there was nothing i said originally that is not fact or that is incorrect.
edit:
the 20th anniversary as a BAND = 2010
the 20th anniversary of the release of their debut album = 2011
I just wonder why you posted this thread then, if you didn't want discussion around why it has been said that Pearl Jam's 20th anniversary is in 2011? Every reply of yours basically said "PJs 20th anniversary is in 2010". Actually, that is not a fact, PJ didn't exist until 1991 :roll:
If you're going to play the semantics game ("the 20th anniversary as a BAND = 2010") then you'd better make sure you get it right from the start...
hahaha...i never suggested you were an idiot! i don't think i took what you said wrong...i think it's more how you presented it. i got your facts, you get that there's more 'facts' to it than that....it's all cool. you keep saying i am worked up, everything is ok.....i know it's ok. i am posting with a big smile on my face. i know in type it's difficult to get 'tone'.....but i've said often enough i am having FUN, all is good. but yes, from your first post onwards...sure did appear as you were trying to prove your point as right....and if not, cool.....my inference. all is well and has been all along......guy!
it's a beautiful spring day and i am happy...and my workday is almost done!
this has been a welcome distraction...it's all good!
yes, i understand.
there was nothing i said originally that is not fact or that is incorrect.
edit:
the 20th anniversary as a BAND = 2010
the 20th anniversary of the release of their debut album = 2011
hahahahahahahah....whatevvvveeeeerrrrrrrr guy!
anyhoooooooooo it's been fun, my workday is DONE......enjoy the rest of your day!
pearl jam anniversary 2011........be there!!!
one more time.........
Why has it been said that Pearl Jam's 20th anniversary is in 2011?
1. The band formed in 1990.
2. They celebrated their 10th anniversary in 2000. (Las Vegas show)
3. Therefore their 20th anniversary would be 2010.
No?
NO!
not necessarily....see countless posts in thread
Music for Rhinos.....What day in the year 1990 are you counting as their inception? I mean if we are going to split hairs, I would like a day to put on my calendar...:-)
My friend was going to see Eddie last night. Since he was in Vegas, I gave him 5 Grand to gamble with. I told him I wanted it all to go on Black. Bastard! PhillyCrownOfThorns-11-2-12
there was nothing i said originally that is not fact or that is incorrect.
edit:
the 20th anniversary as a BAND = 2010
the 20th anniversary of the release of their debut album = 2011
I just wonder why you posted this thread then, if you didn't want discussion around why it has been said that Pearl Jam's 20th anniversary is in 2011? Every reply of yours basically said "PJs 20th anniversary is in 2010". Actually, that is not a fact, PJ didn't exist until 1991 :roll:
If you're going to play the semantics game ("the 20th anniversary as a BAND = 2010") then you'd better make sure you get it right from the start...
HAH! That is not correct...Pearl Jam DID in fact exist in 1990. They just didn't release Ten until 1991!
HAH! That is not correct...Pearl Jam DID in fact exist in 1990. They just didn't release Ten until 1991!
I DO have my facts right.
I wouldn't be so smug if I were you. You're the one being picky, so I'm sure you know that they played as Mookie Blaylock until at least March 1991. If you'd gone up to them on 22nd October 1990 and said "I love Pearl Jam" they probably would have looked at you funny...
there was nothing i said originally that is not fact or that is incorrect.
edit:
the 20th anniversary as a BAND = 2010
the 20th anniversary of the release of their debut album = 2011
I just wonder why you posted this thread then, if you didn't want discussion around why it has been said that Pearl Jam's 20th anniversary is in 2011? Every reply of yours basically said "PJs 20th anniversary is in 2010". Actually, that is not a fact, PJ didn't exist until 1991 :roll:
If you're going to play the semantics game ("the 20th anniversary as a BAND = 2010") then you'd better make sure you get it right from the start...
HAH! That is not correct...Pearl Jam DID in fact exist in 1990. They just didn't release Ten until 1991!
I DO have my facts right.
Pearl Jam did NOT exist in 1990...Mookie Blaylock did....As bazzer said, PEARL JAM was NOT a band until 91. Until that time, Mookie Blaylock was a band.
My friend was going to see Eddie last night. Since he was in Vegas, I gave him 5 Grand to gamble with. I told him I wanted it all to go on Black. Bastard! PhillyCrownOfThorns-11-2-12
wow that's really sad. you should try going outside once in a while.
i know pearl jam announced the anniversary as being in 2011...it was on the news tidbit for the ten rerelease. obviously....
that's why i posted this in the first place.
you know what's fucking sad...'arguing' a point, thinking your *facts* are right, when they aren't...and being too stubborn to even see it. also sad, apparently not being able to read for content. i have stated more times than once i was at fucking WORK all day......thus i can't just 'decide' to go outside when i wish, or you bet...i certainly would've been outside on such a BEAUTIFUL day as todsay was, rather than discussing semantics with you or any of the other BS i've posted today. :P seriously.
