The Big Four of Hollywood/Sleaze/Glam

Holy Crap - Chill out. It's a discussion not a comprehension exam.

Ironically funny that the topic hinges on a / slash / (Slash - geddit..?)

Good call upthread on Kix, that's a band I'd forgotten about. Spent a lot of time on Youtube listening to other people's picks and came across Bulletboys - another band I'd forgotten about...

Nomadic Drifter wrote:

Holy Crap - Chill out.  It's a discussion not a comprehension exam.

Ironically funny that the topic hinges on a / slash / (Slash - geddit..?)

Good call upthread on Kix, that's a band I'd forgotten about.  Spent a lot of time on Youtube listening to other people's picks and came across Bulletboys - another band I'd forgotten about...

Your em dash needs work.

Eyesore wrote:

I don't need to spin anything. How about this: "...three other bands that complement that era of rock/metal which evolved from the Hollywood - Sunset strip" follows The Big Four of Hollywood/Sleaze/Glam as a descriptive element, therefore it supersedes the thread title. We can argue all day about the title, but the description of what he is looking for is crystal clear.

I win. Suck it, loser.

So Ken here it goes, the topic sentence is as follows." So - the premise is that Guns and Roses bury the hatchet several years from now and are convinced to do a Big Four style Stadium Tour with three other bands that complement that era of rock/metal which evolved from the Hollywood - Sunset strip."

You have Guns N Roses, a Hollywood band. One specific reference to the thread title. Then you have Hollywood and Sunset strip which are two more specific references to a location, also in the thread title. Plus, "evolved" is a verb which denotes coming from. So coming from what ? That doesn't apply now does it, but coming from where does. If they had used "evolution" which is a noun, your position would be valid. Speaking of your position, it focuses on "supersedes" correct ? If that is the case how can two direct correlations to a specific location supplant an initial mention of the same exact place ? I'm just trying to have a simple debate and you resort to insults. Oh well.

My apologies to the person starting the thread for being an @$$ and correcting you for no other reason than to just correct you. Ken and I have been doing this for years, no big deal there.

James B. wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

I don't need to spin anything. How about this: "...three other bands that complement that era of rock/metal which evolved from the Hollywood - Sunset strip" follows The Big Four of Hollywood/Sleaze/Glam as a descriptive element, therefore it supersedes the thread title. We can argue all day about the title, but the description of what he is looking for is crystal clear.

I win. Suck it, loser.

So Ken here it goes, the topic sentence is as follows." So - the premise is that Guns and Roses bury the hatchet several years from now and are convinced to do a Big Four style Stadium Tour with three other bands that complement that era of rock/metal which evolved from the Hollywood - Sunset strip."

You have Guns N Roses, a Hollywood band.  One specific reference to the thread title.  Then you have Hollywood and Sunset strip which are two more specific references to a location, also in the thread title.   Plus, "evolved" is a verb which denotes coming from. So coming from what ? That doesn't apply now does it, but coming from where does.   If they had used "evolution" which is a noun, your position would be valid. Speaking of your position, it focuses on "supersedes" correct ?  If that is the case how can two direct correlations to a specific location supplant an initial mention of the same exact place ?  I'm just trying to have a simple debate and you resort to insults. Oh well.

My apologies to the person starting the thread for being an @$$ and correcting you for no other reason than to just correct you.  Ken and I have been doing this for years, no big deal there.

No, you're certainly not having a simple debate. You do this every time you misread something, you go on this long tirade about grammar and context, etc. It's lame, dude.

As for my "insult," it's clearly a joke. Look at my damn avatar! If I wanted to insult you, I'd opt for something a bit less silly.

It's very simple: you misread the post. Maybe it was confusing, but what he asked for in the body of the post is CRYSTAL CLEAR. You chose to ignore that, and then, instead of just saying "my bad" or moving along, you chose to put on your smarmy grammarian hat and...well, here we are.

"My Baaaaaadddddd"