saangels

Brandon, you're right. I'm sorry. I always confuse 80-85 with How Could Hell Be Any Worse; I bought the latter album years ago and it included all the tracks from 80-85 as part of a bonus something-or-other. Ever since then I've continued to mix up the album titles. But yeah, 80-85 shouldn't count. How Could Hell Be Any Worse is my fav BR album. As far as Depeche Mode goes, I have to agree with Ray. Black Celebration all the way.

I definitely think it's an underrated album...but the best!? Better than 80-85, No Control and Suffer? No way!

LMAO. You have a terrible memory, Cals. It was "What's My Age Again"!

haha. very true. I guess my point is that the lady should use discretion if she's going to hand out the letters. A ten year old Power Ranger with a pot belly could very likely shed the pounds after puberty.

I'm not defending her. I said she shouldn't hand out the letters.

But the Misfits, Black Flag, and older Bad Religion (I'm thinking 80-85) are much better bands than Pennywise, Guttermouth, and Screeching Weasel. Maybe the guy wasn't trying to be too cool for school. Perhaps he just had better taste in music. I understand what you're saying though, Brandon. The Misfits, Black Flag, and the Dead Kennedys have an equal tendency to appeal to some of the basest, most pseudo-intellectual posers known to mankind. But let us not denigrate the music because the fans happen to be idiots. Speaking purely in terms of musical composition: there is no comparing late 70's-80's punk to the trash that came after it.

Hey, she can do whatever she wants. The kids are coming up to her property and soliciting her for candy. That being said, the lady needs to take into consideration the fact that a lot of kids have baby fat, and that that's completely normal. She probably shouldn't be handing out the letters, but I'd have no problem with her staring down the mother of some behemoth man-child gnawing on a snickers bar at her front door.

A lot of guys get mocked by one dimensional tough guys who would never, in a million years, listen to a female vocalist, no matter how much talent they (the female artist) displayed. Ironically, I think it takes a much stronger person to stand up in defense of his own aesthetic judgements, now matter how against the grain they may be, than to flex muscles and hide behind a safe and sound masculine stereotype. Having said that there are a lot of shitty female singers too. The Supremes, The Cranberries, Blondie, Madonna, Metric, Rihanna, Florence and the Machine, and Lady Gaga are all very good. Katy Perry, Beyonce, Brittany Spears and Nicki Manaj make me sick to my stomach.

Great game. If the bench plays half this good for the rest of the year we are going to be just fine.

I don't really have a problem with the Clippers covering up the Lakers championship banners during their home games.

RIP Lou Reed. Great singer/songwriter/frontman.

Says the guy with the Bryce Harper profile pic...

lol. really? Other than Cassius Marsh and Jordan Zumwalt, who can you point the finger at to support your generalized claim that the entire Bruins team has been acting like douches lately?

So much for HaloMagic's theory of irony.

you too.

Ok. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions.

lol. how ironic.

wtf? Now we're talking about the etymology of Eric's last name? Jesus Christ...

ugh...god damn it. A thread is something that, ideally, evolves. Had we stuck to the original topic (is it right for the cops to have shot and killed this kid?) we wouldn't have moved beyond two pages. People would be saying "this thread isn't going anywhere." The whole objective of deliberation is to open up new avenues by which to explore topics related to the primary subject matter in an effort to make connections and arrive at a greater understanding of the material at large. The main topic was the kid who got shot and killed by the police. Eric Notti (not I) posted a link about a different crazy kid wielding a weapon--this, I could argue, was when we "went off topic." But I didn't mind, because ​that is the nature of deliberation. I asked Nottie for a simple explanation as to why he posted the article, and, moreover, why he thought kids were committing these crimes. No answer. All of the sudden Notti and lifetime start hissing and foaming at the mouth like a two-headed irrational monster, and I'm supposed to drop it and "get back on topic." Fine. Let's all go back to the original topic. Let's see how long it takes until the topic changes.

