It was intentionally rediculous and sarcastic.

Wait, so you're telling me that everything Mac is trendy now? Since when? And do you think of everything in terms of "conformist"/"nonconformist" and "mainstream"/"not mainstream"? Has it ever occured to you that some people think for themselves, and don't give a **** what other people lable them?

About the "400 GB of music!" I enjoy listening to music, and I have a lot of it. So carrying a small, rectangular iPod is a hell of a lot more convenient than trying to carry along a CD player plus CDs.

Every argument you've made thus far has been about you. You wouldn't waste your money on an iPod. You don't listen to music very often. Well guess what? We're not exactly like you! Which means you really didn't answer much of anything.

Oh, and just so you won't figure out I'm insulting you, this post is not directed at anyone. Even though I'm responding directly to Bill's post, and none of it makes any goddamn sense when applied to any other person in this thread, I'm not talking specifically to anyone. Although I could be. But I'm not.

1. Yes. 2. Since the trendy people started buying anything that says Apple on it. 3. No. 4. Yes.

That being said, I'll continue.



About your love for music, I suggest you seek help. If 18 songs isn't enough for you, and I can't imagine why it wouldn't be, you can always carry a cd case in your backpack. Then again it's all about being compact and easy to carry around so maybe you could carry it in your purse... er... handbag.

Also, don't underrate the possibilities of a good compilation tape/cd. It is really a thing of beauty, although they do require some thought, and as you well know, the mac guys are all about thinking different... or not at all as it seems.



Nobody's perfect.

Oh and just so you won't be confused, this post is directed at you this time. If you don't like my response, I suggest not calling me out next time.

People listen to a great band like U2 and it's bad because the only reason we listen to them is to fit in...and people buying ipods is bad beause we just want to be different from everyone else....

Wait...

Enjoying music from a popular band - Bad
Buying quality products from a company - Bad
Being Bill - The only right way.

Ahh, I see now...............................you need therapy.

It's more like this SAJN....

Enjoying music from a crappy band - Impossible
Buying something you don't need - Stupid
And... well... the third one is right...

And I might need therapy, but that doesn't change the fact that U2 sucks.

If you want to have a real discussion about music, which I would love to, give me a PM and maybe we can talk on a messenger of some kind.

OMG TRENDY IS TEH BAD U SHOULD BE TEH ANARCHIST LIEK ME, I ONLY SHOP AT HOT TOPIC BCUZ EVERYWHERE ELSE IS TEH MAINESTREEM LOL

Are you implying that I shop at hot topic?

I'm implying that just because something is trendy doesn't mean it's bad. I feel that anyone who judges something based on whether or not it is "mainstream" or anything like that is not entitled to an opinion.

Edit: I'm always reminded of Jin's story of his "friend" Scott, and some other dude, and they completely stopped being friends because Jin listened to "mainstream" music and "pop punk" and was therefore "not hardcore" even though he never claimed to be. (Which made him a "poser" which is apparently bad)

.

If God had a big ego he would be pwning atheists left and right. Revise teh chart SAJN, revise.

Nice pic... the timeline was better.

Holy ****. That chart made me laugh like mad.

I love it.

Allow me to explain a little further on the topic of the trendy people. Trendy people all seem to desire iPods and other Mac products. This does not mean that all people desiring those products are trendy. If I stated that before, I made a typo, or simply had a momentary brain fade.

I don't like people that buy an iPod just to have an iPod. I know guys that have iPods and carry it around like it's a friggin' baby, when they only have 50 or 60 songs on it. That is a complete waste. Or the guys that carry it around clipped on the outside edge of their pocket... that way... when you see them.... look out.... they've got an iPod. I hate these people. Understand what I'm saying here?

I'll sit all day and rip on a kid that goes around proclaiming himself to be "hardcore." I don't care. Most of you would probably call me a preppy if you saw me out on the street, but I don't go around talking about how badass I am for wearing my clothes and whatnot. I don't hate things that are mainstream. I hate people that are clones.

The fact is, many of you have decided to get into a pissing contest with me in this thread because you think I'm talking about you. And you think I'm labeling you or some crap. If what I said does not fit you, then I'm not talking about you. So chill out. I would have thought that was rather obvious.