sadder still....saying people are 'retarded' or 'morons' for disagreeing with you.....and i think clearly, as the language of our times dictates.....'you've been *told* a couple times over in this thread...and not even by me! last two posts above clearly show it. so yea.....mookie blaylock's first show was 10.22.90...not pearl jams. same members, sure, and sure they wanted to celebrate the first show they played together...but it is not *officially* a pearl jam show...so not *officially* pearl jam's anniversary! and honestly...i was totally having fun today, killing time, etc.....but yea...the retarded and moron comments.....rude! all over a civil discussion over when pearl jam's anniversary is? are you for real? damn...it's like your AET thread aways back...if you don't actually want a discussion, opinions/thoughts that might differ from your own...if you only want to prove you're 'right'....you are speaking the 'facts'..... :roll: i suggest you stick to conversations with yourself. :P
anyhooo...i had a great night, this thread gave me some good laughs, especially the last posts...thank you bazzer!
I wouldn't be so smug if I were you. You're the one being picky, so I'm sure you know that they played as Mookie Blaylock until at least March 1991. If you'd gone up to them on 22nd October 1990 and said "I love Pearl Jam" they probably would have looked at you funny...
Alright everyone. Sit and relax please. This has been blown way out of proportion. I, apparently, am misunderstood quite often on here. Why? I don't know.
There is nothing anyone has said that I didn't already know. The things I have been saying have been correct as well. As has been said, it depends on how you look at it.
PEARL JAM formed in 1990. Yes, they were called Mookie Blaylock but it was still the exact same core group of guys. It's still the same BAND,...it's just a different NAME.
You guys are the ones coming with the semantics. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
The point of this thread was never to start an argument or to prove points.
I was simply offering another perspective from the one presented on the home page of pearljam.com under the news tidbit for the Ten rerelease that stated the band's 20th anniversary will be in 2011.
My facts ARE right, just as other facts that have been presented are right.
Stop making me out to be an asshole when that is not the case.
Alright everyone. Sit and relax please. This has been blown way out of proportion. I, apparently, am misunderstood quite often on here. Why? I don't know.
There is nothing anyone has said that I didn't already know. The things I have been saying have been correct as well. As has been said, it depends on how you look at it.
PEARL JAM formed in 1990. Yes, they were called Mookie Blaylock but it was still the exact same core group of guys. It's still the same BAND,...it's just a different NAME.
You guys are the ones coming with the semantics. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
The point of this thread was never to start an argument or to prove points.
I was simply offering another perspective from the one presented on the home page of pearljam.com under the news tidbit for the Ten rerelease that stated the band's 20th anniversary will be in 2011.
My facts ARE right, just as other facts that have been presented are right.
Stop making me out to be an asshole when that is not the case.
you're not misunderstood...at all. you haven't presented FACTs, and you are the only one who refuses to see it. but hey, it's oooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkk...you don't have to runand hide awaaaayyyyyyy..........:D
do please elaborate exactly what the *point* of this thread was, b/c it evidently wasn't for discussion and you don't seem to want to admit you simply want agreement to your opinion. i mean shit, PEARL JAM is SAYING their anniversary is in 2011....it's THEIR anniversary...and you're calling them wrong! and please, don't site wikipedia as your unfallable source!
btw - no one at ALL insinuated you were an 'asshole''''except yourself. yet, you referred to us all as possibly retarded and/or morons. got it. YOU started the semantics...by stating your opinion as FACT. the only way to counter such things IS with semantics. don't see it cool, but it doesn't make you right, either....and i am already sitting down and relaxxxeddddd thank you..perhaps take your own advice! you're a very funny dude, guy......
AND...if you actually agree with the part i bolded...which i have said, more than once, much earlier...then WHY do you INSIST your *facts* are the ONLT right way to see this issue? bottomline....bazzer got it SPOT ON. end of discussion. :P
Alright everyone. Sit and relax please. This has been blown way out of proportion. I, apparently, am misunderstood quite often on here. Why? I don't know.
There is nothing anyone has said that I didn't already know. The things I have been saying have been correct as well. As has been said, it depends on how you look at it.
PEARL JAM formed in 1990. Yes, they were called Mookie Blaylock but it was still the exact same core group of guys. It's still the same BAND,...it's just a different NAME.
You guys are the ones coming with the semantics. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
The point of this thread was never to start an argument or to prove points.
I was simply offering another perspective from the one presented on the home page of pearljam.com under the news tidbit for the Ten rerelease that stated the band's 20th anniversary will be in 2011.
My facts ARE right, just as other facts that have been presented are right.
Stop making me out to be an asshole when that is not the case.
you're not misunderstood...at all. you haven't presented FACTs, and you are the only one who refuses to see it. but hey, it's oooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkk...you don't have to runand hide awaaaayyyyyyy..........:D
do please elaborate exactly what the *point* of this thread was, b/c it evidently wasn't for discussion and you don't seem to want to admit you simply want agreement to your opinion. i mean shit, PEARL JAM is SAYING their anniversary is in 2011....it's THEIR anniversary...and you're calling them wrong! and please, don't site wikipedia as your unfallable source!
btw - no one at ALL insinuated you were an 'asshole''''except yourself. yet, you referred to us all as possibly retarded and/or morons. got it. YOU started the semantics...by stating your opinion as FACT. the only way to counter such things IS with semantics. don't see it cool, but it doesn't make you right, either....and i am already sitting down and relaxxxeddddd thank you..perhaps take your own advice! you're a very funny dude, guy......
