Time’s up/Boredom

FAC251, a night club located in Factory Records’ former offices is creating quite a storm for all the wrong reasons. It appears that many citizens have had enough of ‘Madchester’. This is nothing new but with the Red half of the city trying to go militant against the Glazier family, there must be something in the air. So what’s the problem, why has a city turned on its beloved sons?

‘Fear of resembling Liverpool’ if Dave Haslam is to be believed? The criticism is that if we continue to revere work from the past, to frequently revisit it, we will stifle progression. It claims that Manchester could/does resemble Liverpool in the fallout of the Beatles. Presumably, the arguments’ reach is to those who deem Liverpool a rival. It merely assumes that revisiting culture is counter-progressive. Amazingly Dave Haslam, the former Hacienda and XFM DJ, is a lecturer at a local university. It is questionable whether he is qualified for such a position seeming that here he openly cashes-in on prejudice towards Liverpudlians. This argument fails to highlight the real problems and should be dismissed as being xenophobic amongst other things.

The tenet of this argument is in its assumption that revisiting culture is damaging towards progression. However, it could, and should be argued that people keep returning to Factory Records because it was a purple patch for the city’s culture and our understanding of this era is crucial to our advancement. Put simply, if we do not learn from the mistakes of the past how are we going to avoid committing them in the future?

Secondly, how is the fallout of Factory Records and progressive pop culture linked? Surely those who wish to make progressive music will do so, whilst those who want to make nostalgic music will do so. The bottom line is that those who wish to pursue the arts may do so in anyway they so feel. If you don’t like their choice then deal with it. Protest. Boycott. Critique. Argue. Rant. Whatever. Just don’t make arguments so loaded with erroneous assumption, xenophobia and self-contradiction that you resemble Dave Haslam.

It seems the core of the anti-FAC revolt surrounds that many residents are baffled or finding it hard to accept that the Factory Records and subsequent ‘Madchester’ era continues to influence and inspire. That it continues to attract large crowds and the attention of many pop fans, young and old. The blog FUC51 (NB: FAC51 was the Hacienda) expressly argues for an end to revisiting the past. However, with so many people investing in nostalgia, we must let democracy and the free market reign and allow these people to carry on as they wish. They are not deluded, they know the value of their product, they know they are digging up the past.

That’s enough sitting on the fence for one day me thinks, after all it’s going to rain sometime, it’s Manchester. Where’s the problem? Highlighted a few years ago by local cultural journalist Gary Ryan in The Big Issue, “you don’t need to be Madchester to work here – but it helps.” This is why our town is fucked. Plain simple. From a journalistic perspective, you can’t get anything done without some ‘Madchester’ prick lurking in the corner. The local radio, the press, they’re all riddled with these nostalgic tossers who on one hand LOVE MANCHESTER for what it has produced and on the other are the voices for new music. The issue is that people who still listen to Joy Division (for example) for reasons other than nostalgia are stupid. As I understand it, these bands were so popular because they captured the post-industrial disillusionment of their era. Today, Manchester is not that city. It is big, and shiny, it has new financial quarters, concrete and glass buildings, upmarket shopping centers, posh eateries and coffee shops, fancy bars and 3-D cinemas. Levenshume Baths are out, the Aquatics Center is in. Plus, all the estate agents are pretentious. The Northern Quarter is so big now it practically consumes Ancoats (wherever that was). The fact is, that we want new, not old. We don’t want Manchester to be dying and shit to then have music as its saving beacon. It has moved on. Joy Division is no longer the sound of Manchester because the city they sing about no longer exists. That and the Cold War is over. So it begs the question, why do these people continue to listen to these bands? It is my mind that they do so because they adhere to all stereotypes. They are the marginalised schoolkids. Too bookish to formulate their own opinion. They adhere to the waves of received opinion. They listen to canonised bands because they need to be told when music is good. They lack any intuitive prowess. They use these big names to hide behind rather than to convey new ideas. So when they come to talking about new bands they stammer and stifle. They wait for major labels to back local bands then they jump on them like idiots. They herald bands that sound like other bands that are big, rather than talking up bands that sound like nothing you’ve heard before. One local band rising through the ranks at the moment are Spokes. In essence they are atrocious. They fail to develop ideas, their motifs are void of feeling or character, they convey no greater ideas other than, “this is pleasant”. Fortunately for them, they sound like Arcade Fire so people will champion them.

