Kurt Cobain Mocks Missing GNR Tour

[Kira]

Courtney had a huge attraction to Axl.

I think Kurt also had a huge attraction to Axl and I don't mean in a gay way. The number of times he brought up Axl in interviews was ridiculous. He was also known to use Axl's real name Bill Bailey as his "hotel" name.

Looking back Kurt's stance as anti-commercial seems very juvenile, but he was young so I don't hold it against him. The music scene is not like that anymore. As much as Kurt protested his success I believe he was also very competitive about it. Actually, Kurt and Axl had quite a lot in common, but expressed their dysfunctions in different ways.

[tinyrobot]

Maybe what Kurt hated was that deep inside he was a lot like Axl. We all know this.

He just didn't want to give in and become "mainstream" as Axl.

Little he knew after his death, he would.

[Chuzeville]

Just saw the film. At some point, a cover of Melody Maker ( ?) appears, with the headline : "Nirvana--the Guns n'Roses it's okay to like."

[dalsh327]

Gregg Allman's not a brawler, Dickey Betts is another story, there's a reason he hasn't been back in over a decade and didnt do the farewell show. Derek Trucks tried but it was down to Gregg and Butch. Jaimoe and Bumblefoot did the Rock and Roll All Star thing in CT a couple of months ago.

[wkuk04]

Just saw the film. At some point, a cover of Melody Maker ( ?) appears, with the headline : "Nirvana--the Guns n'Roses it's okay to like."

It's a weird subject, Nirvana died out faster than Guns did, When the classic GnR lineup of the Illusion era played there last few shows, they were selling out stadiums well into 1993, two years almost after Nevermind dropped, Nirvana themselves at the same time were struggling to sell out shows, and the man who criticises Axl's behaviour (and I agree with him on some things, Kutt pulled out of a U.S tour don't forget, don't think he was thinking of Nirvana fans at that point although, I think the Smack had consumed him by that point, he was on borrowed time IMO. I've always questioned his death being ruled as a suicide, before anybody laughs, it always seemed fishy to me.

[Jordan Rose]

The fact that Cobain lumped Axl in as a typical, boorish, hair-metal singer with no brains and nothing to say says more about him than it does about Axl.

I appreciate the man's talent but, aside from his supposedly debilitating stomach pains which can't be ignored for their contribution to his demise, I think his general demeanor, attitude, outlook, comments, interviews and Journal etc are a fucking joke. He was a pathetic little runt-bitch of a man and I would take any of Axl's early 90's RS, Spin or HP interviews over everything Cobain ever said in public. In fact, i'd take Axl's letter to Widodo and CD booklet essay over it too. Axl Rose has more fucking balls and is more of a man than that simpering pussy could ever have been. When I see emo-ish teenagers today hanging their hair in their faces, scuffing their battered Converse, hands in pockets, staring at the ground with their Nirvana hoodie on I just want to shake them up say "It's time to grow up and stop listening to that whiny punk. Your girlfriend dumped you? Here, listen to something by a real man. These are called Estranged and Locomotive."

Personally, I would take Twat over the whole Cobain catalogue.

[Mr. Dude]

The fact that Cobain lumped Axl in as a typical, boorish, hair-metal singer with no brains and nothing to say says more about him than it does about Axl.

I appreciate the man's talent but, aside from his supposedly debilitating stomach pains which can't be ignored for their contribution to his demise, I think his general demeanor, attitude, outlook, comments, interviews and Journal etc are a fucking joke. He was a pathetic little runt-bitch of a man and I would take any of Axl's early 90's RS, Spin or HP interviews over everything Cobain ever said in public. In fact, i'd take Axl's letter to Widodo and CD booklet essay over it too. Axl Rose has more fucking balls and is more of a man than that simpering pussy could ever have been. When I see emo-ish teenagers today hanging their hair in their faces, scuffing their battered Converse, hands in pockets, staring at the ground with their Nirvana hoodie on I just want to shake them up say "It's time to grow up and stop listening to that whiny punk. Your girlfriend dumped you? Here, listen to something by a real man. These are called Estranged and Locomotive."

Personally, I would take Twat over the whole Cobain catalogue.

