930 Forums

=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: RustyOrgan on July 18, 2007, 11:03:00 am

Title: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: RustyOrgan on July 18, 2007, 11:03:00 am
http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003613204 (http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003613204)
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: vansmack on July 18, 2007, 11:05:00 am
I think this board has started more threads on SP then the number of albums sold...
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: walkonby on July 18, 2007, 11:12:00 am
has anyone noticed that every single review of zeitgeist has been - this isn't really the pumpkins, the nineties are over, billy this and billy that . . . oh and yeah, there are some songs on here that we ran out of article space (after proving we know how to speak articulate) to review about.  the new album is excellent; maybe not a masterpiece, but hey, reviewers loved the new anvil listerine album.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: RustyOrgan on July 18, 2007, 11:24:00 am
I think the new record is pretty mediocre. Right up there with MACHINA...
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: bearman🐻 on July 18, 2007, 12:43:00 pm
Wow...and I thought Machine sucked bowling balls.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: sonickteam2 on July 18, 2007, 01:06:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by vansmack:
  I think this board has started more threads on SP then the number of albums sold...
it does need to stop.
 
 control yourselves people.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: RustyOrgan on July 18, 2007, 01:51:00 pm
I think all the SP threads are hilarious!
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: sonickteam2 on July 18, 2007, 02:01:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by RustyOrgan:
  I think all the SP threads are hilarious!
of course, cause you're fuckin starting them all, dipshit.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface on July 18, 2007, 03:12:00 pm
I'm a Pumpkins fan and even I find this ridiculous. Put it all in the one big Pumpkins thread. Geez people.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: Brian_Wallace on July 19, 2007, 09:04:00 am
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1565010/20070718/t_i_.jhtml (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1565010/20070718/t_i_.jhtml)
 
 144,800 copies sold.  30,000 behind the #1.  If only there had been a special Wal-Mart edition with an unreleased bonus track, a special Hot Topic edition with an unreleased bonus track and a special Amazon edition with an unreleased bonus track they may have been able to top T.I.
 
 Heck, Interpol sold 73,200 to come in at #4.
 
 You know what puts things into perspective?  The following:
 
 "in fact, Zeitgeist is the Pumpkins' worst performer, sales-wise, since 1993's Siamese Dream, which opened at #10 with 71,900 copies sold."
 
 Yes, that's right.  "Machina/The Machines of God" sold more than "Zeitgeist" did in it's first week of release.
 
 Brian
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: yinzer on July 19, 2007, 09:29:00 am
so i think the real question here is, just how good is T.I.'s "T.I. vs. T.I.P."?
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: TheDirector217 on July 19, 2007, 09:31:00 am
Quote
Originally posted by yinzer:
  so i think the real question here is, just how good is T.I.'s "T.I. vs. T.I.P."?
Damn good . . . . Think Jay-Z of The South with a thick ass Southern drawl.  Not quite as cerebral as Jay (who really is?) but witty rhymes, complex flows, & trunk-smashing beats.
 
 And it's far from T.I.'s best album.  I suggest you hop on that . . .
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: Frank Gallagher on July 19, 2007, 09:40:00 am
Just one spot ahead of Hannah Montana - Impressive list to be on I must say.   :roll:
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: yinzer on July 19, 2007, 09:41:00 am
buffalo tom's "three easy pieces" checks in at #40 on the billboard "heatseeker" chart.  quite a name for a chart.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: SalParadise on July 19, 2007, 10:30:00 am
Quote
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
 
Quote
[qb]   Not quite as cerebral as Jay (who really is?)   [/b]
aroo, shaggy?
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: Sage 703 on July 19, 2007, 11:22:00 am
Quote
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
  http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1565010/20070718/t_i_.jhtml (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1565010/20070718/t_i_.jhtml)
 
 144,800 copies sold.  30,000 behind the #1.  If only there had been a special Wal-Mart edition with an unreleased bonus track, a special Hot Topic edition with an unreleased bonus track and a special Amazon edition with an unreleased bonus track they may have been able to top T.I.
 
