Author Topic: U2 is done  (Read 14593 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tumbling Dice

  • Drowning Man/Woman
  • ***
  • Posts: 22458
  • I won't pay the usual fee
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #210 on: December 06, 2012, 09:42:57 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
@bethere; do you EVER post about U2’s music or art on this forum, because I’ve scanned through your previous posts and didn’t see any?  So, are you just a fan of U2’s facts and figures, and music statistics generally, but not really interested in their music or live performances?  Do you ever actually listen to their music or feel an impulse to post about their art for a change?  I’ve never given much thought to how much wealth U2 had accumulated at various stages of their career, except that I always thought they were wealthy but only really started becoming mega-wealthy from about 2000 onwards.  You almost had me seeing $ signs when I thought of Red Hill Mining Town or their live performances of Exit, and I think that’s incredibly sad.  I will leave you to your facts, figures and factoids, and ‘knowledge’ of exactly when they became millionaires.

             Why do you engage in name calling and attacking of other people simply because they posts things you disagree with? Now you admit to reading every one of my posts in the forum and try to make some character sketch of myself based on that! Why? What does any of that have to do with any topic pertaining to U2?

Why do you misrepresent what I say?  I said that I'd "scanned through" your previous posts in order to get an idea of who I'm dealing with.  My opinion of you is that you're a know-it-all who is deluded because you don't, in fact, know it all but just think you do.


Offline Tumbling Dice

  • Drowning Man/Woman
  • ***
  • Posts: 22458
  • I won't pay the usual fee
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #211 on: December 06, 2012, 09:43:49 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I havent posted recently, mainly because the amount of knowledge and wit here is a bit overwhelming and intimidating...Not to insult anyone on their incredibly detailed and thought out posts, but it amazes me that something so dry and statistical as tour grosses, sales, blah blah could become fertile ground for such a pi**ing contest that is taking place on this thread.

        Did you forget about this thread?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I'm sure that was another proud moment for you.


Offline bethere

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1207
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #212 on: December 06, 2012, 09:52:04 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
@bethere; do you EVER post about U2’s music or art on this forum, because I’ve scanned through your previous posts and didn’t see any?  So, are you just a fan of U2’s facts and figures, and music statistics generally, but not really interested in their music or live performances?  Do you ever actually listen to their music or feel an impulse to post about their art for a change?  I’ve never given much thought to how much wealth U2 had accumulated at various stages of their career, except that I always thought they were wealthy but only really started becoming mega-wealthy from about 2000 onwards.  You almost had me seeing $ signs when I thought of Red Hill Mining Town or their live performances of Exit, and I think that’s incredibly sad.  I will leave you to your facts, figures and factoids, and ‘knowledge’ of exactly when they became millionaires.

             Why do you engage in name calling and attacking of other people simply because they posts things you disagree with? Now you admit to reading every one of my posts in the forum and try to make some character sketch of myself based on that! Why? What does any of that have to do with any topic pertaining to U2?

Why do you misrepresent what I say?  I said that I'd "scanned through" your previous posts in order to get an idea of who I'm dealing with.  My opinion of you is that you're a know-it-all who is deluded because you don't, in fact, know it all but just think you do.

         Wow, name calling, cyberstalking, and perhaps cyberbullying. Instead of engaging in that you could just discuss U2 and topics dealing with U2. Since your more interested in myself than U2, why don't you start a new thread called bethere!

Offline So Cruel

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2802
  • it ain't no sin to be glad that you're alive
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #213 on: December 06, 2012, 09:57:09 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
1. Well I have heard McGinness say different things as well. I've heard him same that the profits from merchandise were ahead of the profits from tickets. I have also heard him say that because they kept the ticket price low, despite it being the highest in the bands career to that point, that it only made small profits. That directly contradicts his statement above. Either way, neither statement provides any numbers.

