Bob Geldof

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 Jul 2005, 10:57

The guy has been an inspiration of that there is no doubt. I know some people are dis-enchanted (or is it misenchanted

) by his apparent dissing of Midge Ure and there seems to be reason. I'm not bothered about that issue and I don't think Midge is either. In some ways its a relief that Midge hasn't had as much credit or as big a profile, can you imagine; "arise Sir Midge"??

What do you think the 8 make of Bob and what he has to say? Nuisance, irrelevance, friend, leader, vote winner..... "OMG, we have to see that scruffy twerp today, just smile a lot til its over"?

Some of the stuff he said at Murrayfield was baffling and I thought quite insulting to the 8. And to the people who were at the concert's. "The 8 do not know what is going on in this place"

What's your views?

ifstar · Post by **ifstar** » 07 Jul 2005, 12:18

Not sure what all 8 would make of him but he has had a number of meetings with Tony Blair and he does seem to have turned him to his cause. Whether this is because Tony truly believes in it or because it could be a vote winner, I am not sure. To be honest i think they will probably have regarded his as the scruffy twerp before this week but hopefully they will have changed their minds now(or at least taken note of what their own people say).

I am not sure what the full 8 will think of him and what he stands for, I suppose over the next few days we will find out. Hopefully though they will have taken note of what has happened all over the world recently and their human side will make the decisions. I know at the weekend Gordon Brown said that they have decided to scrap the debt for the poorest countries but hopefully they won't think this will pacify everyone who has supported the make poverty history campaign.

I hope they have ignored the minority of idiots who have been causing or involved in violence for the last few days and listen to the millions of peaceful protesters worldwide.

With regard to the Midge thing, are you meaning a recent incident or from the original Band Aid? There was a programme on a few weeks ago which went through the night of Band Aid and how events unfolded with interviews of people there and Midge did say at the time he though Bob had shafted him as he felt his act was moved so that Bob could play for the Prince and Princess of Wales but he said soon after it happened that he decided that it shouldn't matter as his(Midge's) ego had to take a back seat to the much greater issue. (or words to that effect)

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 07 Jul 2005, 17:57

ifstar wrote:causing or involved in violence

What's the difference? Be more specific.

In my limited experience, I would say (for example) that Tony Blair had a part in causing the violence in Iraq when the invasion started, but the UK troops were involved in it.

Is that what you meant by cause and involvement? How then does one "cause" the violence (Anarchist, Hooligan & Police) that you speak of?

ifstar · Post by **ifstar** » 07 Jul 2005, 18:10

Dadaist wrote:
ifstar wrote:causing or involved in violence
What's the difference? Be more specific.

Causing is starting the violence
Involved in is escalating it once its started (or keeping the violence at it's current level)
(The parties I would be talking about in this instance would be either the protestors or the police - not the media/unfortunate people caught up in it/people there through their own choice taking pictures).

If you don't mind however, perhaps you could try and not hijack another thread and provide an opinion on what the OP (original poster) has said. You have your opinions and I have mine. We obviously disagree about a number of things but please stick to the original question. If you are really really desperate to talk to me then PM me, but don't get upset if I ignore you.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 07 Jul 2005, 18:18

What is an OP?

You define not calming a situation down as being involved in violence?

Does that mean that the guy from Scotland Today was involved in it?

Porty, this is your topic - have I hijacked it? (If so, I apologise unreservedly)

ifstar - you say "another" thread - please can you point me at the thread(s) I have hijacked in the past (which you have not mentioned until this point) ?

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 07 Jul 2005, 23:15

Porty wrote:The guy has been an inspiration of that there is no doubt. I know some people are dis-enchanted (or is it misenchanted ) by his apparent dissing of Midge Ure and there seems to be reason. I'm not bothered about that issue and I don't think Midge is either. In some ways its a relief that Midge hasn't had as much credit or as big a profile, can you imagine; "arise Sir Midge"??

What do you think the 8 make of Bob and what he has to say? Nuisance, irrelevance, friend, leader, vote winner..... "OMG, we have to see that scruffy twerp today, just smile a lot til its over"?

I hope that they take him seriously, he and the rest of the original Band Aid line up, have taken this cause to the 8 numpties, who, unfortunately rule this world. Whatever you think of Bob G, he is not not short on nerve

Some of the stuff he said at Murrayfield was baffling and I thought quite insulting to the 8. And to the people who were at the concert's. "The 8 do not know what is going on in this place"

I thought he was perfectly clear on his/our demands - drop the debt, or f*** O** at the ballot box

"The 8 do not know what is going on in this place"

The 8 don't have a clue what's going on in any place, except the Board Rooms of Corporate Companies.

Incidentally, was Annie Lennox brill or BRILL, what a voice

What's your views?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 07 Jul 2005, 23:54

ifstar - you have developed some odd habits.

