(I meant that as a joke, Boo Boo Foo. It pre-dates Vanda and Young by a long way.)
Time’s Man of the Year for 2004?
EVERYBODY! Every single person on the whole stinkin’ planet! Yah, you too! That way we don’t actually have to make a possibly controversial decision and piss anybody off!
I think the whole ‘Man of the Year’ thing has run it’s course. Time to move on to something else.
My apologies Desmo. Believe it or not, I haven’t seen the issue nor the cover, hence I simply took your word for it!
Dopey Me! 
(It was still a good bit of music trivia though…)
No apology needed, Boo Boo Foo. Your post about Vanda and Young was more interesting than most of the others in this thread.
What’s written on the wall is
It’s from this WWII poem of unknown authorship
Vanda and Young used the theme in the song “Hey Saint Peter”:
BTW, I’m pretty sure clayton_e wasn’t asking anything about the author of the poem, but rather who physically wrote it on the wall.
It’s hard for me to imagine an OP more petty than this. Maybe if someone pouted over all the attention Matthew Shepard received or something. Or if someone bitched about all the help Polycard was given from the SDMB membersip. What kind of person is it who holds a grudge when someone else has been honored or admired? It is outside my capacity to comprehend.
What’s Polycard? That some company making rubber video cards or something?
Yeah. Whatever.
Hijack Of The Year.
Well folks, I don’t think that the award this year was anything but American Propaganda. It’s primarily aimed at Americans, but the rest of y’all can partake as well. The intended effect is to send millions of patriotic, teary-eyed, swollen-bosomed dullards straight to the polls to rubber-stamp the current administration’s agenda. Or more precisely, to capitalize on the millions of patriotic, teary-eyed, swollen-bosomed dullards and sell them their magazines with the AOL inserts and stay on the good side of the current administration so they can get plum interviews so they can capitalize on the millions of patriotic, teary-eyed, swollen-bosomed dullards and sell them their magazines with the AOL inserts…
[takes deep breath]
Would that be why Americans are being blown up daily and the Brits are not?
Keep at it Jethro, your customer service is obviously doing brilliantly at keeping you in the public eye.
Juan may be making the greater difference in the mind of the Iraqui customer though.
Jethro has the loud voice, cheesy smile and most well groomed uniform (oh and he is the bosses fav) but people think he is a smarmy bastard. Juan delivers the fries.
No matter how sweetly Jethro tries to smile, everyone likes their fries hot and delivered “timely”.
They hardly ever drive carloads of bombs into the quiet, efficient guy in the background.
I would just like to add that the above comment was only intended to be as simplistic as the comment ParentalAdivisory made.
The Time story title reminded me of Buffy Sainte-Marie’s song "[url=“http://fff.fathom.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=551"Universal Soldier”:
Let’s try that link again: “Universal Soldier”
You haven’t read the first page of the article, have you? Not even a mention of other nations. You’d think that the Americans did it all on their own.
Well I’ve got news for you, mate: there are quite a few people from where I work who are serving out there right now.
Nope, I think I got it spot on. Some board members seem incapable of accepting that it is possible for A magazine from their own country to make a mistake. Or to put it more generally - some board members seem incapable of accepting criticism of something connected to their country.
I accept that American soldiers have done the majority of the ‘successful’ work in Iraq. I accept that they are probably deserving of praise for some (not all) of their actions. But the simple fact remains - If a magazine picks out one country from a coalition and names it’s soldiers as ‘man of the year’ without even acknowledging the fact that other country’s soldiers were there too then that will probably cause offence to some people and the soldiers of the countries not mentioned.
And this, ladies, gentlemen and shaved apes, is why I read The Economist.
Do you think that they either need or covet your inexplicablly small minded jealousy? You’re like the brother who moaned about his father’s recognition of the Prodigal Son. You’re like the beehive-haired Texas woman who hates the little girls who steal her daughter’s beauty title. You’re like the whiner who complains that the rules weren’t fair when his friend wins the lottery. I rather imagine that those who serve from where you work are delighted for their brothers-in-arms, and that they would find you to be a rather pathetic loser.
Sweet spirits of niter - how do some of you unclench your sphincters long enough to post?
So the line of argument runs somewhat like this - the invasion of Iraq is a dreadful, evil, bad, naughty thing. And I am all cheesed off because my country isn’t getting enough credit for its part in it.
I suppose when Time chose Adolf Hitler as Man of the Year, you were all upset because they were dissing Mussolini.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, Have you never pitted anything?