Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #340301 > unrolled thread

[OT] RIP David Bowie ;(

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  [OT] RIP David Bowie ;( Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-01-11 09:35 +0100
    Re: [OT] RIP David Bowie ;( Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-11 05:44 -0500
    Re: [OT] RIP David Bowie ;( Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 03:47 -0800
    Re: [OT] RIP David Bowie ;( chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-11 07:29 -0600
      Re: [OT] RIP David Bowie ;( Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-11 14:44 +0000
      Re: [OT] RIP David Bowie ;( DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-11 11:34 -0500
        Re: [OT] RIP David Bowie ;( Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-11 13:04 -0500
    Re: [OT] RIP David Bowie ;( John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 05:58 -0800
    Re: [OT] RIP David Bowie ;( Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-11 10:20 -0500
    Re: [OT] RIP David Bowie ;( -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-01-11 07:30 -0800
      Re: [OT] RIP David Bowie ;( Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 10:11 -0800
        Re: [OT] RIP David Bowie ;( "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-11 19:49 -0500
          Re: [OT] RIP David Bowie ;( Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-01-12 14:58 +0000
            Re: [OT] RIP David Bowie ;( "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-12 17:01 -0500
              Re: [OT] RIP David Bowie ;( Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-01-13 13:24 +0000
                Re: [OT] RIP David Bowie ;( John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 07:20 -0800
          Re: [OT] RIP David Bowie ;( Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 09:02 -0800
      Re: [OT] RIP David Bowie ;( Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-01-11 23:51 +0000
    David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 05:09 -0800
      Re: David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-01-12 15:00 +0000
        Re: David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 07:20 -0800
          Re: David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 07:46 -0800
            Re: David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 09:04 -0800
        Re: David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 19:54 +0000
          Re: David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-12 17:42 -0500
            Re: David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-13 00:06 +0000
              Re: David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-12 19:25 -0500
              Re: David Bowie was good news and at best was good for perhaps one or two dozen songs DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-13 00:31 -0500
                Re: David Bowie was good news and at best was good for perhaps one or two dozen songs owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-13 06:14 +0000
                  Re: David Bowie was good news and at best was good for perhaps one or two dozen songs DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-13 12:24 -0500
                Re: David Bowie was good news and at best was good for perhaps one or two dozen songs Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-01-13 13:23 +0000
                  Re: David Bowie was good news and at best was good for perhaps one or two dozen songs chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-13 13:41 +0000
                    Re: David Bowie rocked. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-01-13 17:40 +0000
                      Re: David Bowie rocked. Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-13 20:25 +0100
                      Re: David Bowie rocked. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 13:49 -0800
      Re: David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-12 11:15 -0500
        Re: David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 09:44 -0800
      Re: David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-13 09:27 +0000
        Re: David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 04:56 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#340372 — Re: David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 10:03:21 AM UTC-5, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> John Gohde wrote:
> 
> > I listen to the 2003 60 Minutes interview, which was never broadcast. I
> > can see why that drivel was never put on the air. What a crock of
> > hogwash!
> > 
> > If you can get over the queer, makeup, and illegal drugs factor, which I
> > cannot, the guy shares a lot in common with Obama. Just like Obama,
> > Bowie could babble on all day long and say virtually nothing.
> > 
> > Listening to musicians talk is a lot like listening to athletes carry on
> > so. They all have a special knack for making any sane person want to
> > escape from their presence.
> > 
> > In short, David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one
> > or two songs.
> 
> Once you escape the confines of country and western music, John, you might 
> learn to appreciate Bowie. :-P


I can either take or leave music.  I find most songs totally nauseating, which probably explains why so many aspiring groups NEVER make it. Just because you can sing, don't mean that you can write music, nor if their version of a song is worth listening to.  Usually, it is not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#340376 — Re: David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 3:20:24 PM UTC, John Gohde wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 10:03:21 AM UTC-5, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> > John Gohde wrote:
> > 
> > > I listen to the 2003 60 Minutes interview, which was never broadcast. I
> > > can see why that drivel was never put on the air. What a crock of
> > > hogwash!
> > > 
> > > If you can get over the queer, makeup, and illegal drugs factor, which I
> > > cannot, the guy shares a lot in common with Obama. Just like Obama,
> > > Bowie could babble on all day long and say virtually nothing.
> > > 
> > > Listening to musicians talk is a lot like listening to athletes carry on
> > > so. They all have a special knack for making any sane person want to
> > > escape from their presence.
> > > 
> > > In short, David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one
> > > or two songs.
> > 
> > Once you escape the confines of country and western music, John, you might 
> > learn to appreciate Bowie. :-P
> 
> 
> I can either take or leave music.  I find most songs totally nauseating, which probably explains why so many aspiring groups NEVER make it. Just because you can sing, don't mean that you can write music, nor if their version of a song is worth listening to.  Usually, it is not.