AND...if you actually agree with the part i bolded...which i have said, more than once, much earlier...then WHY do you INSIST your *facts* are the ONLT right way to see this issue? bottomline....bazzer got it SPOT ON. end of discussion. :P
Hi. I'm Earth. Have we met?
Do you know how to read? I am confounded by your replies.
You continue to say I haven't presented facts and back it up with...absolutely nothing.
Is that what you do? Make futile arguments and wait for someone else to come along and say it the way you wish you could have and cling to them?
Again, you are saying things that are flat out wrong!
You said, "do please elaborate exactly what the *point* of this thread was, b/c it evidently wasn't for discussion and you don't seem to want to admit you simply want agreement to your opinion."
I JUST explained in my last post! LOL. I said, "The point of this thread was never to start an argument or to prove points.
I was simply offering another perspective from the one presented on the home page of pearljam.com under the news tidbit for the Ten rerelease that stated the band's 20th anniversary will be in 2011."
Are you not reading what I am writing, or..?
You said, "WHY do you INSIST your *facts* are the ONLT right way to see this issue?"
Again, I JUST said in my last post, "My facts ARE right, just as other facts that have been presented are right."
That statement clearly shows I am saying my facts are NOT the only right way to this issue.
Alright everyone. Sit and relax please. This has been blown way out of proportion. I, apparently, am misunderstood quite often on here. Why? I don't know.
There is nothing anyone has said that I didn't already know. The things I have been saying have been correct as well. As has been said, it depends on how you look at it.
PEARL JAM formed in 1990. Yes, they were called Mookie Blaylock but it was still the exact same core group of guys. It's still the same BAND,...it's just a different NAME.
You guys are the ones coming with the semantics. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
The point of this thread was never to start an argument or to prove points.
I was simply offering another perspective from the one presented on the home page of pearljam.com under the news tidbit for the Ten rerelease that stated the band's 20th anniversary will be in 2011.
My facts ARE right, just as other facts that have been presented are right.
Stop making me out to be an asshole when that is not the case.
you're not misunderstood...at all. you haven't presented FACTs, and you are the only one who refuses to see it. but hey, it's oooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkk...you don't have to runand hide awaaaayyyyyyy..........:D
do please elaborate exactly what the *point* of this thread was, b/c it evidently wasn't for discussion and you don't seem to want to admit you simply want agreement to your opinion. i mean shit, PEARL JAM is SAYING their anniversary is in 2011....it's THEIR anniversary...and you're calling them wrong! and please, don't site wikipedia as your unfallable source!
btw - no one at ALL insinuated you were an 'asshole''''except yourself. yet, you referred to us all as possibly retarded and/or morons. got it. YOU started the semantics...by stating your opinion as FACT. the only way to counter such things IS with semantics. don't see it cool, but it doesn't make you right, either....and i am already sitting down and relaxxxeddddd thank you..perhaps take your own advice! you're a very funny dude, guy......
AND...if you actually agree with the part i bolded...which i have said, more than once, much earlier...then WHY do you INSIST your *facts* are the ONLT right way to see this issue? bottomline....bazzer got it SPOT ON. end of discussion. :P
Hi. I'm Earth. Have we met?
Do you know how to read? I am confounded by your replies.
You continue to say I haven't presented facts and back it up with...absolutely nothing.
Is that what you do? Make futile arguments and wait for someone else to come along and say it the way you wish you could have and cling to them?
Again, you are saying things that are flat out wrong!
You said, "do please elaborate exactly what the *point* of this thread was, b/c it evidently wasn't for discussion and you don't seem to want to admit you simply want agreement to your opinion."
I JUST explained in my last post! LOL. I said, "The point of this thread was never to start an argument or to prove points.
I was simply offering another perspective from the one presented on the home page of pearljam.com under the news tidbit for the Ten rerelease that stated the band's 20th anniversary will be in 2011."
Are you not reading what I am writing, or..?
You said, "WHY do you INSIST your *facts* are the ONLT right way to see this issue?"
Again, I JUST said in my last post, "My facts ARE right, just as other facts that have been presented are right."
