Da'Beatles will Humiliate GNR forever? it's up to us!

[Nytunz]

Maynard James Keenan
Axl Rose
Dimebag (Yes, he was the main man in Pantera)
Robert Plant!

Love them all!

How can you even compare these to Guns N' Roses? As far as I'm concerned the 80's were a lost decade for music. Nirvana (like them or not) were real competition for Guns.

And to say The Beatles had no competition, please... the best bands in history (after them) were almost all in the 60's, and inspired by them.

How i can compare them?
well....
Tool makes great music.
Pantera made great music.
Led Zeppelin made great music.
Guns N Roses made great music, and hopfully makes it too.

[Wooody]

tool is the most boring band ever.

[Nytunz]

tool is the most boring band ever.

ehhh! You dont know what your talking about...

[AxlRoseVen]

Ven, you're fucking nuts, Jimmy Page wipes the floor with Slash.? Robert Plant and Ozzy are no slouches either.? How can you say the bands that influenced GNR and Axl suck, that would by default make GNR suck.? You make no sense.

what the fuck??    ...I can't believe what you said!!!! the point is they could influenced GNR but that should mean Jimmy Page wipes the floor with Slash? should that mean Plant sings better than Axl? buddy the only one who makes no sense about this is YOU!!!!  c'mon it's time to admit it for once :

1)No one will never sing like Axl cuz no one will have a' amazing voice like his!!!!
2) there won't be a rock band that will write n' produce songs like GNR( Example : Locomotive, Madagascar, the Blues, Don't cry, Chinese Democracy, Estranged, and so on!!!!!!!!!!! )
3) there won't be a singer to performance on stage like Axl 
4) can ya really tell me who plays "solos" like Slash? you know you won't cuz he's the best guitar player EVER! 

so... please watch your mouth before sayin' Ozzy or somebody else is amazing like Axl 

[Twisted Nerve 85]

Honestly this board proves js how ignorant fanatical fans can be. GnR fans and Beatles fans. Proclaiming someone who came to the table first as "The Greatest" is foolish, The Beatles are amazing, and easily in the top ten. But we give them too much credit, they were probably the most influential band ever, But thats because they got the first crack at it. Honestly with the massive influence given off by Elvis someone was going to eventually. Its all a matter of taste, some ppl like them and some despise them,for anyone to say if u dont like this then u dont like music is absurd. Noone should be forced into liking anything because everyone else likes it. Britney Spears sold over 40 million albums, but I personally think her "music" is absolute shit. And some people feel that way about the Beatles.


Im not quite sure what the point of this thread was, but I felt I should comment on the absurdity of peoples arguments, cause I always thought GnR fans were the most ignorant. But I was wrong.

By the way, Im a huge GnR fan, and I love and respect much of the work that the Beatles have done as well, and I also have massive respect for what they've given to music. 

[AxlRoseVen]

the beatles were the first boyband ever , then they changed their sound because rock n roll was 'the thing' to do, they had good melodies but no sense of originality, and they sure as hell don't know how to kick ass ! Black Sabbath and Led Zep are the best bands in the world, sharing top honors. Face it, why do you think the Beatles were so jealous of the rolling stones ? because the RS knew how to kick ass and didn't sound fake like them, 'oh I introduced marijuana to mick jagger' said one beatle at one time.... so fuckin what? do you want an award? you still sound like a sissy singing for 14 year old girls.

GNR is in the same vein as the stones, led zep and sabbath, the beatles come closer to the backstreet boys.

 ? yeah i can honestly say that The Beatles got fame when this stupid world had nothing to see on TV in 1962!? , that's it!...but you gotta recognize something :? led zep and sabbath didn't have a singer like Axl, they didn't have a guitar player like Slash so that point makes a great difference between them!!!! as well GNR wrote songs about street violence, they wrote songs about sexual traumas, wrote songs about addictions n' they did speak shit about governors incluiding American governors too

they all played like LORDS when they were in the studio even when they got on stage too so i don't find another rock band that speciall like'em to date!...if you think up no one will sing like Axl cuz the guy is one in a million really!!!! he was born blessed by GOD so this world won't have another singer like him ONCE AGAIN!!!? ,? can y'all figure out Paul singin'? "Locomotive"??

