Has Bono Ever Publicly Apologized For Anything?

[Vlad n U 2]

Amusing thread. Would read again.

 

[BVS]

That was nowhere close to the question that I put forth in that thread but good job BVS for buying into the ignorant and distorted perceptions cobbler is trying to pass off as gospel.

Do you beLIEve everything people tell you without doing any research and forming your own opinion?

I'm not sure what any of this even means.

What I do know is that you and I come from different worlds. You think that throwing some numbers up of how many songs were played where proves your point. Yet you don't bother with the context. You don't bother with the fact that the 90's only comprises a certain, smaller percentage of their entire catalog. Furthermore you still think that somehow that makes for an apology. In my world cheating on your girlfriend less, does not an apology make, just like playing a cover of a song that another artist covered and then mentioning the headliner of the festival make for a secret coded tribute to a band.

I mean did anyone accuse U2 of apologizing for the 80’s when they opened with 8 new songs during ZooTV? No, they were labeled bold. All of this really comes down to YOUR liking. You would like them to play more of the songs that YOU like therefore it's U2 being apologetic.

So don't pretend like you have proven points or some irrefutable evidence of your wild theories. And for sanity’s sake quit playing the victim it makes you look pathetic.

 

[DevilsShoes]

In fact, if they blow their own minds people will follow them instead of the other way around. Achtung (and the Zoo tour concept) was so strong that they opened the show with half the damn album and people loved it.

To a certain extent NLOTH was kind of marketed as another AB, a real game-changer to breathe new life into both the band and the industry, I mean just look at the amount of effort that went into the packaging alone, you don't do all that if you don't think you're serving up a landmark album.

So, at least from their POV, I think the band felt as though they had blown their own minds with the content on NLOTH, I think they thought it was up there with AB and JT. The problem is, the casual listener didn't agree.

In this instance, I have to agree with the casual listener, and for me personally, it's kind of worrying that U2 put so much stock in what they'd produced for NLOTH. It's light-years better than Bomb, but it's clearly not, nor would it ever have been, an iconic album, nevermind about it not being innovative enough, it's just not good enough.

As much as I love this band, I just don't think their instincts are as sharp anymore. Nowadays, what the band deem to be a truly great tune is, in some cases, radically different to what they would have believed back in the 90's, in fact I think it's good few notches lower.

There's something else to consider too.

I agree with you in that the band should try and tear up everything that went before and really do something different. Maybe it'd work and give the band the fresh injection they're looking for (if the past proves anything it's that U2 always respond well to apparent failure), but whether the casual listener would allow a bunch of 50+ year old men to undergo yet another subversive permutation is debatable. What worked for a group of guys just into their early thirties might have the exact opposite effect for the same guys who are now well into middle age.

Whether we like it or not, people seldom allow their heroes to ever develop beyond their most iconic phase, for Dylan it's the 60's and 70's, for Bowie it's the 70's, no matter what they do past a certain point, no matter how good, it just wont have the same kind of cultural impact.

 

[redhill]

I'm not sure what any of this even means.

What I do know is that you and I come from different worlds. You think that throwing some numbers up of how many songs were played where proves your point. Yet you don't bother with the context. You don't bother with the fact that the 90's only comprises a certain, smaller percentage of their entire catalog. Furthermore you still think that somehow that makes for an apology. In my world cheating on your girlfriend less, does not an apology make, just like playing a cover of a song that another artist covered and then mentioning the headliner of the festival make for a secret coded tribute to a band.

I mean did anyone accuse U2 of apologizing for the 80’s when they opened with 8 new songs during ZooTV? No, they were labeled bold. All of this really comes down to YOUR liking. You would like them to play more of the songs that YOU like therefore it's U2 being apologetic.

So don't pretend like you have proven points or some irrefutable evidence of your wild theories. And for sanity’s sake quit playing the victim it makes you look pathetic.

Man, you make it too easy. Let's begin blowing your BS out of the F'ing water.

First of all, I did not put the numbers up. Someone else did (first incorrect statement.) Luckily, there are some reasonable people here who don't like to make shit up and throw stones for no reason.

Secondly, I included a lot of context (second incorrect statement)...and I'm not going to repeat myself because you obviously don't care about facts. Since it was consistent and made sense in proving my point, it was glossed over by those who could not handle it (including you as you actively ignore the context I provided.)

