|
|
Post by SunshineLullaby on Dec 8, 2011 19:11:06 GMT -5
He is not a very good frontman, that is a FACT, not opinion. His shows are a bit(im being generous) bland-- unless you're a hardcore fan(of NGHFBs, not Oasis)... FACT, not opinion. Those two things are perfect examples of opinions. Here's a hint: if you're saying something isn't good, if you're saying something is bland...that's how you feel about something. That's an opinion. Not a fact. The first is more difficult since genre is a very tricky thing to define in the first place. Hard to prove, harder to refute. |
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Dec 8, 2011 19:26:03 GMT -5
lgfavre everything in your post is the very definition of opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by ctmazin on Dec 8, 2011 19:50:43 GMT -5
some people are just so deluded. The fact of the matter is Noel is no longer acting like a rockstar, his gig is a folksy pop show and so is most of his solo material. That is FACT, not opinion. He is not a very good frontman, that is a FACT, not opinion. His shows are a bit(im being generous) bland-- unless you're a hardcore fan(of NGHFBs, not Oasis)... FACT, not opinion. It's funny how a few users here like to talk so much trash when it comes to BDI and ask people not to feel like they're attacking the band, but when someone says something critical about Noel, Man, do they hit the ceiling. it's quite amusing really. Let me take a relatively uncontroversial position: Noel G is a better songwriter than Liam G. Despite the fact that 99% of people would agree with this statement, IT IS NOT A FACT, IT IS AN OPINION. Comprende? If you now don't understand why saying Noel's shows are bland is NOT A FACT, you really have to be as thick as people on this forum say you are. |
|
|
|
Post by youandmegirl on Dec 8, 2011 19:57:59 GMT -5
However I did pull up NL4E up on his supposition that BDI weren't worth the price of their admission. So who is the unreasonably biased person between the two of us? Hey! you remember when you called me a precocious six-year old. Well this "precocious six-year old" thinks your use of the term "supposition" is quite dubious here. You see, NL4E asserting that BDI weren't worth the price of admission isn't a "supposition," it isn't conjecture per se-- yes?-- or hypothetical -- yes?-- but more like, ya know, a fuckin' ASSERTION, an actual position, yes?....Hell, even if were to give you the benefit of the doubt and resign that I am indeed "precocious six-year old," isn't this then a classic case of you becoming those you'd despised?? |
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Dec 8, 2011 20:17:41 GMT -5
However I did pull up NL4E up on his supposition that BDI weren't worth the price of their admission. So who is the unreasonably biased person between the two of us? Hey! you remember when you called me a precocious six-year old. Well this "precocious six-year old" thinks your use of the term "supposition" is quite dubious here. You see, NL4E asserting that BDI weren't worth the price of admission isn't a "supposition," it isn't conjecture per se-- yes?-- or hypothetical -- yes?-- but more like, ya know, a fuckin' ASSERTION, an actual position, yes?....Hell, even if were to give you the benefit of the doubt and resign that I am indeed "precocious six-year old," isn't this then a classic case of you becoming those you'd despised?? Either work, little boy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2011 20:53:36 GMT -5
It's an utter joke to see someone say she is not choosing sides while a) agreeing with statement "Noel has become the tepid, self-satisfied, elder statesman of rock'n'roll the papers have been telling him he is" ,and b) thinks his delivery was *tolerable* because he was still in Oasis.
