Yes or No only: Do U2 have less integrity now than in 1987 (JT era)?

[starsgoblue]

There's other people here who start thoughtful and intelligent threads...without the same sense of sarcasm and eagerness to cause dissension among people.

 

[MrBrau1]

So what? So if he's always sarcastic and cynical, then that puts him in a very small minority on this site. Would you seriously rather have this as a little utopia of people who post nothing but positive things about the band/albums? I sure know I wouldn't. Haveing someone cynical or sarcastic keeps some sort of interesting discussion here.

He's 1 dimentional. Just like a gusher. That's why he sucks.

I hate "U2 gushers" cause all their posts are positive.

I hate Jick cause all his posts are cynical and sarcastic.

 

[ImOuttaControl]

He's 1 dimentional. Just like a gusher. That's why he sucks.

I hate "U2 gushers" cause all their posts are positive.

I hate Jick cause all his posts are cynical and sarcastic.

Blah blah, I think you just like complaining about things. Yesterday it was complaining about "people complaining about not getting GA tickets" and today it's this.

Perhaps just skip the topics you don't like or the users you don't like.

 

[MrBrau1]

Perhaps just skip the topics you don't like or the users you don't like.

A minute ago you were bashing people who were always in agreement, now you're telling me to only go to threads I agree with?

And the GA whiners are still stupid.

 

[starsgoblue]

Blah blah, I think you just like complaining about things. Yesterday it was complaining about "people complaining about not getting GA tickets" and today it's this.

I wasn't in that group of people. And just because I don't agree with your point of view doesn't mean I'm complaining either.

 

[ImOuttaControl]

I wasn't in that group of people. And just because I don't agree with your point of view doesn't mean I'm complaining either.

Yeah, I wasn't referring to you.

 

[lauren430]

I don't know.

 

[sallycinnamon78]

Answer to original question: No.

With regards to the rest: surely there's some happy medium here? Yes, posts that fawn all over the band and gloss over any of their (musical or personal) faults are boring and often blind. However, I think too much cynicism and sarcasm just dilutes the point being made - if it happens all the time, that attitude can become just as irritating and meaningless as the other sort. I'm up for an intelligent, lively debate - but posts that bitch for the sake of it, constantly, is enough to drive anyone to distraction. Am I alone in thinking that a little balance here and there wouldn't hurt?

 

[yimou]

I like Jicks threads.. Most of it is just blablablabla, but its what happens when people start to reply that makes me laugh

Keep the laughs coming Jick,,

 

[Axver]

To answer the original question: Yes, U2 have less integrity than in the JT era.

It began with a pair of fly shades.

 

[neutral]

He's 1 dimentional. Just like a gusher. That's why he sucks.

I hate "U2 gushers" cause all their posts are positive.

I hate Jick cause all his posts are cynical and sarcastic.

If you hate his threads and feel that they suck, try putting him on ignore or just passing them by. Coming into peoples threads for personal attacks is not allowed.

Perhaps just skip the topics you don't like or the users you don't like.

Excellent idea.

 

[Muggsy]

It began with a pair of fly shades.

hey don't thread with the fly shades

my answer is: yes

*sometimes cinism and sarcasm is necesary... they help us to keep our feet on the ground.

 

[maddyu2]

No,
I just listen to U2 cause they make me happy. I have other things to worry about in my life then whether U2 sell out or not.

 

[Tintin]

Yes, more in fact, simply because they no longer dress like Amish people.

It's hard to be a man of intergrity in your grandpa's suspenders.

 

[Muggsy]

buahahahahaha...

tintin

 

[Flying FuManchu]

No... they've always been the same IMO... very little change in terms of integrity. With that said, I appreciate jick's ability to get high post views/ replies even though he already has a somewhat negative rep. Respect.

 

[Nube Gris]

U2: The same passion and integrity as ever

The m.f you are talking about: An absolute bastard.
Un "Imbecil de mierda"


Salud

 

[Muggsy]

no es necesaria la grocería nube , aquí hay personas que entienden y hablan español y podrían reportarte para suspenderte. Además, es más valioso argumentar el porqué no te gusta una persona o una opinión en lugar de usar malas palabras contra quienes participamos aqui

** Nube gris: Even if you're saying it in spanish.. you can't insult any of the members of the forum...

lore

 

[jick]

No.

Jick, you're a sneaky bastard. In the past, you get really criticized for your over-criticism of the band. So, you've toned it down a bit. Now, you're riding the wave of fan frustrations (due to the recent ticket sales issues) to forward your band bashing agenda.

Careful, the waves are going to eventually hit the shore and there will be nothing for you to ride again.

Most of the things I criticized were the POP era. You know for a fact many dislike POP. I just happen to be more vocal about it than others. Otherwise, I have been generally praise and gushing for the U2 organization.

