Larry and Bono: no album in 2007, Popmart and no Milan

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
U2FanPeter said:


I like how it's totally overlooked by all australians posters here that u2 have not been to Hawaii since 1985!!!!

u2fp

are you saying I overlooked Hawaii and that I'm Australian?
 
discothequeLP said:



wanna bet? i bet in won't be able to tell the difference between a bootleg from March 2006 and December 2006, aside from Bono's attempt at Portugese

:yawn: More nonsense from you. Just shut up, eh? Just because the tour's already waltzed through your state and played more concerts there than anywhere else doesn't mean it should end/will suck just because you're selfishly sick of it and your deaf ears won't be able to tell the difference between shows separated by a significant time period and with vastly different chemistry and atmosphere.

U2FanPeter said:


I like how it's totally overlooked by all australians posters here that u2 have not been to Hawaii since 1985!!!!

u2fp

And it's totally overlooked by all the Hawaiians here that U2 had plans to go to India in 1982 and STILL haven't made it there. So what?

Really, it's ridiculous to compare the Australian/NZ situation to Hawaii. Firstly, Hawaii's population is barely over a million; even New Zealand is 3-4x larger. Secondly, Hawaii is part of the USA and in the Northern Hemisphere; it's a comparatively cheap, quick domestic flight to California for a Hawaiian, whereas an Australian or Kiwi is stuck with a grueling and very expensive international flight to either Europe or the US.
 
discothequeLP said:

wanna bet? i bet in won't be able to tell the difference between a bootleg from March 2006 and December 2006, aside from Bono's attempt at Portugese

You are still completely missing the point: The setlist in Australia in 2006 will be completely different to the setlist in Australia in 1998. The setlist in New Zealand in 2006 will be completely different to the setlist in New Zealand in 1993. This is all that matters to the good folks in Australia and NZ. What they've played on 1345 legs of the US in between means - let me check - yes, absolutely nothing.
 
Axver said:


:yawn: More nonsense from you. Just shut up, eh? Just because the tour's already waltzed through your state and played more concerts there than anywhere else doesn't mean it should end/will suck just because you're selfishly sick of it and your deaf ears won't be able to tell the difference between shows separated by a significant time period and with vastly different chemistry and atmosphere.
:huh: :scratch: :madwife:
 
Axver said:


:yawn: More nonsense from you. Just shut up, eh? Just because the tour's already waltzed through your state and played more concerts there than anywhere else doesn't mean it should end/will suck just because you're selfishly sick of it and your deaf ears won't be able to tell the difference between shows separated by a significant time period and with vastly different chemistry and atmosphere.


But U2 were created for [whine] meeeeeeeeeeeeee [/whine]!!!


:lol:

Some people just don't get it. I love the "poor people Down Under getting the same show" story. :tsk:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom