The Guardian ... QPR Fans?

You tell me, 'comrade'.

 

Your argument is that the better a newspaper is the fewer copies it sells???

A bit like like the anti Thatcher ranters on here, if she was so terrible how come she got elected 3 times which was unprecedented at the time?

 

That wasn't his argument at all.

 

So no correlation at all then.

 

Thanks, mate - Blammer has merely turned round his own argument and accused me of saying that.

 

Since when has mass popularity had anything to do with quality? If anything it's always an indicator of the exact opposite:
Shakin Steven's was the best selling male British male solo artist in the 80s.
Westlife were the best selling band in Britain in the 90s.

And you're comparing eggs with a larch. They're nothing like each other and not after the same audience. You might as well compare X Factor with The World At War.

 

can we please get back to the football haha.... great win for the tigers and great performance by ferdinand... not!
just funny how a match won by a team in europe has turned into a newly promoted team losing

 

So there is no correlation at all between intelligence and sales figures?

What is it down to?

 

The Beatles were the biggest selling band in the 60s. I guess everyone got that wrong and fans of Freddie and the Dreamers were more discerning.

 

Oi, smartarse - the OP (westtigerhull) started this thread at 12.29. By the 3rd post (yours), you'd kicked it into the political long grass.

Incidentally, I'd made the same point, with link, on OLM's BBC Team of the Week, at 12.13. My post was critical of the Gdn's football bias (pro-QPR).




[Just **** off out and play with the traffic, you old nazi]

 

Where did I mention 'intelligence' in my post?

Again, another example of people reading my posts and coming up with a conclusion that bore no resemblance to what i said. Is this some kind of covert campaign you're all surrepticiously signed up to?

And The Beatles sold more records when they were ****. It took them three years of being a success until they produced anything good.

 

A) Taste/intelligence/quality is reflected in popularity

b) Taste/ intelligence/ quality is inversely proportionate to popularity

c) There is no link or correlation

d) When it suits my argument I will use a) or b)

Discuss .

 

He should be grateful that I've breathed some life into an already raked-over topic and made it lively.

(I've emailed Mick the owner about your comments and there WILL be consequences)

 

Pathetic.

 

Surrep what?

Beatles: Purely personal opinion, but I thought they got worse the more stuff they put out.

 

Their early record were ****? Not a big Beatles fan, blues and soul more my thing, but at the time they were like a breath of fresh air. Compare the rest of the charts when they broke through, American crap like Bobby Vee or Bobby Vinton and British acts doing awful covers of American stuff. After the Beatles first no1 we went from American domination to the only no1s in the next couple of years being Elvis and Roy Orbison.
Of course music is subjective. I look at some of the music some people put on here and wonder how they can enjoy that and am thankful I was a teenager in the 60s.

 

What - so you think Love Me Do is better than A Day In The Life?

 

It was a generalisation of course but I'm sure you knew that.

Give me 'I saw her standing there' over ' Obla di obla da'.....

 

But you've picked a ridiculous nursery rhyme of a song. I dont think any music critic would ever say the first 5 albums were better than the second five.

I'd rather have included Abbey Road in there as the 11th but it doesnt really work for the comparrison, annoyingly.