AThousandLies

My primary school used to say the important thing was to have fun, then at highschool they told us winning matters. My parents didn't really say either. But the fact that all the teams I was in sucked both with and without me meant that winning wasn't everything; it was an impossibility.

Owned by a tele-marketer ... now that'll deal a blow to your dignity :P Should've tried albosky's suggestion.

Quote of the week! Sigged.

It'd be safe to assume it'll go for a week; i.e. December 25th - January 1st, as this has been done with holiday events for the past year or so.

I doubt it.

I think this thread would be a good sticky - how NOT to behave in the forums.

Underground... yeah right. From Autumn to Ashes is definitley not underground either. RXBandits are awesome! The Vandlas are another. This is about "Underground" bands. Not "featured on Mtv's website" bands. http://www.mtv.com/music/#/music/artist ... tist.jhtml http://www.mtv.com/music/#/music/artist ... tist.jhtml http://www.mtv.com/music/#/music/artist ... tist.jhtml I said FEATURED on Mtv's website. What is your problem? You have to come back at every little thing I say. Get off of me. I'm not on your back at every little thing you say. I was just pointing out a minor inconsistancy; and it's not like you were specific as to say say they were in the "Featured" section of the site.

Thanks, I'm gonna do that.

This is a very pointless argument. ATL is never going to understand what Ghost is saying... It just keeps going in circles. I agree.. someone *coughATLcough* needs to swallow their pride and admit they were wrong... and actually stick with their conclusion this time :roll: . Hey, I haven't seen any laws the detail that the school is allowed to disclose any and all information to parents. If that's the case, than the law suit didn't have much ground - but I also think that the school shouldn't have the right to tell parents whatever they want.

Underground... yeah right. From Autumn to Ashes is definitley not underground either. RXBandits are awesome! The Vandlas are another. This is about "Underground" bands. Not "featured on Mtv's website" bands. http://www.mtv.com/music/#/music/artist ... tist.jhtml http://www.mtv.com/music/#/music/artist ... tist.jhtml http://www.mtv.com/music/#/music/artist ... tist.jhtml

You have a bad habbit of flat out ignoring the points where you are wrong. Freedom of speech and expression is excersized actually, as long as you are not threatening anyone else's well being. This is clearly not a case where anyone's life was threatened. In fact, there are several groups that do say the latter of the two (non whites being the scum of the earth and that all women should serve men) - as long as they are not threatening anyone's life, they do have the right to say it. The KKK is still active in America and they have the right to be as long as they don't harm anyone. You still have yet to defend to me how this lawsuit has any based besides saying "the law is stupid." Frankly, no one cares if you think its stupid. The school has the right to do what it did - as clearly explained - so please tell us where teh BASE for this lawsuit is. One is allowed to express feelings/thoughts/opinions as long as they do not harm the welfare of others? Did the school not see that informing the parents of a sensitive issue such as this could've had severely damaging repurcussions? Jeez...CAN YOU NOT READ?! As a minor, the school has complete authority to tell the parents anything that happens while at school. It was obviously not THAT private or sensitive if the girl had no problem flaunting it in a public place such as school. She should know the consequences and should have acted accordingly. Once again, you have avoided the fact that the school has acted in its authority and therefore no base for a lawsuit can exist. Well then perhaps a change to the law is necessary? Considering the case succeeded, and there are plans for other legislations preventing any orientation-discrimination, I think it may be on the way.

You have a bad habbit of flat out ignoring the points where you are wrong. Freedom of speech and expression is excersized actually, as long as you are not threatening anyone else's well being. This is clearly not a case where anyone's life was threatened. In fact, there are several groups that do say the latter of the two (non whites being the scum of the earth and that all women should serve men) - as long as they are not threatening anyone's life, they do have the right to say it. The KKK is still active in America and they have the right to be as long as they don't harm anyone. You still have yet to defend to me how this lawsuit has any based besides saying "the law is stupid." Frankly, no one cares if you think its stupid. The school has the right to do what it did - as clearly explained - so please tell us where teh BASE for this lawsuit is. One is allowed to express feelings/thoughts/opinions as long as they do not harm the welfare of others? Did the school not see that informing the parents of a sensitive issue such as this could've had severely damaging repurcussions?

Innocent until proven guily, are we not? Anyway, unless I can be told otherwise (read below) that is beside the point in this case. I'm having trouble finding in the lawsuit where it says the school was punishing only her and not straight couples. In fact, the girl is on record saying that this lawsuit is about the fact that they released the information to their parents - which is NOT against the law. Please address that point in your next response instead of avoiding it. Want me to address it? Okay, well, I haven't been presented with a law that states that schools have every right to deliver any and all information to the parents of the student. If there is a law stating that, than I'd say it's pretty stupid. Another point that I guess you haven't realized is freedom of expression. Anyone has the right to tell anyone what they want. If I saw someone showing affection to their girlfriend I could go to their parents and say "your daughter is homosexual." We have the right to do that. So even if you ignore the fact that the school has the right to tell the parents of everything that goes on (whether you think it needs to be done or not), you can't ignore the fact that the Bill of Rights protects everyone's right to free speech. Where are your complaints when magazines release private information about celebreties everyday? Of course you don't complain! Because if you do something in public, everyone who wants to has the right to tell people about. You really think freedom of expression is exercised? So I have the right to tell you that I'm going to kill your significant other, that anybody not white is the scum of the earth and that all women should serve men?

