Topic: Dadrock in the wild
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC started this discussion 5 years ago #100,885
I found this is the comments of the YouTube video for the song We Built this City on Rock and Rolldw joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 13 minutes later[^] [v] #1,138,472
Yeah it's a pretty common term
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,518
Has anyone managed to satisfactorily define "dadrock" yet, or does it still mean something like rock music that isn't necessarily rock music that is enjoyed by dads who are not necessarily dads and was written sometime between Buddy Holly and the Crickets and this morning's latest YouTube hit?
blom joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 53 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,519
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Rock music from the 70s and 80s or music that is reminiscent thereof
Rock music from the 70s and 80s or music that is reminiscent thereof
jodie !foster2PAQ joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 34 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,520
@1,138,518 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
pretty sure it's all popular rock music made between like 1970 and 2000
pretty sure it's all popular rock music made between like 1970 and 2000
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 18 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,533
@1,138,519 (blom)
> Rock music from the 70s and 80s or music that is reminiscent thereof
Funny, I saw someone say that Born To Be Wild by Steppenwolf is "the ultimate dadrock anthem" but now you're saying it's not even dadrock. It's all so convoluted!
> Rock music from the 70s and 80s or music that is reminiscent thereof
Funny, I saw someone say that Born To Be Wild by Steppenwolf is "the ultimate dadrock anthem" but now you're saying it's not even dadrock. It's all so convoluted!
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U double-posted this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,534
@1,138,520 (jodie !foster2PAQ)
> pretty sure it's all popular rock music made between like 1970 and 2000
Heavens above, 2 definitions in 2 consecutive posts and they both say different things! Good lord is there truly no clear definition of this seemingly protean term?!
> pretty sure it's all popular rock music made between like 1970 and 2000
Heavens above, 2 definitions in 2 consecutive posts and they both say different things! Good lord is there truly no clear definition of this seemingly protean term?!
jodie !foster2PAQ replied with this 5 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,537
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,538
The term is for people whom do not respect the musicians who made music what it is.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,546
@1,138,537 (jodie !foster2PAQ)
> hey mine was more inclusive at least
Indeed it was but I'm still reeling from the revelation that such rock classics as Whole Lotta Love (Led Zeppelin), Pinball Wizard (The Who), Purple Haze (Jimi Hendrix), Light My Fire (The Doors), Sympathy For The Devil (The Rolling Stones) and Come Together (The Beatles) are not even "dadrock"!
> hey mine was more inclusive at least
Indeed it was but I'm still reeling from the revelation that such rock classics as Whole Lotta Love (Led Zeppelin), Pinball Wizard (The Who), Purple Haze (Jimi Hendrix), Light My Fire (The Doors), Sympathy For The Devil (The Rolling Stones) and Come Together (The Beatles) are not even "dadrock"!
tteh !MemesToDNA joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,547
@1,138,472 (dw)
For a "common term", you chaps sure do struggle to clearly and unambiguously define it. ?
For a "common term", you chaps sure do struggle to clearly and unambiguously define it. ?
(Edited 16 minutes later.)
jodie !foster2PAQ replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,552
@1,138,546 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
i excluded pre 1970s because those are more like. classic rock. accessibility and ubiquity of 60s rock and roll kind of cancels out the dad aspect, or "dadspect" if you will
also many original patrons of pre-70s rock are granddad aged. so, granddad or classic rock will predate dadrock. dadrock is popular music. dadrock exists because Jimi rocked dadrocks parents
i excluded pre 1970s because those are more like. classic rock. accessibility and ubiquity of 60s rock and roll kind of cancels out the dad aspect, or "dadspect" if you will
also many original patrons of pre-70s rock are granddad aged. so, granddad or classic rock will predate dadrock. dadrock is popular music. dadrock exists because Jimi rocked dadrocks parents
Anonymous F replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,555
@1,138,547 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
> The term is for people whom do not respect the musicians who made music what it is.
Pretty straight forward, lad.
> The term is for people whom do not respect the musicians who made music what it is.
Pretty straight forward, lad.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,569
@1,138,552 (jodie !foster2PAQ)
> i excluded pre 1970s because those are more like. classic rock. accessibility and ubiquity of 60s rock and roll kind of cancels out the dad aspect, or "dadspect" if you will
> also many original patrons of pre-70s rock are granddad aged. so, granddad or classic rock will predate dadrock. dadrock is popular music. dadrock exists because Jimi rocked dadrocks parents
But then what is the difference in 'dadrock' terms between, say, Led Zeppelin's seminal classic Dazed and Confused (released in 1969; not dadrock) and the same band's stylistically similar Since I've Been Loving You (released in 1970; dadrock)?
