tblair

I don't recall anyone suggesting that they're having a laugh at our expense. errrm, I'd have thought for the hundreds (thousands?) of us who are out of pocket and have made arrangements for a show, it absolutley IS our business. If it was something that they wanted/needed to keep quiet, they could have said so. 'Scheduling conflict'?? implies that something more important came up. If that's so, why not re-schedule the shows to the end of the european dates that they're still doing. They're playing in Belgium the day after the cancelled London show! Poor ticket sales is the most likely rea

if it's due to illness, that would be the easiest explanation to accept, but we've been told there's a 'schedule conflict'.. and they're sticking with their other dates, before and after the uk shows

Even the e-mails that I regularly get from ticket agencies letting me know what gigs are coming up, quite often didn't mention the Wilco shows

It's a bit like, if you buy a product, and when you take it back for a refund (for whatever reason), the seller then saying "well, some of the selling price was my profit, so I'll only refund you x amount..." I know Wilco try to look after their fans, but we've already been shafted here in the uk with the 'extra's' on the cd that didn't work..

how wonderfully patronising... just because it's Wilco (and not some x factor blah blah etc) is no reason at all for not giving a reasonable explanation. I'm sure (even?) Wilco would not expect any fans of any band to simply accept whatever reason is given. A big part of my complaint is with the system (which is nothing to do with Wilco), and how the agencys make their money whether the show goes ahead or not, and I don't understand why some of that profit doesn't go back to re-imbursing the punters.

it would help if the band gave an understandable reason. There's a week to go for some of these shows, so 'scheduling conflict' is a little ambiguos. People have to make arrangements for shows, everything from baby-sitters to flights with hotel rooms booked. And we're out of pocket throught the agencies dubious charges. What's not to be pissed off about? My guess is on poor ticket sales....

I was looking forward to seeing Wilco and The White Stripes, and now they're both cancelled. What pisses me off is how you lose money each time. You're supposed to return the tickets 'securely' which amounts to 2 lots of postage each time (first time when you buy the tickets, then again to send them back). Someone, apart from the customer, should forfeit those charges. The agency overcharges anyway.... ever get the feeling you're being shat on? and 'scheduling conflict'?? is a bit poor. What happened, did someone double book a dentist appointment or something?

lovely... It's a testament to what an amazing sound Wilco get live, that a simple audience recording can sound so good. I've never heard a better live quality than you get at Wilco shows.

Muzzle's back...

well, if she is suffering from acute anxiety, there isn't really any way of knowing when she'll be better, so I imagine for everyone's sake (especially Meg's) the best option is to cancel everything for the foreseeable future to take away any possibility of stress.i was looking forward to seeing them and Wilco within a few days of each other in London, they're the only 2 contempary acts I'm that interested in. let's hope she gets better sooner rather than later

There's quite an amusing (well I laughed!) thread on the (only) other forum I spend any time on. It's kind of related... thread here

I'm not just referring to governments though. There was the Christian Crusades, Christian missionarys taking previously unknown diseases to remote places in the world, etc... (don't put too much importance on the examles being Christian...) I don't think the amount of power the 'messenger' has is of any relevance. Who is anyone to tell someone else how to live their life, providing they're not harming anyone?

I think this is getting a little out of context with the original post. BUT..... from where we stand in Europe, and putting in this in the context of how a lot of the world is now percieving America, with George Bush telling us that he hears voices (God I believe is who he says is talking to him) telling him what to do, it IS a bit scary. I'm sure Bush is on the side of 'God's Warriors', and these people do come across as a little more than extreme. For me, any criticism of the Bible thumping teenagers, and more importantly the people who are running the show, is not connected with others wh

they have done before when it's suited them. And as times change, a little adaption might not be a bad thing But they'd be old enough to make decisions for themselves, some I might not agree with For me it's just as basic a flaw as you can get. I don't 'mind' them thinking anything, it's just flawed, the whole concept. Why is it silly? I'm interested in the debate... we all have the usual choice..

sorry, you're right. I got your posts confused. I'm unsure of most things in the world... people who are sure of anything bring out the distrust in me, I can't help it. (I used to be indecisive as well.... but now I'm not so sure...)

You were trying to defend it before I made the extremist remark, and it wasn't refferring to you (I don't know you) or more moderate religious followers. I think with the example of Ron Luce, extremist isn't an exaggeration. PS... by default though, you must think you're religion is the best, no?

What I'm partly saying (and it is 4.30 in the morning here, I'm on a not-very-busy-night-shift, but feeling a little fuzzy around the edges!) is that it takes all sorts. I'm quite happy with people being religious and/or having faith, but I don't go around telling these people that they're wrong. Why do people who follow a religion always think, or know even, that their way is better than anyone else's, my religion/god is better than yours etc. It's not as if you're ever going to agree on one religion, are you? So while you lot carry on your never ending lost cause, the rest of us have to put

This part of your response is very confusing.... what makes you think that? I'd guess that many are exactly those very same people It's more like the indoctrination that I worry about. Just because some people in religion say you shouldn't have sex outside of marriage, doesn't mean to say everyone has to agree with it.

a very odd kind of logic going on here. Nor sure where anyone suggested anything like that. odd again. Has anyone suggested the church or religion was responsible for HIV? ..... just that they could help to slow the spreading of it.

along with rampant HIV infections, and all the misery that that entails, the catholic stance on this seems extreme to me.

yep, and education. And from what I hear about how certain religious factions are influencing education, by attempting - and seemingly succeeding - to stop evolution being taught in favour of creationism, it's a very relevant point.. ta

PS ...and poverty

the way America is often portrayed/percieved here in Europe (along with stories like this one, about 'God's Warriors), I tend to agree.... ...and it's a little bit scary well, that's a whole other thread (possibly). Maybe we need to get to the bottom of why or how there are as many unwanted pregnancies in the first place before we start denying people their rights. I'd start with blaming religious extremists who won't allow contraception, followed by poor sexual/relationship education, often dictated by [confused] religious beliefs.

ok then... just trying to get this straight, there's 'Planned Parenthood' the organisation, and there's 'planned parenthood' the euphamism.... neither are that commonly referred to here in the uk, so I just want to clear things up...?

why's that? 'they' are