Nice back tracking. A few posts ago you stated, in fact, you bolded "They NEVER stated that they did not make ANY profit from the sell of tickets." I showed clear evidence that McGuinness DID STATE that they didn't make any money from the Zoo TV tour and instead of admitting you were wrong you come back with " Well, I have heard McGuinness say different things..." Just admit you are wrong.

Quote
2. I provided actualy numbers, you didn't. No one else provided numbers. Those numbers were NOT speculation. Your questioning of the cost numbers IS SPECULATION!

Why do we need to provide numbers when we are the ones not stating how much profit U2 has made? You made the statements on U2's profits, not us. It is you that needs to back those up with facts. You provided numbers on tour grosses and day to day costs, but those are not profits. The profit numbers you came up with are pure SPECULATION!

Quote
3. I simply provided information. What did you did you do, you called me names. Why? Why would anyone engage in such behavior? Why would you attack another person for merely stating their case and defending it? What is wrong with that? Why does a person have to be called names and attacked simply because they actually used numbers and made an attempt to defend what they said?

Where have I called you names? Please show something in the last 3 pages where I am calling you names. I said you were a know it all about 5 pages ago and apologized for it. But every post you keep saying I am calling you names.

            You have engaged in name calling, and even made a post defending it as well as defending the behavior of other people engaged in the same behavior.

            Why do you continue to fail to acknowledge the fact that I stated my information for U2's totals were based on both facts and speculation? 10th time now that I have mentioned this yet no response from you at all.

            I did not see or recall McGuinness's statement in U2 By U2, and that statement contradicts several statements he has previously made about the tour. Your whole argument revolves around small sentences made by McGuinness at various times. It involves no data or numbers on anything. The statements contradict each other. Yet, you actually think I have to admit that I'm wrong about something because you found a sentence from McGuinness with no numbers that is in contradiction to other statements U2/McGuinness has made?!?!?

Quote
Why do we need to provide numbers when we are the ones not stating how much profit U2 has made? You made the statements on U2's profits, not us. It is you that needs to back those up with facts. You provided numbers on tour grosses and day to day costs, but those are not profits. The profit numbers you came up with are pure SPECULATION!

         If the numbers I came up with on U2's profit were pure SPECULATION as you now claim, what do you consider the the concert gross numbers and cost numbers to be? A profit figure that was based on pure speculation would not have actual concert grosses, album sales figures, and other factual data backing it up! Also, for the 11th time, I stated that the totals I came up with were based on factual data as well as things that were estimates and speculation, yet you continue to deny and not Acknowledge that fact!

          Its amazing the grief your willing to give someone because they defend a position and back it up with data. Should I bring up the thread where you engaged in this same type of behavior because I presented factual data about U2's album sales and concert gross and attendance which showed NLOTH and 360 to be a success well beyond that of POP and POPMART? I can't remember if it was name callling specifically, but there were a lot of clearly over the line personal comments in that thread as well, simply because I convincingly defended my point with REAL data.

Bethere, the reason we don't acknowledge that you used "facts and speculation" is that you try to use the end result of the speculation as fact. See your post 91 where you said "That proves that the money made by the time of 1988 was enough to a degree that they could live a VERY wealthy life style without ever having to record an album again." and "So, again, I'm correct in saying that the band had enough money by the end of the 1980s to go away and live a life of massive wealth and luxury." You arrived at a conclusion using some speculation but then told us "i'm correct" and "that proves".

In terms of Zoo TV's profits, like I said about 10x, we cannot know if it was profitable like you said without knowing all the numbers. We don't know how much promoters were paid, the taxes, and what the day to day costs entail. Knowing that I don't know all the costs, etc.. I will take McGuinness and the bands word for it that tour didn't make money.

In terms of the "grief" you've received, I really don't see it. I said you were a know it all about 10 pages ago and apologized. Since then I've just been questioning your posts. If you think that is "grief" or "name calling" then you need a thicker skin.

I am in agreement with TD, I'd rather listen to U2 and enjoy the music then to continue this thread; plus, I don't think it's going anywhere and I don't want you to feel bullied. Enjoy your day.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2012, 09:59:13 AM by So Cruel »

Offline Tumbling Dice

  • Drowning Man/Woman
  • ***
  • Posts: 22458
  • I won't pay the usual fee
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #214 on: December 06, 2012, 10:01:56 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
@bethere; do you EVER post about U2’s music or art on this forum, because I’ve scanned through your previous posts and didn’t see any?  So, are you just a fan of U2’s facts and figures, and music statistics generally, but not really interested in their music or live performances?  Do you ever actually listen to their music or feel an impulse to post about their art for a change?  I’ve never given much thought to how much wealth U2 had accumulated at various stages of their career, except that I always thought they were wealthy but only really started becoming mega-wealthy from about 2000 onwards.  You almost had me seeing $ signs when I thought of Red Hill Mining Town or their live performances of Exit, and I think that’s incredibly sad.  I will leave you to your facts, figures and factoids, and ‘knowledge’ of exactly when they became millionaires.

             Why do you engage in name calling and attacking of other people simply because they posts things you disagree with? Now you admit to reading every one of my posts in the forum and try to make some character sketch of myself based on that! Why? What does any of that have to do with any topic pertaining to U2?

Why do you misrepresent what I say?  I said that I'd "scanned through" your previous posts in order to get an idea of who I'm dealing with.  My opinion of you is that you're a know-it-all who is deluded because you don't, in fact, know it all but just think you do.

         Wow, name calling, cyberstalking, and perhaps cyberbullying.

A load of crap.

Quote
Instead of engaging in that you could just discuss U2 and topics dealing with U2.

That's what this thread is about.

Quote
Since your more interested in myself than U2, why don't you start a new thread called bethere!

Don't flatter yourself.  You're of absolutely no consequence to me. 

And for future info, we can all read sentences so you have no need to highlight your own posts.  Unless, of course, you're an attention seeker.

Offline Tumbling Dice

  • Drowning Man/Woman
  • ***
  • Posts: 22458
  • I won't pay the usual fee
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #215 on: December 06, 2012, 10:04:42 AM »
Oh and by the way, I forgot all about the sales of R&H in guesstimating U2’s wealth by 1988.  Since that album sold about 14 Million copies, I’m sure that brought in substantial royalties for the band.  Once again, we don’t know for sure what U2’s royalty rate was, what the total production costs were, or how much tax they were paying on their income at the time.  All factors which can have a significant affect on their wealth.

Offline Joe90usa

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 7555
  • Dragons Rule!
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #216 on: December 06, 2012, 11:11:04 AM »
I'm hoping we can move forward in this thread or it dies a natural death.

Soon would be good.

Offline Bonostwin27

  • Wanderer
  • *
  • Posts: 92
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #217 on: December 06, 2012, 01:47:41 PM »
Really? I think you guys should have a sit down and hash these important issues out. There is alot going on in the world, but this issue should be number 1.  I eagerly await a happy resolution to this U2 fiscal cliff of 88.

Offline So Cruel

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2802
  • it ain't no sin to be glad that you're alive
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #218 on: December 06, 2012, 02:12:03 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Really? I think you guys should have a sit down and hash these important issues out. There is alot going on in the world, but this issue should be number 1.  I eagerly await a happy resolution to this U2 fiscal cliff of 88.

Best post of this thread!

Offline bethere

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1207
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #219 on: December 06, 2012, 04:42:14 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
@bethere; do you EVER post about U2’s music or art on this forum, because I’ve scanned through your previous posts and didn’t see any?  So, are you just a fan of U2’s facts and figures, and music statistics generally, but not really interested in their music or live performances?  Do you ever actually listen to their music or feel an impulse to post about their art for a change?  I’ve never given much thought to how much wealth U2 had accumulated at various stages of their career, except that I always thought they were wealthy but only really started becoming mega-wealthy from about 2000 onwards.  You almost had me seeing $ signs when I thought of Red Hill Mining Town or their live performances of Exit, and I think that’s incredibly sad.  I will leave you to your facts, figures and factoids, and ‘knowledge’ of exactly when they became millionaires.

