draelyc

Maplegasm

you are distributing 0 objects, so no objects are being distributed ('objects', representing the numerator) Therefore, 0/0 = 0 The same cannot be said when you divide a number >1 or "than" =/= "then" Grammar fail.

Last bump.

And my introduction to Drivin' & Cryin': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7POn9fJRhI8

i do, I liked their "hayride" song. Did you ever see "the honeydogs" or "the floating men" or "tommy thompson" or "bloodkin" or "bus stop" or any of those folks.....the list goes on.....I used to work in the clubs out on St.Simons, GA and saw a lot of great acts in small vinues.....driving and crying, Derek Trucks when he was like 12.....!!!!!! etc. Damn, I don't recognize any of those other names! Except Drivin' & Cryin', of course, & DT. I'm glad someone here heard of GT, though ... I knew they'd toured regionally, but it's been over a decade now since they broke up. Myspace page says something about a reunion show this Xmas, which made me think of posting the thread... I bet you did get to see some great shows coming through on the club circuit those days!

Anybody?

nope, but I sho enuff remember Night Train Ripple!!! a dolla fitty a bottle and it gots you stoopified yo!!! Lol, not *exactly* the same thing ...

Rob Sumowski, the "crazy conga player," is my cousin. Got to thinking about his band over the weekend, & just found this vid I didn't know existed! They toured the southeast in their heyday; anybody get to see 'em? Just wondering... Chris

Originally posted by Bob Savage I don't share my knowledge. They're trade secrets that cannot be revealed, even under an NDA. "NDA" = "Next Door Andy"?

Originally posted by DeathMonkey Hiwatt, mother{censored}ers, Hiwatt. Every time I see a shot of a Hiwatt's pristine innards, I get all choked up & misty-eyed ... My God, that's beautiful work!

Originally posted by Stratotone If they enjoy their gear, who the hell cares? I've played gigs with 5 watt amps (Univalve cranked with a 6V6!) it doesn't really matter. It's almost like those doofi who bitch about people having more than one guitar, or a really nice guitar and they don't play out. Pete + 1,000,000 for the use in conversation of the plural "doofi"! BRILLIANT! :D:D Btw, I'm a bedroom wanker with a 50 watt amp . . . so am I "teh," or "lose"?

Originally posted by telephant I completely agree. You know who has a fantastic voice IMO? Joe Cocker.

Originally posted by vlad Wasn't he trained as an opera singer? I heard that he sang opera professionally for a time, before Rock N Roll claimed him. Can anyone confirm?

Originally posted by vlad He has power no doubt, but it's so high that I can't figure out what he's understand what he's saying. I prefer Geoff Tate. He's loud, high but he's clear. Yeah.. to each his own. Man, the funny thing about Tate's voice is that, even when he's in the stratosphere, the tone quality is such that it "sound" like he's singing lower... I often don't realize how high he's singing till I try to sing along. Of course, other times it's more obvious...

Originally posted by bstaley If you guys dig Tate you would probably love the singer from my last band. He used to get that comparison all the time. Check this out: Burn For You Yeah, I hear the influence, definitely! Cool groove of a song, mang. Sounds like it was a helluva band.

Originally posted by vlad A good deal different from what DT does... The vocals kinda fit.. Thanks!

Originally posted by vlad You can do ALOT worse than LaBrie... For example: http://davglass.com/education/components/docmgr/default.php?sectiondetailid=26&fileitem=2&catfilter=1&PHPSESSID=76ea6b4dafd40bc10247f8376b7b3255

