Never Ending General Knowledge

LDS wrote:

Prop wrote:

LDS wrote:

Juddernaut88 wrote:Stone Roses

Stone roses were well before '93 and were already done and dusted by then

Except for the release of their 2nd album in 94 and their reunion in 2012.

That can't be right, their first album was about 88/89 and that was before their popular happy house stuff like Fools Gold and Adored. I'll look forward to googling them when this quiz is over. I thought they were well into their court case by 1993.

LDS wrote:The Verve

Iranu wrote:Could be Doves? Was Black and White Town on a FIFA game or am I making that up? Are they from the North West?

Prop wrote:

LDS wrote:

Prop wrote:

LDS wrote:

Juddernaut88 wrote:Stone Roses

Stone roses were well before '93 and were already done and dusted by then

Except for the release of their 2nd album in 94 and their reunion in 2012.

That can't be right, their first album was about 88/89 and that was before their popular happy house stuff like Fools Gold and Adored. I'll look forward to googling them when this quiz is over. I thought they were well into their court case by 1993.

It is right.

I Wanna Be Adored was the first track on the first album. Second Coming was released just before Christmas in 1994. I bought it.

Google away

LDS wrote:pedantics at work here, as expected (on both sides).

Prop wrote:

LDS wrote:pedantics at work here, as expected (on both sides).

I refute you saying I was at any point pedantic, LDS. I stated facts. I didn’t embellish any of those facts with pedantry.

In 1993, the Roses were deep in recording Second Coming, a hugely anticipated album that would go on to sell over a million copies and go platinum. They were every bit a tight team in 93, prolific in their work, and nowhere close to being finished.

The Silvertone wranglings are irrelevant. The slow split of the band, with Reni leaving in 1995 and Brown and Mani ruining what was left of them at Reading in 1996, was of course a long time after 1993.

Sometimes, you just have to accept when you got something wrong, and move on, instead of insinuating pedantry of somebody simply stating facts.

I won’t be called something I’m not.

LDS wrote:

Prop wrote:

LDS wrote:pedantics at work here, as expected (on both sides).

I refute you saying I was at any point pedantic, LDS. I stated facts. I didn’t embellish any of those facts with pedantry.

In 1993, the Roses were deep in recording Second Coming, a hugely anticipated album that would go on to sell over a million copies and go platinum. They were every bit a tight team in 93, prolific in their work, and nowhere close to being finished.

The Silvertone wranglings are irrelevant. The slow split of the band, with Reni leaving in 1995 and Brown and Mani ruining what was left of them at Reading in 1996, was of course a long time after 1993.

Sometimes, you just have to accept when you got something wrong, and move on, instead of insinuating pedantry of somebody simply stating facts.

I won’t be called something I’m not.

You saw fit to contrary my facts with your own facts, both of which signalled a desire to say whether they were "done and dusted" by 1993. From one perspective they were indeed done and dusted by 1993, by another they were still hoping not to be. Both positions are positions of pedantry...

HappyCamper wrote:the hives.

Prop wrote:

LDS wrote:

Prop wrote:

LDS wrote:pedantics at work here, as expected (on both sides).

I refute you saying I was at any point pedantic, LDS. I stated facts. I didn’t embellish any of those facts with pedantry.

In 1993, the Roses were deep in recording Second Coming, a hugely anticipated album that would go on to sell over a million copies and go platinum. They were every bit a tight team in 93, prolific in their work, and nowhere close to being finished.

The Silvertone wranglings are irrelevant. The slow split of the band, with Reni leaving in 1995 and Brown and Mani ruining what was left of them at Reading in 1996, was of course a long time after 1993.

Sometimes, you just have to accept when you got something wrong, and move on, instead of insinuating pedantry of somebody simply stating facts.

I won’t be called something I’m not.

You saw fit to contrary my facts with your own facts, both of which signalled a desire to say whether they were "done and dusted" by 1993. From one perspective they were indeed done and dusted by 1993, by another they were still hoping not to be. Both positions are positions of pedantry...

No. Your ‘facts’ were not facts. The only person erroneously claiming they were ‘done and dusted in 93’ is you. What I supplied were the facts. Not an opinion. Not something debatable. Just cold hard facts. That’s where the difference is. One of us was wrong, one of us was right. That’s not a difficult concept to understand.

I pointed out why you were wrong. That’s not pedantry. It’s not about ‘perspective’ either, because facts are the same wherever you view them from.

This is not one man’s opinion vs another man’s opinion. It’s not debatable. Facts are not debatable. This is black and white. There is no grey area for you to explore in the hope that you can somehow prove yourself right. You can’t do that. It’s impossible.