What a joke. It's okay to prefer one Gallagher but it's ridiculous to say you're not picking sides while that is exacty what you are doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by thuperthonic on Dec 8, 2011 21:06:40 GMT -5
Dude, we're just a bunch of fans here. Not friends. We all have our preferences within our fandom, and we're here to express them. That is not a bad thing. Obviously, there isn't enough of an outlet for us to express them in the rest of our daily lives so we come here and talk about the band we loved so fucking much it made us want to talk about them every day, and sometimes we don't care what anyone else thinks. It's ok. It's passion. Your mind, brilliant as it may be, might benefit from being put to better use. Dude, you totally didn't get what I was trying to get across--and my previous response was obviously directed at a particular member morelikes. And, like, why was your above statement emphatically directed me, for I have neither contradicted nor promoted your stance on beings having an outlet, through communal or non-communal means or otherwise; in fact, I'm quite ambivalent to it- to the point I'm beginning to question the meaning of why I myself am indeed here on this Earth, much less this here messageboard, yes? So save your kind pointed convenient philantropic work for someone who really needs it...I dunno, you lack timing, dude. Your approach to posting is entertainingly provocative, but please don't act as though the content has any real depth. You are an entertaining provocateur, that is it. Nothing wrong with that, but that is the extent of it. Nobody responds to your posts with the same level of "analysis" as you give to theirs because nobody cares to. They are skimming your words, and skimming their minds for a response. It's all surfacey and does not call for intellectual analysis. So when you respond as you did to GDForever, she is not reading your words with any great concern and she is not responding with any either. You are not exposing her real intentions and enlightening anybody, you are just hanging out up your own ass. You mentioned you'd like to know why you're "here on this Earth." Do you genuinely want to know this? Really? Surely not. Because if you did actually want to know, then you would know why already because it's an easily answerable question (oil, essentially). No, in all actuality, you probably weren't really wondering why you're here on this Earth with any real depth, it was likely just a passing thought that, for whatever reason, came to your mind and didn't really mean all that much. You were probably just writing a few words that came and went, just passing the time, just being indulgent, just having a flair for the melodramatic, as you do. Just like GDForever probably does grasp that in tomlivesforever's version of life, Beady Eye are better than NGHFB. An in-depth analysis of her semantics may lead to scrutiny, but so does an in-depth analysis of yours. It doesn't lead to some greater truth, it just leads to nonsense. Doesn't it on a very basic level just make sense that she would know that her opinion is her opinion alone? And doesn't it make sense that it wouldn't really matter to her since she is living her version of life, not tomlivesforever's? And doesn't it make sense that she probably does just genuinely like the songs she listed and doesn't really think much of it? What point is there (other than being a dick) to break down her post until it seems like she doesn't really know her own motivations and needs to be exposed? Go back to your post, y'know, the convoluted one ("Which convoluted one?" you must surely be wondering, since they all are...). Take a look again at what you wrote, and this time, pretend that you're someone who finds it a bit silly to intellectually analyze people's words on an Internet forum about a pop band until there is nothing left but negativity. Your "analysis" is a joke. It's not deep - it's you heading further and further up your own ass. If you really didn't know that, and you really thought you were pulling back the curtains and enlightening us all, then I apologize. By all means, feel free to carry on. But could you at least stop doing it in such a 'holier than thou' sort of manner? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by youandmegirl on Dec 8, 2011 21:13:11 GMT -5
Dude, you totally didn't get what I was trying to get across--and my previous response was obviously directed at a particular member morelikes. And, like, why was your above statement emphatically directed me, for I have neither contradicted nor promoted your stance on beings having an outlet, through communal or non-communal means or otherwise; in fact, I'm quite ambivalent to it- to the point I'm beginning to question the meaning of why I myself am indeed here on this Earth, much less this here messageboard, yes? So save your kind pointed convenient philantropic work for someone who really needs it...I dunno, you lack timing, dude. Your approach to posting is entertainingly provocative, but please don't act as though the content has any real depth. You are an entertaining provocateur, that is it. Nothing wrong with that, but that is the extent of it. Nobody responds to your posts with the same level of "analysis" as