> i excluded pre 1970s because those are more like. classic rock. accessibility and ubiquity of 60s rock and roll kind of cancels out the dad aspect, or "dadspect" if you will
> also many original patrons of pre-70s rock are granddad aged. so, granddad or classic rock will predate dadrock. dadrock is popular music. dadrock exists because Jimi rocked dadrocks parents
But then what is the difference in 'dadrock' terms between, say, Led Zeppelin's seminal classic Dazed and Confused (released in 1969; not dadrock) and the same band's stylistically similar Since I've Been Loving You (released in 1970; dadrock)?
Rabbi Tuckman !pbgiLp1zxI joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,570
@1,138,518 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Father, I tried communicating with you earlier. I hope I am not stepping on your toes, so to speak, in my Jewish ministry here on Minichan.
Father, I tried communicating with you earlier. I hope I am not stepping on your toes, so to speak, in my Jewish ministry here on Minichan.
Anonymous F replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,573
@previous (Rabbi Tuckman !pbgiLp1zxI)
This shtick is very derivative and boring.
Not a shtick? Funny how you've made no other posts under this name in weeks.
This shtick is very derivative and boring.
Not a shtick? Funny how you've made no other posts under this name in weeks.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,595
@1,138,570 (Rabbi Tuckman !pbgiLp1zxI)
> Father, I tried communicating with you earlier. I hope I am not stepping on your toes, so to speak, in my Jewish ministry here on Minichan.
Matthew?
> Father, I tried communicating with you earlier. I hope I am not stepping on your toes, so to speak, in my Jewish ministry here on Minichan.
Matthew?
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,633
The earliest reference I know of is when Kevin Bacon had a band and put out some music and some dude described as dadrock. It was new at the time, and I supposed it meant the kind of rhythm-and-blues style rock you might imagine a family man and his drinking buddies might do in a garage. It didn't refer to music from decades ago that someone's dad liked. It says more about the user of the word if they mean it that way. It says that the user of the word has the limited perspective of someone too young to be independent, specifically someone who describes stuff in terms of his family relationships because that is largely what his life is.
blom replied with this 5 years ago, 3 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,656
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,657
blom replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,658
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,660
blom replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,661
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 8 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,663
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 4 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,694
Ionize tg2merrin
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,698
@1,138,656 (blom)
> I am unfamiliar with the song
You're an expert on so-called "dadrock" and you're unfamiliar with arguably the most famous rock song of all time? One that is often cited as the paradigm of this so-called "dadrock"?
> I am unfamiliar with the song
You're an expert on so-called "dadrock" and you're unfamiliar with arguably the most famous rock song of all time? One that is often cited as the paradigm of this so-called "dadrock"?
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U double-posted this 5 years ago, 42 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,699
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U triple-posted this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,700
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U quadruple-posted this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,701
@1,138,663 (dw)
> Rock for the old & lame
A 3rd definition! Good heavens it seems no 2 people can agree on a single definition.
> Rock for the old & lame
A 3rd definition! Good heavens it seems no 2 people can agree on a single definition.
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,702
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 15 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,708
@previous (dw)
> Why are you so obsessed with the definition of dadrock
I'm merely asking if you can provide a definitive explanation of it. Why are you getting so defensive?
> Why are you so obsessed with the definition of dadrock
I'm merely asking if you can provide a definitive explanation of it. Why are you getting so defensive?
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,709
Dadrock is irrelevant. That is all the definition it needs.
What you lads need to listen to is a bit of sonrock. Now that is proper music.
What you lads need to listen to is a bit of sonrock. Now that is proper music.
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,710
blom replied with this 5 years ago, 36 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,711
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 6 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,714
@1,138,710 (dw)
> youve asked that a hundred times
And still you can't provide a coherent definition!
> youve asked that a hundred times
And still you can't provide a coherent definition!
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U double-posted this 5 years ago, 37 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,715
blom replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,717
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 10 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,722
@previous (blom)
> Retro-fetish boomer music
A 4th definition! And they're drifting further and further apart!
> Retro-fetish boomer music
A 4th definition! And they're drifting further and further apart!
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,723
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
How does the church handle concepts that are tricky to define? I am not a theologian, of course, but it's my understanding that throughout its history, Christianity has had many divergences in opinion by trying to define and understand certain issues.
Is there, perhaps, some method in your church background that could help us to pin-down the definition?
How does the church handle concepts that are tricky to define? I am not a theologian, of course, but it's my understanding that throughout its history, Christianity has had many divergences in opinion by trying to define and understand certain issues.
