Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 11:36 am
I knowAnDrOiD wrote:Popcorn by who you say? Who?
. . . and it wasn't even JMJ who wrote it. . . . and it wasn't even JMJ who wrote it.BlahBlahCafe - Jean-Michel Jarre forum
Jean-Michel Jarre discussion forum
https://zoolook.nl/forum/
The Youtube / Google Video Thread
Page 97 of 121
. . . and it wasn't even JMJ who wrote it.Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 12:11 pm
Or asking him to borrow dinner money and he gave it to him.Analog-Umph wrote:Possibly he made some kind of deal with that bald guy.Kanta wrote:it looks like JMJ is holding a roll of something in his fingers. Maybe, rolled up money.
His fingers look alright to me.
AnDrOiD wrote:Wow... it's some exciting 3 seconds.Kanta wrote:An exceptional video of Jean Michel:
, if you watch it on repeat it's longer. 
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:33 pm
The orchestra in this clip is special...
The requirements were:
Whatever instrument you were good at playing, you'd be given something you weren't good at...
No musical knowledge/skill required at all...
Voila...
I still have tears rolling down my face I laughed so much and so hard
The requirements were:
Whatever instrument you were good at playing, you'd be given something you weren't good at...
No musical knowledge/skill required at all...
Voila...
I still have tears rolling down my face I laughed so much and so hard
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 11:44 am
Another greeting from Jean Michel:
Oh my heart. 
Oh my heart.
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 12:32 pm
JFK, 9/11, Jack the Ripper, Princess Di, etc..... Where do I begin?Analog-Umph wrote:Can you start on conspiracy theorists?Phil J. wrote:Don't start me on conspiracy theorists
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:34 pm
Haha, he checks his shoes for dog shit.Kanta wrote:Another greeting from Jean Michel:
Oh my heart.
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:42 pm
. .. for me its the "it wasn't the Titanic that sank, but her identicle sister" . . . Grrrrrrrr. The time I have waisted trying to resolve that with theorists like that.Phil J. wrote:JFK, 9/11, Jack the Ripper, Princess Di, etc..... Where do I begin?Analog-Umph wrote:Can you start on conspiracy theorists?Phil J. wrote:Don't start me on conspiracy theorists
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:46 pm
Glad to see my jokes are being re-cycledAnDrOiD wrote:Haha, he checks his shoes for dog shit.Kanta wrote:Another greeting from Jean Michel:
Oh my heart.
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:01 pm
Mr Tung's grandchildren were the too.Kanta wrote:Another greeting from Jean Michel:
Oh my heart.
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 5:05 pm
That'll be part of the Tung DynestyVelodynamic wrote:Mr Tung's grandchildren were the too.Kanta wrote:Another greeting from Jean Michel:
Oh my heart.
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 7:27 pm
But that is too obvious. There has to be a complex reason.AnDrOiD wrote:Haha, he checks his shoes for dog shit.Kanta wrote:Another greeting from Jean Michel:
Oh my heart.
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:06 pm
I saw your comment in the ShoutBox after I wrote that.Jon wrote:Glad to see my jokes are being re-cycledAnDrOiD wrote:Haha, he checks his shoes for dog shit.Kanta wrote:Another greeting from Jean Michel:
Oh my heart.
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:38 pm
AnDrOiD wrote:I saw your comment in the ShoutBox after I wrote that.Jon wrote:Glad to see my jokes are being re-cycledAnDrOiD wrote: Haha, he checks his shoes for dog shit.
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 10:27 am
Hmm what do we get from discussing if his right, partly right or whatever?
I disagree with his statement. It's not about whether it's right or wrong... it's the way he say it. Look at the way it's written compared to the more objective point of view. What Jon wrote is a harmless way to describe it, besides sounding far more true. That's an explanation everybody can understand. The negative stuff like "he's not original or innovative anymore" sounds more like an opinion full of emotions.
There has already been said a lot of good things, so I won't lick any arses by repeating that
I disagree with his statement. It's not about whether it's right or wrong... it's the way he say it. Look at the way it's written compared to the more objective point of view. What Jon wrote is a harmless way to describe it, besides sounding far more true. That's an explanation everybody can understand. The negative stuff like "he's not original or innovative anymore" sounds more like an opinion full of emotions.
There has already been said a lot of good things, so I won't lick any arses by repeating that
Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:18 am
Well you know not everybody is politically correct. True he might be jealous and whatnot. But speaking the truth and saying someone isn't original anymore does in no way imply that the person speaking it is emotional. It's an opinion based on observation.Jakob BC wrote:The negative stuff like "he's not original or innovative anymore" sounds more like an opinion full of emotions.
The other point of course is that in non-English countries of the world it is much more acceptable to speak like this, because
A) It's normal (subtlety is something the English language is good at and something the English have developed very well) (therefore it's strongest in English countries & former colonies.)
B) there is a lot less PC in non-English European countries, people are not afraid to speak the bare truth.