1. Post editing.

(i) You have revised your definition of involvement in violence from "failing to calm it down" to "escalating or keeping it at it's current level".

(ii) You inserted "Original Poster" next to OP.

If it weren't for the fact that (thankfully) it shows up on your post when you have edited it when you have had a reply, it would look to someone reading the post that either time was running backwards or I had been sniffing Tipp-Ex again and was asking questions which had already been answered.

2. You have accused me of hijacking posts but have failed to point out which ones (apart from this one).

3. You need to recognise that a topic is a fluid thing (obviously within certain limits) and as such it is ok to talk about things which have been brought up as a consequence of the original post, not just the original post itself. A highly charged, sensitive, opinionated and debatable phrase like "idiots who have been causing or involved in violence" is therefore open to scrutiny by people with posting rights in the discussion.

4. Personal insults. These are fine, it's just taking me a while to work through them all and so far I have only dealt with the first of ned ludds (too much time on my hands, intellectual bully, thought police) but will get to yours in due course (sad, bored, difficult to live with, talking to geraniums, and *** (can you let me know exactly which banned word this was)) so I was wondering if you could put your insults in bold type so I can skim for them quickly. Even though I have too much time on my hands, the rate of your epithets is hard to keep up with.

5. Saying you're leaving a thread, then coming back. I find your level of inconsistency and contrariness almost anarchic.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 Jul 2005, 09:25

Dadaist wrote:ifstar - you have developed some odd habits.

1. Post editing.

(i) You have revised your definition of involvement in violence from "failing to calm it down" to "escalating or keeping it at it's current level".

(ii) You inserted "Original Poster" next to OP.

If it weren't for the fact that (thankfully) it shows up on your post when you have edited it when you have had a reply, it would look to someone reading the post that either time was running backwards or I had been sniffing Tipp-Ex again and was asking questions which had already been answered.

2. You have accused me of hijacking posts but have failed to point out which ones (apart from this one).

3. You need to recognise that a topic is a fluid thing (obviously within certain limits) and as such it is ok to talk about things which have been brought up as a consequence of the original post, not just the original post itself. A highly charged, sensitive, opinionated and debatable phrase like "idiots who have been causing or involved in violence" is therefore open to scrutiny by people with posting rights in the discussion.

4. Personal insults. These are fine, it's just taking me a while to work through them all and so far I have only dealt with the first of ned ludds (too much time on my hands, intellectual bully, thought police) but will get to yours in due course (sad, bored, difficult to live with, talking to geraniums, and *** (can you let me know exactly which banned word this was)) so I was wondering if you could put your insults in bold type so I can skim for them quickly. Even though I have too much time on my hands, the rate of your epithets is hard to keep up with.

5. Saying you're leaving a thread, then coming back. I find your level of inconsistency and contrariness almost anarchic.

So, what do you think of Bob?

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 09 Jul 2005, 15:04

Oh, don't get him started on that! He's far too busy having time on his hands

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 09 Jul 2005, 21:59

Gemini wrote:Incidentally, was Annie Lennox brill or BRILL, what a voice

I thought she was a bit better than ok. Redemption Song is a difficult one for anyone to deliver other than BM himself. Its a very moving song that can carry a weak performance and I'm afraid I thought that was the case with Annie, although she can hold a crowd.
Live 8 has been quite revealing in this regard, McCartney, John, Coldplay and quite a few others seem to have little or no stage presence. (John used to be awesome) Whereas Bono, The Proclaimers and even Dido can hold the crowd. Mercury has gone and Bruce wasn't available.
Flearoy was there and would no doubt dis-agree. She thought JB was brill whereas I thought it was Krakatoke. We both agreed that Geldof should stick his guitar up his rectum and never sing in public again. (not to detract from his overall contribution)

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 21 Jul 2005, 19:34

Porty wrote: So, what do you think of Bob?

Using the logic you used on dc, he is a terrorist sympathiser.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Jul 2005, 22:38

Dadaist wrote:
Porty wrote: So, what do you think of Bob?
Using the logic you used on dc, he is a terrorist sympathiser.

Firstly, I never used the phrase "terrorist sympathiser" so get your facts straight son. Secondly, given that your logical analysis led you to terrorist sympathiser its not really worth much, is it?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 22 Jul 2005, 06:40

Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
Porty wrote: So, what do you think of Bob?
Using the logic you used on dc, he is a terrorist sympathiser.
Firstly, I never used the phrase "terrorist sympathiser" so get your facts straight son. Secondly, given that your logical analysis led you to terrorist sympathiser its not really worth much, is it?

I never said you used that phrase, I said "using the logic you used".

I will however use the phrase "not really worth much" though if I choose to answer your question using my logic, as opposed to yours, in relation to LiveGr8M8.

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

Bob Geldof

Bob Geldof

Re: Bob Geldof

Re: Bob Geldof