Your taste is as awful as Snit's.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#340385 — Re: David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 8:47:05 AM UTC-7, Snit, forging Steve Carroll, wrote:

> Your taste is as awful as Snit's.

Hi, Snit! Another 'coming down off drugs' day?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#340400 — Re: David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:00:36 +0000, Tattoo Vampire wrote:

> Once you escape the confines of country and western music, John, you
> might learn to appreciate Bowie. :-P

Not everybody likes every musician. I honestly can't think of one Bowie 
song that I like. Choice is good in music as well as in Linux 
distributions.

-- 
Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#340414 — Re: David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs

On 2016-01-12 2:54 PM, ronb wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:00:36 +0000, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> 
>> Once you escape the confines of country and western music, John, you
>> might learn to appreciate Bowie. :-P
> 
> Not everybody likes every musician. I honestly can't think of one Bowie 
> song that I like. Choice is good in music as well as in Linux 
> distributions.

I don't know how anyone could not like Golden Years. However, I have to
say that I found Bowie's music to be pretty awful as well.

-- 
Slimer
EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW, Mozilla & PETA supporter
"Everything seems to work fine, except that occasionally everything
freezes." - Another one of GNU/Linux's many victims

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#340416 — Re: David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs

Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> On 2016-01-12 2:54 PM, ronb wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:00:36 +0000, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>> 
>>> Once you escape the confines of country and western music, John, you
>>> might learn to appreciate Bowie. :-P
>> 
>> Not everybody likes every musician. I honestly can't think of one Bowie 
>> song that I like. Choice is good in music as well as in Linux 
>> distributions.
> 
> I don't know how anyone could not like Golden Years. However, I have to
> say that I found Bowie's music to be pretty awful as well.
> 

Fame.  China Girl.  Space Oddity.
That's about it for me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#340417 — Re: David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs

On 2016-01-12 7:06 PM, owl wrote:
> Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>> On 2016-01-12 2:54 PM, ronb wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:00:36 +0000, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>>>
>>>> Once you escape the confines of country and western music, John, you
>>>> might learn to appreciate Bowie. :-P
>>>
>>> Not everybody likes every musician. I honestly can't think of one Bowie 
>>> song that I like. Choice is good in music as well as in Linux 
>>> distributions.
>>
>> I don't know how anyone could not like Golden Years. However, I have to
>> say that I found Bowie's music to be pretty awful as well.
>>
> 
> Fame.  China Girl.  Space Oddity.
> That's about it for me.

Yeah, I have to add Fame to my list. Other than that, I pretty much
hated him and thought that he was the creepiest-looking individual in
the world.


-- 
Slimer
EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW, Mozilla & PETA supporter
"Everything seems to work fine, except that occasionally everything
freezes." - Another one of GNU/Linux's many victims

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#340431 — Re: David Bowie was good news and at best was good for perhaps one or two dozen songs

On 1/12/2016 7:06 PM, owl wrote:
> Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>> On 2016-01-12 2:54 PM, ronb wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:00:36 +0000, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>>>
>>>> Once you escape the confines of country and western music, John, you
>>>> might learn to appreciate Bowie. :-P
>>>
>>> Not everybody likes every musician. I honestly can't think of one Bowie
>>> song that I like. Choice is good in music as well as in Linux
>>> distributions.
>>
>> I don't know how anyone could not like Golden Years. However, I have to
>> say that I found Bowie's music to be pretty awful as well.
>>
>
> Fame.  China Girl.  Space Oddity.
> That's about it for me.