The Beatles got famous cos there was nothin to watch in '62? Well, how come Beatles albums still sell in droves today? How come there are people, including myself, who weren't even born in '62 (not even close) still love and admire the Beatles now? How come even a Beatle's name can sell something, hell last time Paul McCartney played near me tickets were 100 euro, and it sold out in a day? You are talking complete bullshit.

who do ya think u're?...GOD? if you waste your fucking money buyin' ?Beatles album so that's ur own problem n' not mine! ? ?i don't believe you when you said "to see Paul close to you tickets were 100 euro" cuz no one will be so fucking stupid to waste money this way! so please try to say another kind of lie the next time!!!! ?

n' please answer this if you think the Beatles were so fucking amazing like you said! : if they'll be LORDS forever so why they couldn't sell out shows around the world like GNR? why didn't they make a tour like GNR if they could sell out all their tickets in a day simply? where were all their fans those times then? ? did they just have fans in England n' New York city? 

...GNR played in Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, USA, Canada, Japan, Australia, around Europe while the Beatles just used to play in England, New York City, Washington, L.A, Toronto,...well i guess you hit the floor right now dude, how does it feel to open up ur eyes after all this time then? ?

[SLCPUNK]

The Beatles are tops.

I'd bet my last buck that any of the guys (past or present) in GnR would give it up for the Beatles as the top dog. Simple as that.

Slash said that he felt the UYI albums were "like the Beatles White album, but not nearly as good."

[Smoking Guns]

Slash was simply stating that the Illusions albums were very diverse and came from all over the place, like the white album.  Also, during the interview, didn't their old manager talk about how the realease of UY1 and II was the biggest thing to hit music since the beatles?  Slash thinks the Stones and Aerosmith are the greatest.

[SLCPUNK]

Slash was simply stating that the Illusions albums were very diverse and came from all over the place, like the white album.  Also, during the interview, didn't their old manager talk about how the realease of UY1 and II was the biggest thing to hit music since the beatles?  Slash thinks the Stones and Aerosmith are the greatest.

He said "Not as good as the white album".

1) Take that literally

and

2) Read between the lines to see that he made sure to give the Beatles their due respect.

Personally I feel (This whole thread is stupid anyway really, since taste is all relative[) the Beatles created much more than GnR did. Just on quantity alone, they were eclectic and all over the place. Compare My Life to The Walrus..I mean, c'mon man.

[Walapino]

This thread makes me want to vomit.


The history of Rock N Roll dates back to one song and only one song...Helter Skelter. A Paul McCartney work.

Rolling Stones suck. Period. End of story.
Pink Floyd sucks. Period. End of story.
Guns N' Roses rocks.
Beatles were better.
Guns N' Roses is my favorite band.
Beatles were not all pop.
Anyone who doesnt agree is a complete and total moron, and your opinion is wrong.






Idiots.

Your post makes me want to vomit... how dare you say Pink Floyd sucks u pet!

wuagh!

[Wooody]

Slash was simply stating that the Illusions albums were very diverse and came from all over the place, like the white album.? Also, during the interview, didn't their old manager talk about how the realease of UY1 and II was the biggest thing to hit music since the beatles?? Slash thinks the Stones and Aerosmith are the greatest.

He said "Not as good as the white album".

1) Take that literally

and

2) Read between the lines to see that he made sure to give the Beatles their due respect.

Personally I feel (This whole thread is stupid anyway really, since taste is all relative[) the Beatles created much more than GnR did. Just on quantity alone, they were eclectic and all over the place. Compare My Life to The Walrus..I mean, c'mon man.

stop trying to use quotes for your own benefit, you forget people on this board know gnr stuff as good as you or even better.

he said "MAYBE not as good as the white album." which means its open to interpretation to say whether UYI's are better, equal or worst than the white album.

[pilferk]

Honestly this board proves js how ignorant fanatical fans can be. GnR fans and Beatles fans. Proclaiming someone who came to the table first as "The Greatest" is foolish, The Beatles are amazing, and easily in the top ten. But we give them too much credit, they were probably the most influential band ever, But thats because they got the first crack at it. Honestly with the massive influence given off by Elvis someone was going to eventually. Its all a matter of taste, some ppl like them and some despise them,for anyone to say if u dont like this then u dont like music is absurd. Noone should be forced into liking anything because everyone else likes it. Britney Spears sold over 40 million albums, but I personally think her "music" is absolute shit. And some people feel that way about the Beatles.


Im not quite sure what the point of this thread was, but I felt I should comment on the absurdity of peoples arguments, cause I always thought GnR fans were the most ignorant. But I was wrong.

By the way, Im a huge GnR fan, and I love and respect much of the work that the Beatles have done as well, and I also have massive respect for what they've given to music.?

(Sigh)

Once again, subjective opinion is irrelevant on labeling any band "The Greatest", because "Greatest" does not equal "Favorite".  What's absurd is that people are still walking that path...

From every possible objective measure, they are "The Greatest".  I don't understand why people rail so hard against the notion.  Every expert on music history labels them "The Greatest"...it's not like anyone with any sort of knowledge on the subject even disagrees.... so, what's ignorant is those that come here and say it isn't so, when, demonstrably, it is.  The sky is blue.  Water is wet.  The sun comes up every morning.  And the Beatles are the Greatest Band, so far, in history.

I'm not the biggest Beatles fan.  I enjoy their music, yes.  I own their albums, yes.  But, in the grand scheme of things, I listen to lots of other bands LOTS more.  So poo pooing my arguments simply because you want to set them up as coming from a biased fan is a fallacy and a straw man to boot.  Facts are facts.  Sales numbers are sales numbers.  Attendance numbers are attendance numbers.  #1's are #1's.  Top 40 albums are top 40 albums.  Objective measures are objective measures.

I simply state what the facts support: the Beatles are the greatest band in history, by every objective mark. Period.  To say otherwise is to argue against established facts.  Say you don't like their music, fine.  Say they're not your favorite band, fine.  Say you think they were a bunch of mop topped boy banders, fine.  All valid opinions.  All having nothing to do with being "The Greatest"...

[Slipdisc]

The Beatles are tops.

I'd bet my last buck that any of the guys (past or present) in GnR would give it up for the Beatles as the top dog. Simple as that.

Slash said that he felt the UYI albums were "like the Beatles White album, but not nearly as good."

You're absolutely right. As a matter of fact, I provided Ven with these two links the other day at newgnr.com (that's where this sad excuse for a thread first appeared):

Slash:
"But I'm not gonna walk around with my nose in the air thinking I'm hot shit, because if you think about it rock bands on the whole - with the exception of the Beatles and Elvis - are pretty insignificant.
http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/articles/showarticle.php?articleid=1

Duff:
"There were a lot of records around in my house -the James Gang, The Beatles-so I didn't have to go out and buy them.
http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/articles/showarticle.php?articleid=124

Ven however said that the articles were just made up by the people on this forum and? qualified them as being "false words". Damn you Jarmo for playing this dirty game with us!!!

-PEACE-

PS. just wanted to see how mr. literary Impotence feels  now about these services provided by this board and it's people. Especially now it seems the board is good enough, for him to spread his BS on.

[pilferk]

the beatles were the first boyband ever , then they changed their sound because rock n roll was 'the thing' to do, they had good melodies but no sense of originality, and they sure as hell don't know how to kick ass ! Black Sabbath and Led Zep are the best bands in the world, sharing top honors. Face it, why do you think the Beatles were so jealous of the rolling stones ? because the RS knew how to kick ass and didn't sound fake like them, 'oh I introduced marijuana to mick jagger' said one beatle at one time.... so fuckin what? do you want an award? you still sound like a sissy singing for 14 year old girls.

GNR is in the same vein as the stones, led zep and sabbath, the beatles come closer to the backstreet boys.

 ? yeah i can honestly say that The Beatles got fame when this stupid world had nothing to see on TV in 1962!? , that's it!...but you gotta recognize something :? led zep and sabbath didn't have a singer like Axl, they didn't have a guitar player like Slash so that point makes a great difference between them!!!! as well GNR wrote songs about street violence, they wrote songs about sexual traumas, wrote songs about addictions n' they did speak shit about governors incluiding American governors too

they all played like LORDS when they were in the studio even when they got on stage too so i don't find another rock band that speciall like'em to date!...if you think up no one will sing like Axl cuz the guy is one in a million really!!!! he was born blessed by GOD so this world won't have another singer like him ONCE AGAIN!!!? ,? can y'all figure out Paul singin'? "Locomotive"??