             Why do you engage in name calling and attacking of other people simply because they posts things you disagree with? Now you admit to reading every one of my posts in the forum and try to make some character sketch of myself based on that! Why? What does any of that have to do with any topic pertaining to U2?

Why do you misrepresent what I say?  I said that I'd "scanned through" your previous posts in order to get an idea of who I'm dealing with.  My opinion of you is that you're a know-it-all who is deluded because you don't, in fact, know it all but just think you do.

         Wow, name calling, cyberstalking, and perhaps cyberbullying.

A load of crap.

         Really, you didn't call anyone any names, or spend time talking about THEM, making negative comments about THEM, as opposed to discussing U2?

Quote
That's what this thread is about.

            You've been far more interested in me though than U2 for several pages now.

Quote
Don't flatter yourself.  You're of absolutely no consequence to me.

          Then why do you spend so much time talking about ME instead of U2?

Quote
And for future info, we can all read sentences so you have no need to highlight your own posts.  Unless, of course, you're an attention seeker.

              I wish that was the case, because then I wouldn't have to keep reminding you and others that my totals for U2 in 1988 were based on both fact and speculation!

Offline JTBaby

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4325
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #220 on: December 06, 2012, 04:46:49 PM »
If I wasn't on my phone this would THE perfect time for the Picard double face palm poster.


Offline Bonostwin27

  • Wanderer
  • *
  • Posts: 92
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #221 on: December 06, 2012, 05:00:33 PM »
I wander how much coldplay made on their last tour....? Im only kidding no one cares.

Offline bethere

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1207
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #222 on: December 06, 2012, 05:02:00 PM »
.

                   
« Last Edit: December 06, 2012, 05:05:26 PM by bethere »

Offline JTBaby

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4325
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #223 on: December 06, 2012, 05:04:39 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I wander how much coldplay made on their last tour....? Im only kidding no one cares.

Enough to retire on I'm sure !!


Offline bethere

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1207
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #224 on: December 06, 2012, 05:04:58 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
1. Well I have heard McGinness say different things as well. I've heard him same that the profits from merchandise were ahead of the profits from tickets. I have also heard him say that because they kept the ticket price low, despite it being the highest in the bands career to that point, that it only made small profits. That directly contradicts his statement above. Either way, neither statement provides any numbers.

Nice back tracking. A few posts ago you stated, in fact, you bolded "They NEVER stated that they did not make ANY profit from the sell of tickets." I showed clear evidence that McGuinness DID STATE that they didn't make any money from the Zoo TV tour and instead of admitting you were wrong you come back with " Well, I have heard McGuinness say different things..." Just admit you are wrong.

Quote
2. I provided actualy numbers, you didn't. No one else provided numbers. Those numbers were NOT speculation. Your questioning of the cost numbers IS SPECULATION!

Why do we need to provide numbers when we are the ones not stating how much profit U2 has made? You made the statements on U2's profits, not us. It is you that needs to back those up with facts. You provided numbers on tour grosses and day to day costs, but those are not profits. The profit numbers you came up with are pure SPECULATION!

Quote
3. I simply provided information. What did you did you do, you called me names. Why? Why would anyone engage in such behavior? Why would you attack another person for merely stating their case and defending it? What is wrong with that? Why does a person have to be called names and attacked simply because they actually used numbers and made an attempt to defend what they said?

Where have I called you names? Please show something in the last 3 pages where I am calling you names. I said you were a know it all about 5 pages ago and apologized for it. But every post you keep saying I am calling you names.

            You have engaged in name calling, and even made a post defending it as well as defending the behavior of other people engaged in the same behavior.

            Why do you continue to fail to acknowledge the fact that I stated my information for U2's totals were based on both facts and speculation? 10th time now that I have mentioned this yet no response from you at all.

