Bold Positive Prediction: U2 To Mount The Mother Of All Comebacks (Thanks Mullen!)

[ZeroDude]

What else does the future hold?

 

[jick]

What else does the future hold?

In addition to my spot on ridiculed-because-it-was-bold prediction that has just been realized by HTDAAB's massive climb up to #20 in the charts due to the Grammy version of the The Mullen Apology, I have another bold prediction - but it is quite off-topic to this thread.

I have predicted in another thread...

http://forum.interference.com/t115188.html

...that Bono will show more maturity and self-control in the Vertigo Tour. I think this is also a bold prediction because most people who replied say they prefer the "bad boy" Bono.

Now, back to the topic, the comeback on HTDAAB from #34 to #20 in the charts is something I am proud of being the first one to predict. If you check the date of the first post, I predicted it to happen as early as Feb.7!

I suddenly feel vindicated against all the naysayers who thought U2 could not comeback, or to those who doubted the significance of The Mullen Apology, or to those who falsely impute baseless negativity on my posts.

This was one of the most positive posts I ever started, and its basic premise and the boldness of its nature made it hard for others to digest. But now that it has been fulfilled, I wonder what the naysayers now have to say --- 40% sales increase, jump 14 places to #20, return to the top 30, and 57,000 units sold. All I have for you is two words - prophecy fulfilled!

Cheers,

J

 

[ZeroDude]

I believed it for some reason against my better judgement too so here we go again

 

[Miroslava]

In addition to my spot on ridiculed-because-it-was-bold prediction that has just been realized by HTDAAB's massive climb up to #20 in the charts due to the Grammy version of the The Mullen Apology, I have another bold prediction - but it is quite off-topic to this thread.

I have predicted in another thread...

http://forum.interference.com/t115188.html

...that Bono will show more maturity and self-control in the Vertigo Tour. I think this is also a bold prediction because most people who replied say they prefer the "bad boy" Bono.

Now, back to the topic, the comeback on HTDAAB from #34 to #20 in the charts is something I am proud of being the first one to predict. If you check the date of the first post, I predicted it to happen as early as Feb.7!

I suddenly feel vindicated against all the naysayers who thought U2 could not comeback, or to those who doubted the significance of The Mullen Apology, or to those who falsely impute baseless negativity on my posts.

This was one of the most positive posts I ever started, and its basic premise and the boldness of its nature made it hard for others to digest. But now that it has been fulfilled, I wonder what the naysayers now have to say --- 40% sales increase, jump 14 places to #20, return to the top 30, and 57,000 units sold. All I have for you is two words - prophecy fulfilled!

Cheers,

J

*boinks self on back of head to unstick eyes since they had gotten stuck back there*

Grammy winners always experience climbs up the charts. Performers too. The apology was directed at those people like us that already have one, two or more copies of the record. A lot of people, even casual fans of the band were at a complete loss of what the hell that speech was about so I doubt the apology had much to do with the increase in sales...

Better luck next time Nostradamus

 

[Party Boy]

*boinks self on back of head to unstick eyes since they had gotten stuck back there*

Grammy winners always experience climbs up the charts. Performers too. The apology was directed at those people like us that already have one, two or more copies of the record. A lot of people, even casual fans of the band were at a complete loss of what the hell that speech was about so I doubt the apology had much to do with the increase in sales...

Better luck next time Nostradamus

 

[TheBrazilianFly]

*boinks self on back of head to unstick eyes since they had gotten stuck back there*

Grammy winners always experience climbs up the charts. Performers too. The apology was directed at those people like us that already have one, two or more copies of the record. A lot of people, even casual fans of the band were at a complete loss of what the hell that speech was about so I doubt the apology had much to do with the increase in sales...

Better luck next time Nostradamus

 

[jick]

*boinks self on back of head to unstick eyes since they had gotten stuck back there*

Grammy winners always experience climbs up the charts. Performers too. The apology was directed at those people like us that already have one, two or more copies of the record. A lot of people, even casual fans of the band were at a complete loss of what the hell that speech was about so I doubt the apology had much to do with the increase in sales...

Better luck next time Nostradamus

I know you are all elated at the success of my crystal ball, but please don't give me credit where credit is due.

Back when I started this thread in Feb.7, I did not predict U2 to be a "Grammy winner" so don't give me credit for that.

Also, I was mindful of the rumors about the tough times and family illness the band were facing so I never made the prediction with the mindset that they would be "performers" when I started the thread on Feb. 7. So don't give me credit for that too.