Either way, if these people are not intuitive enough to realise that Factory Records and ‘Madchester’ are no longer culturally relevant, that playing their records and slapping their faces on magazine covers isn’t engaging with nostalgia then how can we trust them when they champion new bands. How can we trust them when they try to engage with a progressive city. The reality is that we can’t trust them and they’re fucking it up for the rest of us.

The reason why Manchester is in trouble is because the main houses of industry employ those who champion Manchester’s past. The city is struggling to move on because many in a position of power, from Clint Boon and Haslam to City Life to BBC Manchester are all stuck in the past but instead of acknowledging this they all think they’re the voice of modernity. When in essence they are over the hill, coffin dodgers who are, as Haslam so observantly put, “old men telling young people what to do is the complete opposite of what pop music should be about.” That’s right Dave…now fuck off you old git. If Manchester is going to move forward, we shouldn’t forget the past but we should at least get rid of its ghosts and these impotent losers.

To sound out, seeming that there are growing numbers against the nostalgia brigade I’d hope a clear message can be achieved in order represent these concerns. However, at the moment it’s the anti-FAC lot who lack a clear direction.

11 responses

  1. Denton Avatar
    Denton

    Alas my friend, this Manchester is everywhere.

  2. Dave Haslam Avatar

    Unfortunately I’m not able to follow a lot of what you say Samuel; it may be my age, or it may be the quality of your writing but some of your longer paragraphs lost me a bit.

    I think you misunderstand my point about Liverpool. I think there was a good reason why friends of mine involved in music in Liverpool over the last 3 decades tell me how hard it is get anywhere in Liverpool without constantly being compared to the Beatles. The boom of interest in Liverpool caused by the Beatles deafened anyone from appreciating what followed. I was making the same point about Manchester; that since the Madchester boom people (outside Manchester especially) haven’t appreciated things as much as they should because they’re always referring back to 1989/90. That was my point; nothing to do with xenophobia, nothing to do with Manchester’s supposed rivalry with Liverpool (that’s not a subject I’m at all interested in). And I’m not sure how what you’re saying relates to the Glazer (not “Glazier”) family.

    You see me as a barrier to the city moving on. That’s your perception. I think it’s mostly not true, and I know for sure I’ve never stood in anyone’s way. I play old music and new music. I’m not particularly bothered where music comes from; my two favourite bands are from Detroit and New York.

    I’d be interested in your answer to one thing in particular; why are so many younger people obsessed with Madchester? The indie clubs of the city are full of kids too young to have gone to the Hacienda in its heyday all jumping around to I am the Resurrection and singing along to Love Will Tear Us Apart. Why is my inbox regularly filled by young people wanting to interview me for their radio show or their student assignments? Why is the Fac251 Facebook group packed with teenagers and kids in their early 20s? If I was as obsessed with the past as you think I am then I’d have good reason wouldn’t I; I was there and I loved it. But why have the young folk bought into it all? This actually isn’t a question I have answer to; I’d be genuinely interested to know your analysis of this. And it would be nice to take the debate beyond calling people “coffin dodgers” and “old gits”. Funny.

  3. samuelbreen Avatar

    Hi Dave, thanks for your response.

    I’m sorry for the lack of clarity. Seeming that this is a blog rather than an academic paper or ‘proper’ journalism I try to avoid formal prose – the result is ‘stream of conscious’ writing, i.e. a loose interior monologue.

    To your points:

    “how hard it is get anywhere in Liverpool without constantly being compared to the Beatles”

    I have little sympathy for artists that are subject to comparison with other bands. I admit that there are many low rent critics in existence (perhaps more then there have been previously) however the fad of name-checking is well outdated – it is currently considered to be indicative of sloppy writing.

