What is the "Fleetwood Ma... HELLOO!!!!!

[Villavic]

It's funny (or maybe it's not) how threads detour in fights and the topic is completely forgotten, I posted my thoughts about the FM sound at Rumours forum, but later realized I was in the middle of trolls, answers, laughs, ironic phrases and lot of stuff I can't even remember.. What happened to the topic?? Is it permitted to still posting about it?? Do I have to open another thread?

Not only this thread, it happens lot of times, specially threads with more than 2 pages.. frankly my dears it's a waste of time.. cause I see they never have a conclusion or agreement.. It's a waste of time, and bits and bytes :angel:

[chiliD]

C'mon, gimme a break, Carlos. After all the years you've been here and you still can't understand that threads take on a life of their own? It's a fact of life of the online world of message board threads.

The real waste is your complaining about it. If you don't like the direction the thread, direct it back to your original topic.

[ryan8472]

I like mustard on my hotdogs. :nod:

[SortaSavageLike]

Really people, I wanna know what the Fleetwood Mac sound is! :mad:

[MacMan]

I don't complain about it cause it's just a fact here and other places and I can scroll through it - but it is abit annoying when there are pages and pages and a small fraction is only about the topic at hand. Like I said, not complaining, just acknowleging that fact. Plus, sometimes the threads turn into more interesting subjects anyway. But I see your point Vallavic.

[Johnny Stew]

I've never had a problem with threads veering off-topic... it can be rather enjoyable and enlightening sometimes.

But if you want to resume discussing the original thread topic, all you really have to do is say, "to get back on topic," and then add your thoughts. Most of the time the conversation will come back around, to one degree or another.

[DrummerDeanna]

It's needless to complain about it - because it will never change - I had to come to terms with this long long ago. There will always be someone hijacking threads - and well it has gotten worse in recent years, it did not used to be this bad...but that's just the way it is now :shrug:

btw, Villavic, this is totally off-topic :p BUT I LOVE your new avatar!!

[chiliD]

There is a very big difference between a thread being "hijacked" and one that just veers off topic naturally.

[seeker007nmss]

Who ever posts things off-topic? Does this really happen?

Baby polar bear:

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a88/Dreamtimezzz/tiguak.jpg

[Villavic]

If you don't like the direction the thread, direct it back to your original topic.

I know!!! And I did it!!! But.. nobody answered me... :( they continue fighting.. :shocked: ... Yes I will never know what the FM sound is.. or what they thought about my point :rolleyes: Well if I commit suicide today, blame on them :laugh: :laugh:

And yes, I know.. It's needless to complain about it cause it will never change

And yes, I changed my avatar, I'm in a Gone with the wind phase..

[David]

I know!!! And I did it!!! But.. nobody answered me... :( they continue fighting.. :shocked: ... Yes I will never know what the FM sound is.. or what they thought about my point :rolleyes:
It is my belief that the Fleetwood Mac "sound" is the sound they have when they play stuff. It's an interesting concatenation--or metaleptic conflation--of sounds that are pulled together to create a whole. Fleetwood Mac pieces have often been efficient at cohering. The question has always been, however, to what extent is the Fleetwood Mac "sound" recoverable from the pre-cohering phases of individuation. I believe there is something to that notion, but I am undecided as to its extent.

[shackin'up]

It is my belief that the Fleetwood Mac "sound" is the sound they have when they play stuff. It's an interesting concatenation--or metaleptic conflation--of sounds that are pulled together to create a whole. Fleetwood Mac pieces have often been efficient at cohering. The question has always been, however, to what extent is the Fleetwood Mac "sound" recoverable from the pre-cohering phases of individuation. I believe there is something to that notion, but I am undecided as to its extent.

Yeah....:lol:

[GODDESS6]

Who ever posts things off-topic? Does this really happen?

Baby polar bear:

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a88/Dreamtimezzz/tiguak.jpg

omg, how freaking cute!!!!!!!!!~

sorry, darn you seeker, your warm fuzziness made me take this off topic:wavey: :lol: :xoxo: ~

[skcin]

I know!!! And I did it!!! But.. nobody answered me... :( they continue fighting.. :shocked: ... Yes I will never know what the FM sound is.. or what they thought about my point :rolleyes: Well if I commit suicide today, blame on them :laugh: :laugh:

And yes, I know.. It's needless to complain about it cause it will never change

And yes, I changed my avatar, I'm in a Gone with the wind phase..

People are still answering your question - have you checked the thread lately? :shrug:

[seeker007nmss]

omg, how freaking cute!!!!!!!!!~

sorry, darn you seeker, your warm fuzziness made me take this off topic:wavey: :lol: :xoxo: ~


Here are some more Just for fun!

Baby polar bears:

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a88/Dreamtimezzz/42163_poster405.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a88/Dreamtimezzz/polarTN.jpg

[DrummerDeanna]

^^OMG!! Those are so cute it hurts.

[seeker007nmss]

^^OMG!! Those are so cute it hurts.


If they stayed small, they would be a fun pet! But... they grow to be kinda big.

III. Physical Characteristics.
A. Size.

1. Polar bears are the largest land carnivore.

2. Male polar bears (boars) grow two to three times the size of female polar bears (sows). Boars weigh about 350 to more than 650 kg (772-1,433 lb.) and are about 2.5 to 3 m (8.2-9.8 ft.) long (Stirling, 1988).

3. Sows weigh about 150 to 250 kg (331-551 lb.) and are about 2 to 2.5 m (6.6-8.2 ft.) long. Pregnant females can weigh as much as 500 kg (1,102 lb.) (Stirling, 1988).

4. The largest polar bear ever recorded was a male weighing 1,002 kg (2,209 lb.) and measuring 3.7 m (12 ft.) long (Domico, 1988). :eek: :shocked:

[David]

1. Polar bears are the largest land carnivore.
Wait a sec--------I thought the Kodiak bear was the largest?!

[seeker007nmss]

Wait a sec--------I thought the Kodiak bear was the largest?!


These "facts" came from ther San Diego Zoo. I thought the Kodiak bear was largest also. (Not to be confused with the Kodak Bear which just likes to take pictures).

[michelle2677]

If they stayed small, they would be a fun pet! But... they grow to be kinda big.

III. Physical Characteristics.
A. Size.

1. Polar bears are the largest land carnivore.

2. Male polar bears (boars) grow two to three times the size of female polar bears (sows). Boars weigh about 350 to more than 650 kg (772-1,433 lb.) and are about 2.5 to 3 m (8.2-9.8 ft.) long (Stirling, 1988).

3. Sows weigh about 150 to 250 kg (331-551 lb.) and are about 2 to 2.5 m (6.6-8.2 ft.) long. Pregnant females can weigh as much as 500 kg (1,102 lb.) (Stirling, 1988).

4. The largest polar bear ever recorded was a male weighing 1,002 kg (2,209 lb.) and measuring 3.7 m (12 ft.) long (Domico, 1988). :eek: :shocked:


not to mention that would rip your damn face off.