 Heck, Interpol sold 73,200 to come in at #4.
 
 You know what puts things into perspective?  The following:
 
 "in fact, Zeitgeist is the Pumpkins' worst performer, sales-wise, since 1993's Siamese Dream, which opened at #10 with 71,900 copies sold."
 
 Yes, that's right.  "Machina/The Machines of God" sold more than "Zeitgeist" did in it's first week of release.
 
 Brian
Before you make stupid points like this, compare record sales across the industry between 2006 and 2000, when Machina was released.  
 
 Figures won't be accurate for 2007 until the end of the year.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: RustyOrgan on July 19, 2007, 01:34:00 pm
I think T.I. and all that other rap / hip hop should go back to Africa. There haven't been any good rap releases since Tupac!
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: Frank Gallagher on July 19, 2007, 01:40:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by RustyOrgan:
  I think T.I. and all that other rap / hip hop should go back to Africa. There haven't been any good rap releases since Tupac!
dunno - emminem was pretty good.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: vansmack on July 19, 2007, 01:42:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by RustyOrgan:
  I think T.I. and all that other rap / hip hop should go back to Africa.  
Go away.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: bnyced0 on July 19, 2007, 02:11:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by RustyOrgan:
  I think T.I. and all that other rap / hip hop should go back to Africa. There haven't been any good rap releases since Tupac!
Excuse me? WTF?
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: vansmack on July 19, 2007, 02:14:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by bnyced0:
  Excuse me? WTF?
Don't bite.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: bnyced0 on July 19, 2007, 02:19:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by callat703:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
   http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1565010/20070718/t_i_.jhtml (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1565010/20070718/t_i_.jhtml)  
 
 144,800 copies sold.  30,000 behind the #1.  If only there had been a special Wal-Mart edition with an unreleased bonus track, a special Hot Topic edition with an unreleased bonus track and a special Amazon edition with an unreleased bonus track they may have been able to top T.I.
 
 Heck, Interpol sold 73,200 to come in at #4.
 
 You know what puts things into perspective?  The following:
 
 "in fact, Zeitgeist is the Pumpkins' worst performer, sales-wise, since 1993's Siamese Dream, which opened at #10 with 71,900 copies sold."
 
 Yes, that's right.  "Machina/The Machines of God" sold more than "Zeitgeist" did in it's first week of release.
 
 Brian
Before you make stupid points like this, compare record sales across the industry between 2006 and 2000, when Machina was released.  
 
 Figures won't be accurate for 2007 until the end of the year. [/b]
More important than the figures, are the facts, and he's just wrong.  The only pumpkin album that's done better than Zeitgeist in it's first week is MCIS which debuted No. 1 in 1995, the 145K sold last week ties the previously 2nd best opening week by a SP album which was Adore in 1998.  I swore I'd stay away from Pumpkin threads for awhile but you guys just keep sucking me in, geezus.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: TheDirector217 on July 19, 2007, 02:58:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by RustyOrgan:
  I think T.I. and all that other rap / hip hop should go back to Africa. There haven't been any good rap releases since Tupac!
You're a fuckin' waste of sperm.
 
 
 Plus you obviously don't get laid.  What's your purpose here????  
 
 Watch your mouth . . . . Now please go on with your otherwise meaningless life & keep your off-brand comments to yourself.
 
 And on top of that, hip-hop originated in The Bronx.  You worthless cuntmuscle . . .
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface on July 19, 2007, 03:36:00 pm
I don't like rap at all but the racist expression REALLY is not the way to make your point.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: Brian_Wallace on July 19, 2007, 03:45:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by bnyced0:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
    http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1565010/20070718/t_i_.jhtml (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1565010/20070718/t_i_.jhtml)  
 
 144,800 copies sold.  
 
