same few sides at the top. Variety is the spice of life and all that gubbins. I think as well, the fact Leicester have done it on a relative shoe-string is what appeals to a lot of people. Let's be fair, City and Chelsea only ever challenged because they had a rich owner. Without them they would be ****ed. Literally in Chelsea's case, they were weeks away from doing a Leeds or Portsmouth. I don't mean that as sour grapes, it's merely a statement of fact, that those clubs have been bank rolled to title Challenges. A title is still a title, don't get me wrong. Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal have as well, but to different degrees, the first two have their traditional support levels and the first and last two have the massive stadiums and fantastic merchandising departments.
Leicester ehhh, well they are in a different league in that respect.
Yes the increased PL money will help them, but it helps all the other sides as well. People are happy to see them do well as 15 months ago they were bottom and looked to be down. It's a fairy tale.
I do agree that they are poor to watch, it's not pretty but it's effective. But then, have you EVER enjoyed a game where one side has been managed by Jose Mourinho? Ever? Bar maybe the time Barca took his Real Madrid side apart (was it 4-0, 4-1, 5-0?) most of the games are horrible attritional affairs. Simeone's Atletico Madrid are the same. Not every side can play free flowing attacking football like Spurs have tried to this year, like City (in their pomp) did, like Liverpool with Suarez and Sturridge, or like Utd under auld **** face, or even Keegan's Newcastle.
I guess people think it's "good" because some one else wins it, someone without the billionaire owner who has out spent everyone else/bought the title (cough Chelsea and City), and a because of the fairy tale element. That alone may well rekindle some people's love of football or at least delay their boredom with the same old same old sides challenging. That is probably a good thing. It gives the smaller sides hope. Is it "good" that a side playing very basic and quite physical football wins the league? Probably not from the point of view of getting teams to play a style that won't be penalised and picked apart if/when they make the CL. Although even at that, will Leicester be any worse in the CL this year than Utd were? Or than Liverpool were two years ago!?
I think it all depends on what you mean by "good" for English football. If it's only for one year and it encourages the big sides to stop just spunking money on the latest flavour of the month show pony and to do some proper scouting than maybe in a few years it could work out well if we get back to 2 or 3 English sides regularly making the last four of the CL.
* It depends how you define "involved" as to whether you include Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs.
I suspect most people who are hoping Leicester win are sick and tired of the same 2/3/4* sides being involved in the title chase. TBF I can totally see where they are coming from. I support one of the 'bigger' sides in the league but even I am sick of it always being the same few sides at the top. Variety is the spice of life and all that gubbins. I think as well, the fact Leicester have done it on a relative shoe-string is what appeals to a lot of people. Let's be fair, City and Chelsea only ever challenged because they had a rich owner. Without them they would be ****ed. Literally in Chelsea's case, they were weeks away from doing a Leeds or Portsmouth. I don't mean that as sour grapes, it's merely a statement of fact, that those clubs have been bank rolled to title Challenges. A title is still a title, don't get me wrong. Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal have as well, but to different degrees, the first two have their traditional support levels and the first and last two have the massive stadiums and fantastic merchandising departments.
Leicester ehhh, well they are in a different league in that respect.
Yes the increased PL money will help them, but it helps all the other sides as well. People are happy to see them do well as 15 months ago they were bottom and looked to be down. It's a fairy tale.
I do agree that they are poor to watch, it's not pretty but it's effective. But then, have you EVER enjoyed a game where one side has been managed by Jose Mourinho? Ever? Bar maybe the time Barca took his Real Madrid side apart (was it 4-0, 4-1, 5-0?) most of the games are horrible attritional affairs. Simeone's Atletico Madrid are the same. Not every side can play free flowing attacking football like Spurs have tried to this year, like City (in their pomp) did, like Liverpool with Suarez and Sturridge, or like Utd under auld **** face, or even Keegan's Newcastle.
I guess people think it's "good" because some one else wins it, someone without the billionaire owner who has out spent everyone else/bought the title (cough Chelsea and City), and a because of the fairy tale element. That alone may well rekindle some people's love of football or at least delay their boredom with the same old same old sides challenging. That is probably a good thing. It gives the smaller sides hope. Is it "good" that a side playing very basic and quite physical football wins the league? Probably not from the point of view of getting teams to play a style that won't be penalised and picked apart if/when they make the CL. Although even at that, will Leicester be any worse in the CL this year than Utd were? Or than Liverpool were two years ago!?
I think it all depends on what you mean by "good" for English football. If it's only for one year and it encourages the big sides to stop just spunking money on the latest flavour of the month show pony and to do some proper scouting than maybe in a few years it could work out well if we get back to 2 or 3 English sides regularly making the last four of the CL.
* It depends how you define "involved" as to whether you include Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs.
