Tell Me :
Talk
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
mmmm
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
mmmm
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
mmmm
I wasn't refering to you, to be honest, but...okay, let's not dig into anyones childhood.
rats. nobody ever notices me.
All I did was post a link and the criticism then rolled in. I've merely been answering the [often personal] criticism and occasional namecalling ["douchebag" for one]. How could this thread be about me when no one even knows who I am? It's not like I post personal web links and promote personal band activities like certain other beloved posters here.
Would it have pleased you if I simply parroted the RS article title of "Stones Gather to Plot 50th Anniversary Bash"?
But then the criticism would have been "What 50th Anniversary Bash? Change the title, and don't be a douchebag." Well, I won't. If the thread bothers you, then ignore it. The title will be proven right anyway soon enough. But don't worry--I'm not the gloating, I-told-you-so type. I'll merely give myself credit for being prescient.
Wait, what? Is that because you are a rat hanging out with rats? It probably would be hard to notice you amongst all those rats.
"All I did was post a link". No, that's not all you did. You read the article and put your interpretation, an inaccurate one, into the thread title and stated it as fact when it's not.
You might as well start a "Justin Bieber is officially dead" thread. He's not dead yet but he will be one day, right? Just let that thread ride for decades until it's official and you can say "I told you so".
This is officially the most frustrating thread I've read here. In fact, this thread made my browser crash.
If the personal criticism bothers you so much you should also refrain from stating wishful thinking as fact.
I said nothing of the kind--it's you who is wishfully thinking, my friend.
No, it doesn't bother me, as you so incorrectly interpret, just that answering to it repeatedly becomes tedious and redundant. I shall occupy my time with other threads, which you and others may well ignore if you like.
Eventually yes, but not until at least six months of Sundays have come and gone.
Them's big words...care to back that up?
"No Dope Smoking,No Beer Sold After 12 oclock"
I passed on that thread completely....not even remotely curious.
Sure, but certain things are self-evident.
As in all men are created equal.
Wrong yet again. You standing by the title is admitance of your error. You are a stubborn wronger. It's turned hilarious. Continue on with your errors, they are very entertaining.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: June 22, 2012 19:16
mmmmQuote
mtaylor
mmmmQuote
mtaylor
mmmmQuote
mtaylor
mmmmQuote
mtaylor
mmmmQuote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
muenke
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
So based on that definition of yours, shouldn't your subject heading be "Keith officially says that Stones are to discuss about whether or not they will record an album and Keith officially says that he'd like to play some concerts and they're considering going out on tour"?Quote
stonesnow
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
stonesnow, do you know the definition of the word "official"?
there's several unofficial definitions, you know....
Sure. Official: the difference between "rumor" (i.e., The Mirror UK) and "news" (i.e., the Rolling Stone article). News tells us something concrete from verifiable sources, as opposed to hearsay based on unnamed "sources."
There's nothing in that article that states that they are going to record an album and tour. It's not official. A press release is official. Keith saying "yes, we are recording, we have booked 3 months worth of studio time" is official.right, but come on, don´t blame him to be one of the first to read that article and make a thread out of it, which I basically welcome! the article is "good news" and, yes, it has no "official" tour- or record-announcment, but some good and "new" news!
True. This thread was inevitable. I was merely the first to post it.
Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya
Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.
But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.
Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.
I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of ABthat they would be inactive for a long time. To try and "sandwich" a tour between 2007 and 2012 would have probably not been in their best interests, interest wise and financial wise. Mick believes that "absence makes the heart grow fonder". There is just no way that they were going to miss doing something for their 50th anniversary year. Since it officially begins on July 12, 2012 and runs through July 11, 2013 they have plenty of time to accomplish all they have planned for us. Who knows, maybe they carry it beyond July of 2013? September of 2013 is the 50th anniversary of their first tour. Going to be an interesting and exciting year.
Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."
Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.
I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.
On second thought I think maybe you should consider giving me a second chance. Go back and re-read all of my posts. I honestly think if you gave me a sincere second chance you could learn a great deal on how our favorite band operates.
Re-read all of your posts? Including all thewatchman and stonescrow posts, too? Who the hell's got that kind of time? It would take me a couple of hours just to get through all your "farewell" threads.
Maybe take a little vacation from the speculation threads until we hear something official in the form of a press conference? The speculation will soon be over. If not next month then certainly no later than the first of the year.
It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.
You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.
I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.
Have you ever NOT responded to one of my posts? Have a good life.
I'm not sure. Perhaps I neglected to respond when you posted about having to "fight back tears" while watching James McCartney's emotional performance on the David Letterman Show. I really don't remember.
I'm fighting tears back right now...it's clear, you two are in love.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: June 22, 2012 19:17
Quote
mtaylor
mmmmQuote
mtaylor
Quote
mtaylor
mmmmQuote
mtaylor
Quote
mtaylor
mmmmQuote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
muenke
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
So based on that definition of yours, shouldn't your subject heading be "Keith officially says that Stones are to discuss about whether or not they will record an album and Keith officially says that he'd like to play some concerts and they're considering going out on tour"?Quote
stonesnow
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
stonesnow, do you know the definition of the word "official"?
there's several unofficial definitions, you know....
Sure. Official: the difference between "rumor" (i.e., The Mirror UK) and "news" (i.e., the Rolling Stone article). News tells us something concrete from verifiable sources, as opposed to hearsay based on unnamed "sources."
There's nothing in that article that states that they are going to record an album and tour. It's not official. A press release is official. Keith saying "yes, we are recording, we have booked 3 months worth of studio time" is official.
True. This thread was inevitable. I was merely the first to post it.
Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya
Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.
But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.
Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.
I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB
Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."
Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.
I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.
On second thought I think maybe you should consider giving me a second chance. Go back and re-read all of my posts. I honestly think if you gave me a sincere second chance you could learn a great deal on how our favorite band operates.
Re-read all of your posts? Including all thewatchman and stonescrow posts, too? Who the hell's got that kind of time? It would take me a couple of hours just to get through all your "farewell" threads.
Maybe take a little vacation from the speculation threads until we hear something official in the form of a press conference? The speculation will soon be over. If not next month then certainly no later than the first of the year.
It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.
You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.
I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.
Have you ever NOT responded to one of my posts? Have a good life.
I'm not sure. Perhaps I neglected to respond when you posted about having to "fight back tears" while watching James McCartney's emotional performance on the David Letterman Show. I really don't remember.