 "in fact, Zeitgeist is the Pumpkins' worst performer, sales-wise, since 1993's Siamese Dream, which opened at #10 with 71,900 copies sold."
 Brian
More important than the figures, are the facts, and he's just wrong.  The only pumpkin album that's done better than Zeitgeist in it's first week is MCIS which debuted No. 1 in 1995, the 145K sold last week ties the previously 2nd best opening week by a SP album which was Adore in 1998.  [/b]
Now why would MTV lie about that?  Either you're wrong or MTV's wrong.
 
 Brian
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: bnyced0 on July 19, 2007, 04:10:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
       
Quote
Originally posted by bnyced0:
         
Quote
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
 Brian
More important than the figures, are the facts, and he's just wrong.  The only pumpkin album that's done better than Zeitgeist in it's first week is MCIS which debuted No. 1 in 1995, the 145K sold last week ties the previously 2nd best opening week by a SP album which was Adore in 1998.  [/b]
Now why would MTV lie about that?  Either you're wrong or MTV's wrong.
 
 Brian [/b]
Ummm, I'd put your money on me, MTV hasn't been relevant or "right" since Martha Quinn....is it still a lie if you're too stupid to know the truth?
 
 I'm not going to rehash the methodology, or get into a pissing contest over this but if you want to reassure yourself you can check out the RIAA databases and Billboard archives if you have access and free time on your hands, I'm sure an intern at MTV did a half assed job of it but what could you expect?
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: vansmack on July 19, 2007, 04:12:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
   What's your purpose here????
The days of internet provocation are long gone.  Don't bite when someone posts something out of their own boredom that is clearly provocative.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: TheDirector217 on July 19, 2007, 04:24:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by vansmack:
   
Quote
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
   What's your purpose here????
The days of internet provocation are long gone.  Don't bite when someone posts something out of their own boredom that is clearly provocative. [/b]
I feel you & all, but there's certain things I just will NOT let slide.  For lack of a more elequent phrasing, I simply don't play that shit.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: vansmack on July 19, 2007, 04:29:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
  I feel you & all, but there's certain things I just will NOT let slide.  For lack of a more elequent phrasing, I simply don't play that shit.
Here's the thing - if he's serious, you're not going to change his mind, even after 1000 posts on a message board.  If it's a provocation, which on this board it is 99.9% of the time when it comes to race, you're simply getting yourself riled up over nothing.
 
 You're better off taking the "Go Away" approach.  And with any luck they'll either stop, or just go away.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: TheDirector217 on July 19, 2007, 04:33:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by vansmack:
  Here's the thing - if it's true, you're not going to change his mind, even after 1000 posts on a message board.  If it's a provocation, which on this board it is 99.9% of the time when it comes to race, you're simply getting yourself riled up over nothing.
 
 You're better off taking the "Go Away" approach.  And with any luck they'll either stop, or just go away.
I could only wish.  But you're, as the hipsters say, spot on.   ;)  
 
 I've let it go.  Thanks for letting me vent on your leather couch.  Do you bill by the post or by the hour?   :p
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: vansmack on July 19, 2007, 04:42:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
  But you're, as the hipsters say, spot on.  
 
 ....
 
  Do you bill by the post or by the hour?    :p  
First, I don't know when "spot on" became a hipster thing - the English have been saying it for years.  You can't watch a football match without a commentator saying "the ref was spot on with that call"....but I digress.
 
 And that piece of advice is on the house.  I hope others in what someone, I think it was nkotb, called the "Freshman Class" of the board listen as well.  It's great having you all here and I really enjoy a lot of what you have to offer, and in time you'll do a better job of understanding when someone's taking the piss out of you because they're bored (or are simply trolling) and not take them seriously.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: godsshoeshine on July 19, 2007, 04:57:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by vansmack:
  taking the piss out of you because  
hey! that's british too
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: TheDirector217 on July 19, 2007, 04:57:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by vansmack:
   
Quote
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
  But you're, as the hipsters say, spot on.  
 