Is there, perhaps, some method in your church background that could help us to pin-down the definition?
blom replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,725
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,727
blom replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,728
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,729
@1,138,723 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
> How does the church handle concepts that are tricky to define? I am not a theologian, of course, but it's my understanding that throughout its history, Christianity has had many divergences in opinion by trying to define and understand certain issues.
We priests take our definitions directly from the Author of the Word. There is no ambiguity. Bless you for the question friend!
> Is there, perhaps, some method in your church background that could help us to pin-down the definition?
Alas I fear not even extensive clerical experience can ascertain the meaning of this most seemingly indefinable term! I'm starting to think it is a made-up concept.
> How does the church handle concepts that are tricky to define? I am not a theologian, of course, but it's my understanding that throughout its history, Christianity has had many divergences in opinion by trying to define and understand certain issues.
We priests take our definitions directly from the Author of the Word. There is no ambiguity. Bless you for the question friend!
> Is there, perhaps, some method in your church background that could help us to pin-down the definition?
Alas I fear not even extensive clerical experience can ascertain the meaning of this most seemingly indefinable term! I'm starting to think it is a made-up concept.
blom replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,730
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 45 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,733
@previous (blom)
> Philosophically speaking, all concepts are made up
Intelligently speaking, no they aren't.
> Philosophically speaking, all concepts are made up
Intelligently speaking, no they aren't.
blom replied with this 5 years ago, 6 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,735
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,736
@previous (blom)
> Philosophically speaking, you can't be certain of that
Intelligently speaking, yes I can.
> Philosophically speaking, you can't be certain of that
Intelligently speaking, yes I can.
blom replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,737
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Philosophically speaking, you can only be certain that you perceive yourself to be certain
Philosophically speaking, you can only be certain that you perceive yourself to be certain
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 56 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,743
@previous (blom)
> Philosophically speaking, you can only be certain that you perceive yourself to be certain
Intelligently speaking, the idiocy of what you are saying is an objectively knowable concept.
> Philosophically speaking, you can only be certain that you perceive yourself to be certain
Intelligently speaking, the idiocy of what you are saying is an objectively knowable concept.
blom replied with this 5 years ago, 15 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,744
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Philosophically speaking, you can't be certain that I'm saying what I'm saying
Philosophically speaking, you can't be certain that I'm saying what I'm saying
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 38 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,746
@previous (blom)
> I can't be certain that I'm saying what I'm saying
So you admit you're a very confused person. Ok thanks, that'll be all.
> I can't be certain that I'm saying what I'm saying
So you admit you're a very confused person. Ok thanks, that'll be all.
blom replied with this 5 years ago, 15 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,747
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 42 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,763
@previous (blom)
> Philosophically speaking, I can't be certain that I exist
'Cogito, ergo sum' in your case being redundant.
> Philosophically speaking, I can't be certain that I exist
'Cogito, ergo sum' in your case being redundant.
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 32 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,765
@1,138,714 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Because it's just a term some music journalist came up with to describe some shitty album, why do you give a fuck
Because it's just a term some music journalist came up with to describe some shitty album, why do you give a fuck
blom replied with this 5 years ago, 23 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,766
@1,138,763 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Philosophically speaking, the perception of experiencing reason is not an objective proof of reason.
Philosophically speaking, the perception of experiencing reason is not an objective proof of reason.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 8 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,767
@1,138,765 (dw)
> Because it's just a term some music journalist came up with
Which music journalist came up with it?
> to describe some sh*tty album
Which sh*tty album were they describing?
> why do you give a f*ck
I am merely asking if you can define the words you are using. Turns out you can't. There is no need for you to be so upset and defensive!
> Because it's just a term some music journalist came up with
Which music journalist came up with it?
> to describe some sh*tty album
Which sh*tty album were they describing?
> why do you give a f*ck
I am merely asking if you can define the words you are using. Turns out you can't. There is no need for you to be so upset and defensive!
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U double-posted this 5 years ago, 30 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,768
@1,138,766 (blom)
@1,138,763 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> 'Cogito, ergo sum' in your case being redundant.
@1,138,763 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> 'Cogito, ergo sum' in your case being redundant.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 7 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,769
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,770
Anonymous M replied with this 5 years ago, 25 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,774
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Supposedly the greatest rock band on earth but people need to stop and think about it some more. Just because a band has talent doesn't mean they put it together to sound good. Jimmy page's long drawn out solos take away the whole point of a song and turn them more into instrumentals. Robert Plant has the girliest voice in rock and dresses to match. John Bonham is way overrated and even though I hate Rush to Neil Peart is a way more talented drummer. John Paul Jones really does nothing for the band since you can never hear his bass and apparently they say he does extra sounds like synthesizers and crap but that only takes htting a button. They really never invented or barely innovated anything because the stones were doing it before them. Almost every Led Zeppelin song is slow and boring with Robert PLant crying his ass off and then calling it singing when it's not. They also have a problem with having enogh lyrics to fill out the 6-7 minute song they clog up a cd with. The lyrics may be the worst part of all, people say they have so much meaning but no one can actually prove where the meanings are. NOt everyone likes Led Zeppelin and no one should have to deal with all these die hard "Led Heads" and their pointless blabbering on how Led Zeppelin is so great when they really aren't.