you give to theirs because nobody cares to. They are skimming your words, and skimming their minds for a response. It's all surfacey and does not call for intellectual analysis. So when you respond as you did to GDForever, she is not reading your words with any great concern and she is not responding with any either. You are not exposing her real intentions and enlightening anybody, you are just hanging out up your own ass. You mentioned you'd like to know why you're "here on this Earth." Do you genuinely want to know this? Really? Surely not. Because if you did actually want to know, then you would know why already because it's an easily answerable question (oil, essentially). No, in all actuality, you probably weren't really wondering why you're here on this Earth with any real depth, it was likely just a passing thought that, for whatever reason, came to your mind and didn't really mean all that much. You were probably just writing a few words that came and went, just passing the time, just being indulgent, just having a flair for the melodramatic, as you do. Just like GDForever probably does grasp that in tomlivesforever's version of life, Beady Eye are better than NGHFB. An in-depth analysis of her semantics may lead to scrutiny, but so does an in-depth analysis of yours. It doesn't lead to some greater truth, it just leads to nonsense. Doesn't it on a very basic level just make sense that she would know that her opinion is her opinion alone? And doesn't it make sense that it wouldn't really matter to her since she is living her version of life, not tomlivesforever's? And doesn't it make sense that she probably does just genuinely like the songs she listed and doesn't really think much of it? What point is there (other than being a dick) to break down her post until it seems like she doesn't really know her own motivations and needs to be exposed? Go back to your post, y'know, the convoluted one ("Which convoluted one?" you must surely be wondering, since they all are...). Take a look again at what you wrote, and this time, pretend that you're someone who finds it a bit silly to intellectually analyze people's words on an Internet forum about a pop band until there is nothing left but negativity. Your "analysis" is a joke. It's not deep - it's you heading further and further up your own ass. If you really didn't know that, and you really thought you were pulling back the curtains and enlightening us all, then I apologize. By all means, feel free to carry on. But could you at least stop doing it in such a 'holier than thou' sort of manner? Cheers. 3 words: I AM DEEP. |
|
|
|
Post by thuperthonic on Dec 8, 2011 23:00:27 GMT -5
Deep up your own ass, mate. Way up in there. I'm sure it's lovely.
|
|
|
|
Post by youandmegirl on Dec 8, 2011 23:54:32 GMT -5
Fuck, I concede: You win. It's all fuckin' nonsense at the end of the day/life/or whathaveyou. You win. (By the way, "meaning of life" shit was all in cheek, love. But you told me off for being so ambivalent in not clarifying-- but I would've thought you would've picked up on the said ambivalence, considering I kindof, erm, preface it, if you will. In any case, you win, dude, you win. Of course all involved will reach a point where each is going to look either (a) arrogant and arbitrary or (b) weak and incoherent, and just have to all thrash around in endless little exceptions and qualifications and apparent moral flip-flops. But I concede, you win for at least not indulging in this whilst pointing that out to me (*sic).) You win, cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by howsoonisnow on Dec 9, 2011 4:37:38 GMT -5
The truth (maybe it's my opinion) is that Noel can't sing most of his Oasis back catalogue, except in accoustic version so people have conviced themselves that Noel is folk pop act, that what it's truly in him.
Noel, the guy who wrote definitly maybe and was still able lately of TSOTL, is not a mid tempo artist by choice if you ask me, he has a way larger range as a songwritter than what he allowes himself to do in HFB. But it's easier to say 'he's a folk artist because he's old' than to admit he's limited in his repertoire without Liam I guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2011 5:57:20 GMT -5
The truth (maybe it's my opinion) is that Noel can't sing most of his Oasis back catalogue, except in accoustic version so people have conviced themselves that Noel is folk pop act, that what it's truly in him. Noel, the guy who wrote definitly maybe and was still able lately of TSOTL, is not a mid tempo artist by choice if you ask me, he has a way larger range as a songwritter than what he allowes himself to do in HFB. But it's easier to say 'he's a folk artist because he's old' than to admit he's limited in his repertoire without Liam I guess. I think you point out the fact that he isn't able to sing the rock songs he wrote, he can't sing them in a *rock'n'roll* way. But we view this fact in different perspectives -- some, including myself, enjoy his mid-tempo output while you and some others think we are *convinced by ourselves*. I hate Supersonic acoustic, it's a Liam song for me. The only Oasis tunes I don't skip when listening to bootlegs are Don't Look Back in Anger and Little by Little. If I'm able to go to any of NGHFB gigs, I'm not looking forward to many Oasis tunes. (Geez,we do have smite stalkers on this board!  ) |