It is a great observation though that while the apology was directed to only the fans who already own the album - a lot of people and casual fans were still moved by the apology. I mean, why would U2 address a problem concerning only a few long-suffering fans in national TV? This only got the casual fans more interested and more deeply touched! No other band would apologize on primetime TV. And no other band would apologize only to the smallest segment of their fanbase who would give them no benefit whatsoever because they already own the album. So while the apology was directed to people who own the album, it was the casual fans who took notice and flocked to buy the album --thanks to the apology.

Finally, please don't make comparisons between me and Nostradamus. I still have a long way to go.

Cheers,

J

 

[jick]

I also think what made my prediction "bold" was that it was brave and unpopular.

Convetional wisdom dictates that a Grammy push will boost what was nominated for the Grammies. The album WAS NOT nominated, only Vertigo was.

Yet I refrained from predicting the single, Vertigo, shooting up the charts. I decided to predict the more unpopular choice that it will be the album, and not the single that will climb up the charts.

People would probably think I was nuts to predict an album upshoot during a Grammy time when U2 were only given one televised award and it was not even for the album.

The beauty of my prediction, aside from defying all logic, is that I did not care for the Grammies. I looked at The Mullen Apology as the trigerring factor and this has made all the difference.

Despite the 3 for 3 Grammy win, Vertigo HAS NOT shot up the singles charts. Yet, HTDAAB climbed up the album charts after the Grammies - this can only be because of The Mullen Apology - and not the Grammies.

Cheers,

J

 

[Party Boy]

Despite the 3 for 3 Grammy win, Vertigo HAS NOT shot up the singles charts. Yet, HTDAAB climbed up the album charts after the Grammies - this can only be because of The Mullen Apology - and not the Grammies.

Cheers,

J

Do you not think the performance of Sometimes... at the Grammies might have had a bigger impact on HTDAAB climb up the charts rather than the over-analysed Mullen apology?

 

[corner]

please don't make comparisons between me and Nostradamus. I still have a long way to go.


J

all you have to do now is work out how to shake off some of that modesty. If you succeed at that, you'll be like Nostradamos reborn.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

i hope he takes back the Apology now. sorry i just don't buy the apology as mattering. the only thing like this i have seen hurt a bands image was metallica and napster. Cause they went out of thier way to call thier fan losers and get them in trouble. That means jick is saying non fans must have brought the album casue mullen aplogized for something that didn;'t even affect them. Well, if i see a artist say i;m sorry for soemthing, i better go buy the album even throguh i'n not a fan. okkkkkkk !!!!! lol sure thats what happened. if you didn't gvie a shit about u2, you coutinued to not give a shit after he said i;m sorry about something you proly don;t even know about. you might give a shit if you heard a new song (sometimes) and buy the album. thats why it shot up. and in my area at least, i still have not seen the single vertigo at a few different places, so possible people brought the album for vertigo. or mabey heard both songs and decided just to buy the album. CAUSE PEOPLE LIKE THE MUSIC SO THEY BUY THE ALBUM. people who got screwed by the presale already had the album. casual/non fans didn;t get "moved to tears" by the apology like jick would have you believe.

 

[U2Girl1978]

 

[allbecauseofu2]

make all the cute faces you want,lol your not getting anywhere.

 

[jick]

Do you not think the performance of Sometimes... at the Grammies might have had a bigger impact on HTDAAB climb up the charts rather than the over-analysed Mullen apology?

Nope. For various reasons:

1. Sometimes wasn't even the current US single so the non-fans didn't know it. It wasn't on airplay, it has no video out in the US yet. And it is quite a slow song that doesn't invite the listeners at first listen (like Vertigo did). So if you are unfamiliar with the song and hear it for the first time, it would hardly be the driving force to let you go to the record store to buy it.

2. The performance wasn't something to draw the non-fans in, as virtually every Grammy performance except U2's got standing ovations - so the non-fan would look elsewhere before U2.

3. Even hardcore fans argue it wasn't the best performance available, as SNL and BBC Radio were supposedly better.

4. Bono sang extra lines in the end, and finishing it off with a final line that was totally off-key so this could turn off potential non-fans who aren't accustomed to Bono's adding lyrics to song. They'd think it was really part of the song and it didn't belong.

So it couldn't have been the performance of Sometimes that drove album sales up. If you insist on Grammy performance, then I'd say the Across The Universe appearance probably had even more effect than Sometimes. But the real reason for the Grammy push was The Mullen Apology. This is something unheard of in rock'n'roll history.

