Red Mosquito

Leatherhead wrote:

theplatypus wrote:Friends was such an awful, awful show.

Fuck that. Friends was and still is awesome. Though in the last few seasons it can be kinda terrible.

Shitty bland comedy without a hint of cleverness. Terrible.

Those people are my friends Jorge.

I could see why people would be turned off by his changes (whether or not he is a hypocrite I'll leave to you). Personally, I never really bought into the Eddie persona, and I've never thought Eddie was particularly bright or noble in the first place (not to say he was an idiot or liar either), so his newfound outlook hasn't really affected me as much. I could argue that his sheer fervor for his causes is what made him great, even if he was generally tactless and almost fascist about them (in fact I'd say that was a bonus where his music was concerned). Assuming it was ever real.

stip wrote:It does, and you are correct about Bill Gates. A lot of his charities probably do more harm than good (he's helping to destroy the American education system), but his heart is probably in the right place.

If Eddie equated your personal wealth with your moral worth in 2000 then the problem is that eddie was a fucking idiot, not that he was a hypocrite today.


What matters with wealth (in terms of moral critique) is what you had to do to get it and who or what is harmed in the process. What also matters is the way in which the institutional structures that define political and economic life rig the game and whether or not you are working to either help alleviate the worst consequences of the rigging, or actively working to change the rules themselves.

The rest is just image and advertising and marketing and transference.

Sorry for having a different opinion to stip, you are obviously the daddy of this forum and you feel like after a tough day in the office you don't have the usual patience that you keep with people who occasionally post here. It's easy to discredit the bill gates quote because it doesn't fit into your opinion. Obviously since bill gates and his charity organisation is probably proportionate to eddie's wealth, comparable to my income and charitable donation(not to mention time) in relation to eddies, it's a case that bill's got his heart in the right place but you don't agree with the structure and how it's ruining the education system. Just to ask too, how well do you know bill gates to criticise him? Because you had issue with me not knowing Eddie and questioning his integrity at this point? Also it's really the saddest thing ever when a person who frequents a forum at rate you do thinks that warrants them some sort of seniority for no other reason than you spend so much time here? Are you more educated in 'pearl jam'? What is it? I gave a reasons for my point, claimed that I didn't know them and that it was my opinion and you slam it with a condescending load of hot air. By all means blow it out your ass. Peace out, the forum floor is yours for you and your lackeys

Please stay.

bada wrote:Please stay.

yes, just please don't call me a Stip lackey. Thats just mean.

Ugh

stip wrote:I need to stop reading this thread, because it occasionally causes me to lose actual respect for people I like and take seriously.

I'm sorry. Someone asked if Ed had been a "turd" all along. I think the quotes I posted, which came from a 37 year old millionaire who had traveled the world over, reached the top of his field, met world leaders, been on the cover of Time Magazine, etc. (and not some wide-eyed 21 year old buying into some kind of punk rock ethos), suggests that yes, there's a possibility he has been a "turd" all along.

You're around the same age as Ed was when he made those statements. What would you think of one of your peers if you were out to dinner with him and he said those things?

Huell wrote:Peace out, the forum floor is yours for you and your lackeys

Haha

theplatypus wrote:

Leatherhead wrote:

theplatypus wrote:Friends was such an awful, awful show.

Fuck that. Friends was and still is awesome. Though in the last few seasons it can be kinda terrible.

Shitty bland comedy without a hint of cleverness. Terrible.

it felt good at the time, which is weird because it followed or preceded Seinfeld for so long. Its completely unfunny now, though.

Huell wrote:

stip wrote:It does, and you are correct about Bill Gates. A lot of his charities probably do more harm than good (he's helping to destroy the American education system), but his heart is probably in the right place.

If Eddie equated your personal wealth with your moral worth in 2000 then the problem is that eddie was a fucking idiot, not that he was a hypocrite today.


What matters with wealth (in terms of moral critique) is what you had to do to get it and who or what is harmed in the process. What also matters is the way in which the institutional structures that define political and economic life rig the game and whether or not you are working to either help alleviate the worst consequences of the rigging, or actively working to change the rules themselves.

The rest is just image and advertising and marketing and transference.

