|
Post by mîcCỵOrRIe on Apr 13, 2004 7:10:58 GMT -5
i think this is a tricky question
|
|
|
Post by chocolate st*rfish on Apr 13, 2004 14:14:03 GMT -5
in the words of marcus porcius cato (234 - 149 BC): "eh?"
|
|
|
Post by mar on Apr 13, 2004 14:29:46 GMT -5
in the words of me (1960 and still goin strong..) what the fucks this all about?
|
|
|
Post by shadowboxer on Apr 13, 2004 17:04:49 GMT -5
in the words of me (1960 and still goin strong..) what the fucks this all about? LOL!!! Yeah Im curious as well.
|
|
|
Post by maketradefair on Apr 13, 2004 19:13:37 GMT -5
no idea what thats about? mabye miccyorrie means what bands are better, signed or un-signed!? can you explain wha you mean?
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Apr 13, 2004 21:22:00 GMT -5
no idea what thats about? mabye miccyorrie means what bands are better, signed or un-signed!? i thought it must be this....but it could do with some explaining! although i feel a strong inclination to vote for 'signed'....
|
|
|
Post by mîcCỵOrRIe on Apr 14, 2004 1:14:50 GMT -5
oh god im a dikhead!! yea sorry i do mean bands!!! sorry bout the confusion its all my fault!
|
|
|
Post by mattmightsay on Apr 14, 2004 1:38:56 GMT -5
arrr come on!
|
|
|
Post by mar on Apr 14, 2004 10:25:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jayg on Apr 15, 2004 10:13:33 GMT -5
How the fuck can you say whether a band is better or not depending on whether or not they are signed. At the end of the day a band is either good or shit, that doesnt change of they get signed.
|
|
|
Post by mîcCỵOrRIe on Apr 16, 2004 1:53:37 GMT -5
How the fuck can you say whether a band is better or not depending on whether or not they are signed. At the end of the day a band is either good or shit, that doesnt change of they get signed. that why i put this here, to see whether people think one is better than the other, when yea they r either really just shit or good. it why i said at the start that this is a tricky question!
|
|