If someone says to me "Anyone with short brown hair, that likes button down shirts, low rise extreme boot cut (read: basically bell bottoms) jeans, who wears a sheepskin bomber coat, with black wide rimmed glasses and has exactly 6 earrings can eat ****!" Then I'm going to know they're talking about me. But if they throw in a few alternate variables that do not apply to me, I know they're not talking about me... if you follow... Which you probably don't because that's a pretty convolted example, but it's the best I've got right now.

Why do you hate people who are clones? If being a clone makes them happy what does it matter to you?

And to further drive my point home, many of you whom own iPods did not buy it due to an iPod commercial. You own it based on the fact that you read about it online or whatever. Therefore that does not apply to you.

Secondly, U2 is on the commercial to attempt to reach a new audience. It's just that simple. They want to reach the kids that think owning an iPod makes them cool. And when those kids see the commercial they're supposed to **** themselves and say "Wow u2 is on this ipod commercial, and ipods are awesome! U2 must be awesome!"

And that doesn't mean you. Unless you did specifically that.



And yes I still say that U2 sucks. That's what I think. That's my opinion. I like Sabbath and Metallica. You might think they suck. If you said that, since I obviously think that I have good taste, I would automatically think, based on the fact that you like a band that I hate, and hate two bands that I like, that you have bad taste. It's not offensive. It's common ****ing sense people!

Well it's not as though I go up to them and kick them in the shins and then point at their wincing face and say "that's what you get ****er!!" I guess I don't hate them, I just have no respect for them.

Why not? They're doing what they like, they're happy (unless they're being depressed 'cause it's cool, which is sometimes the case), that's how they choose to live their lives, what's the problem?

I stated before, they have bad taste. [/opinion]

Charles Manson is happy carving a swastika into his forehead and being a madman, that doesn't mean I should respect him for it.

No no. U2's time has already come and gone. Joshua Tree was it guys. That's it. They're old men now with crappy material. They need to move back to Ireland and get shot with some rubber bullets before they'll start writing good music again. They've lost touch with the endless struggle and political eternity that made them worth listening to in the first place.

I just bought U2 Best of 1980-1990. Was that during their good time Yecti?

Saying someone has bad taste in music is insulting, saying someone has a different taste in music to you is what you should be doing.

A good chunk of U2 was decent through the eighties. So I'd say yes. I grew up on U2. I LOVE old U2. But I still know 14 doesn't come after 3.

If someone likes a band that I hate, I'm instinctively going to think they have bad taste. Saying they have bad taste is just me being honest. Or would it be better if I said "in my opinion" afterward. I know it sounds bad, but I'm just speaking my mind.

Err... I think I have a bit of apologlizing to do to Bill. The way you typed a few of your posts made them seem a bit more...provacative than they really were intended to be, and so I overreacted a bit. Now that you've explained a bit more, I understand what you were trying to say. So, sorry if I offended you in any way, but I still disagree on the whole good taste/bad taste thing.

I was never offended. I simply thought to myself "oh I see I wasn't clear enough." So I specified... in a really sarcastic Bill sort of way.

Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot to throw in the requisite "it's cool."

Is it against the rules to say that [yes, let's not go down this path ok? I don't want to kill another thread]

If it is, I'm deeply sorry.

See, I'd take the time to read through more than the first and last pages, but the content on the last page almost mimics the content on the first page, so I see little reason to. And if I were to go and quote and give my opinion on the various things that have been said, this post would become quite massive. Which is why I think my first sentance would sum up how I feel just fine. That is, if it's legal to say that.



... You have some problems if 18 songs is enough for you. Tell me, just what are your 18 songs? One or two CDs? Considering all the crap I have to lug around to my classes, I'm not about to go putting my music library on CDs, plus a CD player, and shove it into my backpack. It's asking something to get broken. As has been said, I'd much rather carry something the size of a cell phone in my pocket and have all of my songs instantly.

That one NEEDED commenting on.

My CD cases get a little beat up, but 1 or 2 CDs in my backpack is no problem, really, and that's plenty for the day, especially with mp3 CDs

i should be somewhere near ted on the scale. fix it now.

...you know, I wouldn't consider myself a hardcore music person but even I'd like to have more than 18 songs available to listen to if possible. Whilst I doubt I'd fill the larger iPods myself I can certainly see why some people would.......so really, more power to them. I honestly can't fathom why you seem to care so much, slow week?