I like Kurt as an artist, but I think your point is valid nonetheless. Its like Cobain was afraid to be genuinely passionate about something. His music was marked by a skewered sarcasm that I believe was more a defense mechanism guised as a false sense of intellectual and moral superiority. There is a sense of detachment in his music whereas Axl is far more straightforward. Its like that recent Slash quote- "Axl is Axl all the time" so its such that an attack on his art is an attack on his person and vice versa. Axl is fully committed and lays it all on the line...and not necessarily on time or in rhyme. Its the perfect crime.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Mr. Dude

[wasted]

Kurt sabotaged his career. Taking 6 months off to do heroin with Courtney. I think I missed all this at the time. I didn't see how Kurts teenage years combined with his bi polar manicness made him pretty bad candidate for a rock career. Axl was just the new father figure to rebel against. Just because he sold 20 million records didn't mean he was going to start writing Stairway Heaven. That particular creative process with the guitar, lyrics kind of questioning every person/situation doesn't have any romance. Kurt seemed like he could do some insane triple album of jacking off songs. Like With the Lights Out really. That would really let his creativity free but having to grind out meaningful rock albums in the Back in Black and tour stadiums just wasn't where he should be. It's really like having an eccentric inventor stuck working as an engineer in nuclear plant like Homer Simpson.

[Mr. Dude]

Kurt sabotaged his career. Taking 6 months off to do heroin with Courtney. I think I missed all this at the time. I didn't see how Kurts teenage years combined with his bi polar manicness made him pretty bad candidate for a rock career. Axl was just the new father figure to rebel against. Just because he sold 20 million records didn't mean he was going to start writing Stairway Heaven. That particular creative process with the guitar, lyrics kind of questioning every person/situation doesn't have any romance. Kurt seemed like he could do some insane triple album of jacking off songs. Like With the Lights Out really. That would really let his creativity free but having to grind out meaningful rock albums in the Back in Black and tour stadiums just wasn't where he should be. It's really like having an eccentric inventor stuck working as an engineer in nuclear plant like Homer Simpson.

Its hard to do that kind of intense self-loathing on a massive scale in perpetuity. Its too self aware to self justify itself perpetually.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Mr. Dude

[Mr. Dude]

Kurt sabotaged his career. Taking 6 months off to do heroin with Courtney. I think I missed all this at the time. I didn't see how Kurts teenage years combined with his bi polar manicness made him pretty bad candidate for a rock career. Axl was just the new father figure to rebel against. Just because he sold 20 million records didn't mean he was going to start writing Stairway Heaven. That particular creative process with the guitar, lyrics kind of questioning every person/situation doesn't have any romance. Kurt seemed like he could do some insane triple album of jacking off songs. Like With the Lights Out really. That would really let his creativity free but having to grind out meaningful rock albums in the Back in Black and tour stadiums just wasn't where he should be. It's really like having an eccentric inventor stuck working as an engineer in nuclear plant like Homer Simpson.

I do think Kurt had another artistic side that he hadn't fully explored. There was a crazy folk troubador facet to his artistic palate that he hadn't fully realized yet. I could see some kind of a Neil Young/Tom Waits hyrbid corpo-nihilistic mutation floating around somewhere in that creative id.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Mr. Dude

[GNRfan2008]

Kurt was basically what we now know as a hipster, and he resented the mainstream. He had issues with his own success. Back then, GN'R was the biggest band on the planet. His resentment of them simply stems from them representing, at the time, the epitome of mainstream music. I saw some kind of program about him years ago on UK TV and an ex-girlfriend of his said before Nirvana hit it big, he was actually a massive fan of Appetite for Destruction. So...there you have it. He didn't really hate GN'R, just what they came to embody.

It's sort of like people mocking Justin Bieber nowadays. There's far worse music out there, but he kind of perfectly encapsulates the whole mainstream music scene and he has a bratty attitude (which Axl was perceived as having back then), so he's an easy target.

Great post, but wasn't his resentment towards Axl? Did he mock "Guns N' Roses" as well? Other than the "Duff" bit on that MTV video someone posted few pages earlier, I can't remember or find any digs at other members of the band.

From the comments regarding the new documentary, it sounds like he was having-a-go at GN'R a bit.

But yes, I think the root of it came down to Axl. I think at the time, Axl was pervasive in pop culture, he was more outspoken than Slash or any other members, and he was in many ways the press-friendly face of GN'R. Kurt probably resented GN'R for "selling out" (and abandoning the punk attitude of Appetite), in his eyes; he probably specifically resented Axl, however, for his behavior and the way he was portrayed in the music press at the time as being kind of spoiled and outspoken. Not only that, Kurt probably thought the controversy surrounding stuff like One in a Million or Axl's alleged spousal abuse were shitty, as they went against a lot of Kurt's ideals. In short, Axl was simply an easy target and I think if Kurt had lived on, he probably would have eventually clarified all this in an interview (I'm sure someone would have brought his beef with Axl/GN'R up at some point) as he matured and outgrew his pretentious attitude. I think looking back twenty or thirty years later he probably wouldn't have had such a seeming animosity toward the band, just like Axl doesn't really claim to have beef with Vince Neil anymore.