 ....
 
  Do you bill by the post or by the hour?      ;)
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: vansmack on July 19, 2007, 04:58:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
   
Quote
Originally posted by vansmack:
  taking the piss out of you because  
hey! that's british too [/b]
No.  That one's hipster.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: nkotb on July 19, 2007, 05:03:00 pm
You have to wait until a new surge of people start posting.  Seems like once a year or so we get a new group on here.  Don't rush it though; you're in good company!
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
 P.S. I've been here about a year now.  Am I gonna get promoted to sophomore class or what?   ;)  
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: Sage 703 on July 19, 2007, 05:07:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
   
Quote
Originally posted by bnyced0:
     
Quote
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
     http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1565010/20070718/t_i_.jhtml (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1565010/20070718/t_i_.jhtml)    
 
 144,800 copies sold.  
 
 "in fact, Zeitgeist is the Pumpkins' worst performer, sales-wise, since 1993's Siamese Dream, which opened at #10 with 71,900 copies sold."
 Brian
More important than the figures, are the facts, and he's just wrong.  The only pumpkin album that's done better than Zeitgeist in it's first week is MCIS which debuted No. 1 in 1995, the 145K sold last week ties the previously 2nd best opening week by a SP album which was Adore in 1998.  [/b]
Now why would MTV lie about that?  Either you're wrong or MTV's wrong.
 
 Brian [/b]
Regardless of this fact, compare the overall industry statistics between 2006 and 2000:
 
 
 Best selling record of 2006:
 
 Soundtrack, "High School Musical" - 3,719,071 units sold
 
 Tenth best selling record of 2000:
 
 Destiny's Child, "Writing's On The Wall" - 3,802,165 units sold
 
 So I wouldn't say that comparing sales in the era of the record industry's most significant decline is at all worth doing.
 
 And if you're curious?  The best selling record of 2000 was 'NSYNC with "No Strings Attached," with 9,936,104 units sold.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: miss pretentious on July 19, 2007, 05:11:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
 
 
 P.S. I've been here about a year now.  Am I gonna get promoted to sophomore class or what?   ;)  
it's ok... i think i'm like kid sister status.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: walkonby on July 19, 2007, 05:14:00 pm
"there's a guy yelling 'drum solo' and another yelling 'i love you jimmy.'  where's the guy yelling 'i love you jimmy?'  oh come on, where are you, nothing's bad 'gonna happen to you.  oh, there you are . . . jimmy says if you shut the fuck up, he'll give you twenty dollars."  - a quote from bill onstage at a cd live zwan show in chicago i just got.  nice.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: TheDirector217 on July 19, 2007, 05:15:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by miss pretentious:
   
Quote
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
 
 
 P.S. I've been here about a year now.  Am I gonna get promoted to sophomore class or what?    ;)  
it's ok... i think i'm like kid sister status. [/b]
From some of the posts I've seen from hot blooded boardies, I would beg to differ.  More like cyber eye candy.  Yeah.  That's it.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: vansmack on July 19, 2007, 05:22:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by miss pretentious:
  it's ok... i think i'm like kid sister status.
I would consider you an applicant, but head of the applicant pool as you seem to be handling the initiation process in stride...
 
 Of course this happens with a lot of the females on the board, then they simply drop out.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: miss pretentious on July 19, 2007, 05:25:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by vansmack:
   
Quote
Originally posted by miss pretentious:
  it's ok... i think i'm like kid sister status.
I would consider you an applicant, but head of the applicant pool as you seem to be handling the initiation process in stride...
 
 Of course this happens with a lot of the females on the board, then they simply drop out. [/b]
you should have seen the look on everyones face when i showed up at theboard meet-up post pumpkins. you'd think a female had never lasted on the board for more than a week or something.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: xneverwherex on July 19, 2007, 05:26:00 pm
*ahem* there are more than a few females on the board. i just dont think a bunch of us went to see the pumpkins. hey bags - i hear ill finally get to meet you at lolla. its about time!
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: vansmack on July 19, 2007, 05:28:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by miss pretentious:
  you should have seen the look on everyones face when i showed up at theboard meet-up post pumpkins. you'd think a female had never lasted on the board for more than a week or something.
Sweetie, you have a long way to go before you reach Jaguar status - she's like a faculty member around here.
 
