Super Macho

fultie baby, sorry to have maybe taken your topic away from it's intended direction and I'm not trying to start an argument either, I just get a little psychotic whenever Bob Dylan is mentioned these days. I assure you I have heard pretty much everything Bob Dylan has done. My mother was a huge fan of his and I was raised with that music playing all the time and to be honest I just never liked it. I thought the lyrics were whiny, overrated, pretentious gibberish. I didn't think the songs were very interesting musically and when coupled with Dylan's voice they just weren't fun to listen to. That's just my opinion. Now that wouldn't have been so bad, everyone has different opinions on music and different tastes and I can respect that ...... BUT .... after being forced to listen to this music for much of my childhood I then found that almost any time I mentioned in any situation that I didn't like Bob Dylan I would be attacked, bitched at, accused of liking Maroon 5 or supporting wars in Vietnam and then lectured on the genius of Bob Dylan. That took my casual dislike for one musician who simply didn't appeal to me into the realms of psychotic hatred for the music, the man and the fans. Not that I hate you fultie, you've been polite and seem like a good guy but I just happen to not like some music which you do like. Now er .... please excuse this rant and carry on amigo.

I mostly listen to Milli Vanilli and Slayer, though I am thinking of getting a Maroon 5 tattoo on my butt.

Bob Dylan never came close to anything as cool as I Am The Walrus. I absolutely hate the Beatles but that song makes more sense to me than anything Bob Dylan ever did. It also makes more sense than the fact there are people in this day and age still trying to squeeze some meaning or point out of Bob Dylan's horrible attempts at music. I understand him being able to fool those hippy dipshits 40 years ago into thinking he had talent but how could that crap pass for talent today when he isn't even a slutty teen girl or anything.

Tis a shame, Hunter was always entertaining and could always be counted on to give the most fair and accurate descriptions of people, especially those in politics. His obituary to Nixon was hilarious, it's a shame he won't be around to write one for Dubya.

I haven't seen the movie yet and am in no real hurry to since I saw the preview that had guinevere running around painted blue and fighting in a halter top or something, which seemed wrong on so many levels. They might has well have just put some fucking Orcs in it. Plus I am with Mudda Trucker on the Arthur being Roman thing. I find it kind of insulting to have him as a Roman when he was a hero of british celtic folklore. Kind of how I thought Tom Cruise being the last samurai was kind of stupid. While I'm no expert, my understanding from much reading I did is that more than likely Arthur was just some native general or warlord who picked up the slack of trying to defend the country after the Roman's pissed off and the whole of britain was being invaded by a bunch of crazy germans driven out of their homeland by overpopulation and hunger at the beginning of the dark ages. Now since the stories were written much later, in the middle ages, most of the previous King Arthur movies have had that type of setting. Knights, jousts, chivalry, all of the things which weren't really popular until like the 12th or 14th century which kind of annoyed me as it would be like a western movie full of cowboys shooting indians with lasers and photon torpedos. But this latest one from the looks of it seems to be a mishmash taking bits of the legends, some questionable historical theory, a smattering of semi naked asskicking female ala Xena and trying to pass it off as in some way accurate. Bah humbug I say! Yeah, I just bitched and ranted about a movie without even watching it. You got a problem with that?