That statement clearly shows I am saying my facts are NOT the only right way to this issue.
nope. sorry...play again. your FACTS...are not facts! i read and comprehend EVERYthing you wrote...and you still have not truly said what your point was.......providing a differnt perspective? really, that was it? then why did you argue that perspective when others had a different perspective? and if you reread your own posts in this thread...tho it might be helpful to read others too...but even just your own....you might actually see how you *presneted* your perspective...your facts....and yes....sure does appear to be your intent was simply to present your 'fact's as well.....FACT. and it clearly ISN'T...and you've been told that by 2 people, clearly neither being me....and yet ....you refuse to see it.
you ARE funny with your swarmy condescension tho, i give you that. hahahaha.
it's especilly amusing that you are confounded by my replies...but i guess, unsurprsing. anyhoo...enjoy your FACTS, as you seem to be the only one who does!
have a great night be happy..hope you can make pearl jam's anniversary celebration in 2011!!! i really think you should write pj....10c.....ed....tell them they are all wrong, and let them know your facts, i am sure they will be quite pleased to be educated about it. :P
and btw - this:
"The point of this thread was never to start an argument or to prove points.
doesn't actually say what your point it....but what your point ISN't. your 'different perspective' isn't so different, just simply......argumentative.
anyhoo...time to dream. i normally don't come on here at night anymore...but checked my email this evening...saw my confimration ...felt like popping on, and sure..i enjoyed pjkings and bazzers post, so simply couldn't help myself. need to get up for work in the morning, but i am sure to be here tomorrow so we can argue semantics some more...and you can tell us all how retarded and moronic we are...and how confounding my posts are!
I love you, Chris and you are my dear friend, ya know?
And I have respect for d2d too....
This is beyond me that you two are arguing... and it's 1am here.
This is getting nowhere and I understand that Music For Rhinos was trying to figure out why it was 2011 instead of 2010 and d2d was offering her perspectives - which made sense to me as well because well, like her I've been with my hubby for almost 18 years and married for almost 16 years... we give people different answers too.
I'm going to bed...but I just wanted to tell you two that I love and respect you both... but jeez, this is getting nowhere.
I love my JAMILY!!!! *ducks from the jamily haters*
2010 or 2011 - who gives a flying feck?
((Hugs to both MFR & D2D))
JA: Why do I get the Ticketmaster question?
EV: It's your band.
~Q Magazine
"Kisses for the glow...kisses for the lease." - BDRII
The only real reference to 20th anniversary being in 2011 is from the rerelease press release, isn't it? Obviously, they're referencing 20 years since the first released album. It's the same as HOF eligibility, 25 years after release of first album.
I'm sure they'll celebrate their first concert too, but then they were Mookie Blaylock then, weren't they? So maybe their first show as PJ, 17/05/1991?
That being said, I've always felt 22/10/1990 is the date, but shouldn't it really be the first day Ed came up to meet the guys and jam?
You make some excellent points. However, it can't be ignored that the band played a 10th Anniversary show on 10/22/2000 in Las Vegas.
Clearly and logically, their 20th anniversary would therefore be 10/22/2010.
10th
anniversary
SHOW
get it?
they were celebrating the 10th anniversary of their first SHOW....not the day they first became a band, not the first time they jammed....not the first time they all played scrabbble together or when their first album was released....but the 10th anniversary of their first show together......which yes, is 10.22.1990.
if they want to think of 2011 as their 20th anniversary - focus on their first album release...it's their perogative. they said they are celebrating by leading up to that date with the rereleases, etc. basically it's all semantics. so, however, they want to focus on their anniversary.....more power to em!
the fact/point of the 10th anniversary show was addressed.......and it proves nothing about PEARL JAM's anniversary, at all. and that's a fact.
and M....*hugs* back atcha, it's all good!
i ENJOY debate, and i truly found/find this thread amusing, even my own participation...and it makes total snse to me, even at 1:30 AM....so that might say something, hahaha.
nope. sorry...play again. your FACTS...are not facts! i read and comprehend EVERYthing you wrote...and you still have not truly said what your point was.......providing a differnt perspective? really, that was it? then why did you argue that perspective when others had a different perspective? and if you reread your own posts in this thread...tho it might be helpful to read others too...but even just your own....you might actually see how you *presneted* your perspective...your facts....and yes....sure does appear to be your intent was simply to present your 'fact's as well.....FACT. and it clearly ISN'T...and you've been told that by 2 people, clearly neither being me....and yet ....you refuse to see it.
you ARE funny with your swarmy condescension tho, i give you that. hahahaha.
it's especilly amusing that you are confounded by my replies...but i guess, unsurprsing. anyhoo...enjoy your FACTS, as you seem to be the only one who does!
have a great night be happy..hope you can make pearl jam's anniversary celebration in 2011!!! i really think you should write pj....10c.....ed....tell them they are all wrong, and let them know your facts, i am sure they will be quite pleased to be educated about it. :P
and btw - this:
"The point of this thread was never to start an argument or to prove points.
doesn't actually say what your point it....but what your point ISN't. your 'different perspective' isn't so different, just simply......argumentative.
anyhoo...time to dream. i normally don't come on here at night anymore...but checked my email this evening...saw my confimration ...felt like popping on, and sure..i enjoyed pjkings and bazzers post, so simply couldn't help myself. need to get up for work in the morning, but i am sure to be here tomorrow so we can argue semantics some more...and you can tell us all how retarded and moronic we are...and how confounding my posts are!
Yes, my facts are facts. If they aren't, then why are you referring to them as facts? Lolol.
The band formed in 1990. That is a FACT. Whether they were called Mookie Blaylock or Pearl Jam doesn't matter. It is still the FORMATION of the exact same core group or BAND.
1990 + 20 = 2010.
It's not hard, dear.
Ten was released in 1991.