I'm fighting tears back right now...it's clear, you two are in love.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
muenke
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
So based on that definition of yours, shouldn't your subject heading be "Keith officially says that Stones are to discuss about whether or not they will record an album and Keith officially says that he'd like to play some concerts and they're considering going out on tour"?Quote
stonesnow
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
stonesnow, do you know the definition of the word "official"?
there's several unofficial definitions, you know....
Sure. Official: the difference between "rumor" (i.e., The Mirror UK) and "news" (i.e., the Rolling Stone article). News tells us something concrete from verifiable sources, as opposed to hearsay based on unnamed "sources."
There's nothing in that article that states that they are going to record an album and tour. It's not official. A press release is official. Keith saying "yes, we are recording, we have booked 3 months worth of studio time" is official.
True. This thread was inevitable. I was merely the first to post it.
Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya
Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.
But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.
Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.
I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB
Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."
Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.
I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.
On second thought I think maybe you should consider giving me a second chance. Go back and re-read all of my posts. I honestly think if you gave me a sincere second chance you could learn a great deal on how our favorite band operates.
Re-read all of your posts? Including all thewatchman and stonescrow posts, too? Who the hell's got that kind of time? It would take me a couple of hours just to get through all your "farewell" threads.
Maybe take a little vacation from the speculation threads until we hear something official in the form of a press conference? The speculation will soon be over. If not next month then certainly no later than the first of the year.
It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.
You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.
I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.
Have you ever NOT responded to one of my posts? Have a good life.
I'm not sure. Perhaps I neglected to respond when you posted about having to "fight back tears" while watching James McCartney's emotional performance on the David Letterman Show. I really don't remember.
I'm fighting tears back right now...it's clear, you two are in love.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
muenke
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
So based on that definition of yours, shouldn't your subject heading be "Keith officially says that Stones are to discuss about whether or not they will record an album and Keith officially says that he'd like to play some concerts and they're considering going out on tour"?Quote
stonesnow
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
stonesnow, do you know the definition of the word "official"?
there's several unofficial definitions, you know....
Sure. Official: the difference between "rumor" (i.e., The Mirror UK) and "news" (i.e., the Rolling Stone article). News tells us something concrete from verifiable sources, as opposed to hearsay based on unnamed "sources."
There's nothing in that article that states that they are going to record an album and tour. It's not official. A press release is official. Keith saying "yes, we are recording, we have booked 3 months worth of studio time" is official.
True. This thread was inevitable. I was merely the first to post it.
Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya
Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.
But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.
Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.
I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB
Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."
Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.
I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.
On second thought I think maybe you should consider giving me a second chance. Go back and re-read all of my posts. I honestly think if you gave me a sincere second chance you could learn a great deal on how our favorite band operates.
Re-read all of your posts? Including all thewatchman and stonescrow posts, too? Who the hell's got that kind of time? It would take me a couple of hours just to get through all your "farewell" threads.
Maybe take a little vacation from the speculation threads until we hear something official in the form of a press conference? The speculation will soon be over. If not next month then certainly no later than the first of the year.
It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.
You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.
I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.
Have you ever NOT responded to one of my posts? Have a good life.
I'm not sure. Perhaps I neglected to respond when you posted about having to "fight back tears" while watching James McCartney's emotional performance on the David Letterman Show. I really don't remember.
I'm fighting tears back right now...it's clear, you two are in love.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
muenke
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
So based on that definition of yours, shouldn't your subject heading be "Keith officially says that Stones are to discuss about whether or not they will record an album and Keith officially says that he'd like to play some concerts and they're considering going out on tour"?Quote
stonesnow
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
stonesnow, do you know the definition of the word "official"?
there's several unofficial definitions, you know....
Sure. Official: the difference between "rumor" (i.e., The Mirror UK) and "news" (i.e., the Rolling Stone article). News tells us something concrete from verifiable sources, as opposed to hearsay based on unnamed "sources."
There's nothing in that article that states that they are going to record an album and tour. It's not official. A press release is official. Keith saying "yes, we are recording, we have booked 3 months worth of studio time" is official.
True. This thread was inevitable. I was merely the first to post it.
Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya
Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.
But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.
Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.
I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB
Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."
Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.
I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.
On second thought I think maybe you should consider giving me a second chance. Go back and re-read all of my posts. I honestly think if you gave me a sincere second chance you could learn a great deal on how our favorite band operates.
Re-read all of your posts? Including all thewatchman and stonescrow posts, too? Who the hell's got that kind of time? It would take me a couple of hours just to get through all your "farewell" threads.
Maybe take a little vacation from the speculation threads until we hear something official in the form of a press conference? The speculation will soon be over. If not next month then certainly no later than the first of the year.
It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.
You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.
I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.
Have you ever NOT responded to one of my posts? Have a good life.
I'm not sure. Perhaps I neglected to respond when you posted about having to "fight back tears" while watching James McCartney's emotional performance on the David Letterman Show. I really don't remember.
I'm fighting tears back right now...it's clear, you two are in love.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
muenke
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
So based on that definition of yours, shouldn't your subject heading be "Keith officially says that Stones are to discuss about whether or not they will record an album and Keith officially says that he'd like to play some concerts and they're considering going out on tour"?Quote
stonesnow
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
stonesnow, do you know the definition of the word "official"?
there's several unofficial definitions, you know....
Sure. Official: the difference between "rumor" (i.e., The Mirror UK) and "news" (i.e., the Rolling Stone article). News tells us something concrete from verifiable sources, as opposed to hearsay based on unnamed "sources."
There's nothing in that article that states that they are going to record an album and tour. It's not official. A press release is official. Keith saying "yes, we are recording, we have booked 3 months worth of studio time" is official.
True. This thread was inevitable. I was merely the first to post it.
Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya
Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.
But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.
Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.
I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB
Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."
Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.
I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.
On second thought I think maybe you should consider giving me a second chance. Go back and re-read all of my posts. I honestly think if you gave me a sincere second chance you could learn a great deal on how our favorite band operates.
Re-read all of your posts? Including all thewatchman and stonescrow posts, too? Who the hell's got that kind of time? It would take me a couple of hours just to get through all your "farewell" threads.
Maybe take a little vacation from the speculation threads until we hear something official in the form of a press conference? The speculation will soon be over. If not next month then certainly no later than the first of the year.
It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.
You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.
I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.
Have you ever NOT responded to one of my posts? Have a good life.
I'm not sure. Perhaps I neglected to respond when you posted about having to "fight back tears" while watching James McCartney's emotional performance on the David Letterman Show. I really don't remember.
