Red Mosquito

sward wrote:

evenslow wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:Anyway, The Ten Club could’ve handled digital sales.

This invalidates the rest of your argument.

I tried reading through each the arguments but man, I didnt realize how bad my attention span was until I tried. Probably should go back and re-read it before I offer ANY viewpoint. But I believe, truly believe that the band has altered the way it 'sells' things in order to compensate for the decrease in album sales/royalties and to allow themselves to maintain whatever lifestyle they earned from the beginning.

That said. There is zero wrong with that. I can't walk out the door today and decide I can take a job that pays me 40% of what it used to. Can't do it. I'll take whatever job allows me to maintain my lifestyle and hopefully one that gives back to me as well somehow.

I also believe that the band allocates number of dollars from said earnings towards various charities or foundations and would like to be able to do that as well as continue to live their lives as they have been for 20 years and with that, I am comfortable with whatever route they take to sell it. Its just as easy to see their partnership with Target as all greed since Target, on the surface is the sort of corporation they railed against early on. But you could also try to dig deeper and find out that aligning with Target allowed them to recoup their costs for the album, put some in the bank as well as have a portion go towards whatever philanthropic endeavor they choose.

All good in my books.

Lounge Lizard wrote:I'm having red cabernet wine, cheese, grapes and walnuts.

gems and rhinestones wrote:

Lament wrote:

gems and rhinestones wrote:I think she was so lovely. I'm crushing on the singer from Chvrches right now, has that same loveliness about her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdNz5_L6hXc

Oh man. Don't even get me started on Lauren Mayberry. If I hadn't seen her in person I would be convinced her existence was just a mean trick someone was playing on me.

Pearl Jam should have just put a picture of her for the artwork and I would have been just fine with it. I'm seeing her September 13th!

EJ wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

EJ wrote:

STOP SHOOTING MATT!

Lament wrote:(I started a CHVRCHES thread in Other Bands so we don't take up real estate in this thread any longer)

http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/viewtop ... f=6&t=1948

IlluminEddie wrote:hy•poc•ri•sy
hiˈpäkrisēSubmit
noun
1.
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

stip wrote:The problem with the way people misuse the word hypocrisy is that they do not account for the fact that people's views may change over time as they discover new information, have different experiences, re-contextualize the old, etc. That's called learning, changing your mind, growing up, being wrong, etc. You become a hypocrite if you continue to publicly affirm one set of values while your behavior undermines those values. Eddie doesn't become a hypocrite if you can no longer hold him to things he said 5, 10, 15 years ago. He may be more or less admirable as a result, but that's not hypocrisy.

IlluminEddie wrote: As for time, I see no mention of time in the definition of above. I certainly agree one can change. I disagree that stip decides that time and whether one does or does not live up to the definition.

stip wrote:thats because you didn't quote the whole thing

IlluminEddie wrote:I did quote the entire definition hypocrisy. Go to google. Type in the word. Look at what pops up. You’ll see the entire definition I posted. There’s no mention of time, nor is there mention of stip making the call on what time’s appropriate.

stip wrote:i voted for Nader in 2000 and did not vote for him in 2004. Am I a hypocrite too?

IlluminEddie wrote: Did you stand on a soapbox for an entire tour or three preaching about third parties and their importance, then bail on that thought completely?

stip wrote: Like most people who vote for a third party, I’m sure I was an insufferable self righteous prig about it for a while. And then I decided that it was more important to me to stop Bush than support Nader, and that my time would be better spent trying to make the democratic party more liberal than push for a third party that did not have a large enough mass base to do anything beyond throw an election to the party I usually despise.

IlluminEddie wrote:
You didn’t “stop Bush”, superhero. He served two terms.

stip wrote:
actually, working in conjunction with pearl jam, I did. But then Bush offered to pay us a LOT of money if we'd let him be president anyway. I said no, but you know pearl jam and money...

IlluminEddie wrote:Bush served two terms.

Strat wrote:Would you 2 knock it off? Thanks.

stip wrote:In conclusion, Libya is a land of contrasts

stip wrote:Blah blah blah blah.

IlluminEddie wrote:Blah blah blah blah.

Spoiler: show