Anita C. Posted January 8, 2004 Author Posted January 8, 2004 We Americans find it amusing that we are being looked at down the nose of a people who still give large amounts annually to support a superflous monarchy. No dig here either - Just an observation. "Spike Heels . . a Pork-pie hat . . Have on the mend in no time flat . . Ten Minutes 'Till The Savages Come by Manhatten Transfer.
stephen in heels Posted January 8, 2004 Posted January 8, 2004 the monarchy brings in vast amounts of cash for the uk. many businesses thrive on it. and imo thats the only reason they are still here. economically i dont think we could do without them right now. p.s. you have the whole world laughing at the person who runs your country.
Firefox Posted January 8, 2004 Posted January 8, 2004 You are welcome to dig at our monarchy. Wasters, the lot of them, who I would chuck out tomorrow if I had my way. Mind you, you'll find a lot of Americans who think our Royal family is cute. Probably rather more Americans than British, so I rest my case there!
TallSwede Posted January 8, 2004 Posted January 8, 2004 I am certainely not a fanatic, simply an admirer of some of their songs, but: (Heavily clipped quote) "Zeppelin forgot about them" ... Stairway to heaven; -Anyone remember that one...? Here I'd have to say that Anita C has made a point, ten years from now, how many will remember a Britney tune compared to (the elder and perhaps fewer still around) who will remember a Led Zeppelin tune??? For us other dinosaurs out there, how about Deep Purples Smoke on the Water, or for a smaller group, Lou Reeds Walk on the wild side. -Not to mention Bowies songlist... -Or Jim Steinmanns, both for himself and the Meat Loaf albums he produced. -As a clincher, how many of you remember Todd Rundgren? -Whew, had to rinse my (lungs) writing fingers, sorry about that... TallSwede
shyguy Posted January 8, 2004 Posted January 8, 2004 Wow TallSwede you certainly bought up some classics. I'm a young ? 35, and I know Smoke on the Water, Stairway and walk on the wild side, all classics, all will be remembered for a long long time. I barely remember anything by Britney except ooops I did it again. Is it cos I'm old, or cos she is a manaufactured, hyped up, pap singer? I know what I think.... He was so narrow minded he could see through a keyhole with both eyes. Brown's Law: If the shoe fits, it's ugly
Allyx Posted January 8, 2004 Posted January 8, 2004 We Americans find it amusing that we are being looked at down the nose of a people who still give large amounts annually to support a superflous monarchy. No dig here either - Just an observation. Haha more fodder! Well seeing as America looks down its nose at the rest of the world, we couldn't possibly let you be top of the food chain, so to speak... Oh, and as Stephen says, the Royal family and all the guff that goes with them bring in an impossibly large amount of tourism-related income to this country. Pomp and Ceremony and maybe rock/indie music are the last things that Britain is actually the best in the world at (apart from being snooty). This amazingly inventive country has let the rest of the world benefit from our industrious nature, and in doing so has also let them run off with our industry. Cars and manufacturing - practically everyone but the UK does it better Sport, such as Football, Cricket, Golf - ditto (except Rugby!!) Inventions, the TV, telephone, hovercraft, jet engine - ditto Food? OK we were never any good at that..... The UK has decided to become a police state instead, to prevent any of its citizens (or should I say subjects!) being able to have a thought or idea of out own. We are not allowed to decide anything. Not even the temperature of our bath water! Sorry for going off at a tangent like this - this is the rant section though! As the BBC voice would say, "We apologise for the interruption to this programme - we can now take you back to Britney Spears"
Zimmy Posted January 9, 2004 Posted January 9, 2004 Here I'd have to say that Anita C has made a point, ten years from now, how many will remember a Britney tune compared to (the elder and perhaps fewer still around) who will remember a Led Zeppelin tune??? "everyone" that's younger than 20+- years now, will remeber a britney tune more than a zepperlin tune! i'm 23 now, and i listen to bob dylan, stones, metallica, johnny cash, REM and lots of different blues artists. mostly music made before or right after i was born. and i have to admit, sadly, that i know the name of more britney songs than zepperlin songs, even though i own one zepperlin album, and none of britneys...
stephen in heels Posted January 9, 2004 Posted January 9, 2004 different generations, different views.