I'm fighting tears back right now...it's clear, you two are in love.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
muenke
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
So based on that definition of yours, shouldn't your subject heading be "Keith officially says that Stones are to discuss about whether or not they will record an album and Keith officially says that he'd like to play some concerts and they're considering going out on tour"?Quote
stonesnow
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
stonesnow, do you know the definition of the word "official"?
there's several unofficial definitions, you know....
Sure. Official: the difference between "rumor" (i.e., The Mirror UK) and "news" (i.e., the Rolling Stone article). News tells us something concrete from verifiable sources, as opposed to hearsay based on unnamed "sources."
There's nothing in that article that states that they are going to record an album and tour. It's not official. A press release is official. Keith saying "yes, we are recording, we have booked 3 months worth of studio time" is official.
True. This thread was inevitable. I was merely the first to post it.
Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya
Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.
But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.
Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.
I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB
Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."
Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.
I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.
On second thought I think maybe you should consider giving me a second chance. Go back and re-read all of my posts. I honestly think if you gave me a sincere second chance you could learn a great deal on how our favorite band operates.
Re-read all of your posts? Including all thewatchman and stonescrow posts, too? Who the hell's got that kind of time? It would take me a couple of hours just to get through all your "farewell" threads.
Maybe take a little vacation from the speculation threads until we hear something official in the form of a press conference? The speculation will soon be over. If not next month then certainly no later than the first of the year.
It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.
You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.
I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.
Have you ever NOT responded to one of my posts? Have a good life.
I'm not sure. Perhaps I neglected to respond when you posted about having to "fight back tears" while watching James McCartney's emotional performance on the David Letterman Show. I really don't remember.
I'm fighting tears back right now...it's clear, you two are in love.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
muenke
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
So based on that definition of yours, shouldn't your subject heading be "Keith officially says that Stones are to discuss about whether or not they will record an album and Keith officially says that he'd like to play some concerts and they're considering going out on tour"?Quote
stonesnow
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
stonesnow, do you know the definition of the word "official"?
there's several unofficial definitions, you know....
Sure. Official: the difference between "rumor" (i.e., The Mirror UK) and "news" (i.e., the Rolling Stone article). News tells us something concrete from verifiable sources, as opposed to hearsay based on unnamed "sources."
There's nothing in that article that states that they are going to record an album and tour. It's not official. A press release is official. Keith saying "yes, we are recording, we have booked 3 months worth of studio time" is official.
True. This thread was inevitable. I was merely the first to post it.
Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya
Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.
But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.
Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.
I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB
Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."
Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.
I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.
On second thought I think maybe you should consider giving me a second chance. Go back and re-read all of my posts. I honestly think if you gave me a sincere second chance you could learn a great deal on how our favorite band operates.
Re-read all of your posts? Including all thewatchman and stonescrow posts, too? Who the hell's got that kind of time? It would take me a couple of hours just to get through all your "farewell" threads.
Maybe take a little vacation from the speculation threads until we hear something official in the form of a press conference? The speculation will soon be over. If not next month then certainly no later than the first of the year.
It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.
You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.
I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.
Have you ever NOT responded to one of my posts? Have a good life.
I'm not sure. Perhaps I neglected to respond when you posted about having to "fight back tears" while watching James McCartney's emotional performance on the David Letterman Show. I really don't remember.
I'm fighting tears back right now...it's clear, you two are in love.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
mmmm
[/quote]mmmm
[/quote]mmmm
[/quote]mmmm
[/quote]mmmm
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: June 22, 2012 19:18
mmmm[/quote]Quote
mtaylor
Quote
mtaylor
mmmmQuote
mtaylor
Quote
mtaylor
mmmmQuote
mtaylor
Quote
mtaylor
mmmmQuote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
muenke
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
So based on that definition of yours, shouldn't your subject heading be "Keith officially says that Stones are to discuss about whether or not they will record an album and Keith officially says that he'd like to play some concerts and they're considering going out on tour"?Quote
stonesnow
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
stonesnow, do you know the definition of the word "official"?
there's several unofficial definitions, you know....
Sure. Official: the difference between "rumor" (i.e., The Mirror UK) and "news" (i.e., the Rolling Stone article). News tells us something concrete from verifiable sources, as opposed to hearsay based on unnamed "sources."
There's nothing in that article that states that they are going to record an album and tour. It's not official. A press release is official. Keith saying "yes, we are recording, we have booked 3 months worth of studio time" is official.
True. This thread was inevitable. I was merely the first to post it.
Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya
Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.
But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.
Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.
I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB
Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."
Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.
I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.
On second thought I think maybe you should consider giving me a second chance. Go back and re-read all of my posts. I honestly think if you gave me a sincere second chance you could learn a great deal on how our favorite band operates.
Re-read all of your posts? Including all thewatchman and stonescrow posts, too? Who the hell's got that kind of time? It would take me a couple of hours just to get through all your "farewell" threads.
Maybe take a little vacation from the speculation threads until we hear something official in the form of a press conference? The speculation will soon be over. If not next month then certainly no later than the first of the year.
It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.
You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.
I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.
Have you ever NOT responded to one of my posts? Have a good life.
I'm not sure. Perhaps I neglected to respond when you posted about having to "fight back tears" while watching James McCartney's emotional performance on the David Letterman Show. I really don't remember.
I'm fighting tears back right now...it's clear, you two are in love.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
muenke
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
So based on that definition of yours, shouldn't your subject heading be "Keith officially says that Stones are to discuss about whether or not they will record an album and Keith officially says that he'd like to play some concerts and they're considering going out on tour"?Quote
stonesnow
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
stonesnow, do you know the definition of the word "official"?
there's several unofficial definitions, you know....
Sure. Official: the difference between "rumor" (i.e., The Mirror UK) and "news" (i.e., the Rolling Stone article). News tells us something concrete from verifiable sources, as opposed to hearsay based on unnamed "sources."
There's nothing in that article that states that they are going to record an album and tour. It's not official. A press release is official. Keith saying "yes, we are recording, we have booked 3 months worth of studio time" is official.
True. This thread was inevitable. I was merely the first to post it.
Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya
Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.
But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.
Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.
I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB
Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."
Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.
I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.
On second thought I think maybe you should consider giving me a second chance. Go back and re-read all of my posts. I honestly think if you gave me a sincere second chance you could learn a great deal on how our favorite band operates.
Re-read all of your posts? Including all thewatchman and stonescrow posts, too? Who the hell's got that kind of time? It would take me a couple of hours just to get through all your "farewell" threads.
Maybe take a little vacation from the speculation threads until we hear something official in the form of a press conference? The speculation will soon be over. If not next month then certainly no later than the first of the year.
It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.
You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.
I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.
Have you ever NOT responded to one of my posts? Have a good life.
