MacBob

QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Apr 14 2008, 10:56 AM) Dum-dums... I have never made an assumption here. "I know of many people who did this (and would NEVER admit to it). I am not speaking for myself since I was a kid" Your words, not mine or anyone elses. Since no one ever admitted this to you this is an assumption. The others are right though, keep going, this is comedy gold.

QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Apr 8 2008, 02:34 PM) QUOTE (ILSnwdog @ Apr 8 2008, 12:23 PM) We know which way Neils fence swings...He says so in Nobody's Hero. "I went to his party as a straight minority". So, there you have it. Maybe he is reformed. A lot of people who did the bisexual thing in the drug-infested disco/glam age have reverted back to being straight. I know of many people who did this (and would NEVER admit to it). I am not speaking for myself since I was a kid during those times Would you stop, the more you post the sillier you sound. You know a lot of people who did this and won't admit to it, even though you weren't there and you were a kid? This is textbook trolling, you watched 54 on HBO last week and now you think everyone was bi in the 70s.

QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Apr 4 2008, 02:54 PM) QUOTE (apetersvt @ Apr 4 2008, 02:02 PM) QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Apr 4 2008, 12:39 PM) QUOTE (MacBob @ Apr 3 2008, 10:22 PM) QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Apr 2 2008, 06:28 PM) Since bisexuality was in vogue back when Rush was popular in the 70's, does anyone think that there were/was a sexual relationship between any of the boys? Alex sure looked like a fairy princess at some points along the way, as well as Geddy. For the record, I am not gay nor do I have any homoerotic fantasies. Please don't flame for this is a legitimate question. Thanks. Ehh, what 70s was this? The 1870s? Outside of Bowie and the androgyny scene surrounding early glam bands I would hardly call it a trend. It doesn't really matter one way or the other, but having been there I would hardly call it some kind of fad that people jumped on. Sadly in most of North America any hint of being anything but straight would buy you a free ass kicking (at the minimum). I'm going to have to agree, this might be the worst thread ever, but I'll still contribute because I am part of the problem on occasion. Without even thinking about it I can name two artists who had their careers ended because the sexuality was questioned, Peter Frampton (for appearing with the BeeGees in the Sgt. Pepper movie) and Billy Squire (for frolicking in pink silk sheets in his Rock Me Tonight video). Rod Stewart's career took a nose dive after the legendary "stomach pumping" rumor and only made a come back as a crooner appealing to soccer moms and grandparents. Sadly I know a couple people who sold all their Queen and Judas Priest stuff when their respective front men came out as gay. There wasn't anywhere near the public tolerance for gay or bi-sexual behavior in the 70s that there is now. It is far from a perfect world, but there is a lot more tolerance, or at least a lot less overt hatred, than there was back in the 70s. This doesn't make it right, but it is the way it was. Come to think of it, this question would stand up far better if we were talking about 80s pop with Boy George, that dude from Dead or Alive, Frankie Goes to Hollywood, the now out Michael Stipe, etc... There still wasn't a ton of tolerance, but androgyny and 80s pop go together like Bowie and Jagger... The greater point to focus on, as a couple others in this thread have mentioned, is that it is an irrelevant question. I'm a fan of the music and don't much care what artist do in their personal lives. Deliver me good albums and solid live performances and I will pay you, contract fulfilled. Interesting stuff. Elton was pretty flamboyant back in the 70's and destroyed everyone in terms of sales and popularity. There was no doubt he was a flamer. Whether my question is relevant or not in the vast scheme of things, I couldn't care less. This thread reflects my personal question of interest. There are some people who will want to know which fingers/which hand/at what angle does geddy scratch his nutsack with, but that is their personal interest and I think its perfectly fine if someone wants to know. Screw what the consensus thinks. Screw what the consensus thinks? Other than the fact that repeated comments such as you are describing can be offensive and deemed as sexual harassment. It's very difficult to offend me, but others might be. Sexual harrassment? Where did you extract that figment? I think he might be referring to what is quickly becoming your all too apparent homophobia.

QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Apr 2 2008, 06:28 PM) Since bisexuality was in vogue back when Rush was popular in the 70's, does anyone think that there were/was a sexual relationship between any of the boys? Alex sure looked like a fairy princess at some points along the way, as well as Geddy. For the record, I am not gay nor do I have any homoerotic fantasies. Please don't flame for this is a legitimate question. Thanks. Ehh, what 70s was this? The 1870s? Outside of Bowie and the androgyny scene surrounding early glam bands I would hardly call it a trend. It doesn't really matter one way or the other, but having been there I would hardly call it some kind of fad that people jumped on. Sadly in most of North America any hint of being anything but straight would buy you a free ass kicking (at the minimum). I'm going to have to agree, this might be the worst thread ever, but I'll still contribute because I am part of the problem on occasion. Without even thinking about it I can name two artists who had their careers ended because the sexuality was questioned, Peter Frampton (for appearing with the BeeGees in the Sgt. Pepper movie) and Billy Squire (for frolicking in pink silk sheets in his Rock Me Tonight video). Rod Stewart's career took a nose dive after the legendary "stomach pumping" rumor and only made a come back as a crooner appealing to soccer moms and grandparents. Sadly I know a couple people who sold all their Queen and Judas Priest stuff when their respective front men came out as gay. There wasn't anywhere near the public tolerance for gay or bi-sexual behavior in the 70s that there is now. It is far from a perfect world, but there is a lot more tolerance, or at least a lot less overt hatred, than there was back in the 70s. This doesn't make it right, but it is the way it was. Come to think of it, this question would stand up far better if we were talking about 80s pop with Boy George, that dude from Dead or Alive, Frankie Goes to Hollywood, the now out Michael Stipe, etc... There still wasn't a ton of tolerance, but androgyny and 80s pop go together like Bowie and Jagger... The greater point to focus on, as a couple others in this thread have mentioned, is that it is an irrelevant question. I'm a fan of the music and don't much care what artist do in their personal lives. Deliver me good albums and solid live performances and I will pay you, contract fulfilled.

Until you get FIOS (or some other flavor of fiber) to the vast majority of homes, downloads are not going to take of with HD movies. And with so man ISPs leaning on the dark side of "net neutrality" and wanting to shape traffic and charge people who actually use their "unlimited service" this won't happen soon. BD will slowly gain market as the digital TV switch over happens and more people buy flat panel sets. Sony took a huge gamble, but the PS3 is on the edge of some huge growth with the inclusion of BD playback. Any studio head who throws out dodgy comments about BD media being temporary is just evading the question at best, Dreamworks will start cranking out BD releases soon enough.

Huge FireFly fan, in fact my fav episode, Objects in Space, is sitting on the TivoHD right now, grabbed it off UniHD over the holidays and watched it a couple times. Love the DVD set and was glad to see the Serenity movie finally got the special edition treatment it deserved.

QUOTE (MCM @ Feb 19 2008, 08:12 PM) It's just the way he is, and we need to respect that. If it works for the other two that he doesn't join in on the meet & greets and do the PR, then I think we should shut up.. it's their band and they can divide the labor up as they see fit. I think sitting at that drum kit, which is quite possibly bigger than my house, and putting on the show that he does night after night is work enough. You'll never say that he phoned in a performance. He's on the stage at 100%. He's just a private person and if that works for them... it's good enough for me, I'm just happy to see them still making music as a band. So many bands in their age group have gone by the wayside or are shells of their former selves. They leave their fans disappointed with poor or lackluster shows, these guys don't do that. Well said...

QUOTE (RedGreen @ Feb 17 2008, 04:17 PM)It's certainly no secret he is miserable and grumpy. Us fans pay his wages, it's not fair to treat us like garbage, and hide his face, run to the BMW, and whatnot. Lots of famous musicians who have had contact with him can vouch for that also. "Us fans" pay for a live show or a CD, not for anything else. How are you being "treated like garbage" in this relationship? Neil did a pretty good job of explaining his stance on touring in this interview, doesn't really strike me that he is as negative as some of you spin it. Neil appears to be working pretty hard up there, and his craft, no his personality is what we pay to see.

I finally got to sit down and watch the Definitive Cut on HD-DVD last night, what an amazing clean up job they did on that transfer.