TXT-1 Posted January 9, 2004 Posted January 9, 2004 of course I have heard "stairway to heaven" also have heard "Kashmir", (which Eminem raped) unfortunately the kids of today think eminem created the riff that he "borrowed" from "Kashmir"oh well when people have NO talent they fip off other artist that DO have talent by "borrowing" oher bands riffs/songs/lyical content! and everyone in 10 years under 20 years old will remember Metallica more than Iron Maiden thats the way the cokkie/biscut crumbles! although Maiden's typical new fans are 14-17 years old so maybe that might not be the case but then again I'm not holding my breath. later, TXT-1
stephen in heels Posted January 9, 2004 Posted January 9, 2004 just because some1 does a cover version of snother song doesnt mean they dont have talent.
TXT-1 Posted January 9, 2004 Posted January 9, 2004 No, but I've heard my fair share of bad covers! eg. the crappy version of AC/DC's "Diry Deeds Done Dirt Cheap" that is featured in the movie "Dirty Deeds" and then again KISS's version of "God Gave Rock And Roll To You" (originally performed by Ted Nugent) is WAY beter than the original! later, TXT-1
azraelle Posted January 10, 2004 Posted January 10, 2004 However, there are reasons for her popularity, and don't forget that her debut album was released in 1997 (or was it 98?) so she's been delivering what "the people" want for over 6 years now. As I recall, a Brit band in the 60's were accused of producing "same-o, same-o pop tripe" and they were quoted as saying something along the lines of "we write and sing what the fans obviously want". Who? Hermin's Hermits. I for one happen to like what few songs I have heard Britney sing, and not because of the way she looks; Way back in Nov, 1998, while driving truck, and having delivered a load to a Best Buy in Idaho, they were playing a demo music video of about 6 different, and unidentified artists in the store, one of which was Britney singing her debut song, at the age of 17, I later found out. I liked the song being played, before I looked up to see her "writhing" on the screen! I then asked every sales person in the store who she was, and nobody knew, nor did they have her first album--it didn't come out until late December. I do think that Christina Aguilera is better looking, has a better voice (there were some critics that were comparing her vocal range to that of Barbara Streisand back when Christina's first album came out), and definitely has more fashion presence (sorta like Cher's!), and J-Lo, and Hillary Duff have more singing AND acting talent. But give the lady a break. We all do dumb things from time to time--we just don't have the mis-fortune to have the world's papparazzi there to photograph it when we do!! "All that you can decide, is what to do with the time that is given you."--Gandalf, "Life is not tried, it is merely survived -If you're standing outside the fire."--Garth Brooks
genebujold Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 Haha more fodder! Well seeing as America looks down its nose at the rest of the world, we couldn't possibly let you be top of the food chain, so to speak... Oh, and as Stephen says, the Royal family and all the guff that goes with them bring in an impossibly large amount of tourism-related income to this country. Pomp and Ceremony and maybe rock/indie music are the last things that Britain is actually the best in the world at (apart from being snooty). This amazingly inventive country has let the rest of the world benefit from our industrious nature, and in doing so has also let them run off with our industry. Cars and manufacturing - practically everyone but the UK does it better Sport, such as Football, Cricket, Golf - ditto (except Rugby!!) Inventions, the TV, telephone, hovercraft, jet engine - ditto Food? OK we were never any good at that..... The UK has decided to become a police state instead, to prevent any of its citizens (or should I say subjects!) being able to have a thought or idea of out own. We are not allowed to decide anything. Not even the temperature of our bath water! Sorry for going off at a tangent like this - this is the rant section though! As the BBC voice would say, "We apologise for the interruption to this programme - we can now take you back to Britney Spears" Hmmm... Definately more fodder - to which I'd like to take exception! Rolls Royce. None better. Rugby - the real men's version of sandlot pigskin. Jet engine. Uh, I thought the Germans got there first on that one... No? Bangers and Mashers are by far my favorite dish! As for being inventive and letting the rest of the world run away with our ideas... International patents are amazingly difficult to enforce, even among trade partners. And there will always be poor, highly adaptive (if not inventive) third-world countries who'll take an idea and run with it. Thirty years ago, it was Japan. Twenty years ago, Taiwan. Ten years ago, Korea. The standard of living (and prices) of all of them have risen to match, squelching the profits gained by doing business with them. Currently, it's China - just read the "made in..." labels on just about everything in your house! But what country is next? Any takers?