I'm not sure. Perhaps I neglected to respond when you posted about having to "fight back tears" while watching James McCartney's emotional performance on the David Letterman Show. I really don't remember.
I'm fighting tears back right now...it's clear, you two are in love.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
muenke
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
So based on that definition of yours, shouldn't your subject heading be "Keith officially says that Stones are to discuss about whether or not they will record an album and Keith officially says that he'd like to play some concerts and they're considering going out on tour"?Quote
stonesnow
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
stonesnow, do you know the definition of the word "official"?
there's several unofficial definitions, you know....
Sure. Official: the difference between "rumor" (i.e., The Mirror UK) and "news" (i.e., the Rolling Stone article). News tells us something concrete from verifiable sources, as opposed to hearsay based on unnamed "sources."
There's nothing in that article that states that they are going to record an album and tour. It's not official. A press release is official. Keith saying "yes, we are recording, we have booked 3 months worth of studio time" is official.
True. This thread was inevitable. I was merely the first to post it.
Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya
Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.
But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.
Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.
I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB
Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."
Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.
I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.
On second thought I think maybe you should consider giving me a second chance. Go back and re-read all of my posts. I honestly think if you gave me a sincere second chance you could learn a great deal on how our favorite band operates.
Re-read all of your posts? Including all thewatchman and stonescrow posts, too? Who the hell's got that kind of time? It would take me a couple of hours just to get through all your "farewell" threads.
Maybe take a little vacation from the speculation threads until we hear something official in the form of a press conference? The speculation will soon be over. If not next month then certainly no later than the first of the year.
It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.
You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.
I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.
Have you ever NOT responded to one of my posts? Have a good life.
I'm not sure. Perhaps I neglected to respond when you posted about having to "fight back tears" while watching James McCartney's emotional performance on the David Letterman Show. I really don't remember.
I'm fighting tears back right now...it's clear, you two are in love.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
muenke
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
So based on that definition of yours, shouldn't your subject heading be "Keith officially says that Stones are to discuss about whether or not they will record an album and Keith officially says that he'd like to play some concerts and they're considering going out on tour"?Quote
stonesnow
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
stonesnow, do you know the definition of the word "official"?
there's several unofficial definitions, you know....
Sure. Official: the difference between "rumor" (i.e., The Mirror UK) and "news" (i.e., the Rolling Stone article). News tells us something concrete from verifiable sources, as opposed to hearsay based on unnamed "sources."
There's nothing in that article that states that they are going to record an album and tour. It's not official. A press release is official. Keith saying "yes, we are recording, we have booked 3 months worth of studio time" is official.
True. This thread was inevitable. I was merely the first to post it.
Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya
Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.
But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.
Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.
I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB
Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."
Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.
I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.
On second thought I think maybe you should consider giving me a second chance. Go back and re-read all of my posts. I honestly think if you gave me a sincere second chance you could learn a great deal on how our favorite band operates.
Re-read all of your posts? Including all thewatchman and stonescrow posts, too? Who the hell's got that kind of time? It would take me a couple of hours just to get through all your "farewell" threads.
Maybe take a little vacation from the speculation threads until we hear something official in the form of a press conference? The speculation will soon be over. If not next month then certainly no later than the first of the year.
It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.
You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.
I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.
Have you ever NOT responded to one of my posts? Have a good life.
I'm not sure. Perhaps I neglected to respond when you posted about having to "fight back tears" while watching James McCartney's emotional performance on the David Letterman Show. I really don't remember.
I'm fighting tears back right now...it's clear, you two are in love.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
muenke
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
So based on that definition of yours, shouldn't your subject heading be "Keith officially says that Stones are to discuss about whether or not they will record an album and Keith officially says that he'd like to play some concerts and they're considering going out on tour"?Quote
stonesnow
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
stonesnow, do you know the definition of the word "official"?
there's several unofficial definitions, you know....
Sure. Official: the difference between "rumor" (i.e., The Mirror UK) and "news" (i.e., the Rolling Stone article). News tells us something concrete from verifiable sources, as opposed to hearsay based on unnamed "sources."
There's nothing in that article that states that they are going to record an album and tour. It's not official. A press release is official. Keith saying "yes, we are recording, we have booked 3 months worth of studio time" is official.
True. This thread was inevitable. I was merely the first to post it.
Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya
Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.
But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.
Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.
I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB
Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."
Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.
I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.
On second thought I think maybe you should consider giving me a second chance. Go back and re-read all of my posts. I honestly think if you gave me a sincere second chance you could learn a great deal on how our favorite band operates.
Re-read all of your posts? Including all thewatchman and stonescrow posts, too? Who the hell's got that kind of time? It would take me a couple of hours just to get through all your "farewell" threads.
Maybe take a little vacation from the speculation threads until we hear something official in the form of a press conference? The speculation will soon be over. If not next month then certainly no later than the first of the year.
It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.
You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.
I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.
Have you ever NOT responded to one of my posts? Have a good life.
I'm not sure. Perhaps I neglected to respond when you posted about having to "fight back tears" while watching James McCartney's emotional performance on the David Letterman Show. I really don't remember.
I'm fighting tears back right now...it's clear, you two are in love.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
muenke
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
So based on that definition of yours, shouldn't your subject heading be "Keith officially says that Stones are to discuss about whether or not they will record an album and Keith officially says that he'd like to play some concerts and they're considering going out on tour"?Quote
stonesnow
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
stonesnow, do you know the definition of the word "official"?
there's several unofficial definitions, you know....
Sure. Official: the difference between "rumor" (i.e., The Mirror UK) and "news" (i.e., the Rolling Stone article). News tells us something concrete from verifiable sources, as opposed to hearsay based on unnamed "sources."
There's nothing in that article that states that they are going to record an album and tour. It's not official. A press release is official. Keith saying "yes, we are recording, we have booked 3 months worth of studio time" is official.
True. This thread was inevitable. I was merely the first to post it.
Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya
Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.
But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.
Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.
I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB
Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."
Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.
I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.
On second thought I think maybe you should consider giving me a second chance. Go back and re-read all of my posts. I honestly think if you gave me a sincere second chance you could learn a great deal on how our favorite band operates.
Re-read all of your posts? Including all thewatchman and stonescrow posts, too? Who the hell's got that kind of time? It would take me a couple of hours just to get through all your "farewell" threads.
Maybe take a little vacation from the speculation threads until we hear something official in the form of a press conference? The speculation will soon be over. If not next month then certainly no later than the first of the year.
It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.
You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.
I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.
Have you ever NOT responded to one of my posts? Have a good life.
