|
Post by jobero on Apr 16, 2005 3:03:50 GMT -5
Don't believe the times!
That side of journalism is a discgrace! Just slag things off so people remember their name and to sell papers.
Fuck the times!
|
|
|
Post by Noel's Barmy Army on Apr 16, 2005 4:39:06 GMT -5
just had a thought on the matter ppl who buy the times arent likely to buy oasis anyway so to the times ;D
|
|
|
Post by monkey man on Apr 16, 2005 5:34:01 GMT -5
LUCKILY - most music lovers don't buy The Times. So unless Oasis are dying for pseudo-intellectual Tory right wing fan base, then rest assured. Wait for the proper reviews.
|
|
|
Post by rob on Apr 16, 2005 6:19:08 GMT -5
there a set of southern vaginas from that news paper
i can well imagine them stroking there beards, sipping there half pints of shandy, wearing there green wax coats, thinking up moe creative way to slam oasis.
fuck em basicaly...
|
|
|
Post by bluecorn on Apr 16, 2005 9:39:07 GMT -5
yes, now phil collins won't buy the record
|
|
|
Post by LIVERPUDLIAN on Apr 16, 2005 11:55:56 GMT -5
Typical shite from a Murdock owned production. I wouldn't take a blind bit of notice of anything produced by that tosspot!
|
|
|
Post by brumoscardo on Apr 16, 2005 22:04:02 GMT -5
Does anybody know at least the name of this vagina?
|
|
|
Post by nyr401994 on Apr 16, 2005 22:24:09 GMT -5
come on guys! it's only a frickin' review! fuck 'er! the public will find out sooner or later
|
|
|
Post by iamthewalrus on Apr 16, 2005 23:49:36 GMT -5
come on guys! it's only a frickin' review! fuck 'er! the public will find out sooner or later Good point...a preemptive review wont mean much when its proven wrong
|
|
|
Post by RnRstar on Apr 17, 2005 9:04:34 GMT -5
yeah thats true... the review says it's bad... but it doesn't say why? or has any evidence to back it up?
|
|