LDS, I know you hate being wrong, and you hate being called out for being wrong. But you shouldn’t be. Getting things wrong is part of the human condition. It’s normal. And it’s fine.

People would find you much more pleasant if for once you just swallowed your pride, held your hands up, and accepted you were wrong. I’d personally find you even more unbearable if you chose to drag this on. So, don’t do that. Don’t go there.

Let’s draw a line, and move on

LDS wrote:

Prop wrote:

LDS wrote:

Prop wrote:

LDS wrote:pedantics at work here, as expected (on both sides).

I refute you saying I was at any point pedantic, LDS. I stated facts. I didn’t embellish any of those facts with pedantry.

In 1993, the Roses were deep in recording Second Coming, a hugely anticipated album that would go on to sell over a million copies and go platinum. They were every bit a tight team in 93, prolific in their work, and nowhere close to being finished.

The Silvertone wranglings are irrelevant. The slow split of the band, with Reni leaving in 1995 and Brown and Mani ruining what was left of them at Reading in 1996, was of course a long time after 1993.

Sometimes, you just have to accept when you got something wrong, and move on, instead of insinuating pedantry of somebody simply stating facts.

I won’t be called something I’m not.

You saw fit to contrary my facts with your own facts, both of which signalled a desire to say whether they were "done and dusted" by 1993. From one perspective they were indeed done and dusted by 1993, by another they were still hoping not to be. Both positions are positions of pedantry...

No. Your ‘facts’ were not facts. The only person erroneously claiming they were ‘done and dusted in 93’ is you. What I supplied were the facts. Not an opinion. Not something debatable. Just cold hard facts. That’s where the difference is. One of us was wrong, one of us was right. That’s not a difficult concept to understand.

I pointed out why you were wrong. That’s not pedantry. It’s not about ‘perspective’ either, because facts are the same wherever you view them from.

This is not one man’s opinion vs another man’s opinion. It’s not debatable. Facts are not debatable. This is black and white. There is no grey area for you to explore in the hope that you can somehow prove yourself right. You can’t do that. It’s impossible.

LDS, I know you hate being wrong, and you hate being called out for being wrong. But you shouldn’t be. Getting things wrong is part of the human condition. It’s normal. And it’s fine.

People would find you much more pleasant if for once you just swallowed your pride, held your hands up, and accepted you were wrong. I’d personally find you even more unbearable if you chose to drag this on. So, don’t do that. Don’t go there.

Let’s draw a line, and move on

I could say exactly the same thing about you...

The only difference between us seems to be you think I don't like being wrong, which is, ironically, extremely easy to prove as wholly incorrect using many facts strewn about this forum.

The 'fact' of this matter is that you need to paint me a certain way because, in this instance, it hasn't all gone entirely your way...

LDS wrote:I could say exactly the same thing about you...

The only difference between us seems to be you think I don't like being wrong, which is, ironically, extremely easy to prove as wholly incorrect using many facts strewn about this forum.

The 'fact' of this matter is that you need to paint me a certain way because, in this instance, it hasn't all gone entirely your way...

Iranu wrote:

LDS wrote:I could say exactly the same thing about you...

The only difference between us seems to be you think I don't like being wrong, which is, ironically, extremely easy to prove as wholly incorrect using many facts strewn about this forum.

The 'fact' of this matter is that you need to paint me a certain way because, in this instance, it hasn't all gone entirely your way...

LDS wrote:For God's sake...

From MTV news 1996:

"But something went terribly wrong. The Roses took over five years to deliver a follow-up album, Second Coming. By 1995, it was too little too late. Newer, younger bands including Oasis and Blur stole their thunder. And in America, it was as if the group didn't even exist. Some months ago their guitarist and chief songwriter,
John Squire, left to form his own band. The group initially said they would carry on, and were expected to begin recording an album shortly. They turned in a disappointing set at the Reading Festival in August, and apparently the recent departure of bassist John "Mani" Mountford sealed their fate. They will be missed."

By the time they split they were already long-ago news, faded stars who'd had their day. Aside from name recognition it was as if they didn't exist anyway. It's commonly accepted musical historical fact that the court case ruined them, by taking up so much time during their fashionable peak which, by the time it was over, so were they. You can find loads of sources to concur with that narrative, because that's the commonly understood narrative.

Yes, they went on for a bit, thanks for pointing that out, but it doesn't disqualify the fact that they were already "Done and Dusted" in all but 'pedantry'.

Prop wrote:Ok.

HappyCamper wrote:the name urticaria, for a skin rash, is derived from the latin name of which plant native to europe; it is used for medicinal, textile, and culinary purposes?