J ([email protected])
Sat, 8 Aug 1998 22:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
>It appears Tom tried to use the 'too shallow' argument yet took Bono's
>disclaimer at face value when his RS Files comment wasn't arrogant.
You
>forget one important thing, namely what arrogant means, you only have
>one half of what it means, arrogance is equivalent to haughtily
>contemptous, unfortunately the comments only point to pride and
>self-importance, not even close to the negative contempt, I guess
you're
>relying on a thesaurus., there is no disdain and contempt so it
doesn't
>have the negative element that entails arrogance. >It's black and
white.
tsk...tsk...tsk.... making your own silly definitions that are binding
only with respect to your narrow mind, huh Rob? Where does it say
anyway that it needs to be "negative contempt" with a "negative
element"?
>As I've mentioned, I've looked far beyond the superifcial glitz,
>stripped that away and focused on the music. What's >at the core is
what
>matters, that's a given.
>Any sarcasm at lilith followed her initial darts
You are one big hypocrite. If you knew how to look beyond the
superficial glitz and just focus in the music, you would have
appreciated the 90's U2. Bono's simply a better singer (note: I am
not equating singing with high-ptched screams) and U2 has written
incredible music yet you refuse to say so. It seems like you even go
to the point of equating "Holy Joe" with dirt...
Focusing on the music and not the supericial aspect means not starting
stupid debates in Wire about non-music aspects such as "looseness"
(breaking a hand in Washinton is loose, huh?) or even
"humility/arrogance." Oh well, the almight Rob Okorn bot is at it
again....
Cheers,
J
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Sat Aug 08 1998 - 22:41:46 PDT