U2DMFAN brought up a good point - that is primarily the Zooropa / OS1 (I know this is debatable as an actual U2 album) / and Pop that has gotten a statistically small showing over the 00 tours. Perhaps stating that U2 was too interested in catering to the masses live would have been a better argument. Relatively speaking, it is undeniable that those albums have gotten very little live play overall during the last 3 tours.

It is also undeniable that U2 significantly changed their approach / mindset to their musical output from the 90's into the 2000's. As mentioned, I provided context and this would be difficult to disprove.

Due to his, it also undeniable that U2 has done a lot less experimental work in the 00's and yes, I prefer U2 to be daring. Bland does not suit them and it never has.

Call it an apology, call it backtracking, call it less daring. However you want to say it, the facts are the facts and I have seen -0- facts to back up any other argument because it cannot be done. No wild theories here, kid.

In regards to the whole Moz thread (which is more than pathetic of you guys to bring up in this thread), Cobbler stated "I think it's pertinent to remember redhill also thought Morrissey was hinting U2 would play more 90s songs in the last leg of 360 because he played a Lou Reed song at one of his shows."

You agreed to that (and said it made sense) and then are now stating that I thought "just like playing a cover of a song that another artist covered and then mentioning the headliner of the festival make for a secret coded tribute to a band."

Which is it? Those are two very different things. You guys can't even keep your BS consistent!

What a joke.

Are you trying to set a record for how many incorrect statements you can make in one post?

I'm not playing the victim in any way. Just fighting off idiocy like yours.

Yea, I am glad we come from two different worlds. Yours and cobblers seem sad and pathetic. Throw stones, make fun, make no valid points. Some planet to live on. Is it even inhabitable by decent humans there?

P.S. Maybe you shouldn't cheat on your girlfriend at all...

 

[BVS]

U2DMFAN brought up a good point - that is primarily the Zooropa / OS1 (I know this is debatable as an actual U2 album) / and Pop that has gotten a statistically small showing over the 00 tours. Perhaps stating that U2 was too interested in catering to the masses live would have been a better argument. It is undeniable that those albums have gotten very little live play overall during the last 3 tours.

It is also undeniable that U2 has done a lot less experimental work in the 00's and yes, I prefer U2 to be daring. Bland does not suit them and it never has.

Call it an apology, call it backtracking, call it less daring. However you want to paint it, the facts are the facts and I have seen -0- facts to back up any other argument because it cannot be done.

This is the only part I'm going to address, all the other is childish bullshit that you seem to revel in.

It is not an apology. Plain and simple. Even you are now changing your story on this. No one agrees with you that it's an apology, so let's just drop it.

I will have a civil debate about "experimenting" but this is not the thread and frankly most times when we do it comes down to your preference defining what it means to experiment.

If I'm not mistaken U2 has played more Passengers on the last two tours than any other tour. There was hardly any zooropa played during popmart and pop has had at least some representation on every tour since.

You try way too hard with these types of arguments. You should just stick to saying I wish they played more of the songs I like and be done with it.

 

[redhill]

But it's irrefutable!!!

Do not waste our time with facts.

This was your response to my assertion that "It is irrefutable that the 90's era has not been represented very strongly (to put it mildly) during the 3 tours in the 00's excluding the 360 tour after and around the time the Achtung Baby deluxe / remaster was being released."

This assertion was then proven factually. You asked for facts and were then too childish to admit you were wrong once presented with them.

Do you want to admit you were wrong about this? Do you have any dignity as a man?

 

[corianderstem]

This is getting old.

You don't have to keep it going, you know.

I know you really, really want to be right, but there is also no shame in just walking away.

Because this is an argument about a rock band on the internet, and none of this shit matters one bit.

Unless you enjoy this kind of thing, in which case, enjoy yourself!

 

[BVS]

This was your response to my assertion that "It is irrefutable that the 90's era has not been represented very strongly (to put it mildly) during the 3 tours in the 00's excluding the 360 tour after and around the time the Achtung Baby deluxe / remaster was being released."

This assertion was then proven factually. You asked for facts and were then too childish to admit you were wrong once presented with them.

Do you want to admit you were wrong about this? Do you have any dignity as a man?

Seriously stop. Do you know how you look?

This is your problem, you don't even know what your arguing. I've never once tried to assert that the 90's were being represented as much as the 80's or 00's. I guess we could calculate percentages compared to the entire catalog, but honestly I could care less.

I was scoffing at(like everyone else in here) that this was somehow an apology. That has always been my stance, nothing more, nothing less. So it might be you that needs to swallow his pride and admit something.

 

[redhill]

This is the only part I'm going to address, all the other is childish bullshit that you seem to revel in.