Cheers,

J

 

[sallycinnamon78]

Oh, good grief. I can't believe this thread is still around! It did make me laugh heartily for the first time in ages, so cheers!

I know you are all elated at the success of my crystal ball, but please don't give me credit where credit is due.

Back when I started this thread in Feb.7, I did not predict U2 to be a "Grammy winner" so don't give me credit for that.

Finally, please don't make comparisons between me and Nostradamus. I still have a long way to go.

Cheers,

J

Jick - you are a very fuuny guy in your own strange way. Thanks for the giggle.

 

[jick]

i hope he takes back the Apology now. sorry i just don't buy the apology as mattering. the only thing like this i have seen hurt a bands image was metallica and napster. Cause they went out of thier way to call thier fan losers and get them in trouble. That means jick is saying non fans must have brought the album casue mullen aplogized for something that didn;'t even affect them. Well, if i see a artist say i;m sorry for soemthing, i better go buy the album even throguh i'n not a fan. okkkkkkk !!!!! lol sure thats what happened. if you didn't gvie a shit about u2, you coutinued to not give a shit after he said i;m sorry about something you proly don;t even know about. you might give a shit if you heard a new song (sometimes) and buy the album. thats why it shot up. and in my area at least, i still have not seen the single vertigo at a few different places, so possible people brought the album for vertigo. or mabey heard both songs and decided just to buy the album. CAUSE PEOPLE LIKE THE MUSIC SO THEY BUY THE ALBUM. people who got screwed by the presale already had the album. casual/non fans didn;t get "moved to tears" by the apology like jick would have you believe.

The Metallica situation you present is a very good contrast to what U2 did. Before the Napster incident, Metallica was big and continued adding new fans to its fanbase. But after that incident, their careers were basically over. Because of how Metallica treated their fans, potential fans shied away. In short, Metallica treats fans like shit - then even non-fans are turned off. U2 did the exact opposite. U2 (or chould I say Mullen) handled the situation correctly and treated their fans with great dignity. This apology was televised all over the world - and reached the non-fans. There are many non-fans who are also soon-to-be-converts. Following your flawed reasoning, you are trying to imply that U2 have a stagnant fanbase. They don't. New fans always come in. And the way U2 treats their current fans opens the door and makes it more enticing for people outside the door to come in - unlike Metallica who have virtually closed the front door with the Napster incident while many old fans are leaving by the back door.

It is correct in some way to say that people buy the album because they like the music. But always remember that an album has many songs and only 1 or 2 songs have been heard by the non-fan. The non-fan hasn't heard the rest of the album yet. So what drives him to buy the album unheard? Well, there are music reviews and marketing hype - but these things already happened for the first and second week sales. Therefore, the only possible thing that could make these sales "comeback" is not a new single (see ABOY's chart freefall) or a new marketing gimmick (they haven't lost a cd or a laptop lately). The only possible reason for the comeback is The Mullen Apology. They wanted to be part of this gathering of fans who the band genuinely cares for.

Cheers,

J

 

[TheBrazilianFly]

But after that incident, their careers were basically over. Because of how Metallica treated their fans, potential fans shied away. In short, Metallica treats fans like shit - then even non-fans are turned off.

What the fuck do you know about Metallica? You know a moment of their career and you think you know it all. Ha! Like everything else, you know a thing or two (known by everyone else too) and you take that out of context and make a big deal out of it creating a story to full of things you think happen and are true, then you wait for time to make your story real. Get a life man. I'll try to find what Fake Edge said about you when he compared you to a TERRORIST.

 

[Ellay]

I wonder what the naysayers now have to say --- 40% sales increase, jump 14 places to #20, return to the top 30, and 57,000 units sold. All I have for you is two words - prophecy fulfilled!

Cheers,

J

Im not a naysayer, but I still say there's was never any need for a comeback in the first place.

Sales of albums always go up and down dependent on what else a band is doing.

Appearances at the grammys, single releases, media coverage will always affect them.

I'm certain Larry's apology was genuine, but I dont' think it had anything to do with sales, because I'm sure that the vast majority of people who got screwed in the ticket fiasco, probably had the album anyway.

 

[sallycinnamon78]

In addition to my spot on ridiculed-because-it-was-bold prediction that has just been realized by HTDAAB's massive climb up to #20 in the charts due to the Grammy version of the The Mullen Apology, I have another bold prediction - but it is quite off-topic to this thread.