|
|
|
Post by howsoonisnow on Dec 9, 2011 6:17:46 GMT -5
The truth (maybe it's my opinion) is that Noel can't sing most of his Oasis back catalogue, except in accoustic version so people have conviced themselves that Noel is folk pop act, that what it's truly in him. Noel, the guy who wrote definitly maybe and was still able lately of TSOTL, is not a mid tempo artist by choice if you ask me, he has a way larger range as a songwritter than what he allowes himself to do in HFB. But it's easier to say 'he's a folk artist because he's old' than to admit he's limited in his repertoire without Liam I guess. I think you point out the fact that he isn't able to sing the rock songs he wrote, he can't sing them in a *rock'n'roll* way. But we view this fact in different perspectives -- some, including myself, enjoy his mid-tempo output while you and some others think we are *convinced by ourselves*. I hate Supersonic acoustic, it's a Liam song for me. The only Oasis tunes I don't skip when listening to bootlegs are Don't Look Back in Anger and Little by Little. If I'm able to go to any of NGHFB gigs, I'm not looking forward to many Oasis tunes. (Geez,we do have smite stalkers on this board! ) I didn't say you've convinced yourself you like the mid tempo, I love the album and some accoustice Oasis version too for the record. I've said people have conviced themself Noel's true nature is to be mid tempo artist, it's not, Noel true nature is as much rock n roll as mid tempo, he's just too limited with his voice to give us song real rock n roll anymore. Playing Supersonic in accoustic because he would look ridiculous in electric doesn't make Noel a folk artist, he just show a limited artist in his own song without his brother. Learn to read before accusing people to be stalker, what a ridiculous statement, I'm just giving my opinion there, sorry I love Noel but I don't think everything he does in god perfection unlike Noel fanboys. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2011 7:32:30 GMT -5
I did not mean you are a smite stalker. It's apparently someone else, that statement is not intended to you. I apologize if you are offended.
Back on topic...he wrote those rockers because he was in Oasis, which sounded great when they were playing rock'n'roll songs. Now he's on his own so it's okay to try something new I assume? He surely can't sing the rockers, we all agree with that. The problem is you think he is limited, which is bad, while I think he is doing what he wants, limited or not limited ,rock'n'roll or not rock'n'roll. I'm fine with his limitation.(These are all opinions anyway.)
|
|
|
|
Post by howsoonisnow on Dec 9, 2011 8:19:03 GMT -5
Back on topic...he wrote those rockers because he was in Oasis, which sounded great when they were playing rock'n'roll songs. Now he's on his own so it's okay to try something new I assume? He surely can't sing the rockers, we all agree with that. The problem is you think he is limited, which is bad, while I think he is doing what he wants, limited or not limited ,rock'n'roll or not rock'n'roll. I'm fine with his limitation.(These are all opinions anyway.) Yeah, that's another difference, for me there's absolutely nothing new in HFB. Once again I love this album, but there's no novelty here. I'm curious to see the AA album, That's really will be something new. HFB isn't anything new, it's basicaly an Oasis album sung by Noel without any rock song an Oasis album always had. What's new in Dream on, TDOYAM or SBOJF ? We have already seen that in TIOBI or She's electric. What's new in Broken Arrow, it looks like POTQ. What's new in EBOTR, IIAG or RM? it's classical Oasis anthems, they're great but absolutely not new and would have been better sung by Liam, like they were planned to do before the split. The only suprise on HFB was WAL, and it's great song, but live it's awful. HFB is Noel doing Noel like he was in Oasis. Nothing new here. Everything about Noel had alreaby been said in Oasis, Noel solo adds nothing to his music, Noel solo just lacks Liam's voice and rock n roll songs. And the live shows are way less good. So yes for me, it's limited. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2011 9:32:25 GMT -5
I think we agree to disagree since we absolutely view things differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Dec 9, 2011 11:23:23 GMT -5
I enjoyed the Beady Eye concert last night. Shook Liam's hand. But other than him jumping off the stage and walking up to the barrier, along with giving a double dose of the middle finger to an audience member, he didn't banter once. Maybe he doesn't feel he needs to, and maybe he feels it would break his onstage persona of the swaggering hard man, but I was a little bit disappointed with this aspect.
Noel, even if he re-uses some lines, tends to adapt to his setting. He almost always has a conversation with an audience member in between songs, he always finds a way to respond to the chants (there were Chelsea supporters at the Philly gig in November, and Noel made his feelings very well known about that! And who can forget his great "He's Bond, James Bond" line when Daniel Craig attended an Oasis concert in 2008/09?).