We're ultimately talking about stuff that happened decades ago among a bunch of really young guys.

Good points. It's interesting too with that Tom Zutaut video in the other thread about how the Establishment in the industry pretty much had the deck stacked against GN'R in the beginning. Label didn't want to spend any money promoting them and wanted to cut bait on the band's career before it even got started. The douche waffles in the TV industry didn't want to play them on MTV because they were too "dangerous." Once the fuckers finally played it (even late at night), the general public went absolutely crazy for it.

I would guess if Cobain was alive today he would acknowledge that even the bloated "sellout" Illusions era GN'R was still a million times better than 99% of the rubbish that passes for rock and roll today. And he would be embarrassed as hell to know that he actually influenced bands like Nickelback. Music is not in a great place now, but at least we can always go back and listen to the classics.

[dalsh327]

I think the documentary was cathartic for Courtney and Frances, maybe it brought them closer together because she's at the age her mom had been when she got together with Kurt. There's nothing left to say about Kurt except that upcoming album of his demos and odds and ends.

The movie didn't really make me sad (there were a lot of funny moments), except wishing he had stuck around and the potential for what he could have done as an artist.

I think what it did reveal was how the Vanity Fair interview really fucked him up (it did give Axl ammo to call them junkies) , the thought of having his kid ripped from him.

Courtney "betraying" him, like she said, she was a big flirt and with being on the road spending stretches of time apart so maybe the thought of her cheating had been nagging at him. In a relationship, you just know something's not right when you've been with someone constantly and know when they're lying or hiding something.

I don't think he was just taking 6 months off to do heroin, it was more of a retreat and wanting to keep creating, rest his voice, rest his body, get away from the constant 24/7 buzz that may have been making him batshit, and I think he just knew in his heart of hearts he wasn't going to be around for long. I didn't know they were supposed to keep touring Nevermind. They seemed to have a blast in the clubs, but the huge crowds might have been out of his comfort zone?

I was kind of hoping they were going to put him hanging out with William Burroughs in the documentary. This sounds like this happened around those 6 months off.

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/11/best-regards-kurt.html

http://dangerousminds.net/comments/when_kurt_cobain_met_william_burroughs

It seems like the last time people cared about bands were in the 90s. From the mid 90s to now, there's very few bands people have been that passionate about, unless they're a celebrity couple and they're on a reality show.

[wasted]

Kurt sabotaged his career. Taking 6 months off to do heroin with Courtney. I think I missed all this at the time. I didn't see how Kurts teenage years combined with his bi polar manicness made him pretty bad candidate for a rock career. Axl was just the new father figure to rebel against. Just because he sold 20 million records didn't mean he was going to start writing Stairway Heaven. That particular creative process with the guitar, lyrics kind of questioning every person/situation doesn't have any romance. Kurt seemed like he could do some insane triple album of jacking off songs. Like With the Lights Out really. That would really let his creativity free but having to grind out meaningful rock albums in the Back in Black and tour stadiums just wasn't where he should be. It's really like having an eccentric inventor stuck working as an engineer in nuclear plant like Homer Simpson.

I do think Kurt had another artistic side that he hadn't fully explored. There was a crazy folk troubador facet to his artistic palate that he hadn't fully realized yet. I could see some kind of a Neil Young/Tom Waits hyrbid corpo-nihilistic mutation floating around somewhere in that creative id.

Possibly there was a Dylan/REM acoustic songwriting route to explore. Dylan is an enigma though, why does he bother. He kind of quit but kept rolling. So Kurt would have to start hanging out with Johnny Depp and writing folk rock records. What I was think he doesn't have that douche mentality to think of the career. He has to be herded like psychotic sheep into the rock album format or he'd do 20 minute instrumentals. He didn't believe in a career in rock. He was worth more dead than alive and it was easier.

[wkuk04]

The end credits of the film states, "The statements made by the

interview subjects in this film reflect the recollections and opinions

of such individuals and do not necessarily reflect the views of the

filmmakers and are not presented as historical fact."