I have predicted in another thread...

http://forum.interference.com/t115188.html

...that Bono will show more maturity and self-control in the Vertigo Tour. I think this is also a bold prediction because most people who replied say they prefer the "bad boy" Bono.

Now, back to the topic, the comeback on HTDAAB from #34 to #20 in the charts is something I am proud of being the first one to predict. If you check the date of the first post, I predicted it to happen as early as Feb.7!

I suddenly feel vindicated against all the naysayers who thought U2 could not comeback, or to those who doubted the significance of The Mullen Apology, or to those who falsely impute baseless negativity on my posts.

This was one of the most positive posts I ever started, and its basic premise and the boldness of its nature made it hard for others to digest. But now that it has been fulfilled, I wonder what the naysayers now have to say --- 40% sales increase, jump 14 places to #20, return to the top 30, and 57,000 units sold. All I have for you is two words - prophecy fulfilled!

Cheers,

J

Well, thankyou Mystic Meg.

 

[U2girl]

Nope. For various reasons:

1. Sometimes wasn't even the current US single so the non-fans didn't know it. It wasn't on airplay, it has no video out in the US yet. And it is quite a slow song that doesn't invite the listeners at first listen (like Vertigo did). So if you are unfamiliar with the song and hear it for the first time, it would hardly be the driving force to let you go to the record store to buy it.

2. The performance wasn't something to draw the non-fans in, as virtually every Grammy performance except U2's got standing ovations - so the non-fan would look elsewhere before U2.

3. Even hardcore fans argue it wasn't the best performance available, as SNL and BBC Radio were supposedly better.

4. Bono sang extra lines in the end, and finishing it off with a final line that was totally off-key so this could turn off potential non-fans who aren't accustomed to Bono's adding lyrics to song. They'd think it was really part of the song and it didn't belong.

So it couldn't have been the performance of Sometimes that drove album sales up. If you insist on Grammy performance, then I'd say the Across The Universe appearance probably had even more effect than Sometimes. But the real reason for the Grammy push was The Mullen Apology. This is something unheard of in rock'n'roll history.

Cheers,

J

Grammy performers - and winners - tend to get a boost in sales. THIS helped U2, not St. Larry. Also possibly the hype of the new tour.

1. Exactly . Not performing the current single benefits album sales additionally, as people who liked the song will look up Bomb.

2. A lot of the Grammy performances were either glitzy or fast paced songs. A slow song about Bono's dead father isn't exactly gonna make people go - from what I've seen, everyone was clapping.

3. Lots of people watching the Grammies weren't hardcore U2 fans. The audience is much bigger than that. It wasn't that bad a performance, either.

4. Bono is known for improvising. "Goal is soul" ending didn't seem to hurt Beautiful day.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

i would never buy a album by a band cause they apolized for soemthing. i would never buy a limp bizkit album if they apolgized for something. if micheal jackson is found throguh some mircle thats he;s totaly innocent, i'm not buying his album. and thats proly a prety extrme example, but according to to jick might say, his albums sales would increase 1100 percent. if you don.t understand what i said before understand this: the apology went right over 90% of the grammy viewers heads. and people who got screwed in the pre sale, had the album the first week. i means thats pretty air tight. you got no case with that. if you care enough to get pre sale tix for a band , then you get the album the day it comes out. I mean thiers bands i do love i would't bother with pre sale. it requires effort to sigh up for presale tix. only hardcore fans do that. and also jick already tooik back his prediction once, when the album dropped furher the week after. he said on here he was wrong. but no, he changed it back. so jick himself didn't belive in his thoery at one point.
Rock history is woodstock 69. Rock history is ramones debut album. Rock history is beatles on ed sullivan. Rock history is live aid. Rock history is not some people got screwed at a pre sale intenet ticket affair and the drummer said on a grammy show oh by the way i'm sorry. so jick, whatever man. say those things all together and see what one dosn't motherfucking belong. lol . geeeez.