I'm not sure. Perhaps I neglected to respond when you posted about having to "fight back tears" while watching James McCartney's emotional performance on the David Letterman Show. I really don't remember.
I'm fighting tears back right now...it's clear, you two are in love.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
muenke
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
So based on that definition of yours, shouldn't your subject heading be "Keith officially says that Stones are to discuss about whether or not they will record an album and Keith officially says that he'd like to play some concerts and they're considering going out on tour"?Quote
stonesnow
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
stonesnow, do you know the definition of the word "official"?
there's several unofficial definitions, you know....
Sure. Official: the difference between "rumor" (i.e., The Mirror UK) and "news" (i.e., the Rolling Stone article). News tells us something concrete from verifiable sources, as opposed to hearsay based on unnamed "sources."
There's nothing in that article that states that they are going to record an album and tour. It's not official. A press release is official. Keith saying "yes, we are recording, we have booked 3 months worth of studio time" is official.
True. This thread was inevitable. I was merely the first to post it.
Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya
Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.
But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.
Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.
I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB
Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."
Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.
I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.
On second thought I think maybe you should consider giving me a second chance. Go back and re-read all of my posts. I honestly think if you gave me a sincere second chance you could learn a great deal on how our favorite band operates.
Re-read all of your posts? Including all thewatchman and stonescrow posts, too? Who the hell's got that kind of time? It would take me a couple of hours just to get through all your "farewell" threads.
Maybe take a little vacation from the speculation threads until we hear something official in the form of a press conference? The speculation will soon be over. If not next month then certainly no later than the first of the year.
It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.
You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.
I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.
Have you ever NOT responded to one of my posts? Have a good life.
I'm not sure. Perhaps I neglected to respond when you posted about having to "fight back tears" while watching James McCartney's emotional performance on the David Letterman Show. I really don't remember.
I'm fighting tears back right now...it's clear, you two are in love.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
mmmm
[/quote]mmmm
[/quote]mmmm
[/quote]mmmm
[/quote]mmmm
[/quote]mmmm
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: June 22, 2012 19:18
Quote
mtaylor
mmmmQuote
mtaylor
Quote
mtaylor
mmmmQuote
mtaylor
Quote
mtaylor
mmmmQuote
mtaylor
Quote
mtaylor
mmmmQuote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
muenke
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
So based on that definition of yours, shouldn't your subject heading be "Keith officially says that Stones are to discuss about whether or not they will record an album and Keith officially says that he'd like to play some concerts and they're considering going out on tour"?Quote
stonesnow
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
stonesnow, do you know the definition of the word "official"?
there's several unofficial definitions, you know....
Sure. Official: the difference between "rumor" (i.e., The Mirror UK) and "news" (i.e., the Rolling Stone article). News tells us something concrete from verifiable sources, as opposed to hearsay based on unnamed "sources."
There's nothing in that article that states that they are going to record an album and tour. It's not official. A press release is official. Keith saying "yes, we are recording, we have booked 3 months worth of studio time" is official.
True. This thread was inevitable. I was merely the first to post it.
Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya
Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.
But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.
Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.
I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB
Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."
Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.
I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.
On second thought I think maybe you should consider giving me a second chance. Go back and re-read all of my posts. I honestly think if you gave me a sincere second chance you could learn a great deal on how our favorite band operates.
Re-read all of your posts? Including all thewatchman and stonescrow posts, too? Who the hell's got that kind of time? It would take me a couple of hours just to get through all your "farewell" threads.
Maybe take a little vacation from the speculation threads until we hear something official in the form of a press conference? The speculation will soon be over. If not next month then certainly no later than the first of the year.
It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.
You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.
I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.
Have you ever NOT responded to one of my posts? Have a good life.
I'm not sure. Perhaps I neglected to respond when you posted about having to "fight back tears" while watching James McCartney's emotional performance on the David Letterman Show. I really don't remember.
I'm fighting tears back right now...it's clear, you two are in love.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
muenke
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
So based on that definition of yours, shouldn't your subject heading be "Keith officially says that Stones are to discuss about whether or not they will record an album and Keith officially says that he'd like to play some concerts and they're considering going out on tour"?Quote
stonesnow
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
stonesnow, do you know the definition of the word "official"?
there's several unofficial definitions, you know....
Sure. Official: the difference between "rumor" (i.e., The Mirror UK) and "news" (i.e., the Rolling Stone article). News tells us something concrete from verifiable sources, as opposed to hearsay based on unnamed "sources."
There's nothing in that article that states that they are going to record an album and tour. It's not official. A press release is official. Keith saying "yes, we are recording, we have booked 3 months worth of studio time" is official.
True. This thread was inevitable. I was merely the first to post it.
Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya
Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.
But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.
Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.
I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB
Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."
Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.
I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.
On second thought I think maybe you should consider giving me a second chance. Go back and re-read all of my posts. I honestly think if you gave me a sincere second chance you could learn a great deal on how our favorite band operates.
Re-read all of your posts? Including all thewatchman and stonescrow posts, too? Who the hell's got that kind of time? It would take me a couple of hours just to get through all your "farewell" threads.
Maybe take a little vacation from the speculation threads until we hear something official in the form of a press conference? The speculation will soon be over. If not next month then certainly no later than the first of the year.
It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.
You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.
I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.
Have you ever NOT responded to one of my posts? Have a good life.
I'm not sure. Perhaps I neglected to respond when you posted about having to "fight back tears" while watching James McCartney's emotional performance on the David Letterman Show. I really don't remember.
I'm fighting tears back right now...it's clear, you two are in love.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
muenke
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
So based on that definition of yours, shouldn't your subject heading be "Keith officially says that Stones are to discuss about whether or not they will record an album and Keith officially says that he'd like to play some concerts and they're considering going out on tour"?Quote
stonesnow
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
stonesnow, do you know the definition of the word "official"?
there's several unofficial definitions, you know....
Sure. Official: the difference between "rumor" (i.e., The Mirror UK) and "news" (i.e., the Rolling Stone article). News tells us something concrete from verifiable sources, as opposed to hearsay based on unnamed "sources."
There's nothing in that article that states that they are going to record an album and tour. It's not official. A press release is official. Keith saying "yes, we are recording, we have booked 3 months worth of studio time" is official.
True. This thread was inevitable. I was merely the first to post it.
Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya
Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.
But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.
Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.
I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB
Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."
Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.
I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.
On second thought I think maybe you should consider giving me a second chance. Go back and re-read all of my posts. I honestly think if you gave me a sincere second chance you could learn a great deal on how our favorite band operates.
