babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Rolling Stones INC.

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Rolling Stones INC.
Ed Weatherbee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2844

posted 18 October 2002 12:49 AM      Profile for Ed Weatherbee        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Interesting take on the Stones financial empire in Fortune.

http://www.fortune.com/indext.jhtml?channel=print_article.jhtml&doc_id=209509

...Tell me what can a poor boy do 'Cept for sing for a rock 'n' roll band...


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 18 October 2002 01:48 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Clearly, the are men of wealth and fame. Have some courtesy and some taste, Ed.
From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ed Weatherbee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2844

posted 18 October 2002 11:49 AM      Profile for Ed Weatherbee        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Courtesy and taste for who? You? Mick and Keith?
From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 18 October 2002 11:52 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They say Mick has the first dime he made. The Beatles, who had a crappy deal, were constantly amazed at home much dough the Stones raked in.

Personally, I think Mick is a phony. I get the feeling that with Keith it's been more about the music.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 18 October 2002 12:07 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm still intrigued by the old rumour that Mick "LSE" Jagger deliberately took his accent down-market in order to sound tougher and working-classier.

Hell with it, they were still great. (As Lester Bangs said, all the great rockers were/are fakes in one way or another). I still think they peaked with "Exile on Main Street" though.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 October 2002 01:07 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Summer of '67, Flowers, ahhhh ...

Sorry -- drifting there. Maybe you had to be a gril ...


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
NP
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 226

posted 18 October 2002 02:45 PM      Profile for NP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Beatles may have been more influential with their style and their #1 hits, but the Stones were a vastly superior rock and roll group.

When I bought Exile on Main Street a couple of years ago, I was only doing so to see if it really sounded anything like Liz Phair's Exile In Guyville (another OUTSTANDING album btw). I ended up getting hooked on them in the process. As a band they were unmatchable in the early 1970s.


From: The city that rhymes with fun | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 18 October 2002 02:49 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And as a band, the Beatles were unsurpassed throughout the 60's. But Clapton is god. And Superman is better than Spiderman.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 18 October 2002 02:54 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No. No. No. The Beatles could rock with the Stones. Their image was cleaned up by Brian Epstein. Even the Stones admitted that the Liverpudlians could kick their London asses.

That's not to take anything away from the Stones' 1968-1972, Beggar's Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street period. They were a great band in those days. And don't forget Get Your Ya Yas Out. One of the best live records ever.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 18 October 2002 03:24 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The early Beatles were relatively easy to clean up because they could already play a wide variety of sophisticated styles - country, rock n roll, r&b, rockabilly, broadway show tunes, you name it really - very well. Boot camp in Hamburg.

The Stones, on the other hand... well they weren't the greatest of players back then, to put it politely. Try getting through "Got Live If You Want It" from 66 if you don't believe me. Or compare their version of I Wanna Be Your Man with the Beatles version. It wasn't until Beggars Banquet that they came into their own.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 18 October 2002 03:38 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Beatles may have been more influential with their style and their #1 hits, but the Stones were a vastly superior rock and roll group.

I love the Stones, but a vastly superior group? I don't think so. They've had the same basic niche and done well at it. That's a long way from the variety of writing that the Beatles have done together and apart.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
NP
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 226

posted 18 October 2002 04:20 PM      Profile for NP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey hey hey, note I never said that the Stones were a better group over all, but a better "Rock and Roll group". It's undeniable IMHO. I never said that the Stones were creatively superior, just that they understood what Rock was about.

First off, during the late 60s and early seventies, the Stones' rythym section was far superior to that of the Beatles. Charlie Watts was by far and away a better drummer than Ringo, hands down. Mick Taylor and Keith Richards, whilst not as artistically gifted as George and John, were far better Blues/Rock players. Compare Exile to any Beatles album. The blues/country/rock riffs Mick and Keith pulled off were vastly better than anything the Beatles put together for that genre.


From: The city that rhymes with fun | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 18 October 2002 04:24 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why is it whenever you guys get together, ya gotta compare the size of your ... er ... rock band?

And maybe Superman is better than Spiderman, but Wonder Woman leaves 'em both in the dust.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 18 October 2002 04:26 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But its kind of an apples and oranges thing. The Beatles broke up just as that genre was taking off. But its true, the Beatles never did the "deep" blues that the Stones did.

And McCartney has always been a fine bass player!


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 18 October 2002 04:27 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wonder Woman.... feh.... a skimpy costume and some groovy bullet-stopping wrist bands.
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 18 October 2002 04:42 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But paxamillion, you say that as if those were negative things.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 18 October 2002 04:52 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wonder Woman.... feh.... a skimpy costume and some groovy bullet-stopping wrist bands
Don't forget her golden lasso...nobody can tell me those bad guys didn't dig being tied up by her.

