|
|
Post by shreder75 on Dec 31, 2005 15:02:02 GMT -5
See, me and Vom finally agree on something. a ha h aha. Jim your the one on crack if you think Roth was better than Jabs and he did stuff way outside of the blues scale bro. Check out World Wide Live video.. We seriously need to have a Splawn Forum party,, Could you imagine all of us opinionated pricks in a bar somewhere talking guitar and hanging out,, man that would be fun.  you know how it would end up though, don't you craig? it would be me and you vs. everyone else...but in the end, we'd all dogpile on jimbax...just cause we could...LMAO... a splawn party would be great..too bad I don't fly..lol |
|
|
|
Post by Hacksaw on Dec 31, 2005 16:14:46 GMT -5
I dont fly either! I know some of these guys that work on the planes, i am not getting on one uless its a emergancy! LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by DonaldDemon on Jan 1, 2006 15:21:06 GMT -5
Oh Craig man, you kill me. Me and you couldn't be the farther ends ofthe spectrum. I happen to love Neil Young and beleive it or not he is an influence on my guitar playing. You will probably think that means I am horrible but I think Neil had great feel despite his sloppiness and his acoustic work is tops. To each his own i guess but you keep stepping on my idols!  I HATE Neil Youngs politics.... but like his jamming...I agree with you AGAIN! Like A Hurricane, Cinnamon girl....don't worry about craig, he and shreder are on crack...  Thanks jimbax, once again you have proven to have some taste. I craig and shredder's spandex are too tight ;D. I happen to like Neil's politics but then again I'm as liberal as they come. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbax on Jan 1, 2006 15:46:21 GMT -5
I HATE Neil Youngs politics.... but like his jamming...I agree with you AGAIN! Like A Hurricane, Cinnamon girl....don't worry about craig, he and shreder are on crack... Thanks jimbax, once again you have proven to have some taste. I craig and shredder's spandex are too tight ;D. I happen to like Neil's politics but then again I'm as liberal as they come. Most 'musicians and artist actors etc are liberals....I'm very conservative....I used to be a HUGE John Lennon liberal!!! then I had to get a job, pull my own weight and pay taxes...it was not long before I started agreeing with 'responsible' politics...which usually means 'less government' and therefore usually conservative....I am never in agreement with someone taking more of MY money and giving it to people that I don't agree with to make decisions that I believe will erode society and reduce my FREEDOM to make decisions without govt. intervention...liberals are all about taxes and government run beauracracies (which I DEFINITELY do not agree with) which only return about 7 cents on every tax dollar...that's irresponsible..not where I want my money invested! so, I am a conservative (by default)....if government were more responsible with a better return on tax payer's money then I wouldn't mind higher taxes...as it is my wife and I give (donate) money to 'financially responsible' organizations that return 100% of your money to the relief/humanitarian efforts....to support liberal politicians would be to support scam artists...(I don't necessarily support conservative politicians they're just lesser of 2 evils in my book)...I'm for less government...liberals are all about BIG goverment BIG taxes and then creating bogus laws forcing me to live a 'political correct' lifestyle (by their screwed-up definitions..)....no thanks.... other than that you and I are best buds! music wise! |
|
|
|
Post by DonaldDemon on Jan 1, 2006 15:59:09 GMT -5
LOL. Yes musically we are in key! I think the key there is "the lesser of the two evils" and I don't trust any political organization or any money making establishment (including corporations, fund-raisng organizations, and organized religion). I guess I am more liberal in the moral aspect compared to conservatives since I tend to disagree with almost everything that conservatives believe in, though this is a broad statement and completely subjective.