 

[TheBrazilianFly]

i would never buy a album by a band cause they apolized for soemthing. i would never buy a limp bizkit album if they apolgized for something. if micheal jackson is found throguh some mircle thats he;s totaly innocent, i'm not buying his album. and thats proly a prety extrme example, but according to to jick might say, his albums sales would increase 1100 percent. if you don.t understand what i said before understand this: the apology went right over 90% of the grammy viewers heads. and people who got screwed in the pre sale, had the album the first week. i means thats pretty air tight. you got no case with that. if you care enough to get pre sale tix for a band , then you get the album the day it comes out. I mean thiers bands i do love i would't bother with pre sale. it requires effort to sigh up for presale tix. only hardcore fans do that. and also jick already tooik back his prediction once, when the album dropped furher the week after. he said on here he was wrong. but no, he changed it back. so jick himself didn't belive in his thoery at one point.
Rock history is woodstock 69. Rock history is ramones debut album. Rock history is beatles on ed sullivan. Rock history is live aid. Rock history is not some people got screwed at a pre sale intenet ticket affair and the drummer said on a grammy show oh by the way i'm sorry. so jick, whatever man. say those things all together and see what one dosn't motherfucking belong. lol . geeeez.

Best answer on the thread! This guy knows what he is talking about!

 

[jick]

and also jick already tooik back his prediction once, when the album dropped furher the week after. he said on here he was wrong. but no, he changed it back. so jick himself didn't belive in his thoery at one point. Rock history is woodstock 69. Rock history is ramones debut album. Rock history is beatles on ed sullivan. Rock history is live aid. Rock history is not some people got screwed at a pre sale intenet ticket affair and the drummer said on a grammy show oh by the way i'm sorry. so jick, whatever man. say those things all together and see what one dosn't motherfucking belong. lol . geeeez.

I took back my prediction only insofar as the website apology was concerned. Because the reach of that apology wasn't as all-encompassing as the Grammy apology. The sales results of HTDAAB after Grammy week speak for themselves, so you can concoct your own theories but mine are supported by hard evidence.

Also, this thread clearly shows your low regard for Mullen. He is not just "the drummer." He is the heartbeat of U2's music, the top man in their merchandising department, and the person who gave all the U2 members their first and only jobs. Not only is he a splendid employer to Bono, Edge and Clayton - he is also the alpha and omega of U2. So when someone of Mullen's stature speaks (and this is something he seldom does) - everyone listens.

And please do not reduce The Mullen Apology to an "oh by the way" thing. If you watch the replays of the Grammies, especially in slow motion - you will notice that Mullen was actually persuaded by his band members to speak. And he actually hesitated at first before finally taking the mic. It took him great courage to do it yet he did it. I would say he is one of the bravest band leaders of this generation.

You can have your take on the situation and I can have mine. Your figures (such as your claim of The Mullen Apology going unnoticed by 90% of Grammy viewers) are statistically unsupported while my claims are supported by chart rankings and sales figures.

Cheers,

J

 

[allbecauseofu2]

i know larry is more then the drummer, but he has the lowest prolile in the group and comapred in the terms of rock history thats all it is. larry has done much more important things then this and meant more. sorry to the people that lost money, but this isn;t "historic". u2 has much bigger accomplishments then this thats gonna go down in history. how about yopu justify the mullen aplolgy amoung the the other rock events i mentioned? how about you do that? tell me that the mullen apology is up thier with woodstock 69? of course your not gonna mention that, casue your wrong. lol. how about the fact that a hardcore fan already has the album by the time she/he got screwed over? still realy the biggest reason agasnt you. facts back up the grammys cause a increase in sales to bands that don't apoloigze at the show. it was said before the pre sale, that the grammys are a boaster. then we had the intenret apology, that didn't boast sales like you said. then they went on the grammys and the album went up. so wheres your proof? i don't have to prove that it wasn't because of the apology that the album rebounded, anyway. jick has to prove that it did. he started this thead and its his thoery therefoe you have prove your point. and we're gonna call him on it.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

heres another thing... actuly. this thread is called the mother of al comebacks. THE MOTHER? i see. going from #34 to #20 on the charts is the mother of all comebacks? then whats a artist not having commercal sucess for 15 years putting out a 14 million sellar? (i think his name was santana or something). what do you call that comeback? answer that before anything else in your next post. in fact only answer that. in your next post, only answer that qustion and nothing else. if you don;t then you truly prove you have no credabilty. answer that qustion? if going from #34 to #20 on the albums charts is the mother of all comebacks, then what did santana's supernatual do? whats that?

 

[sallycinnamon78]

i would never buy a album by a band cause they apolized for soemthing. i would never buy a limp bizkit album if they apolgized for something.

I would never buy a limp bizkit album, period! Agree with the rest though!

 

[jick]

how about yopu justify the mullen aplolgy amoung the the other rock events i mentioned? how about you do that? tell me that the mullen apology is up thier with woodstock 69?

