u2.com

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
HelloAngel said:
Getting back on topic b/c I always whince when I see my name, but one thing I don't like about U2.com during Vertigo is the relentless celebrity name-dropping and calling them "the beautiful people." While that's a widely used description of celebs, it just feels very tacky. I mean, does U2.com exist as the band's online representation for the fans, or for fellow celebs? It just feels odd.

Another thing I don't get is why U2.com can't link to other fan sites who produce great work as a way to honor fans. I mean, it is the fans, after all, who have "given U2 a great life."

Very true! I agree. I have been disappointed in U2.com
 
U2Man said:


In that case I withdraw my :coocoo:-smiley :kiss:

Anyway, Sylvia, if you really mean the thing about donating more to Interference, you can always buy me that premium membership you promised me months ago. It's very simple, just write 'U2Man' in the textfield and so on. :flirt:
 
U2Man said:


Anyway, Sylvia, if you really mean the thing about donating more to Interference, you can always buy me that premium membership you promised me months ago. It's very simple, just write 'U2Man' in the textfield and so on. :flirt:

Baboons don't have cash...will Interference accept peanuts?:whistle:
 
babyman said:
U2.com is a site for very few people, most of the fans go on other related sites where they find much more things. I would just close U2.com, it is useless

Last time I looked on the site's frontpage for news, a couple of months ago, there had been no postings for at least 4 days, it could have been 5. In the middle of a tour?
 
babyman said:
U2.com is a site for very few people, most of the fans go on other related sites where they find much more things. I would just close U2.com, it is useless

Haha, you wouldn't do that if you were paid 4.000.000$ a year, now WOULD YOU???? :wink:
 
1stOne said:


Baboons don't have cash.

I've already apologized for that :(

Anyway, who paid for your membership then? :scratch: The zoo keeper? :wink:
 
Last edited:
HelloAngel said:
Getting back on topic b/c I always whince when I see my name, but one thing I don't like about U2.com during Vertigo is the relentless celebrity name-dropping and calling them "the beautiful people." While that's a widely used description of celebs, it just feels very tacky. I mean, does U2.com exist as the band's online representation for the fans, or for fellow celebs? It just feels odd.

that is one of my biggest problems in reading their reviews of shows...Tell me about the show, not what celebrities were there, and how many times they had to turn their neck because there were so many celebrities there. I DON'T CARE...
 
1stOne said:


Thank you AtomicBono. Would you like to donate and become a premium member of Interference? $12 last time I looked.

I thought you meant U2.com, sorry.

I'll become a premium member if I feel like it. But if Interference was going under for whatever reason, I would gladly donate to keep it going. U2.com on the other hand...
 
1stOne said:


Last time I looked on the site's frontpage for news, a couple of months ago, there had been no postings for at least 4 days, it could have been 5. In the middle of a tour?




I bet they would prefer to post news about Elevation............, they would just need to copy :wink:
 
U2Man said:


Haha, you wouldn't do that if you were paid 4.000.000$ a year, now WOULD YOU???? :wink:



Sorry, I was misunderstood. I never meant to say it is useless, it should be open 24 hours a day! I want to work at U2.com, this is the best site in the world, all the people working on that site are work geniuses!!!!
When can I start the work??? :hyper: :hyper: :hyper: :hyper:


I was blind, now I can see!

:wink:
 
KBRY said:


It is human to make mistakes...the band send the setlist in, then change it...sure, U2.com staffers should check it, but who cares? Its not life and death, its not even close to being important. They will get better as they go along.



The trouble is they haven't got better have they,

It just makes them look stupid, and makes obsessive fans like us lose faith in the official site, which should be the mecca.

(It should be the ORACALE if you will) - (what a waste of time that was, I may add)
 
U2Man said:


I've already apologized for that :(

Anyway, who paid for your membership then? :scratch: The zoo keeper? :wink:

Honourary membership for keeping dodgy Danes under control around these parts.:mac:
 
AtomicBono said:


I thought you meant U2.com, sorry.