    Even if it were still fashionable to compare bands in reviews we must consider whether the accused (‘y’) are in debt to a previous era or music? Now I propose that unless ‘y’ is reactionary towards a former culture (‘x’) it is likely to bare resemblance to ‘x’. [We can observe this in the discourse of popular music where, for instance, punk is deemed reactionary to prog but to bare resemblance with vaudeville.] In the case where ‘y’ bares resemblance to ‘x’ the critic is perfectly justified when making such an observation explicit no matter how tentative the link.

    If there is the scenario that it is acceptable to reference ‘x’ when speaking of ‘y’ when ‘y’ bares no resemblance to ‘x’ then we really do have a problem. However I don’t believe this takes place.

    “The boom of interest in Liverpool caused by the Beatles deafened anyone from appreciating what followed.”

    As i argue in my post, I believe people have the right to love a band, we live in a democracy and I’m not going to stop these people sounding like the Beatles or The Stone Roses or whoever it is that inspires them. If it means that they stop listening to new music they we must accept that there’s going to be a ‘fallout’ after any great ‘boom’.

    In defense of my claim of xenophobia: “Presumably, the arguments’ reach is to those who deem Liverpool a rival.” The key element of the xenophobia is that many Mancunians deem Liverpool to be a rival city (it goes back to industrial times). By employing Liverpool as a comparison you incorporate the semantics of ‘Liverpool’, its meaning to Mancunians. I believe that by using Liverpool as an example you extend the ‘reach’ of your argument to those who do not wish for Manchester to be compared with Liverpool. I advise that you change your example here.

    ‘Glazier’: this is a flippant comment where I am drawing comparison between the anti-Fac lot and the anti-Glazer lot. It is partially there to highlight how many people are choosing to voice their opinion en masse in order to save two different aspects of their heritage, in this case football and music. I went for ‘Glazier’ as that’s how many pronounce it. A joke. Sorry it wasn’t that great…must do better.

    “I’m not particularly bothered where music comes from; my two favourite bands are from Detroit and New York.”

    Well I think you should be, do you not believe the similarities between Manchester and Detroit regarding industry could offer an argument for environment affecting artistic expression? With reference to House music in particular. [Aside: what are your two favorite bands? I’m guessing UR and VU.]

    “why are so many younger people obsessed with Madchester?”

    This is possibly the bit that was lost in the mire of the extended – and slightly erratic – paragraph. It’s an uncomfortable argument to make so I will try and put in the most diplomatic way possible… By and large I believe consumers of art can be defined in two distinct categories, ‘passive’ and ‘active’. The youngsters you refer to are in the former. The ‘active’ demographic are harder to pigeonhole.

    Passive consumers are dependent on others to provide cultural nourishment. They are your couch potato, they will consume whatever is presented before them. They will not actively seek out, or hunt, for their own cultural nourishment. Today’s society renders the plight of the ‘passive’ consumer all too attractive. Turn on the radio or the TV and the agent is automatically mainlining culture. Their investment is little yet their return is huge. To come to you, with you on the radio, along with many of your peers, with you lecturing and writing. With your peers selling their stories to press, to publishers. With you and your peers continuing to exploit the conservatism of mainstream media organisations you effectively publicise the past to these ‘passive’ consumers. (If you were to ask your fans to describe you, I’m guessing the first answer would be ‘Hacienda DJ’. An injustice perhaps, but Lets face it, you didn’t get the XFM work because you lecture.) ‘Madchester’ is an easily identifiable commodity. It has a beginning, a middle and an end. It has a visual, a sonic, an anecdotal and a social narrative. People who consume culture passively find these qualities easy to digest. This is because we are able to evaluate it with the power of hindsight. This has encouraged many commentators to speak highly of it. To champion it as a purple patch. To tell stories about Tony Wilson and Shaun Ryder. It’s such an engaging narrative that it is no surprise that people are interested and as long as you and your peers continue to broadcast this as long as people will be there to listen, they will consume because you feed them. Finally and most particular to the passive consumer, they need culture to be signposted for them. They need to be told that this band is better than that band. They need to be told that ‘X’ is the greatest songwriter and that ‘y’ is uncool. They are effectively naive. They use ‘Madchester’ to be their passport to cool. They know that if they identify themselves with a culture they announce that they themselves are an extension of that culture <>. They can reiterate stories that they have amassed through documentaries and movies. Through books, magazines and conversations. They can, through focusing on one microcosm of culture, appear informed and sophisticated and ultimately more sexually attractive, even if their knowledge is drip fed through every possible medium.