Another major conflict is that I am an environmental scientist with a deep spiritual connection to nature (its my religion really) and conservatives (mostly Republicans) couldn't give a damn about the environment and will blatantly lie while trying to press destuctive legislature. I can never accept that. I must stop myself there because I can go on forever about that subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbax on Jan 1, 2006 19:14:33 GMT -5
LOL. Yes musically we are in key! I think the key there is "the lesser of the two evils" and I don't trust any political organization or any money making establishment (including corporations, fund-raising organizations, and organized religion). I guess I am more liberal in the moral aspect compared to conservatives since I tend to disagree with almost everything that conservatives believe in, though this is a broad statement and completely subjective. Another major conflict is that I am an environmental scientist with a deep spiritual connection to nature (its my religion really) and conservatives (mostly Republicans) couldn't give a d**n about the environment and will blatantly lie while trying to press destructive legislature. I can never accept that. I must stop myself there because I can go on forever about that subject. Cool, I bet ya we even have alot in common politically...or whatever you want to call it...I guess these things depend on A) one's 'world view' and B) Who you believe. Philosophically speaking, (to point 'A') if man believes there is no 'God' and no further 'accountability' than what our 'senses' can acquire, then, life is by definition 'absoluteless'...ie: pointless and experiential in 'nature'. We, therefore, are nothing more than further developed 'animals' in a pointless pursuit of self-gratification...may the best caveman win!...if this is so...then 'nature' and the planet/environment is only the 'scape' for which I must pursue my goal of self gratification...so, when decisions come down, what do I care if the environment suffers? as long as my pointless life gets temporary gratification! therefore: no accountability, moral or otherwise, then, why should I care about the environment? Sum: No God = no accountability (real or otherwise) = 'society says' morality = anything goes (as liberals would 'relativise' morality) = what is 'bad' or 'good' are defined by constantly 'shifting' social mores = chaos = a willingness to 'lie' to get what 'YOU' want (see: self-gratification). There can be no REAL 'virtue' 'hope' or 'love' etc..in a liberal 'relativised' culture because the definitions are constantly shifting/changing. To point 'B' I do ALOT of PRIMARY research I don't trust the (yes, liberal) media to 'propagandize' and 'sensationalize' their own romantic worldview that is NOT based on fact, but, in fact, it is based on liberal 'theory' and 'ends justify the means' argumentation...Most Americans don't actually 'question' what CRUD they are imbibing while watching the 'news' they just absorb the 'liberalised bias' and unfortunately derive their 'worldview' from this 'input' too bad...garbage in garbage out. It is a tough job to take what is 'reported' and actually remove all the innuendo and loaded language, false accusations (liberals love to falsely accuse because no one hold them accountable) and then piece together the actual 'events' which is what one watches the news for...FOX news is the best at strictly reporting the news and leaving the 'bias' out. It is a good 'liberal' detector too! because if you think that FOX news is biased then you are truly brainwashed by the left wing media...if you are an 'honest' person and seeking the 'truth' about life...you will find it! If you are a person out on some kind of liberal 'crusade' you will find that you do not have points 'A' or 'B' correctly identified and answered...and life will be unfulfilling and peace and happiness elusive...... other than all that...Party on! |
|
|
|
Post by DonaldDemon on Jan 2, 2006 11:09:46 GMT -5
You have some good points there jimbax but I would have to disagree with some of what you said. I think liberals are not the only one to blame for having an agenda and bias in theis media and Fox news is certainly not innocent. They are constantly on the attack towards liberals and have a strong backing by the religious right so I would definitely call that biased.There is gobs of loaded language on Fox as well as any other station. You are right that it is a very difficult thing to discern truth among any news source and it takes a certain amount of faith to form an opinion on any issue.
Also the lack of God does not mean no respect for nature always. A lack of conne tion to ones environment will. If a religion places man as the most omnious and important being on this planet then it is acceptable to take what is deemed neccesary for our survival despite the plight of any other living thing. I am part native american and I admitedly have a contempt for Christianity so you can see where I am coming from. I am an honest person and always seek the truth in life but I am not on a liberal crusade and do not wish to force my opinions on anyone. I think thks country in alot of trouble for reasons both you and mentioned.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbax on Jan 2, 2006 12:17:45 GMT -5