Originally posted by Bob Savage I saw DT and QR in L.A., and while I wasn't comparing singers per se, I walked out of there thinking QR got their arses handed to them. DT's sound was tight, thick and just knocked your socks off, whereas QR had probably the worst guitar sound I have ever heard from a band playing a venue the size of the Universal Amphitheater. Just so I'm not misunderstood though, I'm not throwing QR in front of the bus to make a point. I think QR is great, but Geoff suffers from the same vocal straining Labrie does, at this point in time, and I think they just made some bad decisions on their guitar amps that year. Hehe~ I know you're not hurling QR towards any large passenger conveyances, Bob. We compared notes on these repsective stops from that tour before, and I got the distinct impression that we each got treated to an "on" night for the opposite band. Hopefully, that means the overall tour balanced out, with good/great performances from both groups. Now, I'll give you this -- a major strike against QR on that tour was that DeGarmo was *s'pozedta* be playing with them (at least for the Atlanta show, I was told), but he canceled at the last minute, and his replacement was, imvho, utter {censored}e. Tone AND playing -- just complete rhinocerous crap. But Michael Wilton sounded godly when I saw 'em, and Tate was 12 feet tall. At any rate, I have no problem accepting the fact that QR didn't do well at the LA show, and I'm glad to know that DT did. At least you got to see one great band kick ass, right? I also think you're spot on about both singers having put a lot of hard-travellin' miles on their respective vocal chords for long years. Good call.

Originally posted by willy22 So I'm in a Dream Theatre mood. Listening to the Once in a Livetime disk. Do the other guys not realize that he sucks huge donkey balls? When I saw DT with Queensryche in Atlanta, Geoff Tate simply outclassed LaBrie. But to LaBrie's credit, he seemed to concentrate on serving the songs, and he avoided the over-the-top stratosphere screams I'd been told to expect from him live. That said, I love his work on _Images and Words_. (But at the Atlanta show, when they did a duet towards the end, I thought it was cool that Geoff took the high parts, & never once sounded stretched, forced, or strained... ) Chris

Originally posted by SkidMarx no. Why? Because you cannot erase greed and corruption. The UN and the charter they are supposed to enforce were a great fantasy. As was the League of Nations before them. Both are a complete and utter failure because of the fools that occupy the place. It was supposed to be the organization that prevented a repeat of Adolph Hitler. Instead, they allied themselves secretly with Islams' modern day Hitler for no other reason than MONEY. And they did it in secret and in violation of their own resolution. Why would we involve ourselves in such an organization? The liberal in your longs for a world governing body, as with all liberals. It just ain't gonna happen because the interests and concerns of an African are vastly different than the interests and concerns of a European which are different from an American, and so forth and so on.. The standard of living will be vastly different, the intelligence level, the income and wealth, political agendas, all different across the globe. All that would happen if we did have a world governing body with REAL authority is just what happened at the UN. It would devolve into a place for the less fortunate nations to complain and use their vote to extort money from the more fortunate nations. And of course you'd have people the likes of Koffe Anon(spelling?) who used the UN Oil fo Food program to make himself, his family, and all his friends fabulously wealthy. Not to mention, they aided and abetted Iraq by funnelling illegal funds to the country. I repeat, why would we involve ourselves in such a pathetic organization? That's what I thought. Thanks.

Originally posted by ranalli Saddamn and all those crappy countries over there are not a threat to the US. What are they going to do.. ..send a nuke over on a camel?? The ONLY reason they are a threat is because our country has the worst defense ever. We let EVERYONE in this country. If we would have taken a defensive approach we would almost never have to go to war like we do. The bottom line is that there are ALWAYS going to be terrorists and people out to get us....let's actually DO something to protect ourselves instead of pissing in the wind. Protecting ourselves from terrorism by fighting in the middle east is about as effective as fighting venerial diseases with aspirin.....WEAR A RUBBER...IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT YOURSELF. "Bombing for peace is like {censored}ing for virginity." (I don't know who said that, but it always stuck with me...)