Cat People (Putting Out Fire), Rebel Rebel, Suffragette City, Ziggy 
Stardust, Young Americans, Changes, Modern Love, All The Young Dudes, 
etc.  He put out a bunch of good tunes.

I'm sad he died - I thought he was the shit when I was in high school.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#340434 — Re: David Bowie was good news and at best was good for perhaps one or two dozen songs

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 1/12/2016 7:06 PM, owl wrote:
>> Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>> On 2016-01-12 2:54 PM, ronb wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:00:36 +0000, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Once you escape the confines of country and western music, John, you
>>>>> might learn to appreciate Bowie. :-P
>>>>
>>>> Not everybody likes every musician. I honestly can't think of one Bowie
>>>> song that I like. Choice is good in music as well as in Linux
>>>> distributions.
>>>
>>> I don't know how anyone could not like Golden Years. However, I have to
>>> say that I found Bowie's music to be pretty awful as well.
>>>
>>
>> Fame.  China Girl.  Space Oddity.
>> That's about it for me.
> 
> 
> Cat People (Putting Out Fire),

Yeah, forgot about that one.  That was a badass song.

> Rebel Rebel, Suffragette City, Ziggy 
> Stardust,

No care for.

> Young Americans,

Liked.

> Changes,

So so.

> Modern Love

Liked.

> All The Young Dudes, 

Thought that was Mott the hoople.

> etc.  He put out a bunch of good tunes.
> 
> I'm sad he died

Yeah.  Do you remember the Bing Crosby thing?

> - I thought he was the shit when I was in high school.
>

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#340468 — Re: David Bowie was good news and at best was good for perhaps one or two dozen songs

On 1/13/2016 1:14 AM, owl wrote:
> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 1/12/2016 7:06 PM, owl wrote:
>>> Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>>> On 2016-01-12 2:54 PM, ronb wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:00:36 +0000, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Once you escape the confines of country and western music, John, you
>>>>>> might learn to appreciate Bowie. :-P
>>>>>
>>>>> Not everybody likes every musician. I honestly can't think of one Bowie
>>>>> song that I like. Choice is good in music as well as in Linux
>>>>> distributions.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know how anyone could not like Golden Years. However, I have to
>>>> say that I found Bowie's music to be pretty awful as well.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Fame.  China Girl.  Space Oddity.
>>> That's about it for me.
>>
>>
>> Cat People (Putting Out Fire),
>
> Yeah, forgot about that one.  That was a badass song.
>
>> Rebel Rebel, Suffragette City, Ziggy Stardust,
>
> No care for.


You just need a fresh listen:

Rebel Rebel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U16Xg_rQZkA
Suffragette: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLnPd7lzT4g
Ziggy:       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXq5VvYAI1Q



>> Young Americans,
>
> Liked.
>
>> Changes,
>
> So so.
>
>> Modern Love
>
> Liked.
>
>> All The Young Dudes,
>
> Thought that was Mott the hoople.

It was a hit for Mott, but Bowie wrote it, produced it for Mott, and 
later performed and recorded it himself.


>> etc.  He put out a bunch of good tunes.

I forgot Under Pressure, which he co-wrote with Queen.



>> I'm sad he died
>
> Yeah.  Do you remember the Bing Crosby thing?

I do not.


>> - I thought he was the shit when I was in high school.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#340449 — Re: David Bowie was good news and at best was good for perhaps one or two dozen songs

DFS wrote:

> Cat People (Putting Out Fire), Rebel Rebel, Suffragette City, Ziggy
> Stardust, Young Americans, Changes, Modern Love, All The Young Dudes,
> etc.
>  He put out a bunch of good tunes.
> 
> I'm sad he died - I thought he was the shit when I was in high school.

It was rather amusing when he finally found success because suddenly EVERY 
British band was trying to cash in on the glam look. The image of Mick 
Jagger wearing lipstick and mascara still haunts me. And I will never 
forget seeing Uriah Heep on the Midnight Special; all dolled up like 
hookers. Jeez.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#340452 — Re: David Bowie was good news and at best was good for perhaps one or two dozen songs

Tattoo Vampire wrote:

> It was rather amusing when he finally found success because suddenly
> EVERY British band was trying to cash in on the glam look. The image of
> Mick Jagger wearing lipstick and mascara still haunts me.