Anita C. Posted January 11, 2004 Author Posted January 11, 2004 I believe that the next country will be Korea. Their advances in technilogy and quality recently have been gaining notice . . . from the Japanese! On Rolls Royce. Yes, they are a high water mark even though they are now owned by BMW and use BMWs' engines-the beat goes on. Now look at M-B. Recent HEAVY competition from LEXUS nas M-B advertising more agressively than ever in the companys' history. LEXUS has yearly increased its' share of that market and WAS formerly M-B's exclusive clientbase. What will happen in this new world market is anyones' guess. In the meanwhile-keep an eye on Korea. Ciao! Anita "Spike Heels . . a Pork-pie hat . . Have on the mend in no time flat . . Ten Minutes 'Till The Savages Come by Manhatten Transfer.
Allyx Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 Hmmm... Definately more fodder - to which I'd like to take exception! Rolls Royce. None better. Rugby - the real men's version of sandlot pigskin. Jet engine. Uh, I thought the Germans got there first on that one... No? Bangers and Mashers are by far my favorite dish! Bangers and Mash? Really?? Well, Rolls Royce always had peerless engineering as is typical of old British marques - trouble was that they were 50 years behind the current state of the art. To bring them up to date required the Germans as Anita so rightly says. I have nothing against BMW - I drive one of their fine motor cars myself. The jet engine? Definitely the Brits. Type "Sir Frank Whittle" into your favourite search engine. The Germans did master controlled flight before anyone else - albeit non-powered. Search for "Otto Lilienthal" All of this makes me marvel at the sheer inventiveness and creativity of mankind. After all, we created the high heeled shoe. The second most beautiful form on earth after the female form. Who would have thought that we were the most destructive force on our planet bar none? I challenge anyone to argue differently, and I look forward to the debate! ps. Is there a limit to the number of nested quotes available?
chris100575 Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 Well, whatever killed off all the dinosaurs (giant meteor?) was probably the first most destructive force on the planet, but I think man comes a close second. Even not taking into account inventions like the hydrogen bomb, our systematic destruction of various species of animal puts us up there. Sadly it's all too easy to imagine showing my future children a picture of a tiger in a book and having to tell them "They were beautiful animals, but we killed them all." Chris
genebujold Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 I believe that the next country will be Korea. Their advances in technilogy and quality recently have been gaining notice . . . from the Japanese! On Rolls Royce. Yes, they are a high water mark even though they are now owned by BMW and use BMWs' engines-the beat goes on. Now look at M-B. Recent HEAVY competition from LEXUS nas M-B advertising more agressively than ever in the companys' history. LEXUS has yearly increased its' share of that market and WAS formerly M-B's exclusive clientbase. What will happen in this new world market is anyones' guess. In the meanwhile-keep an eye on Korea. Ciao! Anita I really think Korea is past its prime. I even wrote: As for being inventive and letting the rest of the world run away with our ideas... International patents are amazingly difficult to enforce, even among trade partners. And there will always be poor, highly adaptive (if not inventive) third-world countries who'll take an idea and run with it. Thirty years ago, it was Japan. Twenty years ago, Taiwan. Ten years ago, Korea. The main reason Korea is past its prime is because their per-capita GNP is so high, which determines their prices, profits, or both. When that profit margin narrows, reinvestment needed to sustain both growth and development also dwindles. China's is still low, they're rapidly catching up on technology, have the backing of their government, etc.
genebujold Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 Well, whatever killed off all the dinosaurs (giant meteor?) was probably the first most destructive force on the planet, but I think man comes a close second. Even not taking into account inventions like the hydrogen bomb, our systematic destruction of various species of animal puts us up there. Sadly it's all too easy to imagine showing my future children a picture of a tiger in a book and having to tell them "They were beautiful animals, but we killed them all." Chris I'm no tree-hugger, but neither am I unsensitive to the plight of our planet. The fish population is 1/3 of what it was 50 years ago. The lack of food and natural fertilizer for the ocean has killed massive acres of reef and plant life, as has the tons of pollution we pour into it every second. If we, as a planet, die, that's where it will start, for the entire ecosystem of the planet, including the heat cycle (global warming, anyone?), revolves around the ocean. Since an estimated 50 species perish every day, naturally, I don't really think our killing one or two a year adds up to very much... Then again, the very fact that bacteria exist in the 300-degree highly acidic thermal vents deep in the ocean suggest life is a bit more resilient than we give it credit. In fact, I would be we could screw things up royally, and life would plod along. There would probably be a different mix of fauna and flora than we have today, but it would definately survive.
Bubba136 Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 Chris said:I think man comes a close second. I agree with him -- Let's get rid of man before he completely destroy the planet so the rest of the species can survive. Being mentally comfortable in your own mind is the key to wearing heels in public.
Recommended Posts