Cheers,

J

 

[jick]

Jick, judging by your recent change in avatar choice, why don't you find another online forum that doesn't involve U2 if you dislike them so much... I mean really, you never have anything positive to say about them. It's seem kinda pointless for you to post here if you have nothing to do other than spit venom.

I never said I dislike them. Me have nothing postive to say? That's absurd. Before this u2.com fiasco came out, I had nothing but praise for their business practices which is a great contrast from other bands who are still pennyless by now despite having good selling records. I have praised U2 for looking so good for their age and staying fit. I have praised U2 for their wise decision not to release a crap song like Mercy in the album or as a b-side. I have praised U2 for HTDAAB, which is a really great album. I have nothing but the highest praises for ATYCLB. As much as I dislike POP in the U2 catalogue, I still insist (to the disagreement of many here) that it is the best album released in 1997, better than Dylan's Time Out Of Mind or Radiohead's OK Computer. I think it is a grave misconception on your part to think I have nothing but negative things to say. Maybe you don't read the forum here thoroughly and my positive posts slip under your radar. Or maybe you just want to start trouble here.

Cheers,

J

Cheers,

J

 

[ZeroDude]

Most of the things I criticized were the POP era. You know for a fact many dislike POP. I just happen to be more vocal about it than others. Otherwise, I have been generally praise and gushing for the U2 organization.

Cheers,

J

I'm just glad the rest of our opinions aren't held in such a high regard as yours ( Jick the man himself), the chosen few are doing well in making this an entertaining place

 

[jick]

I don't know about that. He likes (some of) U2's music, but I don't think he cares for them as people.

Jick seems to think Interferencers are simple-minded and that he can take advantage of their current disdain for the ticketing situation, by getting as many people to agree with him on his negative views of the band.

Of course I don't care for U2 as people and I am not ashamed to admit that. From the day I loved U2's music, the pact was simple - U2 gives me good music and I give them my money.

I wouldn't care less if Clayton is having a bad hair day, or Bono has a cut in his finger, or if Edge was hurt by comments McGuinness said about him, or if Bono's daughter had a bad boyfriend. As long as these things don't affect the music production, then I don't care for them as people just as they don't care for me. I just want their music and the just want my money. It's as simple as that.

Cheers,

J

 

[jick]

It's hillarious how some people react to a dissenting voice. Wouldn't it be boring if we were all just a bunch of blind followers?

I don't want to be labelled a dissenting voice. Most of the stuff I have to say are positive actually. People just get the impression I am a dissenting voice because I rarely join in on those pointless song-gushing threads.

Cheers,

J

 

[ZeroDude]

Consructive criticism

 

[Lancemc]

I don't want to be labelled a dissenting voice. Most of the stuff I have to say are positive actually. People just get the impression I am a dissenting voice because I rarely join in on those pointless song-gushing threads.

Cheers,

J

I think one big problem with people hear is selective listening. They choose to pay attention to the few things you have to critisize the band about, but ignore the majority of possitive you've said over your time here.

 

[diamond]

jick
i think u were alot more honest in your youth too.

db9

 

[jick]

That's the problem. He's ALWAYS sarcastic. It is puzzling at first, then you begin to understand and enjoy it, then it becomes annoying and predictable. He's never made a post that wasn't sarcastic.

I don't think my posts are ALL sarcastic. But let's just say for the sake of argument that my posts are getting so predictable - why do some people still respond in a predictable fashion and get ticked? This is just a very very simple yes or no thread, yet it has gone beyond that into the zone of personal attacks. I don't think this should be tolerated in this forum. The question was a simple valid question to compare the integrity of U2 in 1987 to 2004-05. Simple as that. Just like how people love to compare Bono's voice of different eras, U2's songwriting and albums of different eras, etc etc.... I just want to compare the public perception of their integrity. Yet people come up with predictable replies and the usual rants about my character. Thank God these people only constitute a noisy majority on this board, as I am very aware that most of the members here support me and respect my opinions very much.

Cheers,

J

 

[jick]

To me, they are still the greatest band ever, but they are getting older and kinda lost their naïve side, which makes them less sincere, IMO.

Well said! They still are the greatest despite their recent miscalculations.

Cheers,

J

 

[Lancemc]

"noisey MINORITY" I think you mean Jick. Sorry, don't mean to nit-pick, but you know someone here will take that typo and use it as ammunition of some sort.

 

[indra]

Answer to original question: Yes, U2 has less integrity now than they had in 1987.

but...I think it is a direction they've been headed in since far earlier than 1987. The moment they decided they wanted to become "the worlds biggest rock band" (even before they -- or Bono -- actually said it) they made the decision to do whatever was necessary to achieve that goal. And integrity and achieving that goal do not go hand in hand. They have done better integrity-wise than many groups with similar ambitions, I will give them that.