The Beatles got famous cos there was nothin to watch in '62? Well, how come Beatles albums still sell in droves today? How come there are people, including myself, who weren't even born in '62 (not even close) still love and admire the Beatles now? How come even a Beatle's name can sell something, hell last time Paul McCartney played near me tickets were 100 euro, and it sold out in a day? You are talking complete bullshit.

who do ya think u're?...GOD? if you waste your fucking money buyin' ?Beatles album so that's ur own problem n' not mine! ? ?i don't believe you when you said "to see Paul close to you tickets were 100 euro" cuz no one will be so fucking stupid to waste money this way! so please try to say another kind of lie the next time!!!! ?

n' please answer this if you think the Beatles were so fucking amazing like you said! : if they'll be LORDS forever so why they couldn't sell out shows around the world like GNR? why didn't they make a tour like GNR if they could sell out all their tickets in a day simply? where were all their fans those times then? ? did they just have fans in England n' New York city??

...GNR played in Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, USA, Canada, Japan, Australia, around Europe while the Beatles just used to play in England, New York City, Washington, L.A, Toronto,...well i guess you hit the floor right now dude, how does it feel to open up ur eyes after all this time then? ?

Thank you for displaying an appaling lack of knowledge of the Beatles, history (not just music, but all history), and of Paul's recent concerts.

1)? He's not lying.? 100euros for decent seats would be spot on accurate, since that equates to about 130 to 140 US dollars.? And that was at the Box office.? Scalpers wanted, last time Paul was here (my Mother went),  between 2 and 5 times that.

2) The Beatles played England, Scotland, Sweden, Ireland, USA, Canada,? Denmark, Holland, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, France, Italy, Spain,? Germany, Japan, The Phillipines.? Mostly they played the UK and the USA....look at gnrontour.com.? GnR mostly played the US and Canada.

3) Once the Beatles had "made it", every show was a sellout.? Most sold out within the first couple of days, if not the first day.? Remember, no ticketmaster back then...

I think that'll do for starters.

[Wooody]

2) The Beatles played England, Scotland, Sweden, Ireland, USA, Canada,? Denmark, Holland, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, France, Italy, Spain,? Germany, Japan, The Phillipines.? Mostly they played the UK and the USA....look at gnrontour.com.? GnR mostly played the US and Canada.

the countries you just named are just  the wealthy part of the world, which makes the beatles look like a bunch of panzies going for the safe cash.
GNR toured most of the third world, eastern europe, etc.

[jarmo]

2) The Beatles played England, Scotland, Sweden, Ireland, USA, Canada,? Denmark, Holland, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, France, Italy, Spain,? Germany, Japan, The Phillipines.? Mostly they played the UK and the USA....look at gnrontour.com.? GnR mostly played the US and Canada.

the countries you just named are just? the wealthy part of the world, which makes the beatles look like a bunch of panzies going for the safe cash.
GNR toured most of the third world, eastern europe, etc.

The Beatles weren't touring when GN'R was. 

Hell, GN'R has even played countries that doesn't exist anymore!


Several big acts have played places in Sweden nobody would even imagine was possible today, but in the 60s it was not only possible it happened.

It was a different world back when The Beatles were around, in many ways.


/jarmo

[Dr H Lecter]

The Beatles are the greatest band of all time. Its not something that can even be even argued or debated. If you don't like their music, especially the music they made during the last half of there existence, then you just don't like music.

"Everyone has there opinion?" Bullshit. You don't like Beatles, you don't deserve the gift of hearing.

LOL, yeah right, thanks for the laugh. I like music just fine and have exceptional hearing and I have never, nor will ever , like The beatles. To me their music is just reminiscent of nonsensical quirky brit pop dressed up in some pathetic attempt to be rebellious or dangerous/profound (LSD, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds etc..). Just look at their solo efforts, Paul Mc Cartney and the cringe inducing "Wings" with the oh so terrible "mull of Kintyre" (spelling?). I would propose that the only reason they broke America was that they offered a  remedy to the depression that hung over the States after the assassination of JFK. They're sugar coated meaningless lyrics (before they got "dark" and profound") offered a reprieve from what I can only imagine was a very traumatic experience for every American.
Greatest Ever, no way, not by a long shot. GNR, greatest ever, no, a flawed band also but one I listen to almost religiously and the only band I have ever heard that I never tire of, so if that is the metric for the "Greatest Ever" than it is GNR for me.