[wasted]

I feel like the movie shows a clear line. Bi polar hard to handle, rejected by family, just kind of snowballs. His art found an outlet but it didn't help those two real problems.

[Strange Broue]

What about Street cred. Not everyone gives a shit

Clearly Strange Broue does, which is why he made a point of it, i outlined from the beginning that i thought such comparisons were corny dick-measuring contests but if he's gonna make a point based on his understanding of a situation well then you better make sure it makes sense because you might be talking to someone that actually knows what they're talking about.

You can't have the shit both ways, i seen that a lot in this thread, someone'll make a point of something kinda lightweight and puerile, you'll meet em on their level and do em one better and what you get in response is 'ugh, who cares about that shit, that doesn't matter!' well then don't bring it up then!

What you said in the Pistols response is entertaining, but i don't specifically make a point for their childhood.. also compare the 70's in London to 80's in Los Angeles is not a fair comparison either... i was talkin about the musical aspects on how to a band got together... Pistols were made by a manager, GNR made by themselves

that's all

PS seems like John Lydon and myself pretty much grow up on the same environment, the difference is the time (the 90's for myself) and the place (in Eastern Europe in the living breathing and defecating suburban part of a shit city) so i goddamn known what poverty is, bro

Edited May 5, 2015 by Strange Broue

[Len Cnut]

What about Street cred. Not everyone gives a shit

Clearly Strange Broue does, which is why he made a point of it, i outlined from the beginning that i thought such comparisons were corny dick-measuring contests but if he's gonna make a point based on his understanding of a situation well then you better make sure it makes sense because you might be talking to someone that actually knows what they're talking about.

You can't have the shit both ways, i seen that a lot in this thread, someone'll make a point of something kinda lightweight and puerile, you'll meet em on their level and do em one better and what you get in response is 'ugh, who cares about that shit, that doesn't matter!' well then don't bring it up then!

What you said in the Pistols response is entertaining, but i don't specifically make a point for their childhood.. also compare the 70's in London to 80's in Los Angeles is not a fair comparison either... i was talkin about the musical aspects on how to a band got together... Pistols were made by a manager, GNR made by themselves

that's all

PS seems like John Lydon and myself pretty much grow up on the same environment, the difference is the time (the 90's for myself) and the place (in Eastern Europe in the living breathing and defecating suburban part of a shit city) so i goddamn known what poverty is, bro

Well if its not a fair comparison then why did you make it? Also, you said street punk band living the rebel life and presented The Pistols as a counterpoint to that by saying they were the opposite i.e. they were polished wankers...when there was nothing vaguely polished or un-street about them...there was with GnR though, as i outlined.

As far as whether you've personally experienced poverty, what you telling me for?

Edited May 5, 2015 by Len B'stard

[Strange Broue]

LOL

wow, great video, some valid points in there, but John Lydon talks here like an English teacher in some comfortable chair, lol

What about Street cred. Not everyone gives a shit

Clearly Strange Broue does, which is why he made a point of it, i outlined from the beginning that i thought such comparisons were corny dick-measuring contests but if he's gonna make a point based on his understanding of a situation well then you better make sure it makes sense because you might be talking to someone that actually knows what they're talking about.

You can't have the shit both ways, i seen that a lot in this thread, someone'll make a point of something kinda lightweight and puerile, you'll meet em on their level and do em one better and what you get in response is 'ugh, who cares about that shit, that doesn't matter!' well then don't bring it up then!

What you said in the Pistols response is entertaining, but i don't specifically make a point for their childhood.. also compare the 70's in London to 80's in Los Angeles is not a fair comparison either... i was talkin about the musical aspects on how to a band got together... Pistols were made by a manager, GNR made by themselves

that's all

PS seems like John Lydon and myself pretty much grow up on the same environment, the difference is the time (the 90's for myself) and the place (in Eastern Europe in the living breathing and defecating suburban part of a shit city) so i goddamn known what poverty is, bro

Well if its not a fair comparison then why did you make it? Also, you said street punk band living the rebel life and presented The Pistols as a counterpoint to that by saying they were the opposite i.e. they were polished wankers...when there was nothing vaguely polished or un-street about them...there was with GnR though, as i outlined.

As far as whether you've personally experienced poverty, what you telling me for?

You make THAT comparison, not myself

So i'm not going to defend what YOU said

my experiences with poverty are totally off topic here, so i don't bring that up for an arguments sake

Edited May 5, 2015 by Strange Broue

[wasted]

Also 70s UK might not be as crazy as the LA streets in the 90s. That particular choice street GNR found was pretty nice.