You have some good points there jimbax but I would have to disagree with some of what you said. I think liberals are not the only one to blame for having an agenda and bias in theis media and Fox news is certainly not innocent. They are constantly on the attack towards liberals and have a strong backing by the religious right so I would definitely call that biased.There is gobs of loaded language on Fox as well as any other station. You are right that it is a very difficult thing to discern truth among any news source and it takes a certain amount of faith to form an opinion on any issue. Also the lack of God does not mean no respect for nature always. A lack of conne tion to ones environment will. If a religion places man as the most omnious and important being on this planet then it is acceptable to take what is deemed neccesary for our survival despite the plight of any other living thing. I am part native american and I admitedly have a contempt for Christianity so you can see where I am coming from. I am an honest person and always seek the truth in life but I am not on a liberal crusade and do not wish to force my opinions on anyone. I think thks country in alot of trouble for reasons both you and mentioned. My father in law is full blooded 'native American' and he too has much contempt for Christains...Fox news does take some 'shots' at liberal media, true, but they don't 'spin' or 'bias' the news reporting (is my point) as much as any liberal media news network (msn, cnn ,cnbc etc...) basic Fox news approach: here's what happened...then, you form your own opinion as to what that 'means'...well, the liberal media says: here's what WE say happened and here is what we say you should think about it...well, I am able to form my own opinions, so, no thanks, liberals...The liberals HATE Fox's approach to reporting the news because they can no longer use the media news to spin, bias, shape and form peoples social mores controlling public opinion in their worldview favor....red flags always go up when I encounter someone trying to tell me what I should (or have to) think is right and wrong, according to liberal social mores....also, I definitely don't align myself with guys like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell they speak only for a small MINORITY of Christians...that's why the liberal media always 'parade' those guys around, because they are always making some 'jack-@ss' statements that only embarrass the true Christian view...they are not an accurate representation of Christianity, if that is your only exposure to Christians then no wonder you hate us...I am an opinionated guy...but, when the opinion reaches the 'objective' I insist on being fact/truth based...most people that I encounter are not like that...they form their worldview on liberal/conservative innuendo, bias and poor theory...essentially they hold their worldview according to 'emotional' or 'predjudicial' biases and not 'evidence' or 'fact' based research...Simon Greenleaf was a noted God hater/lawyer he set out to disprove Christianity...he researched Christianity as he would an important legal case...he put all the supposed 'evidence' and alleged known 'facts' out on a table (historical, archaelogical, textual etc..) and came to the 'logical conclusion' as he stated it...in favor of believing in Christianity...all this to say: search deep, look hard, do the research before disregarding something....I know, I am a former God Hater like Greenleaf, I did the exact same thing, I set out to disprove it because I had some Christians 'hounding' me daily...well instead of disproving it (as I WANTED to) I found that, amazingly it is true and trustworthy...you may come to a different conclusion, but don't sell Christ short, you may be surprised as I was... |
|
|
|
Post by Hacksaw on Jan 2, 2006 12:27:06 GMT -5
No matter how you get there,, Its worth it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirrty Craig on Jan 2, 2006 16:14:58 GMT -5
Uli Roth sweep picking? c'mon Jimbax. The only thing Roth has ever swept is the dust out of the mailbox his royalty checks used to be sent to.. LMAO...
That guy never swept an arpeggio... I mean sure he may have raked the pick across 3 strings.. so did VH, and friggin' Ted Nugent.. but thats not sweep picking brother.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbax on Jan 2, 2006 23:03:45 GMT -5
Uli Roth sweep picking? c'mon Jimbax. The only thing Roth has ever swept is the dust out of the mailbox his royalty checks used to be sent to.. LMAO... That guy never swept an arpeggio... I mean sure he may have raked the pick across 3 strings.. so did VH, and friggin' Ted Nugent.. but thats not sweep picking brother. listen to 'Sails of Charon' from 1977....sweep picking...he still picks the same now as he did then...watch him play now and see that he uses sweeps all the time...he is an elite player...smooth, not a speed picker at all.....now, Jabs is a shoe shine boy...and tell Ted Nugent that a Fender amp will never crunch like a Marshall (type) so stop with the awful tone... |
|
|
|
Post by shreder75 on Jan 3, 2006 8:04:51 GMT -5
I HATE Neil Youngs politics.... but like his jamming...I agree with you AGAIN! Like A Hurricane, Cinnamon girl....don't worry about craig, he and shreder are on crack... Thanks jimbax, once again you have proven to have some taste. I craig and shredder's spandex are too tight ;D. I happen to like Neil's politics but then again I'm as liberal as they come. my spandex is too tight?? how DARE you sir!!! it's not that my spandex is too tight..it's just that you need to grow a sac... LMFAO |
|
ag
Newbie
Posts: 15
|
Post by ag on Jan 3, 2006 13:15:13 GMT -5
I have to side with Jimbax here, Roth is king. Totally original style, soul out the wazoo, great-great melody. I have never heard anyone able to play one note like him and make it just scream with intensity. When I hear some of the one note stuff on Tokyo tapes it sounds to me like the guitar is as big as the distance between 2 telephone poles, and his strings are the wire between them. That rythem tone on "I've Got To Be Free" always kills me too. Clean, ballsy, warm. How he made a stock strat sound like he did I'll never know. He's an old soul.
|
|
|
|
Post by DonaldDemon on Jan 5, 2006 18:43:44 GMT -5
Thanks jimbax, once again you have proven to have some taste. I craig and shredder's spandex are too tight ;D. I happen to like Neil's politics but then again I'm as liberal as they come. my spandex is too tight?? how DARE you sir!!! it's not that my spandex is too tight..it's just that you need to grow a sac... LMFAO I have plenty of sac, I just don't like to show it off in my spandex to the men at the bar when I'm on stage  |
|
110db
Junior Member
Posts: 63 
|
Post by 110db on Jan 6, 2006 15:27:43 GMT -5
Let's get back to most irritating singers. My vote goes to the guy from System of a Down. I wouldn't really even call him a singer, he's just a vocalist in my book. God he's horrible, the whole band is horrible!! All the Cookie Monster guys suck too.
|
|