Re-read all of your posts? Including all thewatchman and stonescrow posts, too? Who the hell's got that kind of time? It would take me a couple of hours just to get through all your "farewell" threads.
Maybe take a little vacation from the speculation threads until we hear something official in the form of a press conference? The speculation will soon be over. If not next month then certainly no later than the first of the year.
It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.
You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.
I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.
Have you ever NOT responded to one of my posts? Have a good life.
I'm not sure. Perhaps I neglected to respond when you posted about having to "fight back tears" while watching James McCartney's emotional performance on the David Letterman Show. I really don't remember.
I'm fighting tears back right now...it's clear, you two are in love.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
muenke
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
So based on that definition of yours, shouldn't your subject heading be "Keith officially says that Stones are to discuss about whether or not they will record an album and Keith officially says that he'd like to play some concerts and they're considering going out on tour"?Quote
stonesnow
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
stonesnow, do you know the definition of the word "official"?
there's several unofficial definitions, you know....
Sure. Official: the difference between "rumor" (i.e., The Mirror UK) and "news" (i.e., the Rolling Stone article). News tells us something concrete from verifiable sources, as opposed to hearsay based on unnamed "sources."
There's nothing in that article that states that they are going to record an album and tour. It's not official. A press release is official. Keith saying "yes, we are recording, we have booked 3 months worth of studio time" is official.
True. This thread was inevitable. I was merely the first to post it.
Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya
Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.
But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.
Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.
I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB
Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."
Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.
I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.
On second thought I think maybe you should consider giving me a second chance. Go back and re-read all of my posts. I honestly think if you gave me a sincere second chance you could learn a great deal on how our favorite band operates.
Re-read all of your posts? Including all thewatchman and stonescrow posts, too? Who the hell's got that kind of time? It would take me a couple of hours just to get through all your "farewell" threads.
Maybe take a little vacation from the speculation threads until we hear something official in the form of a press conference? The speculation will soon be over. If not next month then certainly no later than the first of the year.
It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.
You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.
I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.
Have you ever NOT responded to one of my posts? Have a good life.
I'm not sure. Perhaps I neglected to respond when you posted about having to "fight back tears" while watching James McCartney's emotional performance on the David Letterman Show. I really don't remember.
I'm fighting tears back right now...it's clear, you two are in love.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
muenke
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
So based on that definition of yours, shouldn't your subject heading be "Keith officially says that Stones are to discuss about whether or not they will record an album and Keith officially says that he'd like to play some concerts and they're considering going out on tour"?Quote
stonesnow
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
stonesnow, do you know the definition of the word "official"?
there's several unofficial definitions, you know....
Sure. Official: the difference between "rumor" (i.e., The Mirror UK) and "news" (i.e., the Rolling Stone article). News tells us something concrete from verifiable sources, as opposed to hearsay based on unnamed "sources."
There's nothing in that article that states that they are going to record an album and tour. It's not official. A press release is official. Keith saying "yes, we are recording, we have booked 3 months worth of studio time" is official.
True. This thread was inevitable. I was merely the first to post it.
Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya
Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.
But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.
Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.
I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB
Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."
Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.
I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.
On second thought I think maybe you should consider giving me a second chance. Go back and re-read all of my posts. I honestly think if you gave me a sincere second chance you could learn a great deal on how our favorite band operates.
Re-read all of your posts? Including all thewatchman and stonescrow posts, too? Who the hell's got that kind of time? It would take me a couple of hours just to get through all your "farewell" threads.
Maybe take a little vacation from the speculation threads until we hear something official in the form of a press conference? The speculation will soon be over. If not next month then certainly no later than the first of the year.
It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.
You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.
I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.
Have you ever NOT responded to one of my posts? Have a good life.
I'm not sure. Perhaps I neglected to respond when you posted about having to "fight back tears" while watching James McCartney's emotional performance on the David Letterman Show. I really don't remember.
I'm fighting tears back right now...it's clear, you two are in love.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
muenke
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
So based on that definition of yours, shouldn't your subject heading be "Keith officially says that Stones are to discuss about whether or not they will record an album and Keith officially says that he'd like to play some concerts and they're considering going out on tour"?Quote
stonesnow
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
stonesnow, do you know the definition of the word "official"?
there's several unofficial definitions, you know....
Sure. Official: the difference between "rumor" (i.e., The Mirror UK) and "news" (i.e., the Rolling Stone article). News tells us something concrete from verifiable sources, as opposed to hearsay based on unnamed "sources."
There's nothing in that article that states that they are going to record an album and tour. It's not official. A press release is official. Keith saying "yes, we are recording, we have booked 3 months worth of studio time" is official.
True. This thread was inevitable. I was merely the first to post it.
Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya
Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.
But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.
Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.
I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB
Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."
Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.
I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.
On second thought I think maybe you should consider giving me a second chance. Go back and re-read all of my posts. I honestly think if you gave me a sincere second chance you could learn a great deal on how our favorite band operates.
Re-read all of your posts? Including all thewatchman and stonescrow posts, too? Who the hell's got that kind of time? It would take me a couple of hours just to get through all your "farewell" threads.
Maybe take a little vacation from the speculation threads until we hear something official in the form of a press conference? The speculation will soon be over. If not next month then certainly no later than the first of the year.
It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.
You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.
I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.
Have you ever NOT responded to one of my posts? Have a good life.
I'm not sure. Perhaps I neglected to respond when you posted about having to "fight back tears" while watching James McCartney's emotional performance on the David Letterman Show. I really don't remember.
I'm fighting tears back right now...it's clear, you two are in love.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
tatters
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
muenke
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
So based on that definition of yours, shouldn't your subject heading be "Keith officially says that Stones are to discuss about whether or not they will record an album and Keith officially says that he'd like to play some concerts and they're considering going out on tour"?Quote
stonesnow
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
stonesnow, do you know the definition of the word "official"?
there's several unofficial definitions, you know....
Sure. Official: the difference between "rumor" (i.e., The Mirror UK) and "news" (i.e., the Rolling Stone article). News tells us something concrete from verifiable sources, as opposed to hearsay based on unnamed "sources."
There's nothing in that article that states that they are going to record an album and tour. It's not official. A press release is official. Keith saying "yes, we are recording, we have booked 3 months worth of studio time" is official.
True. This thread was inevitable. I was merely the first to post it.
Yes, and I thank you for posting it. You probably shouldn't have used the word official but I think most of us understood what you were trying to say and that you were using the word "loosely". There are a few (maybe more than a few) on this forum that take things way too literal at times. It's just part of doing business here. Don't become discouraged. Keep posting. This has been a great discussion. Almost "orgasmic" for drama queens such as myself. Keep up the good work!
