Project S.A.M.

Sounds like a bunch of gaylords bitchin about NAMBY SHITE to me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/musicscotland/tinthepark/?section=our_titp&page=needles

I always wanted to see PAGG cover Hot Dang in the City by The Baatchis. Hang on...

Yep, it's still the Jerry Only, Marky Ramone and Dez Cadena line up. Just because it's not as cool as seeing the original Misfits line-up (whichever you take to be 'definitive') doesn't mean it's not fucking cool. I was at the last gig and it was amazing. I like old and new Misfits, and you got a full set's worth of both, plus a full set's worth of Ramones songs, plus a bunch of 50s covers and a few Black Flag songs which probably added up to about a set's worth- that makes the equivalent of four sets in one continuous gig. God knows how long it went on for but it didn't drag on at all. To my mind, anyone who doesn't go on 'point of principle' is just being a touch whinging, petty and anally-retentive.

I suspect that Karloff will be away on tour then. Even if they're back, there might be problems seeing as they're playing the Lemon Tree on the 13th. Gig blocking etc. Vomitus would be cool. I don't even know who Cliff Burton is. Can I pretend to like The Misfits too?

Cool. Hope no-one minds if I mine this thread for quotes for future publicity! Buckets of mud, fair enough, but Tin-tin after a contact lense accident.... jesus! Bile indeed. Mr. Maxwell's opinion is well-known. As for Del... well that seems to change every five minutes, so I dunno.

Aagh! You've confused me. A little more is more than nothing more! Which is it? I don't know which I'd prefer- a little more than a tiresome in-joke is quantitatively better than a tiresome in-joke all by itself and nothing extra, but then there's nothing like being damned with faint praise...

Can I ask why some text in a standard font that someone has used to write our name on a poster is being presumed to be some kind of purposively designed official logo? Student liberals? We only appeal to strong working men who couldn't give a rat's ass about anything other than fighting, football, drinking beer and abusing women. They've no quarrel with either coons, kikes or poofs- just as long as they're not in our country.

Excellent. Is this supposed to be some kind of slapstick comedy thread?

I believe lady-o-loosniffer will be on before us. In which case you can go see them and leave before we appear. That way everyone wins!

Then why are you on here all the time making exactly the same post again and again? This can't be healthy. Maybe if you try talking to some real people about a topic other than digital music and without trying to prove to them how rubbish and pointless their lives and interests are, you might feel better about yourself? Or maybe get a bit of perspective?

The Sunday Times as well? There was a similar-but-different-sounding item in the Scotland on Sunday...

American Lana??!? Now she is scary. She used to strike fear even into Nicky Ca$ino's black heart. I think she kinda stalked him for a while. X-(

1. If' date=' as has already been suggested is plausible, a proportion of homosexuality in a population is healthy and is conducive to the continued survival of a species, would that reverse your position? 2. Where does this "purpose" derive from? I take it you're not looking to Genesis ("go forth and multiply") to justify that statement. Why is the act of producing a life the undeniable sole fundamental value? Obviously, you can't say that the value derives from the life you have produced, apart from the extent to which that life goes on to reproduce, and then so on and so on... And gays [i']can reproduce, it's just that they wouldn't enjoy the necessary act so much. You don't seem to pick up on the implications of your argument. If the only valuable lives are those that reproduce, what of those who don't reproduce? They must be without value, purposeless. So why isn't it wrong to end such lives, or prevent them even beginning? And what about a couple of tramps having unprotected sex in a sewer, and being really turned on by it. It's heterosexual and reproductive, but the idea seems pretty sleazy and dirty to me...

Nullmouse has gone and beaten me to a lot of the points I was going to make, but if I could just follow up... So homosexuality is a "defect"... What is the essential difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual? Their gender towards which their sexual desire is directed. As Alan has pointed out, there is no good reason to believe that sexuality is genetically determined, but even if there is a "gay gene", it's not really significant: it's not the actual gene itself that is the issue, but the effects of that gene. In which case whether or not the gene is a defect or not depends on the status of its effect, which is a particular type of sexual desire. So not a physical attribute, and not like a physical disability. The question is whether the desire is defective. Is the homosexual condition, if you like, defective because it's "unnatural" or prevents what human beings ought to be doing, ie reproducing? Being homosexual doesn't physically prevent reproduction, but for the sake of argument let's say homosexuals avoid procreation. So the purpose of human life is to reproduce? Every human life? In which case heterosexual people who choose not to have children have the same status as homosexuals, on this view. The same surely goes, not only for anal sex, but any heterosexual act that does not aim towards reproduction. On this way of thinking, sex is only correct if it is for reproduction, if homosexual sex is "defective" or wrong because won't result in reproduction. It seems a remarkably narrow understanding of the value of human life if, as bryn seems to be suggesting, any life without reproduction is defective and unnatural, not worth living, even. Also, what is "natural" but that which occurs in nature? If homosexuality is genetic then it is natural. Homosexuality has been observed in animals, too, incidentally. One idea is that some proportion of homosexuality is desirable in a population as it is one means (among, of course, many) by which overpopulation is avoided. Given the average human sex drive, if every sexual act was reproductive then population growth would be uncontrollable, or if it was controlled it would be by staggeringly high infant mortality. So, if you want to argue over what's "natural", the "it's not normal" and "what if everybody was gay" arguments don't hold up.

What is this about? I don't understand what this is about. It's not about anything. History book? What history book? Gray's Sports Almanac? Alan McGee's Libertines are as exciting as Alan McGee's Death Disco in Aberdeen.

Holy fucking shit, Comptroller. I can't believe this. I can't believe that. I hope to holy goodness that you make it to London. It's a big city, you know. Some never return. p.s. Don't try to walk it. Also, it's in the opposite direction from Ellon.