Hehe.  I would not doubt that Mick and David were "friends with benefits."

-- 
"As I said before... it's all about choice as long as (FOSS advocates) 
are the ones making the choice."  -  trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel", lying 
shamelessly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#340473 — Re: David Bowie rocked.

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:41:29 +0000, chrisv wrote:

> Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> 
>> It was rather amusing when he finally found success because suddenly
>> EVERY British band was trying to cash in on the glam look. The image of
>> Mick Jagger wearing lipstick and mascara still haunts me.
> 
> Hehe.  I would not doubt that Mick and David were "friends with
> benefits."

What would prompt you to say that?

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G4jnaznUoQ

Family Guy once played this video in its entirety, followed by Peter 
saying "that actually happened, and we let it."

On the other hand, it was probably made just to make the straights 
uncomfortable.

Oblinux in sig.

-- 
 -v
Kernel:4.4.0-rc8-sd  Desktop:Xfce 4.12.2  Distro:Linux Mint 17.3 Rosa
ObLinux:

BASH-BUILTINS(7)Miscellaneous Information ManuaBASH-BUILTINS(7)

NAME
       bash-builtins - bash built-in commands, see bash(1)

SYNOPSIS
       bash  defines  the following built-in commands: :, ., [,
       alias, bg, bind,  break,  builtin,  case,  cd,  command,
       compgen,  complete,  continue,  declare,  dirs,  disown,
       echo, enable, eval, exec, exit, export, fc, fg, getopts,
       hash, help, history, if, jobs, kill, let, local, logout,
       popd, printf, pushd, pwd, read, readonly,  return,  set,
       shift,  shopt, source, suspend, test, times, trap, type,
       typeset, ulimit, umask,  unalias,  unset,  until,  wait,
       while.
 _ _ _ _ _ _ _

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#340511 — Re: David Bowie rocked.

"vallor" <vallor@cultnix.org> stopped eating long enough to post news:dfngh3F5gqqU2@mid.individual.net...
> 
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G4jnaznUoQ
> 
> Family Guy once played this video in its entirety, followed by Peter 
> saying "that actually happened, and we let it."
> 
> On the other hand, it was probably made just to make the straights 
> uncomfortable.
> 

congrats. you weight more than both those guys combined.

they dance better than you too. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#340528 — Re: David Bowie rocked.

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 10:40:55 AM UTC-7, vallor wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:41:29 +0000, chrisv wrote:
> 
> > Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> > 
> >> It was rather amusing when he finally found success because suddenly
> >> EVERY British band was trying to cash in on the glam look. The image of
> >> Mick Jagger wearing lipstick and mascara still haunts me.
> > 
> > Hehe.  I would not doubt that Mick and David were "friends with
> > benefits."
> 
> What would prompt you to say that?

Probably this:

--
Buckley writes, "If Ziggy confused both his creator and his audience, a big part of that confusion centred on the topic of sexuality."[219] Bowie declared himself gay in an interview with Michael Watts in 22 January 1972 issue of Melody Maker,[220] a move which coincided with the first shots in his campaign for stardom as Ziggy Stardust.[50] In a September 1976 interview with Playboy, Bowie said: "It's true--I am a bisexual. But I can't deny that I've used that fact very well. I suppose it's the best thing that ever happened to me."[221] According to Angie, Bowie had a relationship with Mick Jagger.[222][223]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bowie#Sexuality
--

Now, whether or not Angle knows or would be truthful about it...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#340382 — Re: David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs

On 1/12/2016 8:09 AM, John Gohde wrote:
> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:35:37 AM UTC-5, Melzzzzz wrote:
>> Sad day.
>
>
> Not really.
>
> I listen to the 2003 60 Minutes interview, which was never broadcast.
> I can see why that drivel was never put on the air. What a crock of
> hogwash!
>
> If you can get over the queer, makeup, and illegal drugs factor,
> which I cannot, the guy shares a lot in common with Obama. Just like
> Obama, Bowie could babble on all day long and say virtually nothing.
>
> Listening to musicians talk is a lot like listening to athletes carry
> on so. They all have a special knack for making any sane person want
> to escape from their presence.
>
> In short, David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps
> one or two songs.