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya
Thanks, MightyStonesStillRollin50. Discouraged? Not at all. I enjoy the lively discussion and debate--and yes, even the bouts of repartee. I wasn't using the word official loosely, so much as enthusiastically--this is, after all, the first such news since ABB that they are convening to at least discuss plans for an album and tour.
But as to the matter of the "possible" tour of 2012 being delayed, as someone mentioned above: How is that court case involving Michael Cohl progressing? Has it reached an outcome? He's been their tour promoter since Steel Wheels, and there's big million$ to be had over who takes that role for any subsequent tour(s). Supposedly, Stones tour plans have had to be suspended until this court case is resolved.
Perhaps this is the "real" reason for the recent years of inactivity, just as Charlie Watts' problems were the real reason for the Stones not touring for that long stretch in the 80s--the sort of thing one doesn't find out about until years later.
I can't speak to the court case, but I think they knew all along (since the end of AB
Yes, that makes sense, as "familiarity breeds contempt." During that stretch in the 90s when they were regularly active, by the time of Bridges To Babylon some in the media were referring to them as the "ubiquitous Rolling Stones."
Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why they don't tour more often. Fifty years in the music business requires a certain amount of strategy and pacing. It's like running a marathon.
I'd rather skip the whole thread than to have to navigate around a mass of stupidity like this.
On second thought I think maybe you should consider giving me a second chance. Go back and re-read all of my posts. I honestly think if you gave me a sincere second chance you could learn a great deal on how our favorite band operates.
Re-read all of your posts? Including all thewatchman and stonescrow posts, too? Who the hell's got that kind of time? It would take me a couple of hours just to get through all your "farewell" threads.
Maybe take a little vacation from the speculation threads until we hear something official in the form of a press conference? The speculation will soon be over. If not next month then certainly no later than the first of the year.
It's clear to me now that your only interest is in seeing just how many times someone can "quote" a single message, and I want you to know that I absolutely refuse to play your sick and twisted little game.
You are so so wrong, but that is OK. It just didn't work out between us, tatters. We can now go our own separate ways. I harbor no ill feelings, but we really need to cease all communication. I wish you the best.
One Love, Gold Rings On Ya, mate.
I will communicate with whomever I please. In the highly unlikely event that you do someday post something worth responding to, I will respond to it.
Have you ever NOT responded to one of my posts? Have a good life.
I'm not sure. Perhaps I neglected to respond when you posted about having to "fight back tears" while watching James McCartney's emotional performance on the David Letterman Show. I really don't remember.
I'm fighting tears back right now...it's clear, you two are in love.
It's frightfully one-sided. He is starting to remind of Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me"! I told him it's over between us but he just won't let go!
Oh, that was an excellent movie. I especially like the part when he has to leave the radio station to go and save his girlfriend, so he puts a tape of an old show on the reel-to-reel and the tape says "Thank you for joining me for the next four hours of music and verse" or some shit like that, but the reel of tape is little, like maybe a 15-minute reel of tape! No way that tiny little tape is going to play for four hours! One of biggest flubs in movie history, right up there with the blind guy wearing a wrist watch in The Ten Commandments.
[/quote]
mmmm[/quote]
mmmm
[/quote]mmmm
[/quote]mmmm
[/quote]mmmm
[/quote]mmmm
[/quote]mmmm
[/quote]mmmm
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
Happy24
()
Date: June 22, 2012 19:20
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
Happy24
That is the reason why you just annoy everybody. Just like anyone else who has absolutely nothing to say and fills pages and pages, making this forum a big mess.
it's not my fault...it all started with a stunted childhood....
I wasn't refering to you, to be honest, but...okay, let's not dig into anyones childhood.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: June 22, 2012 19:24
Quote
Happy24
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
Happy24
That is the reason why you just annoy everybody. Just like anyone else who has absolutely nothing to say and fills pages and pages, making this forum a big mess.
it's not my fault...it all started with a stunted childhood....
I wasn't refering to you, to be honest, but...okay, let's not dig into anyones childhood.
rats. nobody ever notices me.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: June 22, 2012 19:29
Quote
Happy24
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
Happy24
You did it stonesnow - by posting an article with nothing groundbreaking and giving it a fals title, you have a thread officialy about yourself now...Jeeez, where do all those characters keep comming from?
I haven't said a word about myself. I'm just replying to those who address me by moniker. Nothing more. I think it irks a few people that I've only been posting here for 3 weeks.
This quote is from page 3
Now count how many pages you filled by writing nonsences about how perfetly spot-on is the title. Then try to tell me again that this thread is not about you and that it is about anything to do with The Rolling Stones.
Count how many pages have you writen and how much INFORMATION did you provide to anybody. That is the reason why you just annoy everybody. Just like anyone else who has absolutely nothing to say and fills pages and pages, making this forum a big mess.
I admit, you didn't fill those pages alone, there is one more troubled mind, who has absolutely nothing to say about The Rolling Stones or anything related and uses this otherwise lovely forum as a blog to share anything that pops up in his brain.
All I did was post a link and the criticism then rolled in. I've merely been answering the [often personal] criticism and occasional namecalling ["douchebag" for one]. How could this thread be about me when no one even knows who I am? It's not like I post personal web links and promote personal band activities like certain other beloved posters here.
Would it have pleased you if I simply parroted the RS article title of "Stones Gather to Plot 50th Anniversary Bash"?
But then the criticism would have been "What 50th Anniversary Bash? Change the title, and don't be a douchebag." Well, I won't. If the thread bothers you, then ignore it. The title will be proven right anyway soon enough. But don't worry--I'm not the gloating, I-told-you-so type. I'll merely give myself credit for being prescient.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: June 22, 2012 19:30
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
Happy24
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
Happy24
That is the reason why you just annoy everybody. Just like anyone else who has absolutely nothing to say and fills pages and pages, making this forum a big mess.
it's not my fault...it all started with a stunted childhood....
I wasn't refering to you, to be honest, but...okay, let's not dig into anyones childhood.
rats. nobody ever notices me.
Wait, what? Is that because you are a rat hanging out with rats? It probably would be hard to notice you amongst all those rats.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
GumbootCloggeroo
()
Date: June 22, 2012 19:46
That is EXACTLY what you should have done. That is what they are doing. There is no official word of an album and tour. Why can't you understand that?Quote
stonesnow
Would it have pleased you if I simply parroted the RS article title of "Stones Gather to Plot 50th Anniversary Bash"?
