Looks like I have some time on my hands....
Blergh, get that off me!
Look, Shiny, that post was not meant for you in the first place. It was *about* you, not *for* you. What I was trying to say, to tell others, was that you already made up your mind. And then you put it in a box, put that box in a safe, put that safe in a big ass wooden crate, poured concrete over it and threw it into the deepest pit of the ocean. Unless somebody's got a big red "S" on their shirt, the Hammer rule applies: Can't touch this!
You and me both know very much that my post is actually easy to reply to and contains a very definite core message concerning you and I know why you won't reply to it. Your way of arguing, from what I've seen, consists of very well known (at least to me) tactics like qouting small excerpts and single sentences, bogging down the discussion in details until your opponents grows tired and gives up. I used to do this all the time.
I also know that what I wrote about you (baseless assumption or not) isn't very nice. I realise how offensive it must be to you but I assure you, my intention is not to hurt your feelings, religious or otherwise. I may disagree greatly but I am not here to piss on your leg. I apologize for that even if I will continue to stand by my point.
Actually your response to my rather innocent question regarding musical taste proves it. "I don't listen to secular music anymore" is what you wrote. You divide music into secular and non-secular. That's your worldview right there. Non-secular vs. secular.
Not listening to secular music means you don't listen to The Beatles, John Williams, Jimi Hendrix, The Prodigy, Beastie Boys, Ennio Morricone, Queen, Cypress Hill, Deep Purple or Jesper Kyd. All great musicians. It may even include people like Mozart or Beethoven. Why? Because it's not religious enough?
Your worldview is seperates everything into two categories: secular and non-secular.
I pity you for that. You miss out on so many wonderful things.
Having said that, I must also tell you this: I am glad you're here.
There is this discussion going on in this thread about the rightness of the ignore function. I see no problem with that. @shinyblurry certainly posts many things that aren't popular here but as far as I can tell he always stays civil and quite cool, given the nature of responses he gets. I understand why some people don't want to discuss anything with him. I advise against discussing certain topics altogether, this is why I posted in this thread at all, however I must say I never saw him behaving in troublesome ways.
Assuming that this site is a place for open discussion about pretty much any topic, I think shiny's input has its place here. Putting him on ignore is not an act of ignorance or cowardice or however you want to characterise it, it is simply unwillingness to to argue with him. It is the realisation that this crate of his ist way beyond our reach, our touch.
I don't like people to tell me what I want to hear, I want people to tell me what they think. I belive shiny does.

How could anyone dislike SS2? It's as much a classic as any Beatles Tune. I really need to replay this gem.

Nice to see the boys back together again. They are like the Beatles, awesome when they work together (Spaced,Shaun,Fuzz,the fake trailer in Grindhouse), less so on their own (Paul,Scott Pilgrim). I have no doubt this will be fantastic.

Your video, The Beatles play Death Metal, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

They were a middle of the road English band trying to sound west coast. The 1960s had MANY MANY experimental/progressive rock bands. Beatles of course were the most popular. This does not make them pioneers at all.
The ENGINEERS at London's Abbey Road Studios helped perfect the 4 track recording process. THAT'S IT.

Implying music and other artists wouldn't exist today is plainly beatle fever.

The 1960s was a "revolution" for everything. Lots were changing. The beatles were just on the pop charts / teenage magazines.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy their work, and grew up with lots of their 45s and 33s playing in my house.

Hell even the kid at the beginning of the clip said it right.
"you can't really hate the beatles, or like you'll ..... get killed"

a hippy english pop group from the 1960s =/= revolution pioneers

I guess the concept of "pioneer" is totally lost on you...One very influential factor is multitrack recording techniques that opened a way for musicians to tell totally different tales. Pink Floyd or Queen, they would not exist without Beatles. Without them you got no Muse.

So while you continue to underrate Beatles, the music you have in you favorite player wouldn't exist without them. Just picture, worlds #1 band starts to experiment with music and what did we get? A revolution in music, away from the catchy pop tunes to art rock.

Although I'm a late Gen X'er (1981), I like the Beatles. I think they wrote very good and diverse music and were a good performing band. They aren't in my very-short-list of personal favorite bands or songs, with personal being a very key word. To each his own; I might hate what you like and you might hate what I like but neither of us is "wrong".

That being said, I think that in the future the Beatles are in some danger of being to music what Shakespeare is to literature. I (personally again) dislike most Shakespeare, and I think that modern Western culture tends to shove his works down ones throat more than necessary. Worse, collectively our culture overreacts to anyone that for whatever reason says they aren't a fan: Don't like Bieber / Michael Jackson / what or whoever? That's cool. Don't like Shakespeare? Philistine! He's the greatest writer of all time! Wharrgarrbl!

I guess what I'm saying is that I can imagine that in 50+ years, a kid might be sitting in school listening to his teachers go on and on about how Shakespeare was the best writer of all time and the Beatles were the best musicians of all time, and anyone thinks otherwise is just wrong, end of discussion. It will be a shame if that happens. By all means play the music (and teach a Shakespeare play or two), but let the reactions and opinions fall where they may.

well the Beatles are still over rated.

Beatles plays the blues a million times better than Clapton. Clapton known for the blues. Sigh.

either way, i want him to adopt me and wake me up with the beatles!

I'm not really even a Beatles fan, but I think I would have gone with Imagine instead.

Right, so let's ignore the genuine issues with islam in favour of a hipster crowd singing the beatles. yay!

Notice how when the guy said "women are still being stoned", the chick didn't actually have a comeback for that?

Not that he's any better. But just because it's a christian nutjob is warning you about islamic nutjobs doesn't mean he's not telling the truth.

Are muslims evil? Of course not, no more than the average christian is? Are there seriously fucked up issues in both religions? hell yeah.

ugh, the whole thing felt staged.

WOW!! The Beatles finally managed to make something absolutely terrible!

*promote
Now tell me-Where did the Beatles get their lyrics for Lucy in the Sky? Formby re-wrote lyrics to his tune, "When I'm Cleaning Windows" in 1956 when he took part in some LSD experiments concocted by the UK.
Early Pioneer-