borntohula

EDIT: i misread that. montreal, or detroit.

yeah it does. it has since replaced gimme fiction as my favourite.

i laughed at the comment, because someone was bound to mention it eventually, but lauren is right, it was unnecessary and came out of left field. as far as avery is concerned, i think he's a dick for pulling that move. i'm surprised there hasn't really been anything in the rules against that before... it seems fairly obvious. i still like the rangers though. here's hoping montreal can put boston out of their misery thursday night.

i never thought him to be a tattoo kind of person.

yeah. them and whoever those trade federation dudes are. there must be a reason as to why we dont see them in 4-6. i suspect foul-play/genocide.

let's not forget frog eyes. spencer krug makes things sound the same. i like wolf parade the best. they're da bomb.

psh... "just another space movie"... SPACE MOVIES ARE GREAT. have you ever listened to bob dylan? or you just don't like him because you're supposed to like him?

that's my thinking as well. only humans are heroes, apparently. i dont think i'll show my kids any of the films. every time i go back to watch 4-6 again, i dislike them more and more. 4 & 5 are okay, with 5 having the best story/direction, but there are still aspects about them that i dislike, and now that they've all been "retouched" (read: shit on), there's even less of a chance i'd want to show them to my children. 1-3 were just appalling. i think i liked 2 the best, but it's been forever since i've seen it. 1 and 3 are tied for worst star wars stories ever. i did read the books when i was younger, but i've found that they've gotten out of hand. who gives a shit about jaycen and jayna? anakin 2.0 went bad? who saw that coming? and chewbacca is dead? why do i care?

hahah good point. i just meant it in terms of the deported-for-not-liking-hockey comment. i have high hopes for montreal, they'd better not lose again.

yes! nationalism and sports! my two most favourite things!

agreend. i have a few friends in the UK who like them, but that's fine because i think it must be law there to listen to either radiohead or oasis. here, it's inexcusable. i think everyone liked them way back when, but if someone actually believes that they've released something worth listening to since 1995, they're clearly in denial.

no, it's the result of databending. have you ever saved a picture onto your computer to see that it's all glitchy or messed up? that's what this is.

agreed. and yeah, shiri's right, they're far less of a headache to use than the ipods, which require not only itunes, but don't all the songs need to be in .m4a as well? one of the shittiest kind of music file compressions i know of. i don't lend my CDs out. i learned that lesson pretty damn quick. keys + pocket + my CD w/out it's case = you're a jerk.

i couldn't agree more with what you're saying. i think that the whole "revolutionary spirit" idea is what i was trying to get at myself. i admire the "simplicity" of punk as well, and i find it really interesting that it served as such a huge inspiration to so many people. i don't think that kind of thing can really happen again in popular music. i might be wrong though. @ heyrabbit: "you can't identify that objectivity doesn't exist without being objective." no, but i can come to the realization that our thoughts will always be influenced by our individual subject positions, which means that no one can ever truly be objective, no matter how many philosophical cartwheels you do. i agree with hobo. there is no way to objectively decide a proper definition of punk, but i also think that that's besides the point. i think by now, the term has taken on many meanings, all of which apply in their own way to what "punk" is, and i don't think that undermines the more socially-invested aspects of punk whatsoever. even before the music was popular in the late 70s, the term "punk" referred to numerous things, be it a generic term for "trouble maker" or a more specific term for prison sex. this might prove to be a good time for me to remind people that my question was, "what is punk (to you)?"

as there is no such thing as objectivity.

i'm sortof indifferent to him. i have chemical city, but i did not listen to it for very long after i bought it. it was one of those impulse buys that i kindof regret. i think he writes good music, and has some great songs, but a lot of times he still comes off as being somewhat mediocre in comparison to other artists that i would rather listen to. mediocre in the sense that, he has some good singles and whatnot but when it comes to his albums they're very inconsistent.

looks like robin finck is back... http://nin.com/ i for one think he should bring danny lohner back as well.

may i suggest music by the band europe? david bowie/talking heads work well too.

first off, i'd like to thank the contributions by jello and greg. i'm gonna try to respond to most of you, cause i think everyone's contribution so far has been pretty interesting. i'm also pretty shocked that most identified sid vicious as the "most punk" out of everyone pictured. although i found graffin's pandering to nature as for our being "naturally" unique is a load of bullshit. not that i don't believe that we're all unique-- we all are in certain ways-- but if you have to look as closely as the human genome to see that we're all unique... it seems absurd at that point. "It's about purposely being indecent, impolite or unconventional to try and get people to re-examine their values." i like your point, but was just wondering if there's something in politeness that you see which works against our ability to elicit change? if that's the case, then are canadian's less likely to be 'punk' because "we're more polite"? ""I DON'T CARE" to the naysayers" -- what do you mean by that? who are the naysayers? i thought punks were the ones to say "no" or "fuck you". "of all that is mainstream" -- what's mainstream? what isn't? punk can't be mainstream? what is it about the "mainstream" that people think is an antithesis to being "punk" or being able to "make a difference"? "Reading Greg Graffin's article, it seems that Punk is nothing more than a label people throw around that can potentially define anyone who railed against the status quo. In other words, it's just a generic term." -- i definitely see what you're saying here. do you think the term loses its meaning when it's applied to people who exist outside of that social "movement" from the 1970s? is there something wrong with it becoming synonymous with "revolutionary"? i also agree that if you dismiss punk as a term applicable to other acts because of musical styles, then you do run into further problems of definition. for some reason, in any music text i've read, the stooges are cited as being "proto-punk" which i think is a completely ridiculous term. even more ridiculous than just calling them punk. so, they're not punk rock? to me, they embody what punk was moreso than a band like the sex pistols. i personally don't have a problem with the mass-labelling of things as "punk" aside from the fact that yes, it has been appropriated as a marketing term. i agree it's silly to ask "who's more punk" but in my case i was just doing it to generate discussion. i don't think there's much value in saying that naomi klein is totally more punk than chuck d, but i asked it more to see who of those people actually represents punk rock to all of you. "Fuck genre distinctions, music is music" music itself is a distinction though. what's music? what isn't? (hence why i put john cage up there with all the rest of the "punk" pictures). i think genre distinctions are as important as they are silly because they let us actually talk about the music we listen to. "nu-metal" is a god-awful name, but at least it exists so i can specify the kind of music i don't like. i agree with you, but it's important to not be so dismissive of something without bothering to question it first. ok so if the stooges aren't punk rock, and simple plan aren't, then when did punk rock start? when did it die? has it died? did "punk rock" as a musical style, scene, etc even exist?

google also had smaller april fools day things throughout their website. in google calendar, when you created an event, there was an "i'm feeling lucky" button, which would pencil you in for quasi-funny things like "date w/ britney spears," etc.

that ganon looks hilarious.

no! WHAT HAPPENED TO TOM JANE?! HE JUST WANTS HIS KIDS BACK!

you're both in denial.

everything > oasis

i don't have one, but i know a really good site that might.