It is not an apology. Plain and simple. Even you are now changing your story on this. No one agrees with you that it's an apology, so let's just drop it.

I will have a civil debate about "experimenting" but this is not the thread and frankly most times when we do it comes down to your preference defining what it means to experiment.

If I'm not mistaken U2 has played more Passengers on the last two tours than any other tour. There was hardly any zooropa played during popmart and pop has had at least some representation on every tour since.

You try way too hard with these types of arguments. You should just stick to saying I wish they played more of the songs I like and be done with it.

You have been childish the entire thread and now suddenly it's me? Nice attempt at a (failed) blame-shift. Man, you keep on losing.

You can take these things out of context all you want but my point was never how much OS1 was played on the last two tours or some vague notion that Pop has at least been represented.

And, yes, I would call it being (at the very least, inherently) apologetic (although, yes, I am sure I could have chosen a better word) to backtrack on all of their experimentation in the 90's by:

1. Completely shifting their mindset in the 00's to compete with Brittney Spears instead of subverting the mainstream.
2. Remix some of the Pop album (and play some if it live) in more of a rock format.
3. Play that much smaller of a portion of songs from the 90's live (by a margin of over 2-1) than the 80's.

The reason I ever came across the word is because that is what the thread was initially about (had Bono ever publicly apologized for anything?)

I had remembered that Bono made some comments before "Stay" to that effect and then did state that it was not as apologetic as I had remembered. At least I am man enough to admit that I was not completely accurate.

That said, I still do feel that U2 are not as publicly supportive (both in word and deed) as much of the 90's work as they should be and a big part of that is due to their obsession with the masses approval. Which is sad.

 

[redhill]

Seriously stop. Do you know how you look?

This is your problem, you don't even know what your arguing. I've never once tried to assert that the 90's were being represented as much as the 80's or 00's. I guess we could calculate percentages compared to the entire catalog, but honestly I could care less.

I was scoffing at(like everyone else in here) that this was somehow an apology. That has always been my stance, nothing more, nothing less. So it might be you that needs to swallow his pride and admit something.

Not quite bucko. You specifically scoffed at that statement and were proven wrong. Deal with it. Be a man and admit when you are wrong.

P.S. Like everyone else? Prone to exaggeration are we?

 

[redhill]

You don't have to keep it going, you know.

I know you really, really want to be right, but there is also no shame in just walking away.

Because this is an argument about a rock band on the internet, and none of this shit matters one bit.

Unless you enjoy this kind of thing, in which case, enjoy yourself!

I know but at least I'm getting a better idea of who the clowns are on here and who might actually contribute to a discussion.

I also want the brave and bold U2 back. I can't take another bland album or they are gonna lose me for the first time in almost 3 decades (and IMO, significantly tarnish their legacy.) U2 is coming from a place of fear instead of faith and I want them to find their way back. My friends (who I sold on U2 in the 80's and 90's) have all but completely given up on their studio work as well due to the overall lack of urgency and chutzpah. This can't be how they continue.

I don't want shades of greatness anymore. I want another masterpiece and so do they.

 

[U2387]

I never said they were actually sorry. I said that they had been apologetic about it (towards American audiences) by catering the setlists towards popular opinion.

It is clear statistically that they have done just that (and favored the 80's material by over 2-1.) If the numbers were to be run for just those 3 albums it would be a statistical landslide.

U2 need to (re)grow a pair and blow peoples minds again (including their own) and you need to learn simple arithmetic.

Cut your losses, seriously.

You are absolutely ridiculous.

You're now left with saying "I didn't claim 'sorry' passed their lips, just that their somewhat apologetic."

I acknowledged the simple arithmetic 100 times over, regarding 80s versus 90s.

So you still don't get it or you're being dishonest intentionally or both.

It becomes clear that, as BVS said, you have no argument, just a wish for more of your personal favorites in set lists.

Show me one place where anyone argued that 90s and 80s work had equal representation on 00's tours.

If you had anything of substance to say, you wouldn't be ignoring what other people have already acknowledged and being a condescending little baby to everyone.

Take the advice from someone who's been down the negative poster road in the past(just ask Gvox or BVS or people over in FYM) THIS PLACE DOES NOT MATTER THAT MUCH. TAKE CORIANDERSTEM'S ADVICE!!

I've been the forum asshole before. I didn't like that-I know most people here didn't like that, and I understand why. I took a long break and I'm now back.

You being a condescending bully on an internet forum does not change one thing about yours or anyone's life in this world. Nothing you do here makes you look any better or worse to the rest of the world, so what's the point in bending and bending and bending something that just can't go the way you want it to??

Just admit it, repeat it right after me and everyone else join in: "Redhill wants more 90s songs played on the next tour, that for him, would be all that is great and bold and ballsy about U2!"

It's very simple.

You have nothing more than that.

 

[redhill]

Cut your losses, seriously.

You are absolutely ridiculous.

You're now left with saying "I didn't claim 'sorry' passed their lips, just that their somewhat apologetic."

I acknowledged the simple arithmetic 100 times over, regarding 80s versus 90s.

So you still don't get it or you're being dishonest intentionally or both.

It becomes clear that, as BVS said, you have no argument, just a wish for more of your personal favorites in set lists.

Show me one place where anyone argued that 90s and 80s work had equal representation on 00's tours.

If you had anything of substance to say, you wouldn't be ignoring what other people have already acknowledged and being a condescending little baby to everyone.

Take the advice from someone who's been down the negative poster road in the past(just ask Gvox or BVS or people over in FYM) THIS PLACE DOES NOT MATTER THAT MUCH. TAKE CORIANDERSTEM'S ADVICE!!

I've been the forum asshole before. I didn't like that-I know most people here didn't like that, and I understand why. I took a long break and I'm now back.

You being a condescending bully on an internet forum does not change one thing about yours or anyone's life in this world. Nothing you do here makes you look any better or worse to the rest of the world, so what's the point in bending and bending and bending something that just can't go the way you want it to??

Just admit it, repeat it right after me and everyone else join in: "Redhill wants more 90s songs played on the next tour, that for him, would be all that is great and bold and ballsy about U2!"

It's very simple.

You have nothing more than that.

This post is absolute rubbish. I'll blow it completely out of the water when I have some time to waste later (seriously.)

 

[Galeongirl]

Unless you enjoy this kind of thing, in which case, enjoy yourself!

Apparently he does. I can see no other reason why he'd continue digging deeper like this. And to think this isn't the first time this happens, too. Funny how it's all our fault because we're immature jerks...

 

[BVS]

Not quite bucko. You specifically scoffed at that statement and were proven wrong. Deal with it. Be a man and admit when you are wrong.

P.S. Like everyone else? Prone to exaggeration are we?

Bucko?

Redhill I'm going to make one more post then walk away for even I feel embarrassed for you now.

You keep saying "proven wrong" but there isn't anything to prove wrong. That's what you don't seem to get. You said bono apologizes for the 90's I asked for clarification. You backed away from saying you had quotes, good for you, so all you have is that they don't play enough zooropa or pop. And even now you're backing away from declaring that an apology. So I'd really like to know what you think you've proven wrong?

 

[financeguy]

Cut your losses, seriously.

You are absolutely ridiculous.

You're now left with saying "I didn't claim 'sorry' passed their lips, just that their somewhat apologetic."

I acknowledged the simple arithmetic 100 times over, regarding 80s versus 90s.

So you still don't get it or you're being dishonest intentionally or both.

It becomes clear that, as BVS said, you have no argument, just a wish for more of your personal favorites in set lists.

Show me one place where anyone argued that 90s and 80s work had equal representation on 00's tours.

If you had anything of substance to say, you wouldn't be ignoring what other people have already acknowledged and being a condescending little baby to everyone.

Take the advice from someone who's been down the negative poster road in the past(just ask Gvox or BVS or people over in FYM) THIS PLACE DOES NOT MATTER THAT MUCH. TAKE CORIANDERSTEM'S ADVICE!!

I've been the forum asshole before. I didn't like that-I know most people here didn't like that, and I understand why. I took a long break and I'm now back.

You being a condescending bully on an internet forum does not change one thing about yours or anyone's life in this world. Nothing you do here makes you look any better or worse to the rest of the world, so what's the point in bending and bending and bending something that just can't go the way you want it to??

Just admit it, repeat it right after me and everyone else join in: "Redhill wants more 90s songs played on the next tour, that for him, would be all that is great and bold and ballsy about U2!"

It's very simple.

You have nothing more than that.

To be honest, if you find yourself on the same side as BVS on any given debate, it's time to worry.

 

[BVS]

To be honest, if you find yourself on the same side as BVS on any given debate, it's time to worry.

Didn't you recently accuse me of "stalking" you in threads? Yet since then you have made multiple comments like this, not contributing to the thread, just dropping in to make shit comments like this. Now who's stalking? There's no reason to get petty and personal, you're older and smarter than that.

