borntohula

basically, if police suspect something, they have viable grounds to search your car. so if you get pulled over for speeding, and they have the dog with them and it in turn goes nuts, then you've got a problem. if you feel that doing drugs is a victimless crime, what about the dealers themselves? not many people with dirty drug habits can get by without some kind of pusher. do you feel the same way about them?

back to jesus and the bible... no one is going to agree on this. not even two christians. first off, the bible was initially written in hebrew. a language that happens to not have any vowels. that makes translating a bit difficult. also, punctuation did not exist at the time of the bible's inception. so a lot of it could be made up. also, the stories told in the bible have been passed down by many generations before they were actually written, and im sure for those of you who played a game of "broken telephone" when you were younger, you know that when stories are passed from one person to the next, information can be alterred. sometimes drastically. seeing as the new testament wasn't actually written until many years after jesus' death, how do we know that what is written is fact? similarly, the fact that jesus himself seems to represent the traditional epic "hero", who is present in stories written by people like virgil, who was around prior to jesus' time, shows to me that the bible is more of a literature than a history. heroes usually are some kind of foundling (like moses or mowgli), they endure some kind of trial (like beowulf, henry v), they "die", either figuratively or literally, and then experience a kind of rebirth. however, the bible is a historical text and has greatly affected who we are as human beings, regardless of what is actually written inside of it. in actuallity, the bible contains many of what jung would call archetypes. in many religions and faiths, prior to christianity, there have been "great flood" stories. things like that, which in my opinion, shouldn't be forgotten. man i've written too much. end.

ill make my mind up once i hear a song or two. bands who play "safe" music (some call it retro) really bother me, so we shall see. there were a bunch of bands who've been big in england but havent done as well as i had thought they would. one in particular being snow patrol.

okay then. filter aren't very good. period. he has a good voice, but i just don't like the music he puts to it.

no, i don't mind him. but i don't think filter are very good. well... in comparison to the material that other ex-NIN members have put out anyway. he was good on the underworld soundtrack with the damning well.

oh man, im glad richard patrick is in a hole somewhere.

i had a feeling that this thread would someday just become a conversation between you and i. I LOVE NIN!!!! just trying to keep the content relevant.

i disagree. no offense. trent was hottest in his rasta days. back when he had dreads. now he's gotten too muscular.

you have a point (with the picture). i dont think maynard has self esteem issues, because outside of tool he does interviews and photoshoots, as the maynard for APC. he's also had a few small roles in some movies. so he obviously doesn't have that big of a problem. the anti-image, image that they have is more of an ideal that the band shares, not just maynard. back in the day (60s), rock music had a kind of mystery attatched to it. there weren't so many magazines all asking the same dumb questions over and over, and the band's image itself wasn't so stressed upon. so to return to that, tool only do selective press. and it's worked. despite the fact that they started out by hardly do interviews for anyone, they're a pretty successful band, and one of the only bands from their time-period that are still around today. also, because they hardly to photoshoots, members of the band can walk out into a crowd and not be recognized by the fans. and that's what they want. man, ive typed too much. this is what you get when the conversation turns to tool.

if he didnt do lots of pictures and interviews, he'd be tool. that's what they do. the pictures he does are for magazines and stuff, for promotional purposes. they all suit his image most of the time, but of course, there will always be bad pictures. just like theres bad anything else. the pictures help perpetuate the image of trent reznor as a rock star, and not necessarily michael trent reznor who grew up in clevland ohio. i find when an artist has an image, it separates their stage life from their real life. therefore, glamour shots should be the least of your worries.

like the rat said you should validate your comment with some kind of... proof. for example: "gossard's opinion doesn't count because he has no proof" there. now you try.