All the other rock events were just common occurences, which are gigs with multiple headliners. It is nothing new or innovative, unlike The Mullen Apology which features a top band at the top of their game having their band leader apologize on primetime tv. Now that has never happened before.

how about the fact that a hardcore fan already has the album by the time she/he got screwed over? still realy the biggest reason agasnt you.

The Mullen Apology transcends all hardcore fans and I have already explained that many times. It is much deeper and more penetrating than that. Let's not forget the hard-up hardcore fans who held out on buying the album because they used their resources to prioritize website membership and ticket sales.

facts back up the grammys cause a increase in sales to bands that don't apoloigze at the show. it was said before the pre sale, that the grammys are a boaster. then we had the intenret apology, that didn't boast sales like you said. then they went on the grammys and the album went up. so wheres your proof? i don't have to prove that it wasn't because of the apology that the album rebounded, anyway. jick has to prove that it did. he started this thead and its his thoery therefoe you have prove your point. and we're gonna call him on it.

None of the Grammy artists jumped 14 places on the charts like U2 did. It just means U2 run over 14 other people. So maybe Ray Charles did (not sure though), but he didn't perform in the Grammies so that shoots down your theory. Also, if memory serves me right - U2 won more Grammies than Green Day and had a faster initial sales debut - so why did U2 drop so fast off the chart while Green Day lingered on? The reason is simple. There was the boycott. Now The Mullen Apology has started the comeback. There can be no other reason. You want proof? Check the chart positions in www.billboard.com

Cheers,

J

 

[jick]

heres another thing... actuly. this thread is called the mother of al comebacks. THE MOTHER? i see. going from #34 to #20 on the charts is the mother of all comebacks? then whats a artist not having commercal sucess for 15 years putting out a 14 million sellar? (i think his name was santana or something). what do you call that comeback? answer that before anything else in your next post. in fact only answer that. in your next post, only answer that qustion and nothing else. if you don;t then you truly prove you have no credabilty. answer that qustion? if going from #34 to #20 on the albums charts is the mother of all comebacks, then what did santana's supernatual do? whats that?

This has been explained elsewhere in this thread. Looks like you haven't really followed this thread from its genesis or your memory has failed you. In a nutshell, it is the "mother" of all comebacks because it is already a second comeback for U2. It is like their second wave. No other artist can have more than one comeback, as you said Santana had his one-off but twice? I doubt it. U2 are now going strong on their second comeback.

I'd like to reference you to a post I made on the second page of this thread that squarely focuses on your query:

"The point of the original post is that ATYCLB represented U2's first comeback. Whether it was a comeback from commercial mediocrity, or a comeback to the vintage U2 sound, or a comeback to listenable music, or a comeback to arena tours, or a comeback to Grammy success - it cannot be denied that ATYCLB was a comeback of the highest degree.

"So the basic premise is that since U2 have already used up their "one allocated comeback" - they are supposed to be out of "comeback lives" this time. Yet, I boldly predict tthat they will comeback from their recent image problems, and charti position nosedives to mark an improbably second comeback of their career, which would make it the mother of all comebacks.

Thanks to The Mullen Apology."

Cheers,

J

 

[jick]

I will be gone for a week so don't expect any replies from me during that time frame. But after U2's album chart postion will do well for week 14, always remember the significance of my prediction about The Mullen Apology.

See you in a week guys!

Cheers,

J

 

[allbecauseofu2]

yeah you;ll be gone to rethink of other ways to try to get around admitting your wrong. lol. well, you just said woodstock69 dosn't mean as much the mullen aplolgy. so that means one of two things? 1. you just posting stuf to piss people off. 2. your truly believe what you say. well in the case of 2, you got alot of issues and no understanding of rock music. not to mention insulting wood stock 69. i read the whole thread, this is not the mother of all comebacks. weather u2 broke this 'only one comeback allowed" rule you invented or not, nothing compares to santana. but since your running away scared now, its time to ask anyone else on here who agrees with jick to say something now. (whos a bigger fool, the fool or the fool that follows him? we're gonna find out). just remember, folks, if you defend jick, you are agreeing with that idea that woodstock 1969 was nothing and the other events i mentioned. and apprantly jick knows every hard up hardcore fan casue they all told him they boycotted the album. and of course he didn;t repost the part of my post that said larry has done more important things then this. what happened jick? forgot that? lol. too busy cleaning your toaster?