 

[U2387]

To be honest, if you find yourself on the same side as BVS on any given debate, it's time to worry.

I've agreed with him in the past and disagreed with him in the past.

I form my own opinions.....if he has the same one, so be it.

Financeguy, you usually have some good substance to add...anything here or just this?

 

[Danny Boy]

This post is absolute rubbish. I'll blow it completely out of the water when I have some time to waste later (seriously.)

Anticipation - YouTube

 

[redhill]

All I'm saying on this topic......

For starters, this.

Be a man of your word. Now I'm sure you'll jump in and just say that you had to post again because blah blah blah...

You lied. End of story.

Are you at least man enough to admit that you lied?

 

[redhill]

Bucko?

Redhill I'm going to make one more post then walk away for even I feel embarrassed for you now.

You keep saying "proven wrong" but there isn't anything to prove wrong. That's what you don't seem to get. You said bono apologizes for the 90's I asked for clarification. You backed away from saying you had quotes, good for you, so all you have is that they don't play enough zooropa or pop. And even now you're backing away from declaring that an apology. So I'd really like to know what you think you've proven wrong?

Are you really going to walk away? Just like U2387 did? Or is that another incorrect statement?

Let me reiterate exactly where you were incorrect (second time.)

Primarily, my statement (again) was "It is irrefutable that the 90's era has not been represented very strongly (to put it mildly) during the 3 tours in the 00's excluding the 360 tour after and around the time the Achtung Baby deluxe / remaster was being released."

To which you replied "But it's irrefutable!!!

Do not waste our time with facts."

After the facts were posted (post #67), and you were proven wrong, you did not admit it. (#1)

Even if you incorporate the 80's / 90's album ratio into the calculation, the 00 tours heavily favored 80's songs.

Then you said, in a later post, that I was the one who posted the math (I wasn't.) (#2)

Then you said I provided no context (I had.) (#3)

You also agreed with Cobbler who misstated my point in an earlier thread and then went on to contradict that yourself in a later post. (#4)

Then you said "like everyone" when it was clearly not everyone who disagreed with me. (#5)

You also said I was playing the victim when that was not the case. I was defending myself against various attacks (real not imagined) so how could I have been playing the victim? (#6)

Now you say that that was your last post and you are going to walk away. For some reason I don't believe you... (#7?!?!)

Pathetic.

 

[redhill]

To be honest, if you find yourself on the same side as BVS on any given debate, it's time to worry.

Yea, that makes sense.

Thanks for the heads up!

 

[redhill]

Cut your losses, seriously.

What losses? It is not losing to admit where you could have improved your verbiage and subsequently re-clarify your position and make a more accurate stance.

You are absolutely ridiculous.

This coming from a guy who already stated that he was not going to say anymore. Anything you say now really just proves that you are not a man of your word anyway.

You're now left with saying "I didn't claim 'sorry' passed their lips, just that their somewhat apologetic."

U2 have backtracked in regards to their 90's experimentation and I provided several examples of that. I already stated that although this might not be construed as being apologetic (and I could have picked a better word), this is a fact. I was trying to stay on the initial topic of the thread.

I acknowledged the simple arithmetic 100 times over, regarding 80s versus 90s.

Yet you don't post any claims to back up your perceptions. If this was so simple, you had plenty of time to do that.

So you still don't get it or you're being dishonest intentionally or both.

You have provided very little facts to back up your claims so what is there to get? I disagree that everyone thinks of U2 in terms of the 80's because they, factually, do not.

It becomes clear that, as BVS said, you have no argument, just a wish for more of your personal favorites in set lists.

I take issue when people lie (like you have.)

I would argue that U2 have backtracked in regards to their 90's experimentation (and completely revamped their mindset to joining instead of subverting the mainstream.)

I would argue that U2 is too eager to please the masses and plays less of their more experimental / 90's work (especially Zooropa and Pop) live because of it. They even went as far as making rock remixes of songs from an album that was built on incorporating multiple hybrids of styles.

I would argue that U2 are coming from a place of fear instead of faith right now and that is troublesome.

Show me one place where anyone argued that 90s and 80s work had equal representation on 00's tours.

Right after I posted it several people scoffed right before it was proven in post #67.

If you had anything of substance to say, you wouldn't be ignoring what other people have already acknowledged and being a condescending little baby to everyone.

I have made quite a few substantive points. How can I not be condescending to posters who just throw stones, completely gloss over points I have made, cannot admit they are imperfect, and go back on their word like you have? It is hard to respect someone who cannot keep their word on back up their claims with much evidence.