[Len Cnut]

You make THAT comparison, not myself

So i'm not going to defend what YOU said

No i didn't, YOU did. You made a very specific point about GnR being a street punk band living the rebel life, your exact words, and the Pistols being unlike that. And when I showed you how that was wrong and now you're saying you didn't say that, despite it being in black and white a few pages earlier You made the comparison, either without thinking about it or having any knowledge about it and then when i expanded on it and presented you with a comparison, you start backpedalling and criticising the basis of it all, as if i was the one that bought that shit up.

my experiences with poverty are totally off topic here, so i don't bring that up for an arguments sake

I know they are completely off topic here, which is why i asked 'what are you telling me for?'. Once again, i didn't bring it up, you bought it up...and then when i question your bringing it up you reply with 'totally off topic'

Quite apart from anything I'm still curious as to why you even bought up The Sex Pistols out of nowhere in this topic, I've yet to figure that bit out, or what they have to do with any of this shit, since we're talking about whats 'off topic', The Pistols are off topic too, so where did that come from?

Edited May 5, 2015 by Len B'stard

[Mr. Dude]

What about Street cred. Not everyone gives a shit

Clearly Strange Broue does, which is why he made a point of it, i outlined from the beginning that i thought such comparisons were corny dick-measuring contests but if he's gonna make a point based on his understanding of a situation well then you better make sure it makes sense because you might be talking to someone that actually knows what they're talking about.

You can't have the shit both ways, i seen that a lot in this thread, someone'll make a point of something kinda lightweight and puerile, you'll meet em on their level and do em one better and what you get in response is 'ugh, who cares about that shit, that doesn't matter!' well then don't bring it up then!

What you said in the Pistols response is entertaining, but i don't specifically make a point for their childhood.. also compare the 70's in London to 80's in Los Angeles is not a fair comparison either... i was talkin about the musical aspects on how to a band got together... Pistols were made by a manager, GNR made by themselves

that's all

PS seems like John Lydon and myself pretty much grow up on the same environment, the difference is the time (the 90's for myself) and the place (in Eastern Europe in the living breathing and defecating suburban part of a shit city) so i goddamn known what poverty is, bro

Well if its not a fair comparison then why did you make it? Also, you said street punk band living the rebel life and presented The Pistols as a counterpoint to that by saying they were the opposite i.e. they were polished wankers...when there was nothing vaguely polished or un-street about them...there was with GnR though, as i outlined.

As far as whether you've personally experienced poverty, what you telling me for?

You make THAT comparison, not myself

So i'm not going to defend what YOU said

No i didn't, YOU did. You made a very specific point about GnR being a street punk band living the rebel life, your exact words, and the Pistols being unlike that. And when I showed you how that was wrong and now you're saying you didn't say that, despite it being in black and white a few pages earlier You made the comparison, either without thinking about it or having any knowledge about it and then when i expanded on it and presented you with a comparison, you start backpedalling and criticising the basis of it all, as if i was the one that bought that shit up.

my experiences with poverty are totally off topic here, so i don't bring that up for an arguments sake

I know they are completely off topic here, which is why i asked 'what are you telling me for?'. Once again, i didn't bring it up, you bought it up...and then when i question your bringing it up you reply with 'totally off topic'

Quite apart from anything I'm still curious as to why you even bought up The Sex Pistols out of nowhere in this topic, I've yet to figure that bit out, or what they have to do with any of this shit, since we're talking about whats 'off topic', The Pistols are off topic too, so where did that come from?

I can't believe its not butter.

[Len Cnut]

What about Street cred. Not everyone gives a shit

Clearly Strange Broue does, which is why he made a point of it, i outlined from the beginning that i thought such comparisons were corny dick-measuring contests but if he's gonna make a point based on his understanding of a situation well then you better make sure it makes sense because you might be talking to someone that actually knows what they're talking about.

You can't have the shit both ways, i seen that a lot in this thread, someone'll make a point of something kinda lightweight and puerile, you'll meet em on their level and do em one better and what you get in response is 'ugh, who cares about that shit, that doesn't matter!' well then don't bring it up then!

