Doug C

Why not play smaller venues in cities that don't sell enough at the amphitheatres, theatres, etc.?

Wow! 31 songs with an opening act. Hell, it's An Evening with Wilco, as I was hoping before Royal Thunder was announced. Very excited. Thanks, bbop. Panthers! Several years ago when I saw them at the Moon in Tallahassee, some guy periodically yelled, "Panthers, Jeff!" or "Panthers, Wilco!" throughout the show. When I listen to the recording, I always laugh when he does it. I hope he's there and they play Panthers. He'll probably rush the stage.

Sleater-Kinney Entertain Call The Doctor Rollercoaster Little Babies Light Rail Coyote

Old 97s Timebomb The One Nineteen Doreen Rollerskate Skinny

New Order Age of Consent Temptation Love Vigilantes All Day Long 1963 Way of Life ed. Shit that's six. Oh well. Belle and Sebastian If She wants Me The State I Am In If You're Feeling Sinister Expectations The Wrong Girl

Paul Lynde

Touche'!! Ha! Very true. We have to learn prejudice, and since we naturally form schemas, we develop prejudices.

I agree. Ever person in this country, if not the world, is prejudiced in some way. Not everyone practices discrimination, but we all have prejudices. Some people are prejudiced discriminators, some are prejudiced non-discriminators, but very few, if any, of us, are 100% non-prejudiced non-discriminators.

Yes, I agree. The description is making me expect deja vu from Asheville in 2005. Rose Hill Drive was the opener. My buddy and I got to our seats just as they took the stage. They looked like a mix of hard rock and metal stereotypes. Before we sat down, they opened with a power chord and my pal said, "That's enough. We're going back to the bar and I'm buying". So that's what we did. We returned for one of the best Wilco shows I've ever attended.

Using your statement that race-based segregation was "rightly relegated to the trash heap of history 50 years ago", am I wrong in assuming that you agree that it should be illegal? If I am right in assuming this, then why do you believe that sexuality-based segregation should be legal and left to the free market? If my assumptions are correct, it appears to be a hypocritical stance. I ask you to please clarify and/or explain how you see them differently. I don't want to make any false assumptions. I thank you in advance.

It doesn't border on the ridiculous to ask someone saying that it should be legal for a business to refuse to sell to homosexuals because the free market will take care of said businesses, if they also believe that same reasoning should apply to businesses refusing to sell to blacks. That is all that I did. I doubt that twoshedjackson believes '"that the entire south is filled with racists eager to throw us back to an ugly era". I know a way that you could be certain of his meaning, rather than make an assumption. You could ask him a direct question for clarification.

I Googled "Internet etiquette rules". I thoroughly read all 10 results on the 1st page, https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#q=internet+etiquette+rules&safe=active&ssui=on and found no mention of "calling people out" or anything about asking direct questions during discussions. Maybe the other 1,649,990 results mention how "calling people out" and asking direct questions during a discussion is bad form and ill mannered, but I don't have the time to read them. I don't understand how you can have a conversati

I quite possibly just laughed the best ever. Thanks VC!

And that's an issue. Legislatures, in theory, reflect the views of the majority of voters from the previous election. As I stated in a much earlier post, only 36% of Hoosiers voted in November and 53% of them voted Republican. The Indiana legislature wouldn't have passed the measure, nor would the governor have signed it, if they didn't feel that doing so would help them get reelected. I don't know how the majority of eligible Indiana voters feel about the issue, but I do know that most of them did not vote. Hopefully, regardless of the law being "clarified" or repealed, the majority of eligib

Since I don't believe that I was bitching about hypocrisy - merely pointing out that a logical case can be made that it is an inconsistent stance - I don't believe that I am a loser.

Again, I agree with Hixter, a couple of posts up. If you analyze it, the hypocrisy is obvious. But if you analyze most stances, you can find inconsistencies. It is just as reasonable for someone to be bothered by the inconsistencies of Wilco's stance as it is reasonable for someone to applaud Wilco for taking a stand.

This reminds of February 2008 when 5 days before the date, Wilco postponed the Charleston, SC show to be on SNL. As I had tickets, I was not happy. I, similar to some Indy area fans, was like a dog with a bone. I wouldn't let it go and ran my logic into the ground, foolishly believing that the posters disagreeing with me would eventually see the light. I sounded like a major douche. I reread that shit a couple days ago and cringed. How I wish that I had made my point, once, maybe twice, and then let it the fuck go. Even though I was 44/45, I was fairly new to the internet, and lost sight of al

Ditty, I have a question. As an Indiana resident, are you in as much of a lather about the law as you are about the canceled show?

I don't begrudge Wilco being against the law and wanting to make a point, I respect that, but I agree with Hixter. They could likely have had a greater impact by doing the things Hixter mentioned, along with some others. They could highlight how less than 36% of Hoosiers voted in November and 53% of those voted Republican. It is up to the Indiana citizens to change this law specifically and their government in general. Radio interviews, speaker(s) on stage, etc. highlighting how Wilco fans and other good Hoosiers need to get involved and make their voices heard. Again, I don't condemn Wilco

How is it poor manners to ask someone for clarification? If that is your definition of ill-mannered and boorish, you and I received different educations. I did not ask you to respond to whether or not you are a racist. You stated that businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they choose and the law should stay out of it. You stated that the free market would weigh in regarding such business practices. Twoshedjackson asked if this would apply to "No blacks allowed". You didn't respond. I was interested in your response and directly asked you about it. If that is bad internet f

Ha ha! Bad form! If we were having a conversation face-to-face, and the same exchange between you and Twoshedjackson occurred, I would respond in the exact same way and directly ask you to reply to him. That's called having a conversation. I find it odd that you are unwilling to state your opinion regarding the legality of a business posting signage that states their refusal to provide goods and services to blacks.

In my opinion, Hixter avoided directly responding to this. Therefore, I directly ask him if he believes that it should be legal for businesses to display "No Blacks Allowed" signs and to refuse to serve blacks?

I am happy that there is still no word. I haven't been hoping for Steve Gunn, I've been hoping for no one.

How old are you?

The Wabash Cannonball, Roy Acuff. That was a great song. I was probably 9-11 years old. I am so fortunate that I was able to hear that high lonesome voice of the King of Country Music. Thanks mom and dad! Though the title doesn't say "first great rock song heard in concert", that would be Bastille Day, Rush. Dec. 9, 1977. Their set opened with Bastille Day. That opening riff blew my 14 year old self away. All smiles, bobbing head and pumping arm. Powerful!