"All I did was post a link". No, that's not all you did. You read the article and put your interpretation, an inaccurate one, into the thread title and stated it as fact when it's not.
You might as well start a "Justin Bieber is officially dead" thread. He's not dead yet but he will be one day, right? Just let that thread ride for decades until it's official and you can say "I told you so".
This is officially the most frustrating thread I've read here. In fact, this thread made my browser crash.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: June 22, 2012 19:48
MESSAGE TO VETERAN POSTERS
The title shall stand, and I shall hereby refrain, as best I can, from answering to tedious personal criticisms regarding said poster and title.
If you dislike the thread, simply ignore it and it will duly fade...
The title shall stand, and I shall hereby refrain, as best I can, from answering to tedious personal criticisms regarding said poster and title.
If you dislike the thread, simply ignore it and it will duly fade...
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: June 22, 2012 19:58
It's official - Stonesnow (orlater) has agreed that this thread is pointless, wrongly and misleadingly titled and full of apt. May it die a ignored death.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: June 22, 2012 20:05
Quote
stonesnow
MESSAGE TO VETERAN POSTERS
The title shall stand, and I shall hereby refrain, as best I can, from answering to tedious personal criticisms regarding said poster and title.
If you dislike the thread, simply ignore it and it will duly fade...
If the personal criticism bothers you so much you should also refrain from stating wishful thinking as fact.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: June 22, 2012 20:18
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
It's official - Stonesnow (orlater) has agreed that this thread is pointless, wrongly and misleadingly titled and full of apt. May it die a ignored death.
I said nothing of the kind--it's you who is wishfully thinking, my friend.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: June 22, 2012 20:19
Quote
71Tele
Quote
stonesnow
MESSAGE TO VETERAN POSTERS
The title shall stand, and I shall hereby refrain, as best I can, from answering to tedious personal criticisms regarding said poster and title.
If you dislike the thread, simply ignore it and it will duly fade...
If the personal criticism bothers you so much you should also refrain from stating wishful thinking as fact.
No, it doesn't bother me, as you so incorrectly interpret, just that answering to it repeatedly becomes tedious and redundant. I shall occupy my time with other threads, which you and others may well ignore if you like.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
Happy24
()
Date: June 22, 2012 22:38
...Editted... I changed my mind after I wrote another 4 paragraphs. It makes no sence taking to that idiot
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-22 22:48 by Happy24.
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-22 22:48 by Happy24.
I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: June 22, 2012 22:48
Wouldn't it be great if the Stones would go on tour again ?
Keep On Rolling
Keep On Rolling
Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by:
ohnonotyouagain
()
Date: June 22, 2012 22:55
I would have been happy if they were just gathering to plot a 50th anniversary bash, but apparently they're officially set to tour and record. Woo-hoo!
Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by:
MightyStonesStillRollin50
()
Date: June 22, 2012 23:06
Quote
Rolling Hansie
Wouldn't it be great if the Stones would go on tour again ?
Eventually yes, but not until at least six months of Sundays have come and gone.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: June 22, 2012 23:56
The army dudes call this kinda stuff friendly-fire .....
ROCKMAN
ROCKMANRe: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: June 23, 2012 03:01
This is quite good.......................
I met a woman and she told me...."well baby...... well the blues ain't bad"...........
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-23 04:03 by EddieByword.
I met a woman and she told me...."well baby...... well the blues ain't bad"...........
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-23 04:03 by EddieByword.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: June 23, 2012 03:33
This is now "officially" the most irritating thread in the history of IORR, surpassing the recent Ted Nugent thread.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: June 23, 2012 03:35
Quote
71Tele
This is now "officially" the most irritating thread in the history of IORR, surpassing the recent Ted Nugent thread.
Them's big words...care to back that up?
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
ROPENI
()
Date: June 23, 2012 03:57
Indeed it is...Quote
71Tele
This is now "officially" the most irritating thread in the history of IORR, surpassing the recent Ted Nugent thread.
"No Dope Smoking,No Beer Sold After 12 oclock"
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: June 23, 2012 04:15
And this......smoky ole thing though..............
I met a woman and she told me...."well baby...... well the blues ain't bad"...........
I met a woman and she told me...."well baby...... well the blues ain't bad"...........
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
Rip This
()
Date: June 23, 2012 04:35
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
71Tele
This is now "officially" the most irritating thread in the history of IORR, surpassing the recent Ted Nugent thread.
Them's big words...care to back that up?
I passed on that thread completely....not even remotely curious.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: June 23, 2012 04:39
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
71Tele
This is now "officially" the most irritating thread in the history of IORR, surpassing the recent Ted Nugent thread.
Them's big words...care to back that up?
Sure, but certain things are self-evident.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: June 23, 2012 05:02
Or this one.......breaking the sound barrier at 150 feet...................
I met a woman and she told me...."well baby...... well the blues ain't bad"...........
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-23 05:04 by EddieByword.
I met a woman and she told me...."well baby...... well the blues ain't bad"...........
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-23 05:04 by EddieByword.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: June 23, 2012 17:11
Quote
71Tele
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
71Tele
This is now "officially" the most irritating thread in the history of IORR, surpassing the recent Ted Nugent thread.
Them's big words...care to back that up?
Sure, but certain things are self-evident.
As in all men are created equal.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: June 23, 2012 17:51
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
It's official - Stonesnow (orlater) has agreed that this thread is pointless, wrongly and misleadingly titled and full of apt. May it die a ignored death.
I said nothing of the kind--it's you who is wishfully thinking, my friend.
Wrong yet again. You standing by the title is admitance of your error. You are a stubborn wronger. It's turned hilarious. Continue on with your errors, they are very entertaining.
Re: Stones officially set to record and tour
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: June 23, 2012 17:58
.
I met a woman and she told me...."well baby...... well the blues ain't bad"...........
I met a woman and she told me...."well baby...... well the blues ain't bad"...........
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
AllAboutYours , bigtyke66 , bigvis , Cristiano Radtke , crumbling_mice , Deathgod , desertblues68 , detroitken , Doxa , DREAMTIME , firebird , fisweirgj4o , gagi , gotdablouse , gripweed , GRNRBITW , gtx8834 , Hairball , Harm , Hillside Blues , jaggerman , jmd , kish_stoned , latebloomer , lazzzybones , liddas , maarisathena , mandu , MILKYWAY , NICOS , rtr , stonesrule , thrak , TOOTSIE , Wild Slivovitz
Guests:
209
Record Number of Users:
62
on May 24, 2013 23:32
Record Number of Guests:
250
on May 26, 2013 00:18