Frankly, Noel and Liam have different styles. They have always had different styles. What made Oasis unique was that these differing elements were able to come together and meld into what became the Oasis magic:
Noel's songwriting given life by Liam's charismatic and energetic singing; Noel's backing vocals harmonizing perfectly with his brother's sneering proving the perfect contrast to their tumultuous relationship; Noel's thoughtful and witty banter mixing with Liam's swaggering persona, youthful exuberance and spouting of gibberish; Noel's mellow acoustic numbers intertwined with Liam's moments of madness. The list goes on.
Taken as a whole, you get the Oasis magic. Taken separately, you get two different styles to choose from. I don't see why this is surprising. Moreover, we all embraced both styles when they were together, so while it's not as special apart, I don't really see what the problem is in embracing both?
I think Noel offers more because he has a piano and can actually locate the C - he has the tunes, whereas Liam carries the madness. Ideally, they should be working together, but I'll continue to see and support both while they remain apart.
|
|
|
|
Post by ctmazin on Dec 9, 2011 12:45:01 GMT -5
I enjoyed the Beady Eye concert last night. Shook Liam's hand. But other than him jumping off the stage and walking up to the barrier, along with giving a double dose of the middle finger to an audience member, he didn't banter once. Maybe he doesn't feel he needs to, and maybe he feels it would break his onstage persona of the swaggering hard man, but I was a little bit disappointed with this aspect. Noel, even if he re-uses some lines, tends to adapt to his setting. He almost always has a conversation with an audience member in between songs, he always finds a way to respond to the chants (there were Chelsea supporters at the Philly gig in November, and Noel made his feelings very well known about that! And who can forget his great "He's Bond, James Bond" line when Daniel Craig attended an Oasis concert in 2008/09?). Frankly, Noel and Liam have different styles. They have always had different styles. What made Oasis unique was that these differing elements were able to come together and meld into what became the Oasis magic: Noel's songwriting given life by Liam's charismatic and energetic singing; Noel's backing vocals harmonizing perfectly with his brother's sneering proving the perfect contrast to their tumultuous relationship; Noel's thoughtful and witty banter mixing with Liam's swaggering persona, youthful exuberance and gibberish; Noel's mellow acoustic numbers intertwined with Liam's moments of madness. The list goes on. Taken as a whole, you get the Oasis magic. Taken separately, you get two different styles to choose from. I don't see why this is surprising. Moreover, we all embraced both styles when they were together, so while it's not as special apart, I don't really see what the problem is in embracing both? I think Noel offers more because he has a piano and can actually locate the C - he has the tunes, whereas Liam carries the madness. Ideally, they should be working together, but I'll continue to see and support both while they remain apart. This should be required reading for this site. Or at the very least, some karma. Give this man a fucking Nobel Peace Prize. Seeing as I'd like to end on a high note, that'll be the last post I read. |
|
|
|
Post by youandmegirl on Dec 9, 2011 14:36:07 GMT -5
I stopped after reading the 1st 1 1/2 paragraphs....Surely Al Gore was more worthy of his Nobel Peace Prize-- tho, that's not saying much, so I'll shut up now. Well, okay, let's at least him a pat on the back for trying to bring the two factions together by distinguishing a type of banter over the other.
Ha, what criterion of cretinism.
|
|
|
|
Post by youandmegirl on Dec 9, 2011 14:58:02 GMT -5
I think Noel offers more because he has a piano and can actually locate the C - he has the tunes, whereas Liam carries the madness. Okay okay, I've read some more. I'm sorry but the above ^ is just fuckin' unforgivable. Good gawd. (You know what, I've changed my mind, award this man the Nobel Peace Prize already so we ourselves can at least get some break from his going-ons-- like, in the least hope that he will curtail in his incessantness cause he's being a bit content in said validation. Fuckme) |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Dec 9, 2011 16:34:32 GMT -5
I prefer seeing Noel over Beady Eye if I had a gun to my head. I've just always been a Noel guy from the beginning. I do however enjoy seeing both though. I'll be at Beady Eye's Terminal 5 show tonight in New York and I'm looking forward to having a great time.