1991 + 20 = 2011.
I have always understood this. You have been taking what I have been saying the wrong way from the beginning.
I GET IT! Pearl Jam is celebrating their 20th in 2011! LOL. I am simply stating a very, very simple notion which is: technically, although their debut album was released in 1991, the band FORMED in 1990 and would therefore have been around for 20 years in 2010. THAT'S IT.
Even you can understand that, right?
As for comprehending everything I wrote, clearly you have not. If you had, then why did you say flat-out incorrect things in your last post? Things that, if you had truly read and comprehended my post before that, you would realize your mistake.
As for being argumentative, guess what? It takes two to tango.
nope. sorry...play again. your FACTS...are not facts! i read and comprehend EVERYthing you wrote...and you still have not truly said what your point was.......providing a differnt perspective? really, that was it? then why did you argue that perspective when others had a different perspective? and if you reread your own posts in this thread...tho it might be helpful to read others too...but even just your own....you might actually see how you *presneted* your perspective...your facts....and yes....sure does appear to be your intent was simply to present your 'fact's as well.....FACT. and it clearly ISN'T...and you've been told that by 2 people, clearly neither being me....and yet ....you refuse to see it.
you ARE funny with your swarmy condescension tho, i give you that. hahahaha.
it's especilly amusing that you are confounded by my replies...but i guess, unsurprsing. anyhoo...enjoy your FACTS, as you seem to be the only one who does!
have a great night be happy..hope you can make pearl jam's anniversary celebration in 2011!!! i really think you should write pj....10c.....ed....tell them they are all wrong, and let them know your facts, i am sure they will be quite pleased to be educated about it. :P
and btw - this:
"The point of this thread was never to start an argument or to prove points.
doesn't actually say what your point it....but what your point ISN't. your 'different perspective' isn't so different, just simply......argumentative.
anyhoo...time to dream. i normally don't come on here at night anymore...but checked my email this evening...saw my confimration ...felt like popping on, and sure..i enjoyed pjkings and bazzers post, so simply couldn't help myself. need to get up for work in the morning, but i am sure to be here tomorrow so we can argue semantics some more...and you can tell us all how retarded and moronic we are...and how confounding my posts are!
Yes, my facts are facts. If they aren't, then why are you referring to them as facts? Lolol.
The band formed in 1990. That is a FACT. Whether they were called Mookie Blaylock or Pearl Jam doesn't matter. It is still the FORMATION of the exact same core group or BAND.
1990 + 20 = 2010.
It's not hard, dear.
Ten was released in 1991.
1991 + 20 = 2011.
I have always understood this. You have been taking what I have been saying the wrong way from the beginning.
I GET IT! Pearl Jam is celebrating their 20th in 2011! LOL. I am simply stating a very, very simple notion which is: technically, although their debut album was released in 1991, the band FORMED in 1990 and would therefore have been around for 20 years in 2010. THAT'S IT.
Even you can understand that, right?
As for comprehending everything I wrote, clearly you have not. If you had, then why did you say flat-out incorrect things in your last post? Things that, if you had truly read and comprehended my post before that, you would realize your mistake.
As for being argumentative, guess what? It takes two to tango.
If I'm argumentative, you are as well.
yep, i am arguementative...and i refer to your points as facts b/c you did.
bottomline, answer me this - if pearl jam was mookie blaylock in 2010......WHY would they celebrate being PEARL JAM 10 or 20 years after a show when they weren't pearl jam, but in fact, mookie blaylock? :? pearl jam did NOT exist in 1990...no matter how you slice it. the BAND as a group of people playing together did....thus probably why they celebrated the 10th anniversary of their first SHOW...but they weren't PEARL JAM.
so then, and i think even you can understand this .....
pearl jam would not actually *officially* celebrate their existence AS pearl jam, until the date they were actually pearl jam...which i believe pjking above stated didn't happen until march 1991. there it is. so yes, they can celebrate getting together, having a first show...being a band...but they can't celebrate 20 years of *being* pearl jam until 1991....and since you proved how good at adding you are above....
1991 + 20 = 2011.
pearl jam as a NAME didn't exist until 1991....therefore their anniversaries *count* AFTER their existence AS PEARL JAM.
how's that for semantics. :P
seriously..i was having FUN with this whole convo today...and you have really gotten a bit heavy with the name-calling and condescension..and sure, i have now responded in kind....but damn, your 'perspective' and discussion would've died a quick death if i didn't interact.....and you just kept saying 2010 is their anniversary, and hinging most of your arguement on the fact that they had a 10th anniversary celebration of their first show. hell, bazzer within the first 5 posts CLEARLY illistrated WHY their anniversary would be in 2011.....and you tell him he makes valid points, then still say the 10th anniverary show can't be ignored. no one ignored it - it's just not a basis for celebrating the existence of the BAND called PEARL JAM! and i know i am not explaining it well b/c it's late, i had a few drinks, and now i am tired...but seriously......bazzer, please...im the AM...make it make sense. rhino stil won't believe it, but i'll feel better. :P
me and the dead horse i rode in on are going off to dream.......really.......
thank bejeebus i don't actually have to *work* at work tomorrow.....hahahaha.....
Are you people RETARDED?
That is a FACT. It is not up for debate. If you are disputing that, you are a moron.
that's where you lost me, man. say all you want about dates, pearl jam or mookie, 1990, 1991, etc, etc...
it's been said already....but they weren't "Pearl Jam" until 1991. period. your words were rude, abrasive & unnecessary.
have i told you lately that i love you?
simplicity, utter simplicity.......beautiful and i thank you.
man, i was having FUN here today, i do enjoy semantics...but yes....just some shit...uncool........
thank you for making me feel not crazy....well, les crazy, anyway....
no they weren't pearl jam but they were still a band in 1990.
in 2010, they will have been a band for 20 years. (whether their name is/was mookie blaylock, pearl jam or kleeba treeba fleeba meeba)
i know the anniversary is in 2011.
case closed.
YAY!
and we truly need a *thumbs up* emoticon.
wait...so you're agreeing with what i just said there? everything i said?
yes, i never DISagreed with the first 2 points in your OP....just your conclusion.
anyhoo....let's not rehash eh? i was saying yay - offers olive branch - and let's focus on the agreement.
1. the band known as pearl jam formed as mookie blaylock in 1990.
2. the band pearl jam had a 10th anniversary show 10.22.2000 to celebrate their very first SHOW together, as mookie blaylock.
3. therefore, their 20th anniversary celebration of being PEARL JAM will occur in 2011...20 years after they actually became PEARL JAM.
yes, i never DISagreed with the first 2 points in your OP....just your conclusion.
anyhoo....let's not rehash eh? i was saying yay - offers olive branch - and let's focus on the agreement.
1. the band known as pearl jam formed as mookie blaylock in 1990.
2. the band pearl jam had a 10th anniversary show 10.22.2000 to celebrate their very first SHOW together, as mookie blaylock.
3. therefore, their 20th anniversary celebration of being PEARL JAM will occur in 2011...20 years after they actually became PEARL JAM.
think we all finally agree.
of course. that's what i was establishing. not rehashing at all. i was always saying the same thing in so many ways. there was never a point where i didn't understand everything. we really got off on the wrong foot. as you said, it's difficult to discern tone over the internet. i'm all for the olive branch.
time to let this thread die. everyone knows what's up.
please just stop replying. really.
maybe people would have stopped replying a long time ago, but you had to start calling people names. i still haven't seen/heard an apology either. oh, well.
time to let this thread die. everyone knows what's up.
please just stop replying. really.
maybe people would have stopped replying a long time ago, but you had to start calling people names. i still haven't seen/heard an apology either. oh, well.
yeah. i usually don't apologize unless it's something MAJOR.
i don't consider anything that transpires over an internet message board to be major.
the name-calling stemmed from heated emotions that normally come with argument/debate.
Comments
If you're going to play the semantics game ("the 20th anniversary as a BAND = 2010") then you'd better make sure you get it right from the start...
hahahahahahahah....whatevvvveeeeerrrrrrrr guy!
anyhoooooooooo it's been fun, my workday is DONE......enjoy the rest of your day!
pearl jam anniversary 2011........be there!!!
one more time.........
Why has it been said that Pearl Jam's 20th anniversary is in 2011?
1. The band formed in 1990.
2. They celebrated their 10th anniversary in 2000. (Las Vegas show)
3. Therefore their 20th anniversary would be 2010.
No?
NO!
not necessarily....see countless posts in thread
just having FUN!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
"Free Shipping" SPEEDY MCCREADY
My friend was going to see Eddie last night. Since he was in Vegas, I gave him 5 Grand to gamble with. I told him I wanted it all to go on Black. Bastard! PhillyCrownOfThorns-11-2-12
The BAND formed in 1990.
From Wikipedia: Pearl Jam is an American rock band that formed in Seattle, Washington in 1990.
That is a FACT. It is not up for debate. If you are disputing that, you are a moron.
I KNOW 1991 is the year Ten was released and therefore 20 years later is 2011.
YES, 2011 is the 20th anniversary of the release of their debut.
2010 is the 20th anniversary of them being a BAND.
How in the world can you not understand that?
HAH! That is not correct...Pearl Jam DID in fact exist in 1990. They just didn't release Ten until 1991!
I DO have my facts right.
Pearl Jam did NOT exist in 1990...Mookie Blaylock did....As bazzer said, PEARL JAM was NOT a band until 91. Until that time, Mookie Blaylock was a band.
"Free Shipping" SPEEDY MCCREADY
My friend was going to see Eddie last night. Since he was in Vegas, I gave him 5 Grand to gamble with. I told him I wanted it all to go on Black. Bastard! PhillyCrownOfThorns-11-2-12
you know what's fucking sad...'arguing' a point, thinking your *facts* are right, when they aren't...and being too stubborn to even see it. also sad, apparently not being able to read for content. i have stated more times than once i was at fucking WORK all day......thus i can't just 'decide' to go outside when i wish, or you bet...i certainly would've been outside on such a BEAUTIFUL day as todsay was, rather than discussing semantics with you or any of the other BS i've posted today. :P seriously.
sadder still....saying people are 'retarded' or 'morons' for disagreeing with you.....and i think clearly, as the language of our times dictates.....'you've been *told* a couple times over in this thread...and not even by me!
anyhooo...i had a great night, this thread gave me some good laughs, especially the last posts...thank you bazzer!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
There is nothing anyone has said that I didn't already know. The things I have been saying have been correct as well. As has been said, it depends on how you look at it.
PEARL JAM formed in 1990. Yes, they were called Mookie Blaylock but it was still the exact same core group of guys. It's still the same BAND,...it's just a different NAME.
You guys are the ones coming with the semantics. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
The point of this thread was never to start an argument or to prove points.
I was simply offering another perspective from the one presented on the home page of pearljam.com under the news tidbit for the Ten rerelease that stated the band's 20th anniversary will be in 2011.
My facts ARE right, just as other facts that have been presented are right.
Stop making me out to be an asshole when that is not the case.
you're not misunderstood...at all. you haven't presented FACTs, and you are the only one who refuses to see it. but hey, it's oooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkk...you don't have to runand hide awaaaayyyyyyy..........:D
do please elaborate exactly what the *point* of this thread was, b/c it evidently wasn't for discussion and you don't seem to want to admit you simply want agreement to your opinion. i mean shit, PEARL JAM is SAYING their anniversary is in 2011....it's THEIR anniversary...and you're calling them wrong! and please, don't site wikipedia as your unfallable source!
btw - no one at ALL insinuated you were an 'asshole''''except yourself. yet, you referred to us all as possibly retarded and/or morons. got it. YOU started the semantics...by stating your opinion as FACT. the only way to counter such things IS with semantics. don't see it cool, but it doesn't make you right, either....and i am already sitting down and relaxxxeddddd thank you..perhaps take your own advice!
AND...if you actually agree with the part i bolded...which i have said, more than once, much earlier...then WHY do you INSIST your *facts* are the ONLT right way to see this issue? bottomline....bazzer got it SPOT ON. end of discussion. :P
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Hi. I'm Earth. Have we met?
Do you know how to read? I am confounded by your replies.
You continue to say I haven't presented facts and back it up with...absolutely nothing.
Is that what you do? Make futile arguments and wait for someone else to come along and say it the way you wish you could have and cling to them?
Again, you are saying things that are flat out wrong!
You said, "do please elaborate exactly what the *point* of this thread was, b/c it evidently wasn't for discussion and you don't seem to want to admit you simply want agreement to your opinion."
I JUST explained in my last post! LOL. I said, "The point of this thread was never to start an argument or to prove points.
I was simply offering another perspective from the one presented on the home page of pearljam.com under the news tidbit for the Ten rerelease that stated the band's 20th anniversary will be in 2011."
Are you not reading what I am writing, or..?
You said, "WHY do you INSIST your *facts* are the ONLT right way to see this issue?"
Again, I JUST said in my last post, "My facts ARE right, just as other facts that have been presented are right."
That statement clearly shows I am saying my facts are NOT the only right way to this issue.
nope. sorry...play again. your FACTS...are not facts!
you ARE funny with your swarmy condescension tho, i give you that. hahahaha.
it's especilly amusing that you are confounded by my replies...but i guess, unsurprsing. anyhoo...enjoy your FACTS, as you seem to be the only one who does!
have a great night be happy..hope you can make pearl jam's anniversary celebration in 2011!!!
and btw - this:
"The point of this thread was never to start an argument or to prove points.
doesn't actually say what your point it....but what your point ISN't. your 'different perspective' isn't so different, just simply......argumentative.
anyhoo...time to dream. i normally don't come on here at night anymore...but checked my email this evening...saw my confimration
here's your FACT:
check bazzer's posts for ALL true FACTS in this thread....and then yes, alert the band.......
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
You two - Chris and M.... c'mon?
I love you, Chris and you are my dear friend, ya know?
And I have respect for d2d too....
This is beyond me that you two are arguing... and it's 1am here.
This is getting nowhere and I understand that Music For Rhinos was trying to figure out why it was 2011 instead of 2010 and d2d was offering her perspectives - which made sense to me as well because well, like her I've been with my hubby for almost 18 years and married for almost 16 years... we give people different answers too.
I'm going to bed...but I just wanted to tell you two that I love and respect you both... but jeez, this is getting nowhere.
I love my JAMILY!!!! *ducks from the jamily haters*
2010 or 2011 - who gives a flying feck?
((Hugs to both MFR & D2D))
EV: It's your band.
~Q Magazine
"Kisses for the glow...kisses for the lease." - BDRII
the fact/point of the 10th anniversary show was addressed.......and it proves nothing about PEARL JAM's anniversary, at all. and that's a fact.
and M....*hugs* back atcha, it's all good!
i ENJOY debate, and i truly found/find this thread amusing, even my own participation...and it makes total snse to me, even at 1:30 AM....so that might say something, hahaha.
alrighty, seeya around the bend!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Yes, my facts are facts. If they aren't, then why are you referring to them as facts? Lolol.