From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 18 October 2002 04:57 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, but this kind of weakens the argument for her super-powers, Rebecca. If they went along willingly, as I, er, might have myself...
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 18 October 2002 05:09 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ringo's left-handed "funny little fills" changed the face of not just rock drumming, but pop drumming in general. The way his drums sounded, the way they were miced, mixed, played and above all conceived is basically the template for drumming ever since.

I love Charlie. He has some serious tempo problems though. His drumming on "Can't Alway Get What You Want' is truly inspired.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 18 October 2002 05:12 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, so what do you make of say Keith Moon's drumming? I was a big fan of the Who, once upon a time, and still think they were originators in their way.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 18 October 2002 05:16 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Biggest rock band. BTO, hands down.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 18 October 2002 05:22 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
O well, if we're getting right down to good ol' Canadian hamburger-rock... no-one could hold a candle to TROOPER!!
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 18 October 2002 05:36 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
IMO, Keith Moon was an idiot savant. I say this with the utmost respect. I was a HUGE Who fan. Still am, I suppose, but not like in my teen years. He really had no idea what he was doing, he just flailed with utter glorious abandon. You can kinda tell, because the older he got, the more technique he picked up and the less interesting his drumming became. His playing on Who Are You is really pretty dull, hammering away on the high-hat like a crazed woodpecker and thumpa thumping away on all those floor toms like he does. In the early days, he rarely even touched his high-hat, which is kinda stunning for most drummers to contemplate. Tommy is one of the oddest, most remarkable drumming performances ever recorded.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 18 October 2002 07:26 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But paxamillion, you say that as if those were negative things.

Not in and of themselves, no. And I forgot about that lasso.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
NP
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 226

posted 18 October 2002 08:02 PM      Profile for NP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When talking about Charlie Watts one has to remember that he was a trained jazz drummer before coming to the stones.

As for Ringo, when you have that Martin fellow mixing and mastering the album, it will always sound good. Granted, the fills in a Day in the Life are kinda cool.


From: The city that rhymes with fun | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 18 October 2002 08:17 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
He really had no idea what he was doing, he just flailed with utter glorious abandon.

I agree -- and he apparently applied this approach to the rest of his life, too.

Part of the rock 'n' roll mythology, innit? You don't need technique, just heart 'n' soul.

Of course, in most cases this is rubbish. But not in all cases.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 18 October 2002 09:33 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Trooper? ... Trooper? No way man, Goddo ruled 70s Can-rock.

Hell, I'm a better drummer than Ringo. Agree about Keith Moon. Dated a drummer once - heavy on the idiot, not much of a savant, hyperactive and pathologically unfaithful.

I want a lasso, just like Wonder Woman's. But made of leather. To match my cuffs of course.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 18 October 2002 09:39 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Trooper? ... Trooper? No way man, Goddo ruled 70s Can-rock.

Goddo, hell.

April Wine!

Crowbar!

Frank Marino and Mahogany Rush!

Ooh man, now I'm just scaring myself...


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 18 October 2002 11:10 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mahogany Rush? Eeeeeeeeeew. Now you're scaring me!
From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 18 October 2002 11:29 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Chilliwack! Prism! Five Man Electrical Band! Edward Bear! A Foot in Cold Water! Metagenesis! (Yes, that was their real name; but they were strictly a Lower Ottawa Valley phenom, y'dig).

Man, I gotta million of 'em. At this point I'd give a great deal to still have those old Canuck K-tel collections I used to have, Canada Gold (ca. 1976?) and Canadian Mint (radiocarbon-dated to around 1974). In those early days, it was still touch and go as to whether CanCon regulations were a good idea or a very very bad one.

quote:
I want a lasso, just like Wonder Woman's. But made of leather. To match my cuffs of course.

Rebecca West, have you met my good friend scrabble? scrabble, may I present Rebecca West. I'll, ah, leave you two grils to chat. I feel certain you have a lot in common.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 19 October 2002 02:12 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ed, Ed, Ed, I paraphrased from "Sympathy for the Devil", one of the Stones better known tunes.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 19 October 2002 09:59 AM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
'lance, your memory for 70s Canadian rock is indeed impressive, if not vaguely horrifying. In fact, I had successfully managed to repress all reference to bands like Prism and Chilliwack ...

*puts fingers in ears and drones 'lalalalalalala I can't hear them*

I bought one k-tel album in '73 or '74. Featured The Hollies, Rod Stewart, Sly & the Family Stone, Carlos Santana. Possibly the only cool compilation record ever released under that label.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 October 2002 10:09 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just registering my despair. (See Rebecca's opening post.)
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 19 October 2002 11:50 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You took that as a display of chest-beating, skdadl? I dunno, I was thinking more along the lines of those who fail to remember history being doomed to repeat it, or something.

Of course, those who remember history are doomed to repeat it anyway, as nostalgia marketing has been teaching us for decades now (is the 80s revival over yet? Is it time for us to haul out our plaid shirts and Mudhoney disks yet?)

