Posted: 16 Nov 2006, 00:32
Programming geek!Maisey wrote:Dude, those are some ++ungood vibes.
Programming geek!Maisey wrote:Dude, those are some ++ungood vibes.
When I was at college, circa 1990, I was given loads of Sisters bootlegs from fellow fans. Then I discovered the internetmh wrote:Negative waves man, negative waves!Ocean Moves wrote:all fool you then !RetroGoth wrote:Not bought a Sisters bootleg for 16 years!
seriously though - I'm embarissed by this release. skipping tracks,
band name and album name printed wrong...... its pathetic that they
can't even get these basic things right, when they know it's a band
who's audience care about this kind of stuff. and it's remastered?
is it really?? this record company is too lazy to get the same font on
the cd poster as is on ALL THREE of the cd's....you think they really pulled
the stops out to do a good job of the remaster? I don't think so.
it's a cheap, poor cash in. as for thinking it indicates a new release....
blissful thinking, but totally unfounded IMO.
I thought it was a 1984 reference...mh wrote:Programming geek!Maisey wrote:Dude, those are some ++ungood vibes.
RetroGoth wrote: I'd sooner smash his face in over the Planet X incident, as mentioned in one of my earlier posts.
Nope, that'd be 'ungood += 2', not 'pre-increment ungood'8.5 wrote:I thought it was a 1984 reference...mh wrote:Programming geek!Maisey wrote:Dude, those are some ++ungood vibes.
Big Brother is watching YOUMotz wrote:Nope, that'd be 'ungood += 2', not 'pre-increment ungood'8.5 wrote:I thought it was a 1984 reference...mh wrote: Programming geek!
In Soviet Russia you watch Big Brother!weebleswobble wrote:Big Brother is watching YOU
8.5 wrote:I thought it was a 1984 reference...mh wrote:Programming geek!Maisey wrote:Dude, those are some ++ungood vibes.