Quote for the day:

The RODOH Lounge is a place for general discussion, preferably non-Holocaust. The Lounge is only lightly moderated but please keep this a friendly place to chat with and get to know your fellow board participants.
User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9633
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Quote for the day:

Post by been-there »

torus9 wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 1:18 am
I never gave punk rock any more attention than the 15 seconds it didn't even deserve. I was a teenager who could see through the pretentious facade of recording contracts, deadlines, distribution royalties, lawyers, tour dates, expectations. Punk, my ass.
Punk rock was created in the UK by teenagers and youth with cheap equipment. YOU presumably weren’t there. 8-)
It was an emancipation.
A much needed revolution.
It let young people make music for young people again and it revolutionised the usual route to a career in popular music.
New record labels, etc., were created to take the making of music OUT of the hands of the fat-cat businessmen. The money-men in suits and ties had to initially watch in disdain but then scramble to get a foot in the door.

Prior to the punk revolution, to be in a gigging band that got gigs in pubs/clubs, the expectation was to have the best gear possible: instruments, amplifiers, a PA, mikes, effect pedals.
Punk destroyed that expectation. Literally destroyed it. I was in a band prior to the punk revolution so know from first hand experience.
And that was a GREAT thing!

I also was disdainful initially, but quickly changed my mind when I saw the welcome changes it brought.

I remember seeing The Cure when they had their first single in the charts, at (I think) the Bournemouth Winter Gardens in 1976-ish, and being amazed that they played a large hall with just tiny amps and Woolworth guitars fed into the hall’s big PA system. They DELIBERATELY rejected the Fenders and Gibsons and walls of Marshall’s approach that was then prevalent. And they still made a glorious sound.
That made young people realise anyone could form a band and write songs. You didn’t need all that expensive gear and self-indulgent, egocentric, flatulent-masturbatory-‘virtuosity’ to make interesting, fun, entertaining music. You ONLY needed cheap instruments, a few chords and the guts to get up on stage and risk rejection.

So many great bands and songs came out of Punk — or as it was also called, New Wave:
The Cure, The Police, Ian Dury and the Blockheads, Elvis Costello, Magazine, Sham 69, The Stranglers, Siouxie and the Banshees, The Damned, The Buzzcocks, U2, The Pretenders, Adam and the Ants, The Clash, The Boomtown Rats, TRB, The Jam, Blondie, XTC, Billy Idol, Gang of Four, Stiff Little Fingers, etc., etc.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

SUPPORT RODOH!
Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH? Please kindly contact Scott Smith ([email protected]). Any and all contributions are welcome!


User avatar
torus9
Posts: 1174
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Quote for the day:

Post by torus9 »

That's nice. punk was for phucking retards...with premature ejaculation issues. Like a young Peter Townsend smashing his surrogate dick on The Smothers Brothers for instance.

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 3417
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: Quote for the day:

Post by blake121666 »

Yeah. There has ALWAYS been Indie and people without expensive equipment that made music. The record companies intended to make big profits out of talentless hack "musicians" with the punk thing. People with talent ask for appropriate money when signing record deals. Bums off the street will take anything they can get.

That was punk in a nutshell.

Some weren't entirely awful - not very many though. They were generally more "fartsy" than "artsy". I prefer the balance to go the other way with unknown acts. Most Americans did at the time. Punk had no legs here in the states. Towards the end, even the term had to change a few times - to "New Wave" and things like that. Punk had THAT bad of a taste to Americans.

Brits apparently thought it was more "artsy" than we did.

BT has it backwards. Those who are serious invest in their serious projects. If expensive instruments or whatever is required, then the money can be found for talent. Punks typically had no talent and no interest in being serious about or investing in themselves.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9633
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Quote for the day:

Post by been-there »

Ha ha. You old people. Sheesh. :|

Punk rock was a BRITISH phenomena. Americans copied it, but for a Brit, they were mere pretenders.

Chrissie Hynde was one of the best Yank Pretenders. But she — unlike most all other yank pretenders — had experienced the authentic British music revolution personally. She was touched by it in ways few Yanks were. She did — after all — temporarily date punk icon, the dim and doomed Mr. John Ritchie.

BOTTOM LINE:
Don’t diss something you don’t understand.