Anyway, pop music has bossed my life. My superficiality has depths to it, don't you know.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 October 2002 12:01 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Maybe I'm being unfair. But by the time I got to Rebecca's first post, I was guffawing -- this was starting to look like the gun thread all over again. To me, that is. Allow me to back down now, though. Pretend I didn't say these things. I'll try to keep them to the FF or to Banter ...

Allow me a peep, though, in support of the apples and oranges camp. That first performance of Satisfaction -- nothing can dim the memory.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 19 October 2002 12:20 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I thought this was banter... no, it's Pop Culture. Well, just about as consequential. (Gun thread? Did I miss something again?) Remember skdadl... it's only rock 'n' roll!

Still, quite a memory, that, I'm sure.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 19 October 2002 01:40 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am with ya, skdadl.

You can't compare the Beatles with the Stones. I loved them both. I haven't bought a Stones album since the disco era and Miss You, but I had them all prior. And all the Beatles, as well.

And anyone who says one is better than the other or one is a better roch'n'roll band or wants to pick sides like sports teams on the field, was never really listening.

Let it be because you can't always get what you want.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356

posted 19 October 2002 04:54 PM      Profile for Arch Stanton     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Back in the late 70s-early 80s I used to listen to 60s-early 70s Rolling Stones quite a bit. I thought they were great. I became bored with them, however, soon after "Emotional Rescue." I moved on to different sounds.

I wonder why they don't find themselves boring.

How can they keep doing this? Doesn't playing "Satisfaction" for 35 years drive them batty? They don't need the money. I know it's only rock and roll, but how could anyone like it that much?


From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 19 October 2002 05:05 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
To judge by the Fortune article, which I finally got around to reading, they do it because... well, because it's what they do. There's nothing personal about it. It's just business.

quote:
The business side of the Stones has several facets. As for any executive running a conglomerate, understanding and managing these diverse businesses are the key, says Jagger. "They all have income streams like any other company," he says. "They have different business models; they have different delegated people that look after them. And they have to interlock. That's my biggest problem." And as we will see, his biggest opportunity.

And so forth, and so on.

Admittedly, there is this:

quote:
So what keeps the Stones going? Money, yes. But the band could make big bucks simply by doing commercials instead of touring. Going on the road is about ego gratification. "This whole thing runs on passion," says Richards. "Even though we don't talk about it much ourselves, it's almost a sort of quest or mission."

Sure, Keef. Sure.

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
peripatetic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1957

posted 19 October 2002 08:38 PM      Profile for peripatetic        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But the band could make big bucks simply by doing commercials instead of touring.

Some critics say the Stones sold out years ago, but it's not true. They still have several songs available for license.


From: hogtown-on-don | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 19 October 2002 09:28 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Goddo? Chilliwack? Prism? Come on people, aren't you overlooking Max Webster here?
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 19 October 2002 11:10 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Now, why isn't there a "slap-forehead" smilie? And I actually saw those guys live, too.

I can only suppose I left them out because, at some subconscious level, I retained some respect for them. They were at least funny, seemed not to be taking the whole rockstar thing seriously (which was difficult anyway, on the scale at which Canadian bands "made it" in the 70s), and ... you know, had some lyrics which verged on a kind of hoser surrealism.

The summer I worked in Lake Louise, for example, all of us in the staff-residence loft I lived in (seven to nine guys in total, depending on what point in the summer we're talking) kind of dug a Max Webster song that began

"April...
In Toledo!
I'm talking to myself, I'm talking to myself!
She's hiding out
In Lake Louise
She says she needs a break from my face!"

I dunno, perhaps you hadda be there, though I occasionally wished I wasn't, but Kim and the boys seemed, somehow, to be saying: Look, we know we're goofballs, but unlike those other losers, at least we're gonna do it right.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356

posted 20 October 2002 01:24 AM      Profile for Arch Stanton     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Then there's the pretentious Ayn Rand worshipping blather of Rush...

I saw Kim Mitchell and Alex Lifeson host a Juno presentation (Liona Boyd maybe?) a few years back.
They were both loaded. Giggling. Acting silly.

But they didn't fall down or upchuck!

The Maple Leaf forever!


From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 20 October 2002 02:00 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I liked the Max Webster years. "In context of the moon" or, "High Class in Borrowed Shoes."

On the other hand, Kim Mitchell's "Patio Lanterns", and the radio stations that play it, should be standing next in line behind Milosovich at the Hague, if there was true justice in this world.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ed Weatherbee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2844

posted 20 October 2002 12:46 PM      Profile for Ed Weatherbee        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, the Fortune article says that the Stones have done very little licensing for commercials except for Windows 95 and Apple computer.

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: Ed Weatherbee ]


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 20 October 2002 10:46 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Then there's the pretentious Ayn Rand worshipping blather of Rush...

Yeah, but can those boys play.

As for "Patio Lanterns," I think every one is entitled to a lapse in judgement now and again. I mean it is a pretty little tune in its own right. Lots of Kim's solo stuff is a lot better.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca