Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
bovril

Unpopular Opinions You Hold

By bovril, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Footballwipe

Footballwipe

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, swanlee said:

The Beatles were a shite boy band weren't they? They then just reinvented themselves, ripped off & aping the sounds of the 60's that others innovated.

 

@Fox92 thoughts please.

 

Not too fussed about speed bumps but the ones at the Meridian are something else. Edmund Hillary would be proud to reach the summit of those monsters.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
swanlee

swanlee

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

tbh it was a (probably failed) attempt at humour, based on the post above my original that looked to me to be a bit "trolly" :)

Sorry Oz, wasn't meant to come across as 'trolly' and I'm personally disappointed that you interpreted that way. Maybe I could have couched the language with which I made the points more congenially.

 

But it is a thread about opinions that are unpopular. I do think MPs get a hard time. I cannot understand why people sit there watching so much TV, especially so on a Saturday evening as it's absolute dross. And I do think The Beetles are massively over-hyped.

 

A number of people would, and have, disagreed with me on the first point. I've upset people in the past by expressing the second point. And I've almost got into fights with Liverpudlians over the third point. Almost sacrilegious to some to suggest that the fab four were not the greatest ever band the world has ever seen. 

 

I also think The Wood Lice would have been a much better name.:yesyes:

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, swanlee said:

And I've almost got into fights with Liverpudlians over the third point. Almost sacrilegious to some to suggest that the fab four were not the greatest ever band the world has ever seen. 

 

I also think The Wood Lice would have been a much better name.:yesyes:

 

As their output was for listening and they were known for their moptops, surely The Earwigs would've been even better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
swanlee

swanlee

Posted
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

As their output was for listening and they were known for their moptops, surely The Earwigs would've been even better?

The Earwigs is a great name. I wonder if Paul, John, Ringo & George ever considered it? Alternatives would of been The Creepy-Crawleys, The Centipedes, The Wood Lice....

 

And I wonder how they hit upon The Beetles as being a suitable name for what would become an era-defing band! Maybe they just put all the alternative bug names in a hat.....?

Edited by swanlee
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FerrisBueller

FerrisBueller

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, swanlee said:

The Beatles were a shite boy band weren't they? They then just reinvented themselves, ripped off & aping the sounds of the 60's that others innovated.

 


 

 

 

I appreciate this is the 'Unpopular Opinions' thread, but I'm interested in what brought you to this conclusion.

First couple of albums i could agree (I still think they are amazing albums) but everything after 1964 was revolutionary for music In my opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ozleicester

ozleicester

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, swanlee said:

The Earwigs is a great name. I wonder if Paul, John, Ringo & George ever considered it? Alternatives would of been The Creepy-Crawleys, The Centipedes, The Wood Lice....

 

And I wonder how they hit upon The Beetles as being a suitable name for what would become an era-defing band! Maybe they just put all the alternative bug names in a hat.....?

They were the BeAtles... a play on the word BEAT (as beat music was th style of the day)...and a slight homage to buddy holly and the crickets... or so i think :)

 

Edited by ozleicester
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Free Falling Foxes

Free Falling Foxes

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, FerrisBueller said:

I appreciate this is the 'Unpopular Opinions' thread, but I'm interested in what brought you to this conclusion.

First couple of albums i could agree (I still think they are amazing albums) but everything after 1964 was revolutionary for music In my opinion.

Yes, in YOUR opinion...…...

 

 

 

..…...and literally millions of others over many, many years. :appl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Guiza

David Guiza

Posted
Posted

I agree on the name, but absolutely not on the band being overrated. The band name is effectively a crap pun.

 

It's got nothing on something like The Smiths which encapsulates so much about the working class, mundane, existence that the band played on. 

 

On the theme of The Beatles, I would say John Lennon gets an easy ride for what was quite a controversial life. I love the man and his work, but the drugs, assault, questionable political work would be torn into if he were around today.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
swanlee

swanlee

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

I agree on the name, but absolutely not on the band being overrated. The band name is effectively a crap pun.