You weren’t there.

So don’t be square.

Take a chill pill.... and Pump it up, boys!!!! 🙂


User avatar
torus9
Posts: 1174
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Quote for the day:

Post by torus9 »


User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9633
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Quote for the day:

Post by been-there »

French Predident said this yesterday.
Is he deliberately lying or is he just delusional?
You decide:
French President Emmanuel Macron wrote:“One of our compatriots was murdered today
because he taught... the freedom of expression,
the freedom to believe or not believe”.
Do French people have the “freedom to not believe” the mass-gassing holocaust narrative?

Ask Vincent Reynouard.
Look how France treated it’s law abiding intellectual Professor Robert Faurisson.

Yet France insists it has the right to insult Muslms with DELIBERATELY offensive cartoons.

Hmmmm? I wonder why this disparity...?
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
torus9
Posts: 1174
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Quote for the day:

Post by torus9 »

"I was compelled to wear a mask during my visit to the bank today in a province that also seeks to curtail Halloween. Phuckin nuts."
-torus9

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9633
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Quote for the day:

Post by been-there »

.
“...But unless you read history
and identify with the perpetrators
then you don’t understand
history at all”

~~ Jordan Peterson

@ 2:50

https://youtu.be/Vknhe2CbvmI
.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9633
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Quote for the day:

Post by been-there »

There is no shame in having blind spots; everyone has them. Only a tiny proportion of our mental awareness goes to objective analysis of our own demeanor and behaviour, and that part receives practically no input during emotional upset.

Our minds are simply not programmed for accurate self-evaluation during emotional upset, which keeps us hyper-focused on possible threats. That explains how even the people we love can seem like selfish jerks when we’re angry or resentful.

It’s absolutely imperative to identify blind spots, own them without being defensive, and adjust behaviour to compensate for them.

...if you think you someone is acting like a jerk, and if you react like a jerk, what does that make you? If you react to toddler brain behaviour with more toddler brain behaviour, where does that leave you?

Adjusting blind spots in emotional interactions has to be intentional, just as you intentionally adjust the rear-view mirror of your vehicle.
If you drive on autopilot in your interpersonal interactions, failure to check your blind spots will lead to disaster.

~~ Steven Stosny, Ph.D.


.

Werd
Posts: 10360
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Quote for the day:

Post by Werd »

https://examples.yourdictionary.com/sci ... mples.html

"The purpose of the scientific method is to have a systematic way of testing ideas and reporting results in the process of scientific inquiry. A key component of the use of the scientific method is that it ensures that the experiment should be able to be replicated by anyone. If that is not possible, then the results are considered invalid.

The scientific method consists of six steps:
1. Define purpose
2. Construct hypothesis
3. Test the hypothesis and collect data
4. Analyze data

5. Draw conclusion
6. Communicate results

Before you can use the scientific method correctly in your own experiments, you must have a good understanding of independent and dependent variables. To better understand how the scientific method works in action, consider the following examples of simple experiments you can try yourself in everyday life.
Example #1: Freezing Water

Consider how the scientific method applies in this simple experiment with freezing water under two different conditions.

Define Purpose: I want to know if water freezes faster on its own or with sugar added to it.

Construct Hypothesis: The null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in how long it takes the water to freeze, whether or not it has sugar added to it. The alternative hypothesis is that there will be a statistically significant difference in freezing time between the two scenarios.

Test Hypothesis and Collect Data: Fill two identical containers with the same amount of room temperature water. Add a measured amount of sugar to one of the containers. Place the two containers into the freezer. At regular intervals of 15 minutes, open the freezer and observe the status of the water in each container. Continue until both have completely frozen. Write down the time it took for each container of water to reach a fully frozen level.

Analyze Data: Look at the time it took for each container of water to freeze. Did the water with sugar added take a significantly longer or shorter amount of time to freeze?

Draw Conclusion: Based on the results of your experiment, come to a conclusion as to whether water with sugar freezes faster, slower, or at the same rate as water without sugar added.

Communicate Results: Report your findings in the form of a written report as an oral presentation.

In the case of this experiment, you may choose to vary the amount of sugar added (during step 3 of the scientific method above) to see if it alters the results as well. This could be a more robust experiment as you would then have additional data to report."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests