What use is an opinion that is not based on facts? As I said you can have the opinion that sh*t smells like roses, but that doesn't make it so.
Like MUSTARD GAS, You EXPRESSED AN OPINION THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS, and I CHALLENGED IT. See?
if everything was based on facts there would be no need for an opinion and your input would be bullsh*t. "What use is an opinion that is not based on facts" - because that is anopinion.
I'm not agreeing with Mr. Mustard, I have no use for his opinions.
The fact is...you can say that I'm wrong for not basing my opinions on fact but that doesn't make it so either. The fact is, you can't say I'm wrong, since opinions aren't based on facts. If they WERE all based on facts, then they wouldn't be opinions now would they?
Oh, that this too, too solid flesh would melt... Zap! My skin's soaked right through to the skin! "The Beatles will exist without us"
I'm in disbelief that there are posters who still don't get what this thread is all about.
The first question was "Who do you like the best?"
That's the question. (How many times do I have to repeat this?)
The thread is NOT, repeat NOT, "Who was most successful?"
Because the answer to that would be PAUL. JJ (J for jackass, maybe? Sorry, couldn't resist), have you acknowledged that I have stated this NUMEROUS times now?
I like John's music the best. Therefore, I choose his career. I have nowhere stated that because I say so, it is fact that everyone must accept. I defend everyone's choice, including yours.
And fender, when I stated that George or John made better albums than Paul, it's understood (or should be) that that is an opinion statement. How you could be thrown off by that is puzzling, but you really should have gotten that. Probably 95 percent of the posts in all these forums are opinion-based, but posters don't feel the need to always add "That's my opinion" after they say they love/hate the White Album, for instance.
The phrase "Best career" doesn't necessarily mean "most money made," jj. ANOTHER thing you don't get. Example: who had a 'better' career -- Elvis or Bob Dylan? Most people without thinking would say Elvis and cite his hits, sales, and fame. I would say Dylan. Why? Because Elvis's career and fame ended up killing the guy. Dylan is still alive at nearly 70, in good health, has done what he's wanted and is still recording. Dylan's career is better, even if his sales are dwarfed by the King.
Again, quit thinking what Billboard magazine tells you to think, jj. Form your own opinions. Sales don't mean squat. They don't make Paul's music better than John's. (And if anyone is confused by that statement, that's an example of an opinion!)
What's coming out here is your blatant and rather disturbing contempt for John Lennon, jj. Again, I'm calling you out on it. Don't ignore this, like you've ignored every other fact I've put out there. Acknowledge why you hate the man so deeply. Are you even a Beatles fan? It's time to come out of the closet.
And I expect you to respond -- actually, let me save you the trouble: "Paul had more hits and more albums and everyone agrees with me and no one liked John so you must be wrong!" There, I said it for you. But if (when) you do, at least acknowledge the point that this is an opinion, not a factual thread. Read the first post again if this confuses you. If the thread was "What year was John Lennon born?", then obviously that wouldn't be an opinion-based thread. There's only one right answer. This thread, however, is an opinion thread, which is why it includes a poll. Tell me you understand this, jj. Seriously, I sense that you know you've lost the debate and rather than take into consideration what's been said, you keep regurgitating the same off-topic crap. If you start a thread titled "Whose career was most successful in terms of money made?," then you know what? I'll be the first to post that Paul's the man. But that's not what this thread is.
In a similar vein, to Paul fans, is there anyone else that is this offended that other posters may not like Paul the best? I never assumed that the Paul fans were anti-John, but now I'm curious. I have a feeling it's just one rogue poster who is on this crusade, but if anyone else out there is steaming that someone might prefer George (or god forbid, Ringo!), I'd like to know why this is so threatening to you. Because you know, if you prefer Paul, George or Ringo, I would tell you that you're absolutely correct for your preference and defend your right to have it.
Like Ringo sang in that James Bond movie -- "Live and let live."
From what I've seen, Paul fans aren't usually anti-John. It's John fans that are usually anti-Paul. Go on Youtube and watch a McCartney video whether its when he was in The Beatles or Wings and you will see so many comments bashing him and praising John for putting out songs with a purpose. I don't think I've ever seen that on a Lennon video.(And I'm not being bias here) I mean look at that idiot Jim Coyler's post on the first page(I believe it's on the first page). That's a perfect example. Now I'm not saying all Lennon fans are like that, just the Lennon fans that only like Lennon because it's "Cool" to like Lennon. Those losers probably haven't even listened to his solo career only praise him because of his political stance.
And fender, when I stated that George or John made better albums than Paul, it's understood (or should be) that that is an opinion statement. How you could be thrown off by that is puzzling, but you really should have gotten that. Probably 95 percent of the posts in all these forums are opinion-based, but posters don't feel the need to always add "That's my opinion" after they say they love/hate the White Album, for instance.
I do get it im just saying i can see how folks could get thrown off by it, but i can see were you are coming from the original question was " who's solo career do you like best".
So Sales and figures shouldn't enter it unless someone decides to use these figures as a basis for there answer which is fine, but nobody is right or wrong in this question as it is based on there own personal opinion which is what the original poster asked for.
So i don't know why people are bringing Album and Ticket sales into a question that is all about there favorite and not about who was the most successful
if everything was based on facts there would be no need for an opinion and your input would be bullsh*t. "What use is an opinion that is not based on facts" - because that is anopinion.
I'm not agreeing with Mr. Mustard, I have no use for his opinions.
The fact is...you can say that I'm wrong for not basing my opinions on fact but that doesn't make it so either. The fact is, you can't say I'm wrong, since opinions aren't based on facts. If they WERE all based on facts, then they wouldn't be opinions now would they?
This is pure BS.
When I suggested that I think part of the reason John retired in the 70's was because of Paul's success at the time, It was based on my interpretation of facts. This doesn't mean the opinion itself is fact, only that it's a hypothesis based on my interpretation of facts.
You are free to have an opinion that is contrary to facts, but don't expect me (or someone else) not to call you out on it. Shi*t doesnt smell good, and the sky is not green, regardless of someone's "opinion" to the contrary.
I do get it im just saying i can see how folks could get thrown off by it, but i can see were you are coming from the original question was " who's solo career do you like best".
So Sales and figures shouldn't enter it unless someone decides to use these figures as a basis for there answer which is fine, but nobody is right or wrong in this question as it is based on there own personal opinion which is what the original poster asked for.
So i don't know why people are bringing Album and Ticket sales into a question that is all about there favorite and not about who was the most successful
People are bringing album and ticket sales into the question because [U]continued[\U] and [U]consistent[\U] [B]success[\B] is the only realistic means in which to measure the question "who has had the best solo career".
Lackluster albums and singles, with (relatively) small sales does not a "better" career make, unless I don't understand the word "better"... Does involvement in the "peace movement" make one's career better? Does crying about your mother rather than singing about Magneto and Titanium man make ones career better? No. Success makes one's career better.
There are different circumstances in which an opinion can be given and what type of opinion is acceptable.
o·pin·ion n. 1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew). 2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion. 3. A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts. 4. The prevailing view: public opinion. 5. Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.
I'd say this thread is favoring defenition #1 while yes, the rest of us would greatly hope that our doctors are following definition #2. I see #3 and #4 is also in use in this thread, which is fine, but I think we should respect the fact that some people are merely stating their opinions based "A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof." Because in light of the original quesiton holding such opinions is more than acceptable.
In other words, there are many ways to look at this argument and none of us appear to be wrong.
When I suggested that I think part of the reason John retired in the 70's was because of Paul's success at the time, It was based on my interpretation of facts. This doesn't mean the opinion itself is fact, only that it's a hypothesis based on my interpretation of facts.
You are free to have an opinion that is contrary to facts, but don't expect me (or someone else) not to call you out on it. Shi*t doesnt smell good, and the sky is not green, regardless of someone's "opinion" to the contrary.
I know you realize that there have been many artists who, in life, and even sometime thereafter, had abysmal success in their careers. Yet time and perspective sometimes changes that and they become more revered than their contemporaries who might have been more successful at the time. Sometimes the world needs catching up or a good amount of time to pass to realize the actual impact of the work in question. I am not saying this will happen with Lennon, I'm just throwing it out there. Artistic success is very hard to measure until a real substantial amount of time has passed. I think longevity and the ability to touch generations far removed from the original work are more of a determiner of success than initial chart placings and album sales. This is just me thinking out loud. I'm not claiming I'm correct so I hope I don't get bashed or insulted by offering my thoughts.
When I suggested that I think part of the reason John retired in the 70's was because of Paul's success at the time, It was based on my interpretation of facts. This doesn't mean the opinion itself is fact, only that it's a hypothesis based on my interpretation of facts.
You are free to have an opinion that is contrary to facts, but don't expect me (or someone else) not to call you out on it. Shi*t doesnt smell good, and the sky is not green, regardless of someone's "opinion" to the contrary.
This is ridiculous. You are ridiculous.. Why do oyu continue to make your point? Why should I subject myself to such abuse like this from such an arrogant prick like you. If you know everything, based on fact of coarse, then why are you wasting your time with "know- nothings" like us with opinions not based on fact?
Why do you feel the need to rely back on obvious facts to make your point?
Oh, that this too, too solid flesh would melt... Zap! My skin's soaked right through to the skin! "The Beatles will exist without us"
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Andy Smith
Female
Male
Sandra
Logged