 But yeah, we have a lot of research fellows (people who are really only here for the music) who are females, but rarely a female student who lasts through freshman year or so.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: vansmack on July 19, 2007, 05:29:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by xneverwherex:
  *ahem* there are more than a few females on the board.  
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you, lily and bags would be it in the last more than 2-3 years.  That's not a good number.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: nkotb on July 19, 2007, 05:31:00 pm
Bingo.  We had lulu for a bit, but she's since moved on.  And then there's BadSushi...*shudder*.
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by vansmack:
   
Quote
Originally posted by xneverwherex:
  *ahem* there are more than a few females on the board.  
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you, lily and bags would be it in the last more than 2-3 years.  That's not a good number. [/b]
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: xneverwherex on July 19, 2007, 05:35:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by vansmack:
   
Quote
Originally posted by xneverwherex:
  *ahem* there are more than a few females on the board.  
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you, lily and bags would be it in the last more than 2-3 years.  That's not a good number. [/b]
cant forget kurosawa either, but she may have been here for awhile. there is megs also. dont know when any of them have joined. there are possibly others who dont post regularly but are still around. just a feeling i have, but i didnt keep track of which women joined when.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: miss pretentious on July 19, 2007, 05:38:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by vansmack:
   
Quote
Originally posted by miss pretentious:
  you should have seen the look on everyones face when i showed up at theboard meet-up post pumpkins. you'd think a female had never lasted on the board for more than a week or something.
Sweetie, you have a long way to go before you reach Jaguar status - she's like a faculty member around here.
 
 But yeah, we have a lot of research fellows (people who are really only here for the music) who are females, but rarely a female student who lasts through freshman year or so. [/b]
well considering i've only even lived/been in the area for about a year. i'm ok with all this...
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: vansmack on July 19, 2007, 05:43:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by xneverwherex:
  cant forget kurosawa either, but she may have been here for awhile. there is megs also.
They are who I was referring to in my "research fellow" type - they really are only here for the music and rarely participate in the off-topic banter that this board, on occasion of course, can get into.  They are good for a drink/hanging out after the show though.
 
 I forgot about Random Citizen though.  I'm pretty sure that's a girl and I'm pretty sure she's been on the board for a while.
 
 And jadetree - if she ever comes back my world will be complete.  She was my first board love....
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: xneverwherex on July 19, 2007, 05:47:00 pm
yup youre mostly right. but some of them have 'real'   ;)   jobs... and cant post here. naturally working at a lawfirm gives me way too much free time.. figures.    :roll:
 
 and more importantly, they are great people to hang out with at/during the shows! (imo)
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: vansmack on July 19, 2007, 05:54:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by xneverwherex:
   but some of them have 'real'    ;)    jobs... and cant post here.  
It wasn't a knock at all.  Sometimes I wish I had their willpower.  
 
 I have considered asking employers to block the site just to see what I would do all day.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: xneverwherex on July 19, 2007, 06:01:00 pm
LOL - think youd be able to do it? yesterday i was so busy it was rather nice that i had no time to  refresh the screen. and i know it wasnt a knock, was just teasing (more like pointing out that we both waste too much time). ironically we're both in the same area of work.
 
 was talking to an assoc yesterday about what kind of work he was doing - and i rolled my eyes, and said a nice thank you that i wasnt a lawyer   :D   (dont worry i know they dont all do the same thing, but if i had his work id shoot myself)
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: vansmack on July 19, 2007, 06:16:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by xneverwherex:
  LOL - think youd be able to do it?  
I think the real question is, could you guys handle it?  I doubt you'd even notice....
 
