Rovim

weak lyrics, too repetitive, and at basically the same level of energy for the whole tune. Don't like the title as well. Nice melody though. I don't consider Duff as an especially strong songwriter. For me his musical gifts lies elswhere. in comparison to Izzy's solo material for example, I feel that there's almost always something interersting Izzy thought about and turned into a song when it comes to the lyrics at least, even if it's a simple concept, but there are Duff tunes that I like, sometimes he gets it right imo.

most Gn'R fans mostly care about Axl and Slash it seems. The NITL neverending tour has made them so much money, I don't see how raking in the cash now could be viewed as one screwing himself. It's one of the most successful tours in history, and Axl doesn't seem to be very eager to reunite with Izzy and definitely not with Steven. I also think that it's possible that even 1 show with the AFD now has the potential to delegitimize the current Gn'R lineup. Personally, I believe there is enough demand for Axl and Slash and whoever compared to the AFD 5 lineup although I'd love to attend a show with the classic lineup. also, look what's happening with Kiss right now: the band is almost over and still Ace and Peter didn't perform with Kiss probably cause they couldn't agree when it comes to how much money should be paid to them. maybe it will eventually happen for Gn'R, but not anytime soon if I had to guess and maybe Axl doesn't even think he'll gain much by bending backwards for a full reunion or even agree to it when you consider just how much money the Gn'R lineup Axl has managed to put together has generated.

Laura Branigan - Self Control (extended version)

or bust out a helium tank while using his lower register voice

Jorge Luis Borges - The Book Of Sand

kinda like asking what do I think should be done about illegally buying a real gun, no? I don't think it's possible to totally prevent people with poor judgement or malicious intentions from getting their hands on a weapon, but if you prevent most people that shouldn't own a weapon from doing so, you're already on the right track imo. also, I'm not saying I know the exact solution for every aspect of the problem of gun violence in the US, like 3d printed guns, or even if a certain solution will work but how many mass shootings involved 3d printed guns? it seems like it could become a serious problem, but there are more burning issues right now like how easy it is to just legally buy a weapon in the US. maybe make it illegal to 3D print a gun and build a system that recognizes and prevents the 3d printer to print it, but even if that's not possible, or there is a much better solution that I can't think of right now or at all, I think that the more difficult you make it for people to get their hands on weapons, especially semi auto or automatic weapons, rifles, etc, it's still better than the shitshow they are in now.

yeah I think until you can educate an entire country/change the mentality of enough people by using various methods that you've also mentioned, which is also very important and a part of the solution imo, first you gotta implement stricter gun laws. Like first stopping the bleeding in a patient for example, and then use whatever you can to treat them when it's more stable cause now it's fucked and has been for a long time now. in a country like the US, the problem of gun violence is complicated, so it's not going to be an easy solution, or just 1 step to make it all better, but it will be a great start when people won't be able to own an AR-15 for example or an arsenal of weapons that could be enough to arm a small army or selling weapons to basically anyone without worrying too much when it comes to who is it that you're selling a deadly weapon to.

I think I've already covered what you're talking about here in my previous two posts. There are a lot of steps that should be taken to reach the positive change when it comes to gun violence in the US, for stricter gun laws to be implemented, etc. I was just saying that if/when the US will see that day, it will be the main step imo to prevent the brutal murders of innocent people.

sure, but first more sensible gun laws and actually enforcing that shit imho. My post was maybe overly simplistic but my point is that that's the major hurdle, the legislation for many different reasons that are often talked about.

every country in the world has its own collective mentality which determines how flexible the people are and in what areas of life and then there's the goverment of a country which has its own agendas, level of corruption, and just their way of doing things or avoiding doing what's right to get votes. If you can't change the mentality of the people, your ability for change is limited. sadly, just as an outsider looking at the US, I think a lot more people are going to be brutally murdered in mass shootings and shit will need to reach a critical point which they are not there yet, where enough people won't tolerate this shit anymore so those in powerful political positions will actually have to do something about it which is, in fact, more sensible gun laws.

thank you for oxfording

I think he's contacting Alan Niven as we speak

but that's just it: there is no proof (that we know of) only statements from both sides, which is why I dont consider it confirmed. I'm not going to get a hold of Alan Niven. I don't feel strongly enough about this shit to launch a full investigation.

we have proof that the moon landing was real. We don't have proof that Duff had nothing to do with Duff beer. It would appear that it's more likely that Duff got it wrong, but I don't actually know that.

I guess not enough times explained: info in the above links is not enough for me personally to conclude that I'm 100% sure, that I know that what the Simpsons guys said was, in fact, what really and fully happened there and Duff was in no way involved cause the other side in this is Duff and he's sticking to his version of what happened. so even if he's not a very reliable source, it's still possible that something else we don't know about took place there which makes it (for me at least) not really an open and shut case, but a he said, she said type of thing, a subject that we know more about now, but that we'll probably never know for sure who is right/telling the truth about Duff beer.

its been already explained to you a few times now why the argument holds up of not labeling this topic as confirmed, you just don't want to accept something which I consider to be very logical and something which is just an opinion. I fairly enjoy silly which is why I'm still here reading posts in this thread.

no offense, and it's a genuine question: if it means nothing, then why do you seem to find it difficult to accept that not everyone agrees with your opinions? This is just a discussion on a fairly silly matter, yet people can't put two and two together cause they disagree with you? high likelyhood is not the same as confirmation imo.

yup. I needed an internet ego boost so I disagreed with one of your posts. My need for approval is crippling.

because it isn't, as I see it. 2 sides still not going back on their versions of what happened and if it's still possible that Duff had something to do with it (which I think it is, although less likely compared to the Simpsons guys, then it's not enough confirmation to label it as such imo.

it's literally Duff and the Simpson guys not agreeing on what happened. Technically, speaking we don't know what happened there and who's lying/misremembering and we'll probably never know. does seem likely that the Simpson guy is right/telling the truth, but that's not the same thing as confirmation of what happened there imho. btw, I think I already understand your opinion on this matter, I just happen to diagree it's a smoking gun proof. I'm having a nice cup of tea.

we're still not completely sure who came up with the Duff beer concept it seems