Louisiana Tech Week Pressers

[teachercd]

Just now, AZRaiderH8r said:

Whenever the conversation comes up in our group of bands that people seem to really like but that you hate, my answer is always Def Leppard. Man, I can't stand that band or their music. Well, and Nickelback of course, but that's too easy. 

But Pour some Sugar on Me has put more strippers through Med school than any other song!

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, AZRaiderH8r said:

Whenever the conversation comes up in our group of bands that people seem to really like but that you hate, my answer is always Def Leppard. Man, I can't stand that band or their music. Well, and Nickelback of course, but that's too easy. 

I have never understood how the Rolling Stones ever became popular.  It's like they had tryouts at the beginning for lead singer and the absolute worst singer was the only one that wanted the job.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

[Lorewarn]

44 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

So a preference for only music that sucks. Noted.

 

 

 

[MyBloodIsRed16]

11 minutes ago, teachercd said:

But Pour some Sugar on Me (while techercd is at the club) has put more strippers through Med school than any other song!

FIFY

[teachercd]

1 minute ago, MyBloodIsRed16 said:

FIFY

I have two rules at the strip club

 

1.  I don't tip

2.  I wear sweatpants 

[JJ Husker]

12 minutes ago, GSG said:

 

Like what though? Taylor f#&%ing Swift?

 

 

 

 

I hope this poor girl got her epilepsy drugs dialed in.

[JJ Husker]

19 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I have never understood how the Rolling Stones ever became popular.  It's like they had tryouts at the beginning for lead singer and the absolute worst singer was the only one that wanted the job.

Love their early stuff. Excellent blues based rock. But Start Me Up sucks. I puke a little bit in my mouth every time it plays. As for Jagger….I have no idea what lyrics he is ever singing, but somehow it works.

 

I’ve never felt good music was dependent upon a person’s age or when it was released. Many songs stand the test of time. Many don’t and won’t. Have never understood why some people will snidely brand you a Boomer because you may like some music that is older than them. I also like some newer music but the body of work of older songs is much larger so it stands to reason that there are way more good older songs than good newer songs.

[teachercd]

8 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Love their early stuff. Excellent blues based rock. But Start Me Up sucks. I puke a little bit in my mouth every time it plays. As for Jagger….I have no idea what lyrics he is ever singing, but somehow it works.

 

I’ve never felt good music was dependent upon a person’s age or when it was released. Many songs stand the test of time. Many don’t and won’t. Have never understood why some people will snidely brand you a Boomer because you may like some music that is older than them. I also like some newer music but the body of work of older songs is much larger so it stands to reason that there are way more good older songs than good newer songs.

Jagger is an amazing front man, ugly, not a great singer, but just has "IT" and it works.  Same with Steven Tyler.  

 

Girls flocked to those dudes.  

[caveman99]

On 9/20/2023 at 12:00 PM, BigRedRig said:

Hail to the King - Avenged Sevenfold.   Well, it works for me on squat days at least.  

Great song, the guitar riff always gets me going.

[runningblind]

24 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Love their early stuff. Excellent blues based rock. But Start Me Up sucks. I puke a little bit in my mouth every time it plays. As for Jagger….I have no idea what lyrics he is ever singing, but somehow it works.

 

I’ve never felt good music was dependent upon a person’s age or when it was released. Many songs stand the test of time. Many don’t and won’t. Have never understood why some people will snidely brand you a Boomer because you may like some music that is older than them. I also like some newer music but the body of work of older songs is much larger so it stands to reason that there are way more good older songs than good newer songs.

I don't think the bolded is true, you just think it is, which is why people tend to respond to comments like that by calling you old.  You basically answered your own question here.   You really think more music was released back in the day than right now in the age of technology? 

[Lorewarn]

55 minutes ago, runningblind said:

You really think more music was released back in the day than right now in the age of technology? 

 

 

He's saying that there are more, and thus presumably more good, older songs than newer by virtue of the pool being bigger.

 

If you define new music as the last 15 years, then the size of the catalogue of EVERYTHING OLDER is 50-60 total years of output compared to 15. 

[JJ Husker]

48 minutes ago, runningblind said:

I don't think the bolded is true, you just think it is, which is why people tend to respond to comments like that by calling you old.  You basically answered your own question here.   You really think more music was released back in the day than right now in the age of technology? 

It’s simple math. Any new song adds to the all time music body of work. The older songs never go away. So sort of, yeah, there are more old songs than new.  Even if you figure in significantly more songs being released in the 2000s than prior, really how many of those can even be considered? There has to be a much higher percentage of crap songs now than when people actually had to have talent to get a song recorded and released. A bunch of dips#!ts with a youtube channel aren’t really adding much to the talent collective.

 

So yeah, I realize more music is available due to technology. I just don’t think significantly more of it happens to be quality music or worthy of this discussion. More doesn’t equal better.

2 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

He's saying that there are more, and thus presumably more good, older songs than newer by virtue of the pool being bigger.

 

If you define new music as the last 15 years, then the size of the catalogue of EVERYTHING OLDER is 50-60 total years of output compared to 15. 

Exactly….and much more succinctly than I put it.

[olddominionhusker]

20 hours ago, M.A. said:

 

Trauma and the nature of the trauma, the way in which it happened. The particular movements that occurred in the specific event and other factors causing it. Weight, twisting, torque, sudden blunt force that the body simply can't compensate for.

 

Also, the unique characteristics of the individual's joint and associated tissues can play a role as with a hip (to an extent). Some hips and associated structures (can) make it more susceptible to dislocation. That's my recollection of a discussion I had with an orthopedic surgeon that has extensive experience treating athletes. I imagine that's possible with the shoulder and other joints. 

 

Mainly though, it's the trauma and unique characteristics of the event which determines the extent of the injury. Stretching can even cause trauma depending on the specific event and there can be hypermobility issues. As was stated, forcing a structure beyond it's limits to do what it doesn't have the capacity. That's essentially the cause. 

 

 

Well put. I’ve been in practice for 18 years now and am in an orthopedic practice with two sports medicine doctors who are among the best in the field. They have treated members of professional sports teams in the NBA, NFL NHL and MLB. I myself am a spine surgeon so I’m not an expert with joint dislocation, but this is a good summary 

[The Dude]

9 hours ago, teachercd said:

Interesting, I had always felt that there were a few "rock" bands that no one "hated", not saying you hate them but you get the idea...I don't mean they were loved by all, I just mean that they were not hated.

 

Guns N Roses

Def Leppard

KISS

AC/DC

Rolling Stones

 

I always filed Def Leppard away with all the other crappy hair metal acts of the time.