Once again...you don't like them.  That doesn't mean they aren't the greatest ever.  Your opinion of their music (which is all you cite, above) has no bearing on things, whatsoever.

People seem to be confusing "My favorite band" with "greatest band ever".  One is completely subjective and based on your opinion.  One can be measured objectively.  And neither has anything to do with the other.

the Beatles are the greatest band ever. Period. Ask anyone with any serious knowledge of music history.  It's not even like any of the "experts" on the subjects even disagree.... You might not like them, you might hate to listen to them, their music might make you want to jump from a 25th story window.  Doesn't matter.  They're still the greatest.  See earlier "Lance Armstrong" anecdote to understand why.  Someday, maybe, a band will come along that will eclipse their records (NOT the vinyl kind).  But, until that happens...it's a no brainer.

They aren't "the greatest ever" and I don't need to see any anecdotes to aid my comprehension of that statement. Later you cite "empirical evidence" that demonstrates their "greatness", I assume you mean record sales and such. Well a certain Irish boyband has either broken or matched their records for #1's in the UK, empirically speaking that would at least put them on a par with the beatles subjectively speaking thats nonsense. There is no, in my opinion, metric or definition of the "greatest ever" it simply cannot be defined. Garth Brooks is 4th highest seller at 105 million(US), The Beatles at 168 million, is Garth Brooks the "4th greatest ever"? Music, art, movies are in my opinions mediums that cannot be objectively analysed by "experts" they are by their very nature subjective.
Are Vivaldi, Beethoven,Tchaikovsky, Mozart better than the beatles, they are all composers? are they the greatest ever, will we still be listening to "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" in 200 years?? as we are with many of the aforementioned composers' work?
I'm in my early 20's and a person that knows alot of people, several of whom and one in particular, I would cite as music aficionados. One I know has hundreds of CD's and The Beatles are a non entity to him as they are to my other friends. Many believe Julius Caesar was "the greatest ever" military mind,others would say Rommel, still others would say Alexander the Great, who is to say any is the greatest, I don't believe it can be defined and I think thats the biggest "no brainer" of all.
You are free to hold your own beliefs based either on "facts" (as you see them) or you own inclination, I will chose not to.

[pilferk]

2) The Beatles played England, Scotland, Sweden, Ireland, USA, Canada,? Denmark, Holland, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, France, Italy, Spain,? Germany, Japan, The Phillipines.? Mostly they played the UK and the USA....look at gnrontour.com.? GnR mostly played the US and Canada.

the countries you just named are just? the wealthy part of the world, which makes the beatles look like a bunch of panzies going for the safe cash.
GNR toured most of the third world, eastern europe, etc.

You mean countries that, in the 60's, had little to no access to "modern" transportation?? Those countries?? The ones that, in the 60's, didn't really have anything approaching modern facilities to actually STAGE a concert in?? Nor people with enough wealth to actualyl purchase concert tickets?  Those countries?

As jarmo said, you're comparing two completely different eras.? Appleseeds to jet airplanes.

[pilferk]

The Beatles are the greatest band of all time. Its not something that can even be even argued or debated. If you don't like their music, especially the music they made during the last half of there existence, then you just don't like music.

"Everyone has there opinion?" Bullshit. You don't like Beatles, you don't deserve the gift of hearing.

LOL, yeah right, thanks for the laugh. I like music just fine and have exceptional hearing and I have never, nor will ever , like The beatles. To me their music is just reminiscent of nonsensical quirky brit pop dressed up in some pathetic attempt to be rebellious or dangerous/profound (LSD, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds etc..). Just look at their solo efforts, Paul Mc Cartney and the cringe inducing "Wings" with the oh so terrible "mull of Kintyre" (spelling?). I would propose that the only reason they broke America was that they offered a? remedy to the depression that hung over the States after the assassination of JFK. They're sugar coated meaningless lyrics (before they got "dark" and profound") offered a reprieve from what I can only imagine was a very traumatic experience for every American.
Greatest Ever, no way, not by a long shot. GNR, greatest ever, no, a flawed band also but one I listen to almost religiously and the only band I have ever heard that I never tire of, so if that is the metric for the "Greatest Ever" than it is GNR for me.

