From: Bruce A Bufalini <bufalini@gis.psu.edu>
Subject: Aza: braindead
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 18:44:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.104406.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> aephel01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In article <ja&vHg&b4a@atlantis.psu.edu>, Bruce A Bufalini <bufalini@gis.psu.edu> writes:
>> In article <1992Oct13.200459.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> aephel01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>>In article <!7&vH4194a@atlantis.psu.edu>, Bruce A Bufalini <bufalini@gis.psu.edu> writes:
>>>> In article <1992Oct13.124134.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> aephel01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>>>>In article <!n*vHjp83a@atlantis.psu.edu>, bufalini@gis.psu.edu (Bruce A Bufalini) writes:
>>>>>> In article <1992Oct12.102506.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> aephel01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>>>>>>these days they used in the 70's.  They're dried up and only hang around
>>>>>>>because there's a group of people who know how good they were and naturally
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yeah, and that is still a rather large number of fans.
>>>>>
>>>>>You seem to like to put importance on popularity.  Is this a complex
>>>>>from not being popular?
>>>> 
>>>> It means that popularity or no popularity, there are still many, many people
>>>> who love Rush's music, and I am one of them.
>>>
>>>I am not denying that, what is a bunch of crap is that you tried
>>>to use popularity as a gauge of talent.  That's like saying the
>>>best American is always president.
>> 
>> I never used popularity as a gauge of talent.  You're trying to say that they
>> can be talented or popular, but never both.
>
>I made a disparaging comment about rush and you came back with a line
>about 'why are there so many postings to a rush newsgroup if they aren't
>good?'.  That was you arguing that popularity makes them good.  And I 

And talent also leads to popularity.  I've seen them play live, and there is
no other singer/band I would ever call better or more talented.

>*never* said a band could not be popular and talented.  If you'd give a 
>try at learning the english language instead of those ignorant O**LES,
>you might actually be able to build up a logical argument without lying.

When did I ever lie?  You are making unwarranted extrapolations.

>>>>>>>consider them as good now without actually listening and hearing the
>>>>>>>blatant ripp off.  Hence, someone with the intelligence necessary to 
>>>>>>>print one word three to four hundred times is a typical rush fan today.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Not quite.  Individuals who print one word 300-400 times a day would typically
>>>>>> be classified as 'Rap-Heads'.
>>>>>
>>>>>Read my statement clearly, 'rap-head'.  Not only did I not write 'a day',
>>>>>but it describes what you and ken, the mental midget, think is a good
>>>>>dose of information.  You have aptly named your little clan.
>>>> 
>>>> It more accurately describes rap music and rap musicians' lack of creativity.
>>>
>>>Once again you completely miss the target!  How uninformed can you be?
>>>Not only did you botch the quote from a Rush song, but you missed the
>> 
>> I didn't botch it; I quoted it to Neil to refer to _2112_ and not some trivial
>> source that most people won't care about.
>
>That trivial source?  'that most people won't care about.'?  Only 
>the book that has had more copies printed than any other book ever.  
>EVER!  Does that hint help you sonny.  I personaly don't think that 
>Neil is the type of person to even think about ripping off this one.  

I never said Neil 'ripped off' anyone.  You put those words into my mouth
several posts ago.

>>>above point completely!  You and your butt-boy ken print that fuckin'
>>>O**LE word hundreds of times and think it is intellectual.  By your
>> 
>> OGGLEs are very informative.  Perhaps you need a dose of them.  Just ask K e n
>> for some.
>
>The impenetrability of the argument!  It's amusing to see you fall
>back into your own childish world.  Into the land of make beleive.
>Say hi to Sarah Saturday for me.

Sarah is irrelevant, for no Sarah has made her presence known to me.

>>>own definition, you're rap-heads.  And BTW, if you're serious about
>>>your last statement about rap, I hope you don't mean *ALL* rap.  Shit,
>> 
>> No, I don't mean all, but rather a large chunk of it.  I like Tone Loc, Young
>
>You just don't know when to quit, do you?  Tone Loc is second only to
>that brooklyn white trash ice shit head and mili vanili.  He raped
>Van Halen.  His whole stinkin' 'wild thang' song is about 5 seconds
>sampled from 'Jamie's Crying' off their first album.  The opening drum

I don't like it when musicians 'steal' from other songs, but I also have 
no control over what musicians put into their songs.  

>role and everything!  I bet you turn on MTV, see which videos have
>good looking women humping air, and THATS your song.  And know, good
>bands have good looking women too. ;^)

My point was that I like Tone Loc a lot more than I could ever like bands such
as NWA or the 2 Live Crew.

>>>I don't like it either, but remember when they said rock-n-roll was
>>>a fad?  Rap musicians rip off rock musicians and it is well known.  But
>>>not too many people know about all the r&b and jazz musicians that were
>>>ripped by the 'original rockers'.  It's just commin' in full circle.
>>>But back to the main point, you are full of shit!  :^)
>> 
>> And you are misinformed.  =)
>
>Probably on many things.  But you're still full of shit!

And you are still misinformed.

You are now required to OGGLE...

OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE
OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE OGGLE

--
Bruce A Bufalini (bufalini@among.gis.psu.edu) | Plus ca change,
P$U Geographic Information Systems            | Plus c'est la meme chose.
                                              |
                                              | Neil Peart, 1978
Newsgroups: alt.flame