Take the advice from someone who's been down the negative poster road in the past(just ask Gvox or BVS or people over in FYM) THIS PLACE DOES NOT MATTER THAT MUCH. TAKE CORIANDERSTEM'S ADVICE!!

Give the high road a rest. I'm not taking advice from someone with your qualities.

I've been the forum asshole before. I didn't like that-I know most people here didn't like that, and I understand why. I took a long break and I'm now back.

I can see why people thought you were being an asshole (if the shoe fits..) Maybe you should have stayed away. Don't lump us together. I'm not in your boat. I am at least man enough to admit when I am wrong or could have said something better. And I try not to go back on my word.

You being a condescending bully on an internet forum does not change one thing about yours or anyone's life in this world. Nothing you do here makes you look any better or worse to the rest of the world, so what's the point in bending and bending and bending something that just can't go the way you want it to??

Defending myself does not necessarily make me a bully (or a victim.)

Ultimately it depends on whose around.

Just admit it, repeat it right after me and everyone else join in: "Redhill wants more 90s songs played on the next tour, that for him, would be all that is great and bold and ballsy about U2!"

That was not the point at all. Again, you completely ignored all of my recent points. I guess you are being ignorant as well as deceptive.

It's very simple.

You have nothing more than that.

Uh-huh. I have made several valid points. You just can't address them because they don't fit into the distorted perceptions you are trying to create.

 

[redhill]

At the end of the day, this came down to semantics of the word apology.

Now that is ridiculous.

Backtrack / defend / apology. You choose the word.

U2 backtracked in regards to their 90's experimentation.

Geez. I should have paid more attention to U2DMFan's post about this.

There are indeed some sad people here. And, yes, I am indefatigable.

 

[Salome]

so, you really reckon U2 playing the songs that made them the biggest band in the world instead of songs that didn't particularly set the world alight makes them apologetic/backtracking/defending
good for you

 

[redhill]

so, you really reckon U2 playing the songs that made them the biggest band in the world instead of songs that didn't particularly set the world alight makes them apologetic/backtracking/defending
good for you

I also stated several different, factual, reasons they have backtracked in regards to their 90's experimentation. Or are you omitting those in an attempt to make an erroneous point?

And yes, as a long time fan, I don't want to hear another tired version of One or WOWY. Bono said in the 80's that they would never go on stage and go through the motions. I want him to live up to that and not cater to the masses instead. Long time fans deserve more than that.

 

[U2DMfan]

Of course they're not going to ignore AB or JT, but since the 80s still dominate with the inclusion of AB and JT, and both are represented equally, I didn't think it necessary to do actual work to prove a point that should be evident to anyone that pays attention.

Right. It would not be necessary in a forum full of sane and reasonable people.
But we don't have that here.

OpenG said it right on the very first page.
Sometimes this place feels like a courtroom.
And most of us know precisely why.

 

[Salome]

I also stated several different, factual, reasons they have backtracked in regards to their 90's experimentation. Or are you omitting those in an attempt to make an erroneous point?

I don't doubt you posted several facts, but I verymuch doubt there was any reason to it

 

[redhill]

I don't doubt you posted several facts, but I verymuch doubt there was any reason to it

I already stated my reason so there is no reason to doubt.

I said "If they continue with a mindset of gauging the merit of the music by the reception it gets from the masses (particularly in America), I fear that I will never be inspired again by this band that has meant so much to me and that is, at the end of the day, really what I am fighting for here."

That is the reason. Selfish love for this band.

I then said that:

"Instead of "chasing Zeitgeist", they need to be "making Zeitgeist." I know that sounds a little cheesy, but they have done this in the past by setting the pace and breaking new ground for themselves...with bold faith and not fear."

No one commented on that but I sincerely think that that is an important concept for the band right now at this stage of their career.

 

[U2387]

For starters, this.

Be a man of your word. Now I'm sure you'll jump in and just say that you had to post again because blah blah blah...

You lied. End of story.

Are you at least man enough to admit that you lied?

You're taking this way, way too seriously.

I'm not trying to distort anyone's perceptions, I made clear what my points were and wanted to end the discussion. Then you responded directly to me, so I jumped in to tell you it's really not that important.

Something else is the issue with you if you're this angry and childish here.Nothing you said changes the fallacy of your original argument.

All you want is the satisfaction of convincing yourself you've "won" a stupid argument on an internet forum.

That's about the only thing you've made clear in this thread.

Goodbye.