Once again...you don't like them.? That doesn't mean they aren't the greatest ever.? Your opinion of their music (which is all you cite, above) has no bearing on things, whatsoever.

People seem to be confusing "My favorite band" with "greatest band ever".? One is completely subjective and based on your opinion.? One can be measured objectively.? And neither has anything to do with the other.

the Beatles are the greatest band ever. Period. Ask anyone with any serious knowledge of music history.? It's not even like any of the "experts" on the subjects even disagree.... You might not like them, you might hate to listen to them, their music might make you want to jump from a 25th story window.? Doesn't matter.? They're still the greatest.? See earlier "Lance Armstrong" anecdote to understand why.? Someday, maybe, a band will come along that will eclipse their records (NOT the vinyl kind).? But, until that happens...it's a no brainer.

They aren't "the greatest ever" and I don't need to see any anecdotes to aid my comprehension of that statement. Later you cite "empirical evidence" that demonstrates their "greatness", I assume you mean record sales and such. Well a certain Irish boyband has either broken or matched their records for #1's in the UK, empirically speaking that would at least put them on a par with the beatles subjectively speaking thats nonsense. There is no, in my opinion, metric or definition of the "greatest ever" it simply cannot be defined. Garth Brooks is 4th highest seller at 105 million(US), The Beatles at 168 million, is Garth Brooks the "4th greatest ever"? Music, art, movies are in my opinions mediums that cannot be objectively analysed by "experts" they are by their very nature subjective.
Are Vivaldi, Beethoven,Tchaikovsky, Mozart better than the beatles, they are all composers? are they the greatest ever, will we still be listening to "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" in 200 years?? as we are with many of the aforementioned composers' work?
I'm in my early 20's and a person that knows alot of people, several of whom and one in particular, I would cite as music aficionados. One I know has hundreds of CD's and The Beatles are a non entity to him as they are to my other friends. Many believe Julius Caesar was "the greatest ever" military mind,others would say Rommel, still others would say Alexander the Great, who is to say any is the greatest, I don't believe it can be defined and I think thats the biggest "no brainer" of all.
You are free to hold your own beliefs based either on "facts" (as you see them) or you own inclination, I will chose not to.

The "greatest ever" is not a subjective assertion. It's just not, by it's very nature.? Subjective is "my favorite".? It HAS to be based on empirical, objective numbers.? Otherwise, it's just an opinion, and...opinions are like assholes.? It really isn't any more complicated than that, no matter how much you'd like it to be.

Not one thing you say in your statement has a whit to do with "the greatest ever".? You're using anecodotal evidence.? It means exactly nothing, in the context of the discussion (so what if your friend doesn't like the Beatles? and what credentials does he have that could possibly make his opinion worthwhile or educated enough to matter?).? You're stating your opinion on what YOU want "the greatest ever" to mean, trying to redefine the term to be subjective.? Can't do it.? The greatest is the greatest because the achievments that MADE them the greatest are measurably better than others which they could be compared to.? What you're defining is "favorite" band.? That's a completely different animal.? I could understand the debate if there were actually a BAND (fyi, on the Garth Brooks front....last time I checked, like Elvis, he was not a band, not that your statements on him had any relevance anyway) that had put together a resume', from top to bottom, that remotely touched the Beatles overall accomplishments....but there just ain't.

Greatest ever. Period.

[madagas]

Any objective analysis of greatest band ever should include four categories-sales, influence, musicianship/songwriting skills, and critical acclaim. There is no band in history that can match the Beatles overall in those 4 categories because they would rate very very high in each one. Take for example Zepellin-not as many sales, not as much critical acclaim, not as much or maybe close in influence and musicianship. Seriously, you can't find any great band or artist that can match them in all four categories. Even Dylan or Hendrix or Miles Davis who would match in everything but sales. Hannibal, being in your early twenties hardly gives you the wisdom and knowledge to comment on anything. That is actually the time in your life where you THINK you know everything BUT REALLY KNOW NOTHING. Of course, 20 years later you find out what an idiot you were back then. You do have some points but for the most part you are just saying everything is subjective-which is rubbish.