The band formed in 1990. That is a FACT. Whether they were called Mookie Blaylock or Pearl Jam doesn't matter. It is still the FORMATION of the exact same core group or BAND.
1990 + 20 = 2010.
It's not hard, dear.
Ten was released in 1991.
1991 + 20 = 2011.
I have always understood this. You have been taking what I have been saying the wrong way from the beginning.
I GET IT! Pearl Jam is celebrating their 20th in 2011! LOL. I am simply stating a very, very simple notion which is: technically, although their debut album was released in 1991, the band FORMED in 1990 and would therefore have been around for 20 years in 2010. THAT'S IT.
Even you can understand that, right?
As for comprehending everything I wrote, clearly you have not. If you had, then why did you say flat-out incorrect things in your last post? Things that, if you had truly read and comprehended my post before that, you would realize your mistake.
As for being argumentative, guess what? It takes two to tango.
If I'm argumentative, you are as well.
that's where you lost me, man. say all you want about dates, pearl jam or mookie, 1990, 1991, etc, etc...
it's been said already....but they weren't "Pearl Jam" until 1991. period. your words were rude, abrasive & unnecessary.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
yep, i am arguementative...and i refer to your points as facts b/c you did.
bottomline, answer me this - if pearl jam was mookie blaylock in 2010......WHY would they celebrate being PEARL JAM 10 or 20 years after a show when they weren't pearl jam, but in fact, mookie blaylock? :? pearl jam did NOT exist in 1990...no matter how you slice it. the BAND as a group of people playing together did....thus probably why they celebrated the 10th anniversary of their first SHOW...but they weren't PEARL JAM.
so then, and i think even you can understand this
pearl jam would not actually *officially* celebrate their existence AS pearl jam, until the date they were actually pearl jam...which i believe pjking above stated didn't happen until march 1991. there it is. so yes, they can celebrate getting together, having a first show...being a band...but they can't celebrate 20 years of *being* pearl jam until 1991....and since you proved how good at adding you are above....
1991 + 20 = 2011.
pearl jam as a NAME didn't exist until 1991....therefore their anniversaries *count* AFTER their existence AS PEARL JAM.
how's that for semantics. :P
seriously..i was having FUN with this whole convo today...and you have really gotten a bit heavy with the name-calling and condescension..and sure, i have now responded in kind....but damn, your 'perspective' and discussion would've died a quick death if i didn't interact.....and you just kept saying 2010 is their anniversary, and hinging most of your arguement on the fact that they had a 10th anniversary celebration of their first show. hell, bazzer within the first 5 posts CLEARLY illistrated WHY their anniversary would be in 2011.....and you tell him he makes valid points, then still say the 10th anniverary show can't be ignored. no one ignored it - it's just not a basis for celebrating the existence of the BAND called PEARL JAM! and i know i am not explaining it well b/c it's late, i had a few drinks, and now i am tired...but seriously......bazzer, please...im the AM...make it make sense. rhino stil won't believe it, but i'll feel better. :P
me and the dead horse i rode in on are going off to dream.......really.......
thank bejeebus i don't actually have to *work* at work tomorrow.....hahahaha.....
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
have i told you lately that i love you?
simplicity, utter simplicity.......beautiful and i thank you.
man, i was having FUN here today, i do enjoy semantics...but yes....just some shit...uncool........
thank you for making me feel not crazy....well, les crazy, anyway....
good night!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
yup. sounds about right.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
in 2010, they will have been a band for 20 years. (whether their name is/was mookie blaylock, pearl jam or kleeba treeba fleeba meeba)
i know the anniversary is in 2011.
case closed.
YAY!
and we truly need a *thumbs up* emoticon.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
wait...so you're agreeing with what i just said there? everything i said?
yes, i never DISagreed with the first 2 points in your OP....just your conclusion.
anyhoo....let's not rehash eh? i was saying yay - offers olive branch - and let's focus on the agreement.
1. the band known as pearl jam formed as mookie blaylock in 1990.
2. the band pearl jam had a 10th anniversary show 10.22.2000 to celebrate their very first SHOW together, as mookie blaylock.
3. therefore, their 20th anniversary celebration of being PEARL JAM will occur in 2011...20 years after they actually became PEARL JAM.
think we all finally agree.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
of course. that's what i was establishing. not rehashing at all. i was always saying the same thing in so many ways. there was never a point where i didn't understand everything. we really got off on the wrong foot. as you said, it's difficult to discern tone over the internet. i'm all for the olive branch.
the 20th anniversary show would be 10/22/10. why?
http://www.expressobeans.com/public/detail.php/1686
case .. closed!
okay, enough, seriously.
time to let this thread die. everyone knows what's up.
please just stop replying. really.
maybe people would have stopped replying a long time ago, but you had to start calling people names. i still haven't seen/heard an apology either. oh, well.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
yeah. i usually don't apologize unless it's something MAJOR.
i don't consider anything that transpires over an internet message board to be major.
the name-calling stemmed from heated emotions that normally come with argument/debate.
oh well.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com