GodHesAngry wakes up every day with a bad attitude about everything.

What's wrong - dog eat all your Dollar Tree bologna?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#340392 — Re: David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 11:16:08 AM UTC-5, DFS wrote:
> On 1/12/2016 8:09 AM, John Gohde wrote:
> > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:35:37 AM UTC-5, Melzzzzz wrote:
> >> Sad day.
> >
> >
> > Not really.
> >
> > I listen to the 2003 60 Minutes interview, which was never broadcast.
> > I can see why that drivel was never put on the air. What a crock of
> > hogwash!
> >
> > If you can get over the queer, makeup, and illegal drugs factor,
> > which I cannot, the guy shares a lot in common with Obama. Just like
> > Obama, Bowie could babble on all day long and say virtually nothing.
> >
> > Listening to musicians talk is a lot like listening to athletes carry
> > on so. They all have a special knack for making any sane person want
> > to escape from their presence.
> >
> > In short, David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps
> > one or two songs.
> 
> 
> GodHesAngry wakes up every day with a bad attitude about everything.
> 
> What's wrong - dog eat all your Dollar Tree bologna?


.Not really.

.I listen to the 2003 60 Minutes interview, which was never broadcast. I can see why that drivel was never put on the air. What a crock of hogwash!

.If you can get over the queer, makeup, and illegal drugs factor, which I cannot, the guy shares a lot in common with Obama. Just like Obama, Bowie could babble on all day long and say virtually nothing.

.Listening to musicians talk is a lot like listening to athletes carry on so. They all have a special knack for making any sane person want to escape from their presence.

.In short, David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#340440 — Re: David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs

On 12/01/2016 13:09, John Gohde wrote:
> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:35:37 AM UTC-5, Melzzzzz wrote:
>> Sad day.
>
>
> Not really.
>
> I listen to the 2003 60 Minutes interview, which was never broadcast. I can see why that drivel was never put on the air. What a crock of hogwash!
>
> If you can get over the queer, makeup, and illegal drugs factor, which I cannot, the guy shares a lot in common with Obama. Just like Obama, Bowie could babble on all day long and say virtually nothing.
>
> Listening to musicians talk is a lot like listening to athletes carry on so. They all have a special knack for making any sane person want to escape from their presence.
>
> In short, David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs.
>

We already know you are an idiot, you don't have to keep boasting and 
broadcasting the fact.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#340445 — Re: David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 4:27:21 AM UTC-5, Desk Rabbit wrote:
> On 12/01/2016 13:09, John Gohde wrote:
> > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:35:37 AM UTC-5, Melzzzzz wrote:
> >> Sad day.
> >
> >
> > Not really.
> >
> > I listen to the 2003 60 Minutes interview, which was never broadcast. I can see why that drivel was never put on the air. What a crock of hogwash!
> >
> > If you can get over the queer, makeup, and illegal drugs factor, which I cannot, the guy shares a lot in common with Obama. Just like Obama, Bowie could babble on all day long and say virtually nothing.
> >
> > Listening to musicians talk is a lot like listening to athletes carry on so. They all have a special knack for making any sane person want to escape from their presence.
> >
> > In short, David Bowie was bad news and at best was good for perhaps one or two songs.
> >
> 
> We already know you are an idiot, you don't have to keep boasting and 
> broadcasting the fact.

Try focusing this time. I am protected. Are you?

.Association between serum 25(OH) vitamin D, incident liver cancer and chronic liver disease mortality

.I told you so. :)

http://tinyurl.com/zw3vaqd

.Vitamin D protects against liver cancer in European study
http://news.emory.edu/stories/2014/06/vitamin_D_liver_cancer_europe/
."Vitamin D has been shown to play an important role in liver function. Now a new study in Western Europeans shows that vitamin D lowers the risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the main form of liver cancer."


.Then in another study ...
."a significant association between serum 25(OH) vitamin D concentrations and risk of liver cancer incidence was observed in the higher serum calcium subgroup ... "
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3790191/#__sec12title

.Calcium ions in the blood is a necessary cofactor of vitamin D. Of course, there are other cofactors, such as selenium.

.If the public ONLY had a brain.
-- 
.Je suis Moi, Ubuntu/Linux DE 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web