Supposedly the greatest rock band on earth but people need to stop and think about it some more. Just because a band has talent doesn't mean they put it together to sound good. Jimmy page's long drawn out solos take away the whole point of a song and turn them more into instrumentals. Robert Plant has the girliest voice in rock and dresses to match. John Bonham is way overrated and even though I hate Rush to Neil Peart is a way more talented drummer. John Paul Jones really does nothing for the band since you can never hear his bass and apparently they say he does extra sounds like synthesizers and crap but that only takes htting a button. They really never invented or barely innovated anything because the stones were doing it before them. Almost every Led Zeppelin song is slow and boring with Robert PLant crying his ass off and then calling it singing when it's not. They also have a problem with having enogh lyrics to fill out the 6-7 minute song they clog up a cd with. The lyrics may be the worst part of all, people say they have so much meaning but no one can actually prove where the meanings are. NOt everyone likes Led Zeppelin and no one should have to deal with all these die hard "Led Heads" and their pointless blabbering on how Led Zeppelin is so great when they really aren't.
Anonymous M double-posted this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,776
@1,138,770 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Led Zeppelin is a rock band from the 70's that quit in the 80's when they realized that after thiers fans would stop smoking pot they would have started listening to better music.
Led Zeppelin is a rock band from the 70's that quit in the 80's when they realized that after thiers fans would stop smoking pot they would have started listening to better music.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 18 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,777
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U double-posted this 5 years ago, 37 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,778
@1,138,776 (M)
> Led Zeppelin is a rock band from the 70s that quit in the 80s when their drummer died.
Correct!
> Led Zeppelin is a rock band from the 70s that quit in the 80s when their drummer died.
Correct!
Anonymous M replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,780
@1,138,770 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
First off, they weren't too terribly original, at least half of their riffs, chord progressions, and lyrics were lifted from old blues songs.
Second off, they made have been great at their instruments, but there are better, these idiotic fanboys make it seem like they're the best at their instruments. First off, Hendrix, Clapton and Gilmour are better guitarists than Page, and I could name at least 50 people who were better lyricists. Let's face it, Page wrote AVERAGE lyrics, it wasn't his thing..they're not bad, they're just not great, and a lot of space is filled by BABAYBABBAYBABYBABYBABYBABABY etc. Now, onto bass, John Entwistle was a much more talented bassist than JPJ, and Paul Mccartney, while he may not have been better is a more more creative and innovative bass player. Now onto drumming, while Bonham is a great drummer, I'd have to say Keith Moon is much better. And as for singing, I'd take Roger Daltrey's rock n roll voice to Plant's girly whining/wailing any day.
First off, they weren't too terribly original, at least half of their riffs, chord progressions, and lyrics were lifted from old blues songs.
Second off, they made have been great at their instruments, but there are better, these idiotic fanboys make it seem like they're the best at their instruments. First off, Hendrix, Clapton and Gilmour are better guitarists than Page, and I could name at least 50 people who were better lyricists. Let's face it, Page wrote AVERAGE lyrics, it wasn't his thing..they're not bad, they're just not great, and a lot of space is filled by BABAYBABBAYBABYBABYBABYBABABY etc. Now, onto bass, John Entwistle was a much more talented bassist than JPJ, and Paul Mccartney, while he may not have been better is a more more creative and innovative bass player. Now onto drumming, while Bonham is a great drummer, I'd have to say Keith Moon is much better. And as for singing, I'd take Roger Daltrey's rock n roll voice to Plant's girly whining/wailing any day.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,782
blom replied with this 5 years ago, 26 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,798
@1,138,768 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Philosophically speaking, there is no way to prove that statement.
Philosophically speaking, there is no way to prove that statement.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,799
@previous (blom)
@1,138,768 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> 'Cogito, ergo sum' in your case being redundant.
@1,138,768 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> 'Cogito, ergo sum' in your case being redundant.
blom replied with this 5 years ago, 12 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,805
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
@1,138,798 (blom)
> Philosophically speaking, there is no way to prove that statement.
@1,138,798 (blom)
> Philosophically speaking, there is no way to prove that statement.
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,808
They provided fine sample source material for the Beastie Boys
Anonymous J replied with this 5 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,874
Anonymous M replied with this 5 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,138,877
Beastie Boys>led zepplin