Innocent until proven guily, are we not? Anyway, unless I can be told otherwise (read below) that is beside the point in this case. I'm having trouble finding in the lawsuit where it says the school was punishing only her and not straight couples. In fact, the girl is on record saying that this lawsuit is about the fact that they released the information to their parents - which is NOT against the law. Please address that point in your next response instead of avoiding it. Want me to address it? Okay, well, I haven't been presented with a law that states that schools have every right to deliver any and all information to the parents of the student. If there is a law stating that, than I'd say it's pretty stupid.

Ladies and gentlemen: I give you ignorance. So ignore his ignorance and respond to the other intelligence rebuttles to YOUR ignorance. Fine, I'll swallow my pride. Maybe I was wrong here. But I see no evidence indicating whether other people did or did not partake in expression of affection to the same extent that this girl and her girlfriend did. So until otherwise I'm going to sit on the fence for this one. You just proved my point yourself. There is no evidence that the school is singling this girl out - only that they told "sensitive matter" to her parents. Unless their is evidence of the school singling her out, we have to assume there isn't. We are guaranteed innocence until proven guilty, remember? How can we assume one scenario and totally disregard the other when each have their validity?

So the parents need to know if they were tounging, if her hands were in her pants, or any other manner of details? There are so many other details that didn't need to be explained - yet they chose to mention that it was with another girl.

No, wait, I'm not going to completely sit on the fence here. The school did not NEED to tell the parents that it was with another girl. That is the daughter's responsibility. They could've easily and should've not been too specific in that regard - and just said it was with another student. They should know that that's a sensitive subject, and if they actually were as responsible and caring for the student's welfare as they're meant to be, they would have realised that it was not necessary to include that detail.

And I used to think NFL was hard to understand ... :shock:

Ladies and gentlemen: I give you ignorance. So ignore his ignorance and respond to the other intelligence rebuttles to YOUR ignorance. Fine, I'll swallow my pride. Maybe I was wrong here. But I see no evidence indicating whether other people did or did not partake in expression of affection to the same extent that this girl and her girlfriend did. So until otherwise I'm going to sit on the fence for this one.

I think that bands now will not be remembered for as long as bands several decades ago (i.e. we still remember the Beatles, Pink Floyd etc now, but I doubt many people will remember bands from this era in around 30 or 40 years). Maybe like, 20 years. But not much more than that. The grunge movement burned out fairly fast ... so I doubt Nirvana will be remembered for years and years. I'd say: Radiohead Joy Divison (they're still remembered 25 years on; they started the entire post-punk/goth movement which doesn't seem to be dying out any time soon) Depeche Mode (one of the pinnacle bands of the new-romantic era) The Cure David Bowie (he'll be long regarded as one of the greatest solo artists of all time) Faith No More (arguably the most diverse band ever ... but I don't think they ever received the appreciation they deserved) New Order (first white dance/synth-pop group) Muse Marilyn Manson (mostly for his infamy; his golden era was Mechanical Animals, seven years ago ... I think he's on his way down) Tool (for their oddity, non-traditional structure and experimentation) System of a Down (for similar reasons to Tool) Nine Inch Nails (one of the biggest bands of the 90's; one of the few who isn't dying out and at the same time is indirectly responsible, along with other artists, for many new musical movements)

It's stupid to say it encourages behaviour. If someone is vulnerable, stupid and impulsive enough to act on something presented in a song as an EXPRESSION, not conviction, then they need help. I'm not defending emo here; I'm really not a fan of it. But it's stupid to claim that it encourages negative behaviour, and use that as an excuse for disliking it. So, tell me, MyPurpleCrayon ... what bands do you listen to?

No that's just England who do that, well maybe Colombia too :x Anyway, I will be ordering a Trinidad & Tobago shirt in time for the world cup, with Scotland printed on the back :wink: Is Yorke still playing with them?

Ladies and gentlemen: I give you ignorance.

16 days older than me. :evil: Same here. :wink: (Not trying to suggest something there) Say, are you busy on the 21st next year ... ? :wink:

It's now possible to stream the entire album. Open the following in Internet Explorer (don't think it works in Opera; not sure about Mozilla). http://music.aol.com/songs/new_releases ... faultTab=3 I quite like it; it's not restricted to the typical structure KoRn always have, although Fieldy's slap-like bass isn't present ... but maybe that adds to the mood. Jon's back to using the bagpipes on two or three songs, which is good to see. I'm quite impressed. On the last song, Tearjerker, Jon actually sings, rather than screaming, squeeling or growling. It [bleep]s up towards the end - scratchy, skippy type noise. I'm not sure if that's a mistake on AOL's part, or whether it's actually meant to do that.