I'll become a premium member if I feel like it. But if Interference was going under for whatever reason, I would gladly donate to keep it going. U2.com on the other hand...

My fault for not quoting.

Interference says:

Interference.com is a FAN operated web site, and your Premium Membership subscription will help keep the site running. We appreciate your support!

I think it's used to buy the staff show tickets! :wink:
 
HelloAngel said:


That's the funniest thing I've heard all day. No, all tour. :lol: :lmao:

Hey, it would be a great idea! No more appealing for setlist sources for the parties. I think you should suggest it at your next Caribbean all expenses paid Interference conference. :laugh:
 
You said:
1stOne wants to get banned? :scratch:

NO! NO! NO!

Then I would have to go to U2.com for 'everything I know is wrong'.

HelloAngel if I collect a few Premium Memberships from the cheapskates in this thread will I be spared? :shifty:
 
1stOne said:


NO! NO! NO!

Then I would have to go to U2.com for 'everything I know is wrong'.

HelloAngel if I collect a few Premium Memberships from the cheapskates in this thread will I be spared? :shifty:

I'm sorry - I don't really understand what's going on in this thread anymore. Let me get my head out my arse and try to find the funny and I'll get back with you. :reject:
 
Frank the Tank said:
Why hasn't U2man been banned? :scratch:

EXACTLY!!!! He has more lives than a stray cat. One of these days Sicy's sword will get a little too close. BTW do we have any first-aiders on Interference?:tsk:
 
1stOne said:


EXACTLY!!!! He has more lives than a stray cat. One of these days Sicy's sword will get a little too close. BTW do we have any first-aiders on Interference?:tsk:

Actually, the reason is the that Sicy secretly :heart: me :flirt:

:shh: :whistle:
 
U2Man said:


Yes.

So let me ask people in here: How many of you think that the chief purpose of U2.com is to provide us with credible, valid and accurate information about U2?

You mean watching U2 videos is not its purpose?

It's for watching U2 videos, and talking about U2 on their message boards.

I have an issue of Propaganda from before it was discontinued, Edge said that he wanted their website to offer something different than what other "great" fansites already offer.

U2 news, you can get that just by typing U2 in a search engine.

Videos on the other hand, not as easy to find.

Sure I could watch VH1 classic all day and maybe see an older U2 video, or I can watch them at their official site.

In the Spanish Eyes video, if you stop it just at the right moment, can see Adam signing an autograph for someone.

Have you noticed there's no biography about U2 on the site, at least I haven't seen a link for one.

Why doesn't the official site not have a biography on U2?, perhaps because every other U2 fan site has one?

I don't really like watching setlists of shows I'm not going to, especially if I see a song get played, that didn't get played at the one I went to, so I don't use U2.com for setlists.
 
^Well, OK then. I'm glad to hear that some people actually enjoy the site, after all. I do think that the site should have a biography on U2, though. Just because other fan sites have one, doesn't mean that the official site shouldn't.
 
Last edited:
U2Man said:
^Well, OK then. I'm glad to hear that some people actually enjoy the site, after all. I do think that the site should have a biography on U2, though. Just because other fan sites have one, doesn't mean that the official site shouldn't.


I don't think U2.com is *that* bad. Sure, it could be alot better. Even great. They could offer live downloads, videos of songs played from some of the shows this tour or even some sort of a "live" setlist like the Dave Matthews official site offers. Plus, I really don't think I should have to pay Itunes to see that live in Chicago video--it should be offered for free to U2.com subscribers.

What I do like about the site is the message boards, and the fact that I can watch every video and listen to every song (with the exception of A Celebration) on their site. Some of the interviews and tour personnel bios were also interesting to me.

U2.com gets a bad rap. It could certainly use alot of improvements, but it isn't as bad as eveyone says it is.


Flame away,
Steve
 
Back
Top Bottom