Originally posted by SkidMarx well, they would score a lot of points with me if they had the UN ambassador from Iraq by the back of his collar as they escorted him off the premises and out of my country. There is no place for a nation that has a president who leads "kill ALL the Jews" rallies. But as you can see, they have still done nothing. Oh, people did plenty of moaning, but they are still in the UN. At this point, Chris, they will never be useful and should be dissolved. It is a waste of everyone's time. Didn't you learbn anything from the oil for food scandal? The place is full of corrupt, greedy fools who would get into bed with the liks of Saddam just to line their own pockets. Nothing is ever going to change, they can't be trusted. If they will not dissolve the organization then they should at least get out of my country. They do not deserve to stay. I'd say Helsinki would be a great place for them. Do you think there's any useful place in the world for *any* sort of pan-national organization made up of representatives from the various sovereign national governments?

Originally posted by Aineias Firstly - I'm shocked and apalled at the downright bigoted racism and hatered being expressed by members of this forum. The precise reason that people think the USA is the problem on this planet is because of people like Skidmarx and Boogie666 preaching their blind, ignorant tirades if foolish warmongering as venomously as an radical muslim cleric. 1) - I'm from the UK. Just to get this straight and so people can make fully informed assessments of my views. I opposed the war in Iraq and am deeply ashamed that Britain accompanied America in prosecuting a fundamentally immoral and illegal war (before you flame me for condemning the war as illegal, the grounds for war are such that it requires evidence of a Clear and Present danger in order to justify a strike against another nation. Whilst Bush was more open about his gung-ho mentality and revenge seeking for the atrocity of 9/11, the British Government falsified documents, data etc and claimed that Iraq was in posession of weapons of mass destruction - still yet to be found and seeming more and more likely not to have ever existed - which could be deployed within a 45 minute time frame. The UK Atorney General retracted his comprehensive document citing 6 major reasons for not going to war with Iraq and replaced it with a single page report allowing war to be declared mere days before war was actually declared) 2) Now that my own political views are clear, I would like to move to commenting upon the matters discussed in this particular thread. I do not in any way condone the actions of the Iranian Prime Minister or those lunatic protesters who took to the streets calling for the annihation of an entire country. However, given the strife and conflict in the Middle-Eastern region, and the culture of violence which exists there, I would like to make an effort to understand that they may not be wholly responsible for this demonstration (material factors of our environment have a very strong impact on our own development both intellectually and emotionally, if their entire culture is built around violence then it is not surprising that they are more inclined to suggest extremist action such as genocide. THIS DOES NOT MAKE THEIR ACTIONS RIGHT - but it does limit our ability to comment upon a culture we cannot remotely comprehend and it explicitely prohibits the actions of those self-righteous, western, arrogant pigs [not confined purely to those posters who I personally disagree with, such individuals are prevelant in any society] who deem the actions of the protestors to be "wrong". However, I do feel that the Iranian Prime Minister ought to be above such pathetic, inflammatory and highly irresponsible behavior and do accept the opinions of those who would deem his actions wrong. 3) By this same logic, however, I also stand firmly against those from the more advantaged western culture who similarly ought to be above the type of outburst seen from Skidmark (initially) and Boogie666 (whose bigotery is far more extensive than Skidmarx's who did at least have the decency to reprimand his political ally for the statements condemning ALL muslims). I have no methods of judging your socio-political and cultural backgrounds. I don't know if you were brought up in violent cultures or suffered from poverty or poor education. While you might take offence at this and consider me patronising, I think that acknowledging your own occupational disadvantages takes far more courage than blind denial. Whie few people are able to triumph in adverse circumstances, many many more fall into the cracks in society and are condemned from an early age to lives of poverty and pain. This is the dialectical-materialist theory of histroy and socail evolution not just the derranged ideas of a madman trolling the HC forums I do appreciate that the dichotmy of living standards throught the USA is far wider than comparable gaps in the UK or Europe. The events of the New Orleans floods in particular have highlighted the extent of poverty in that particular region and have also highlighted the inept nature of the US Government to cope with any disaster on their own soil. Personally, I feel that this may be a psycholgical problem in that the US administration is unable to cope with the concept that America too is fallible. The