Therein lies the problem for me. I have a normal run of the mill Sony Walkman. I COULD go out and buy an Mp3 CD player, but I'm not. I don't need two CD players. While it could be said that I also do not need an iPod, it's still far more convienent. I can carry those one or two CDs, yes. But I HATE buring compilation discs. I find it to be a waste of a CD. The songs that I burn on there one month, I can hate the next month, or just simply not want to hear. What then? I now have a useless CD. While the media is cheap, I don't enjoy wasting it like that. With an iPod, I can carry everything, all at once, in one unit the size of a cell phone, cycle to the song I want, listen to it, and then change to a completely different song, by a completely different artist, in a completely different genre, all by moving a scroll wheel. No sitting down to unload my CD case. No putting down the walkman. No signifigant pauses between songs.

I happen to like that. ALOT. But I have zero problem if people like it better the other way. That's your choice, and your perogative. I happen to like quick, small, and simple.

You're telling me that at any given time when you're not at home around your stereo/pc that you need more than 18 songs at hand? If I'm sitting in class and I think "Hot damn! I really want to hear *song x*" then it's really just too bad if it's not on my disc. I'll listen to it when I get home.

It's the same thing with cellular telephones. I don't believe in them. I HATE cellular telephones. People tell me they want me to get one that way they can call me if I'm not at home and invite me over. If I'm not at home, I'm already doing something. I find that to be pretty basic.

If I'm not sitting at home in front of my pc or whatever, odds are I shouldn't be listening to music anyway. I should be either paying attention to class, or to my surroundings.

I hate to tell you this, but even if you don't believe in them, cell phones do indeed exist.

Yes. I am. As I think has been pointed out, we, more specifically *I*, am NOT like you.

I have 30 minutes to kill between classes. I have 4 classes a day. That's two hours. Songs on average are 3 to 4 minutes in length. That'd give me roughly 54 to 72 minutes of playback. Hardly 2 hours. I don't want my music to repeat, and I want the luxury to be able to change to what ever song I want, whenever I want. I don't want to be confined to X number of songs that I might have felt like listening to that morning, but really don't want to hear later in the afternoon.

Cell phones have their uses. To a minor extent I agree with you that most of the time, they are very pointless items to have. All most people seem to do with them is call someone for the sake of calling them. However, in an emergency, those cell phones can be quite a nice item to have. They are a tool for communication with someone else who isn't accessable via any other means at the present time. Not for calling someone while you're in the car to talk about how your day went.

Fair enough. I see your point.

Bill, people like you, nonconformists like you, are the worst trend of all.

You seem like the kind of person whose first thought when buying something is "does this seem trendy?" You're in the completely wrong mindset. You shouldn't care if it's trendy or not. That should not be a concern. Say you dress a certain way, or listen to certain music, and suddenly people classify you as "emo" or "punk". Why should you care what they think? If you're not "punk" or "emo", why should you care?

I like the Beatles, and I wear a trenchcoat. It's not because I want to look sad, or different. I'm comfortable in the coat, and I like how the Beatles sound. It's that simple.

^
You have a point about things

Chaz wins. Seriously, what other people think is their own damned business and shouldn't concern you in the slightest. There are only a few, a FEW, cases when it should. Job Interviews for example. What the interviewer thinks of you in important. But in everyday life, it shouldn't concern you at all.

Chaz, you're mistaken. I do not consider trends when I consider purchases. I consider what I like. It just happens to be that many things I do not like also coincide with popular trends.

I never claimed to be nonconformist. I don't do things intentionally because society does it differently.

I stated before that I wear button down shirts. People have been wearing them for hundreds of years. To say that I'm doing this to be different is rather ludicrous.

The same goes with nearly everything else I do. I said before that if most of you saw me in public you would think I am a preppy, when, if you really wanted to throw a label on me, you would probably find that punk suits me best. Not perfectly, but better than the rest.

Then again, if you could put any label on me, I think individual would work the best. I do what I want, and the only reason I do it is because I want to.

I like Black Sabbath, and I wear a bomber coat. I like sabbath because I'm into heavy distorted guitar, and I wear my coat because I like to be warm.

Anyway, if you would refer to my above post, from what you have said in your post, none of my posts refer to you anyway. I don't like the beatles, and I can't see why other people do. I don't hate the beatles. So I wouldn't say that you have bad taste. You have different taste than me, and that's your business.

What I think appears to concern you quite a bit.

Did I mention you directly?

Didn't think so.

Allow me to rephrase. If you made a reference to me in a previous post that needed to be edited out by Jaiph, apparantly what I think concerns you quite a bit.