That is at least one positive about Oasis splitting up. Over the last 4 weeks I will have seen Noel Gallagher 3 times in concert, 1 Letterman appearance by Noel and now Beady Eye to end 2011 after having seen the band twice in June (Letterman and Webster Hall). If this was Oasis, I would have been lucky to have seen two shows this calendar year. Now I was able to see 6!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Dec 10, 2011 7:53:13 GMT -5
I enjoyed the Beady Eye concert last night. Shook Liam's hand. But other than him jumping off the stage and walking up to the barrier, along with giving a double dose of the middle finger to an audience member, he didn't banter once. Maybe he doesn't feel he needs to, and maybe he feels it would break his onstage persona of the swaggering hard man, but I was a little bit disappointed with this aspect. Noel, even if he re-uses some lines, tends to adapt to his setting. He almost always has a conversation with an audience member in between songs, he always finds a way to respond to the chants (there were Chelsea supporters at the Philly gig in November, and Noel made his feelings very well known about that! And who can forget his great "He's Bond, James Bond" line when Daniel Craig attended an Oasis concert in 2008/09?). Frankly, Noel and Liam have different styles. They have always had different styles. What made Oasis unique was that these differing elements were able to come together and meld into what became the Oasis magic: Noel's songwriting given life by Liam's charismatic and energetic singing; Noel's backing vocals harmonizing perfectly with his brother's sneering proving the perfect contrast to their tumultuous relationship; Noel's thoughtful and witty banter mixing with Liam's swaggering persona, youthful exuberance and gibberish; Noel's mellow acoustic numbers intertwined with Liam's moments of madness. The list goes on. Taken as a whole, you get the Oasis magic. Taken separately, you get two different styles to choose from. I don't see why this is surprising. Moreover, we all embraced both styles when they were together, so while it's not as special apart, I don't really see what the problem is in embracing both? I think Noel offers more because he has a piano and can actually locate the C - he has the tunes, whereas Liam carries the madness. Ideally, they should be working together, but I'll continue to see and support both while they remain apart. This should be required reading for this site. Or at the very least, some karma. Give this man a fucking Nobel Peace Prize. Seeing as I'd like to end on a high note, that'll be the last post I read. You should come back. I pretty much agreed with almost all of your posts. I actually think that was one of my better posts and it seems to have silenced the likes of jilliam in the process.  |
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on Dec 10, 2011 8:56:05 GMT -5
I don't think you have ever silenced anyone tbh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2011 8:57:58 GMT -5
For the first time I gave karma to NL4E.
|
|
|
|
Post by nataliemckinney on Dec 10, 2011 9:56:56 GMT -5
I enjoyed the Beady Eye concert last night. Shook Liam's hand. But other than him jumping off the stage and walking up to the barrier, along with giving a double dose of the middle finger to an audience member, he didn't banter once. Maybe he doesn't feel he needs to, and maybe he feels it would break his onstage persona of the swaggering hard man, but I was a little bit disappointed with this aspect. Noel, even if he re-uses some lines, tends to adapt to his setting. He almost always has a conversation with an audience member in between songs, he always finds a way to respond to the chants (there were Chelsea supporters at the Philly gig in November, and Noel made his feelings very well known about that! And who can forget his great "He's Bond, James Bond" line when Daniel Craig attended an Oasis concert in 2008/09?). Frankly, Noel and Liam have different styles. They have always had different styles. What made Oasis unique was that these differing elements were able to come together and meld into what became the Oasis magic: Noel's songwriting given life by Liam's charismatic and energetic singing; Noel's backing vocals harmonizing perfectly with his brother's sneering proving the perfect contrast to their tumultuous relationship; Noel's thoughtful and witty banter mixing with Liam's swaggering persona, youthful exuberance and spouting of gibberish; Noel's mellow acoustic numbers intertwined with Liam's moments of madness. The list goes on. Taken as a whole, you get the Oasis magic. Taken separately, you get two different styles to choose from. I don't see why this is surprising. Moreover, we all embraced both styles when they were together, so while it's not as special apart, I don't really see what the problem is in embracing both? I think Noel offers more because he has a piano and can actually locate the C - he has the tunes, whereas Liam carries the madness. Ideally, they should be working together, but I'll continue to see and support both while they remain apart. Very well written... just saying... |
|
)
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5