            I did not see or recall McGuinness's statement in U2 By U2, and that statement contradicts several statements he has previously made about the tour. Your whole argument revolves around small sentences made by McGuinness at various times. It involves no data or numbers on anything. The statements contradict each other. Yet, you actually think I have to admit that I'm wrong about something because you found a sentence from McGuinness with no numbers that is in contradiction to other statements U2/McGuinness has made?!?!?

Quote
Why do we need to provide numbers when we are the ones not stating how much profit U2 has made? You made the statements on U2's profits, not us. It is you that needs to back those up with facts. You provided numbers on tour grosses and day to day costs, but those are not profits. The profit numbers you came up with are pure SPECULATION!

         If the numbers I came up with on U2's profit were pure SPECULATION as you now claim, what do you consider the the concert gross numbers and cost numbers to be? A profit figure that was based on pure speculation would not have actual concert grosses, album sales figures, and other factual data backing it up! Also, for the 11th time, I stated that the totals I came up with were based on factual data as well as things that were estimates and speculation, yet you continue to deny and not Acknowledge that fact!

          Its amazing the grief your willing to give someone because they defend a position and back it up with data. Should I bring up the thread where you engaged in this same type of behavior because I presented factual data about U2's album sales and concert gross and attendance which showed NLOTH and 360 to be a success well beyond that of POP and POPMART? I can't remember if it was name callling specifically, but there were a lot of clearly over the line personal comments in that thread as well, simply because I convincingly defended my point with REAL data.

Bethere, the reason we don't acknowledge that you used "facts and speculation" is that you try to use the end result of the speculation as fact. See your post 91 where you said "That proves that the money made by the time of 1988 was enough to a degree that they could live a VERY wealthy life style without ever having to record an album again." and "So, again, I'm correct in saying that the band had enough money by the end of the 1980s to go away and live a life of massive wealth and luxury." You arrived at a conclusion using some speculation but then told us "i'm correct" and "that proves".

In terms of Zoo TV's profits, like I said about 10x, we cannot know if it was profitable like you said without knowing all the numbers. We don't know how much promoters were paid, the taxes, and what the day to day costs entail. Knowing that I don't know all the costs, etc.. I will take McGuinness and the bands word for it that tour didn't make money.

In terms of the "grief" you've received, I really don't see it. I said you were a know it all about 10 pages ago and apologized. Since then I've just been questioning your posts. If you think that is "grief" or "name calling" then you need a thicker skin.

I am in agreement with TD, I'd rather listen to U2 and enjoy the music then to continue this thread; plus, I don't think it's going anywhere and I don't want you to feel bullied. Enjoy your day.

 I have an opinion. I think I'm right. There is nothing wrong with that. I don't deserve to be called names because of that. I think I'm right about the issue based on the facts, estimates, and speculation that I presented. I have seen what you had to say and don't think its accurate at all. There is nothing wrong with saying that. There is something wrong though when you continue to attack and name call another person. There is another thread where you engaged in similar behavior. Its one thing to present opposing views on a topic, is another when you name call and begin to talk about another poster rather than the topic. Again, this is not the first thread where this has happened.

Quote
In terms of Zoo TV's profits, like I said about 10x, we cannot know if it was profitable like you said without knowing all the numbers. We don't know how much promoters were paid, the taxes, and what the day to day costs entail. Knowing that I don't know all the costs, etc.. I will take McGuinness and the bands word for it that tour didn't make money.

          1. There is no reason to suspect that we do not have all the cost numbers at all. The cost of each of the tours since ZOO TV has been reported as well as the gross.

     2. Your one statement by McGuinness contradicts multiple other statements he has made in the past. None of the statements had any numbers attached to them either. Ultimately, that makes them irrelevant. The hard numbers of gross and cost are known, and thats really all that is needed.

Quote
In terms of the "grief" you've received, I really don't see it. I said you were a know it all about 10 pages ago and apologized. Since then I've just been questioning your posts. If you think that is "grief" or "name calling" then you need a thicker skin.

               It is clear in both this thread and the thread from August that you gradually turn away from the U2 topic and start talking about ME as opposed to U2. Again, why call someone a name? Why would you do that?