I don't drink, schmuck. But chalk it up to whatever you want. I chalk up your response to fear and ignorance. Thanks for failing to answer the question again. Like I thought: you have no idea why you post these articles or why you think these kids are doing the things that they're doing.

"We also discussed media innacuracies and how the same story is told different ways across the national media outlets including the describing the imputus for the event a toy instead of a look alike or replica of an assault rifle."--Eric Notti. Where? If by "we" and "discussed" you mean "you" and "made one offhanded comment about," then yeah...i guess "we" did "discuss" media innacuracies and yada yada yada. But you "discussed" media innacuracies only insofar as they related to the means of publication and the discrepancy between different types of guns. I am trying to discuss yellow journalism insofar as it relates to copy cat criminals. They're two completely separate issues. "This is the instant media age where the facts can wait, they need to get the story to the public immediately regardless if they get it right."--Eric Notti That doesn't answer my question. I'm not going to get sidetracked by circumlocution. You have no problem posting articles about crazy kids with guns--but as soon as somebody asks you why you think these kids are doing this, or what point you're trying to prove by posting and citing these articles, you freeze up like a popsicle. If you don't have an answer to the question, that's fine. Just say so.

Could you be any more vague or offer any less examples? Listen, I gotta run. As far as I'm concerned our conversation is over, lifetime. As usual, I walk away from our conversation with the same feeling that I'd expect to have if I were to have slammed my head repeatedly into a brick wall. I think it's pretty clear "what I'm getting at." If Notti or any of the other melodramtists can't offer a decent explanation as to why they think these crimes are happening, if they lack the ability to rationalize their concerns, then what's the point of even engaging in a debate? Why would anybody haphazardly fling a complicated opinion under the lens of a powerful microscope if not to endeavor to explain its most fundamental parts? I don't expect you to understand any of this, lifetime. Naturally you have no idea what I'm getting at. That's fine. Have a good night. The floor is yours, Notti.

Hey, I'm only exaggerating the melodramic script that Notti is trying to pass off for reality in whatever day time soap opera he thinks he's living in. He posts a link of some 11 year old kid who brings a gun to school like it's a proof positive indication that children in general are turning to the dark side, when in reality this recent adolescent "crime wave" is simply evidence against an infinitesimal number of children who were inspired by the massive media exposure heaped on the back of some original idiot for doing something so stupid and void of talent that even the most insipid copy cat criminal could emulate. For whatever reason--maybe their parents ignored them or something--these boys decided that the attention they craved was worth taking a terrible risk. This isn't just me making up theories. Anybody who knows anything about the psychology of copy cat crimes knows that the media shoulders a large portion of the blame for producing them. Or we could just pretend that children in general are turning evil. After all, the latter concept would boost ratings. I haven't really received a decent explanation (or any explanation, now that I think of it) from the media or from melodramatists like Notti in regards to why they think these crimes are happening. All I ever hear are things like "what is wrong with this country!" and "what in the name of God is going to happen next!?" I'd love--and I mean love--to hear either of them try to rationalize their concerns into a cogent sentence or two.

LMAO. It's an epidemic!

Uhhh, the cops are in a different position than the math teacher: they have weapons to defend themselves; I'm also assuming that they weren't standing point blank in front of the kid, like the math teacher was...they were probably wielding a shield of some sort. So why couldn't they have shot the kid in the leg? Let's not get carried away by all this yellow journalism swirling around trying to paint pictures of homicidal adolescent boys running amuck in our communities. Just because it's all they talk about on the "news," that doesn't necessarily mean that this stuff is going on all around us. It's this type of over-sensitivity to fear mongering that's going to wind up placing shotguns in the hands of school security guards. When will people realize that this is just the media's way of distracting people from the real issues, e.g., the Wall Street takeover, money in politics, the findings of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, etc? Congress is working day and night to uproot and destroy the constitutional framework set up by our founding fathers. And here we are worried about a Children of the Corn sequel.