sufferings of Londoners at the hands of the IRA and the Spanish at the hands of ETA have at least prepared those governments repsectively for problems on their own soil. However, this does not excuse one from spouting this blind hatred that simply mirrors the preachings of those Muslim fundamentalists you have all condoned. While some of the comments about the use of Nuclear Weapons are undoubtedly in gest, this militaristic bravado can be very dangerous and clearly there are some people here who cannot distinguish beteen the type of gung-ho action crazy political decisions seen in films and the more measured and rationalistic approach to politics that must be adhereed to in this volatile world in which we all find ourselves. anyone calling for the widespread invasion of the Middle Eastern so-called "Rogue States" (many of which simply retain their very differnt cultural beliefs and have the ferocity to withstand the widespread Americanisation which plagues Europe and other supposedly advanced regions - this is merely the contemporary version of this problem, British colonialism was equally damaging to the cultural integrity of the African Nations in particular, it just so happens that it is the Americans who are the culprits at this time)...as I said before, anyone calling for the wiespread invasions of these ares needs to reaffirm their grip upnon reality and maybe make an attempt to visit some different sultures and learn tolerance to take the place of your ignorance. Christian fundamentalism can be equally as damaging as Muslim findamentalism, it just so happens that the Muslim creed is more open to accepting violence so there is a greater volume of Muslim Fundamentaism to be experienced by us all. Finally, in reply to the comment that the World is hypocritical of the USA in loking to them to solve world disasters but not let them attack these dangerous nations... America sees itself as the World Leader. In many ways, they are: their education system is highly advanced, as is thier legal system (neither as refined as the British system I feel but every culture has it's own variations). The somewhat absurd level of Nationalism prmoted by "Patriotism" occasionally borders on the levels found in pre-Nazi Germany during Hitler's rise. This can be a great sttrength to a country and is neccessary to advance in the modern world, but it needs to be kept in check by scepticism and pragmatism (read some Bertrand Russel). However, they are fallible as the New Orleans disaster has shown. It is time for America to develop a mroe reaslitic coneption of itself and acknowledge it's own limitiations in Order to more effectively direct it's considerable power and expertise to where it is needed. It is perfectly fair to expect such a world leader to take the heaviest burden in times of crises, but with that acceptance of superiority comes responsibility. America needs to act more rationally and become more accepting of other cultures (many of thses conclusions also apply to Britain and Europe, however, the topic of this thread referred specifically to America). It is right to feel outrage against tyranny and demand that something ought to be done. However, there needs to be consistency and measured responses. Your own arrogance and ignorance cuases mroe problems than it solves and fighting fire with fire inevitably leads to someone being burnt. So far the americans seem to feel that it is their right to avoid being burnt but thier strong arm bully tactics will not succeed forever. The burden falls upon the people of America to present their country in a way with EARNS the respect of the rest of the world. Only then will people stop critisisig America for it's political actions in interfering with other global regions. I think that some level of debate in communities is healthy as long as it remains measured. IO hope people will consider my points on their own merits and maybe learn something from what i've said, jsut I I learn from those replies directed back at me. Ain Oh, wow. This is a truly insightful, perceptive, and articulate post. As you will soon discover, my politico-philosophical brother-in-arms, there is precious little place for such intelligence around here, when it comes to political and/or religious threads. Trust me, I've tried to go down that road before. But let me thank you profoundly for taking the time to post this beautiful response -- it offers more credit than is due, I think, and will likely receive less than it's earned, more's the pity. In short, nicely done. Chris

Originally posted by SkidMarx it astounds me that with things like this people still argue that WE are the problem on this planet. It's unbelievable: www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2005/10/28/252226.html where's the f-ing UN? Here we have a president of a nation that seeks nuclear weapons calling for the elimination of an entire nation and the killing of it's people based on religion and the UN has yet to do a damn thing about it. Is it any big surprise that when the last lunatic spewed rhetoric like this they stood by and watched while he murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people? This is outrageous and further proof of how USELESS the UN is. Get them the F out of my country, NOW. I'm just curious, Scott: what would the UN have to be like / to do (in general, not just in this situation) in order to be "useful"? Chris