 I actually do a good job of doing my work first, but, as you know, I work for a university and it's summer time - there is NOTHING going on right now!  Faculty and students are gone, and the staff is all on vacation.  All of my staff have families so I let them take their vacation first because their schedules are tougher to arrange.  Therefore, I'm sitting in my office with nobody in the suite and am basically here just in case something happens, with a few small tasks...it leaves a lot of time for me to use the board to pass time.
 
 As for the lawyer thing, I never regret getting the degree and I certainly never regret not working for a firm.  I could do without the debt, but the degree helped me get here so I'm ok with it.  I feel for those that regret the workload, but it's their life and they need to get control of it.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: walkonby on July 19, 2007, 06:19:00 pm
this question is off topic, but i didn't want to start a thread based just on it.  i bought a cd from someone off ebay who claimed it was sealed and brand new.  i got it; it is sealed and brand new looking, but there it is a cut in the plastic of the case's side.  what ever does that mean?  it is bad, such as it's not really a true release from the label, or is it just a harmless retailer's mark.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: miss pretentious on July 19, 2007, 06:27:00 pm
this is why i enjoy the freedom my job allows me. if i'm at my desk, i'm online and can easily check the board/best week ever/myspace/pop candy/whatever the hell else while i'm writing. it is a multi-tasker's heaven.
 
 the hours can suck, as i am about to head to a meeting right now. but meh...
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: xneverwherex on July 19, 2007, 06:35:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by walkonby:
  this question is off topic, but i didn't want to start a thread based just on it.  i bought a cd from someone off ebay who claimed it was sealed and brand new.  i got it; it is sealed and brand new looking, but there it is a cut in the plastic of the case's side.  what ever does that mean?  it is bad, such as it's not really a true release from the label, or is it just a harmless retailer's mark.
if i recall correctly, those are usually promo cds that are put out by the label, and usually arent supposed to be re-sold. i have a ton of them, but got them for insanely cheap ie $1 or so. a friend works in radio, and his company gets cds like that all the time. i often wondered how many times, the employees took a whole bunch of the cds they didnt like and re-sold them. he assured me that never happened  :)
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: vansmack on July 19, 2007, 06:36:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by walkonby:
  there it is a cut in the plastic of the case's side.  what ever does that mean?  
This may not be your case, but at Amoeba, they cut the case for CD's that they bought from customers that look new but that they purchased as used.  
 
 If you don't have the receipt when trying to get a cash/credit refund for a CD you claim is new, they will buy it back as used for less money, cut it so that it can't be sold as new (it would be fraud to sell as new), then put it in the used bins.  I buy a lot of these as they tend to be brand new CDs.  Think along the lines of junkees stealing CDs from retail outlets and trying to get cash - at least that's my guess for folks that do this in the Haight.
Title: Re: Smashing Pumpkins Debut At Number 2 On Billboard
Post by: SalParadise on July 19, 2007, 10:19:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
   
Quote
Originally posted by vansmack:
     
Quote
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
  But you're, as the hipsters say, spot on.  
 
 ....
 
  Do you bill by the post or by the hour?       :p    
First, I don't know when "spot on" became a hipster thing - the English have been saying it for years.  You can't watch a football match without a commentator saying "the ref was spot on with that call"....but I digress.
 
 And that piece of advice is on the house.  I hope others in what someone, I think it was nkotb, called the "Freshman Class" of the board listen as well.  It's great having you all here and I really enjoy a lot of what you have to offer, and in time you'll do a better job of understanding when someone's taking the piss out of you because they're bored (or are simply trolling) and not take them seriously. [/b]
I must say, I've THOROUGHLY enjoyed the posting storm that is vansmack.  [/b]
vansmack is for the children.
 
 just want to throw out, i'm kinda glad SP reunited if only for some of the entertaining reading on here as of late. between dude challenging other dude to a fight, the one girl putting other dude on blast.... good stuff.