 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Off Topic » Rolling Stone - irrelevant, or some sort of hyperirrelevant?
FuriousGiorge
Rolling Stone - irrelevant, or some sort of hyperirrelevant?
September 07, 2007 at 06:40PM View BBCode
[url=http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/09/04/the-twenty-five-greatest-songs-about-work/]This is a silly list filled with some good songs and some bad songs[/url]. I don't care about that. What I do care about is the fact that the people who made the list seemingly didn't actually bother to listen to the songs, considering a particular song on the list, in a very prominent position, by a well-respected artist, that doesn't belong within a million miles of a list of songs celebrating the working man.
Benne
September 07, 2007 at 06:56PM View BBCode
One of their recent magazines had friggin' Guns 'n' Roses on the cover. Rolling Stone has moved beyond irrelevant and become just pathetic now...
nbn_ckh3
Pure trash.
September 11, 2007 at 09:56AM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
Gayest magazine in the history of the world.
Pure trash.
sycophantman
September 11, 2007 at 10:26AM View BBCode
Gay is an appropriate term to use here, considering Jann Weiner has long wanted to have John Lennons babies.Pages: 1