 

It's got nothing on something like The Smiths which encapsulates so much about the working class, mundane, existence that the band played on. 

 

On the theme of The Beatles, I would say John Lennon gets an easy ride for what was quite a controversial life. I love the man and his work, but the drugs, assault, questionable political work would be torn into if he were around today.  

I can agree with most of that. Julie Burchall - erstwhile music journalist, columnist & provocateur - while being a tad too viscous does also make some valid points with regards the Lennon mythology.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2000/dec/09/johnlennon

 

That said, I'm also a Lennon fanboy?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Guiza

David Guiza

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, swanlee said:

I can agree with most of that. Julie Burchall - erstwhile music journalist, columnist & provocateur - while being a tad too viscous does also make some valid points with regards the Lennon mythology.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2000/dec/09/johnlennon

 

That said, I'm also a Lennon fanboy?

Absolutely, I guess you don't pick who you are attracted to in a fanboy fashion. His controversy probably draws me to him even more, most of my icons are in a similar fashion.

 

When you consider what the likes of Stormzy and co get berated for nowadays, it's probably for the best that he was around when he was. Also, as tragic as the murder was, from a selfish perspective I'm glad he didn't grow into an old racist like Morrissey!

 

6 minutes ago, Nalis said:

The B-Sharps were a better name anyway

Image result for b sharps bigger than jesus

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jon the Hat

Jon the Hat

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Billionaires should not exist....

 

Post image

That's great.  However most people become billionaires do so by either

1) Ripping off a nations wealth as in Russia, other corrupt places

2) Building up a hugely succesful company, often defining a whole new market, creating thousands or tens of thousands of jobs, and resultant wealth and taxes.

3) Investing other people money (Pension funds mostly) in succesful businesses and taking a fat share of the winnings

4) Writing Harry Potter books.

 

Do you think none of these should exist? If you cap someones wealth, would they still develop their businesses to deliver so much employment and tax?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ozleicester

ozleicester

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

That's great.  However most people become billionaires do so by either

1) Ripping off a nations wealth as in Russia, other corrupt places

2) Building up a hugely succesful company, often defining a whole new market, creating thousands or tens of thousands of jobs, and resultant wealth and taxes.

3) Investing other people money (Pension funds mostly) in succesful businesses and taking a fat share of the winnings

4) Writing Harry Potter books.

 

Do you think none of these should exist? If you cap someones wealth, would they still develop their businesses to deliver so much employment and tax?

Yes, none of these should exist.

 

They can be millionaires, the can be multi millionaires... but no-one should be a billionaire

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Guiza

David Guiza

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

That's great.  However most people become billionaires do so by either

1) Ripping off a nations wealth as in Russia, other corrupt places

2) Building up a hugely succesful company, often defining a whole new market, creating thousands or tens of thousands of jobs, and resultant wealth and taxes.

3) Investing other people money (Pension funds mostly) in succesful businesses and taking a fat share of the winnings

4) Writing Harry Potter books.

 

Do you think none of these should exist? If you cap someones wealth, would they still develop their businesses to deliver so much employment and tax?

I'm pretty sure she's not a billionaire, due in part to paying so much tax and giving so much away to charity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jon the Hat

Jon the Hat

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Yes, none of these should exist.

 

They can be millionaires, the can be multi millionaires... but no-one should be a billionaire

So what you make a law?  How could you possibly police it?  It's a laudable plan, but seems to me to be impossible and also largely irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ozleicester

ozleicester

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

So what you make a law?  How could you possibly police it?  It's a laudable plan, but seems to me to be impossible and also largely irrelevant.

Yep, im not sure how its done... but then i still dont understand how a fax machine works... someone knows, surely they can figure it out.

 

The first step is the world acknowledging that it needs to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...