What you said in the Pistols response is entertaining, but i don't specifically make a point for their childhood.. also compare the 70's in London to 80's in Los Angeles is not a fair comparison either... i was talkin about the musical aspects on how to a band got together... Pistols were made by a manager, GNR made by themselves

that's all

PS seems like John Lydon and myself pretty much grow up on the same environment, the difference is the time (the 90's for myself) and the place (in Eastern Europe in the living breathing and defecating suburban part of a shit city) so i goddamn known what poverty is, bro

Well if its not a fair comparison then why did you make it? Also, you said street punk band living the rebel life and presented The Pistols as a counterpoint to that by saying they were the opposite i.e. they were polished wankers...when there was nothing vaguely polished or un-street about them...there was with GnR though, as i outlined.

As far as whether you've personally experienced poverty, what you telling me for?

You make THAT comparison, not myself

So i'm not going to defend what YOU said

No i didn't, YOU did. You made a very specific point about GnR being a street punk band living the rebel life, your exact words, and the Pistols being unlike that. And when I showed you how that was wrong and now you're saying you didn't say that, despite it being in black and white a few pages earlier You made the comparison, either without thinking about it or having any knowledge about it and then when i expanded on it and presented you with a comparison, you start backpedalling and criticising the basis of it all, as if i was the one that bought that shit up.

my experiences with poverty are totally off topic here, so i don't bring that up for an arguments sake

I know they are completely off topic here, which is why i asked 'what are you telling me for?'. Once again, i didn't bring it up, you bought it up...and then when i question your bringing it up you reply with 'totally off topic'

Quite apart from anything I'm still curious as to why you even bought up The Sex Pistols out of nowhere in this topic, I've yet to figure that bit out, or what they have to do with any of this shit, since we're talking about whats 'off topic', The Pistols are off topic too, so where did that come from?

I can't believe its not butter.

Marlon Brando had a method through which he could accurately confirm or deny

[Mr. Dude]

What about Street cred. Not everyone gives a shit

Clearly Strange Broue does, which is why he made a point of it, i outlined from the beginning that i thought such comparisons were corny dick-measuring contests but if he's gonna make a point based on his understanding of a situation well then you better make sure it makes sense because you might be talking to someone that actually knows what they're talking about.

You can't have the shit both ways, i seen that a lot in this thread, someone'll make a point of something kinda lightweight and puerile, you'll meet em on their level and do em one better and what you get in response is 'ugh, who cares about that shit, that doesn't matter!' well then don't bring it up then!

What you said in the Pistols response is entertaining, but i don't specifically make a point for their childhood.. also compare the 70's in London to 80's in Los Angeles is not a fair comparison either... i was talkin about the musical aspects on how to a band got together... Pistols were made by a manager, GNR made by themselves

that's all

PS seems like John Lydon and myself pretty much grow up on the same environment, the difference is the time (the 90's for myself) and the place (in Eastern Europe in the living breathing and defecating suburban part of a shit city) so i goddamn known what poverty is, bro

Well if its not a fair comparison then why did you make it? Also, you said street punk band living the rebel life and presented The Pistols as a counterpoint to that by saying they were the opposite i.e. they were polished wankers...when there was nothing vaguely polished or un-street about them...there was with GnR though, as i outlined.

As far as whether you've personally experienced poverty, what you telling me for?

You make THAT comparison, not myself

So i'm not going to defend what YOU said

No i didn't, YOU did. You made a very specific point about GnR being a street punk band living the rebel life, your exact words, and the Pistols being unlike that. And when I showed you how that was wrong and now you're saying you didn't say that, despite it being in black and white a few pages earlier You made the comparison, either without thinking about it or having any knowledge about it and then when i expanded on it and presented you with a comparison, you start backpedalling and criticising the basis of it all, as if i was the one that bought that shit up.

my experiences with poverty are totally off topic here, so i don't bring that up for an arguments sake

I know they are completely off topic here, which is why i asked 'what are you telling me for?'. Once again, i didn't bring it up, you bought it up...and then when i question your bringing it up you reply with 'totally off topic'

Quite apart from anything I'm still curious as to why you even bought up The Sex Pistols out of nowhere in this topic, I've yet to figure that bit out, or what they have to do with any of this shit, since we're talking about whats 'off topic', The Pistols are off topic too, so where did that come from?

I can't believe its not butter.

Marlon Brando had a method through which he could accurately confirm or deny

Argetinian Tango?

[Len Cnut]

No, i meant in sandwiches, why, what were you thinking about you mucky little boy?

[Mr. Dude]

No, i meant in sandwiches, why, what were you thinking about you mucky little boy?

I was thinking of the legendary Bumblefoot number.