Sorry for having a different opinion to stip, you are obviously the daddy of this forum and you feel like after a tough day in the office you don't have the usual patience that you keep with people who occasionally post here. It's easy to discredit the bill gates quote because it doesn't fit into your opinion. Obviously since bill gates and his charity organisation is probably proportionate to eddie's wealth, comparable to my income and charitable donation(not to mention time) in relation to eddies, it's a case that bill's got his heart in the right place but you don't agree with the structure and how it's ruining the education system. Just to ask too, how well do you know bill gates to criticise him? Because you had issue with me not knowing Eddie and questioning his integrity at this point? Also it's really the saddest thing ever when a person who frequents a forum at rate you do thinks that warrants them some sort of seniority for no other reason than you spend so much time here? Are you more educated in 'pearl jam'? What is it? I gave a reasons for my point, claimed that I didn't know them and that it was my opinion and you slam it with a condescending load of hot air. By all means blow it out your ass. Peace out, the forum floor is yours for you and your lackeys

I wasn't challenging Bill Gates personality or his integrity. I was challenging the impact that their foundations have had in shaping American education policy. And I know that stuff pretty well, actually.

Also it's really the saddest thing ever when a person who frequents a forum at rate you do thinks that warrants them some sort of seniority for no other reason than you spend so much time here?

The saddest thing ever was this


so at best it can only be the second saddest thing ever.

And I don't think I am entitled to any sort of seniority over you. I think your opinion on this would be stupid regardless of how many posts you have, as I frequently say to the people who share it who have more posts than I do. So my condescension on this particular issue is totally independent of post count. Don't apologize for having a different opinion than me. Just feel bad about having this particular one.

Lament wrote:

stip wrote:I need to stop reading this thread, because it occasionally causes me to lose actual respect for people I like and take seriously.

I'm sorry. Someone asked if Ed had been a "turd" all along. I think the quotes I posted, which came from a 37 year old millionaire who had traveled the world over, reached the top of his field, met world leaders, been on the cover of Time Magazine, etc. (and not some wide-eyed 21 year old buying into some kind of punk rock ethos), suggests that yes, there's a possibility he has been a "turd" all along.

You're around the same age as Ed was when he made those statements. What would you think of one of your peers if you were out to dinner with him and he said those things?

I'd think it's idiotic. I apologize. I thought you were posting those in a 'you used to be cool and now you're not' vein--supporting that stuff and wondering what happened to that Eddie. If your point was that it was asinine then I'm right there with you.


I think the band's take on this kind of stuff right now is probably a fair bit more sophisticated than it used to be. I'm glad they largely outgrew comments like that. They're embarrassing.


Dad out

bada wrote:

I'd prefer him to Boom.

actually, in fairness to Huell, my post was obnoxious. I do apologize for that. I've written so many extended responses to that general argument that sometimes I just don't feel like writing another. But there's no reason to assume that you have been reading along for all 64 pages of this thread, and the hundred or so pages on the older board.

stip wrote:I'd think it's idiotic. I apologize. I thought you were posting those in a 'you used to be cool and now you're not' vein--supporting that stuff and wondering what happened to that Eddie. If your point was that it was asinine then I'm right there with you.


I think the band's take on this kind of stuff right now is probably a fair bit more sophisticated than it used to be. I'm glad they largely outgrew comments like that. They're embarrassing.

I think it's actually kinda remarkable to look back and see just how late into their career they were still saying stupid things like this. I probably thought "right on" when I read this in 2000, but I was a just a kid.

From the same article...

"Mike Mc Cready talks about the Seattle riots and how 'it was kinda funny when they were breaking the Nike building's windows.'"

"Jeff Ament calmly points out that it was the corporate targets that got smashed -- 'Nike and Starbucks and the Gap' -- and ridicules the mall managers who complained about losing two days Christmas shopping."

Stone is the only one who doesn't come off as being completely clueless and out of touch with reality...

"'I had mixed emotions about it. The statement that was made on the first day was pretty amazing. And to a certain point, it lost power when people started rioting. They already had the worlds attention, they had 40 or 50,000 people out there making a statement, they had shut down the WTO for the day. And then the destructive side of it is not something I back. There was a lot of ramifications. A lot of people got tear-gassed and stuff -- y'know, violence breeds violence. When you take it to that level you're gonna get an equal and opposite reaction.'"

I used to think most of the really dumb things they said were limited to the very early days of their career, or at the height of the pandemonium surrounding them when they were just being reactive or lashing out, but even the 2000-2003 period, when you could argue they were at a nadir in their popularity and finally had all of the space to breathe and be themselves that they'd always said they wanted, it turns out maybe they're all just kinda dumb.

shit, they still say dumb stuff. Most people do.

Yeah, but some of the stuff (especially some of the stuff Ed has said) crosses the line to a whole 'nother level of dumb.

The problem is, he's always got people around who are gonna cheer or agree or raise their beer and whoop it up because he's "Eddie fuckin' Vedder!" as opposed to say "Man, he writes some great songs, but he's kind of idiot sometimes. And when he's an idiot, he's not half-assed about it."