    The active consumer will go out and seek their culture. They will take gambles on records they aren’t familiar with, or which haven’t been recommended or vetted by their peers or elders. Theirs is a less attractive plight, large investment, smaller return. They will go out to obscure backstreet venues for their nights out, not because they identify with the branding, that they know all they songs that will be played, they go out because they are willing to be treated to something they haven’t experienced before. With the internet, this type of event is a real gamble. Modern trends such as dubstep or minimal techno, or hauntology can be illusive to many youngster. They have strange narratives, they don’t have a beginning middle and end. We don’t yet know all the stories because people are still writing the script, rather that telling the tale. There are few figureheads consuming the airways, the press, the documentaries, the movies. How is a ‘passive’ consumer expected to engage with it?

    In brief, ‘Madchester’ is a simple commodity, readily available and accessible to many. Youngsters buy into it because they are too lazy and stupid to find (let alone create) their own culture.

  4. samuelbreen Avatar

    “With you and your peers continuing to exploit the conservatism of mainstream media organisations you effectively publicise the past to these ‘passive’ consumers.”

    Correction: mainstream media organisations rely on cultural commodities such as yourself and your peers to raise the profile of their product and to attract consumers. Through working in the mainstream media, you and your peers draw attention to ‘Madchester’ whilst new(er) movements are sidelined. The culturally ‘passive’ buy into you as a product. Just picture the slavish kids going to Radio 1 roadshows, they love the DJ.

    Clarity, “even if their knowledge is drip fed [to them] through every possible medium.”

  5. Dave Haslam Avatar

    Hello Samuel,

    Unfortunately I haven’t got the time to respond at length (what with spending so much time setting up barricades to prevent young bands being appreciated and being stuck in the queue to get my pension at the post office, ha ha). Also the one thing I don’t have the inclination to do is to justify myself and what I’ve been doing and saying and writing and playing in the last 27 years in ‘showbiz’ to those people appearing to demand that I should retire or get a proper job or summat. That ain’t gonna happen!

    I appreciate your apologies re. not writing in formal prose. I have to be a bit more circumspect as people have a habit of quoting stuff that I wrote or say back at me. Frightening.

    I also appreciate my mentions of Liverpool might have triggered xenophobia but that wasn’t my intention. However I don’t like the way media figures often ‘talk down’ to the viewers/listeners/readers – sometimes I’m guilty of the opposite (ie. treating people like they have a brain), so I must remember from now on that every time I mention ‘Liverpool’ there’s a chance that loads of Mancs are going to go all frothy out the mouth!! For the record, you may be interested to know that after the Hillsborough disaster the first major concert to raise money for the victims was organised by my friend Nathan and me at the Hacienda and featured Happy Mondays. That’s how uninterested in the rivalry I am.

    When I say “I’m not particularly bothered where music comes from; my two favourite bands are from Detroit and New York” I don’t mean I’m not interested in ways that environment affects artistic expression (as my book ‘Manchester, England’ demonstrates). I mean, instead, that I don’t give special dispensation to bands just because they live in the same city as me. I judge music as music.

    I agree there are similarities between Manchester and Detroit, especially with reference to House music in particular; see the chapter “Revenge of the Screwed-Up Places” in my Manchester book.

    You have incorrectly guessed my two favourite bands.

    In terms of why are so many younger people obsessed with Madchester, I agree that some people are active and some are passive in how they consume art. But firstly, this has always been so; if it wasn’t then people would still be listening to Perry Como (thankfully a few adventurous souls went out and discovered Little Richard). Secondly, there are also degrees between these ‘passive’ and ‘active’ poles, and, thirdly, I don’t quite agree with your implication that young people are somehow brainwashed by me and Clint Boon and whoever else is in this imaginary conspiracy against young people.

    For example, I would say that the truly ‘passive’ consumers in their teens or early twenties are going to be into R&B and or X-Factor style pop as that’s the dominant sound isn’t it??? I mean, how often in the big wide world (I don’t mean the little world of XFM/NME); how often in the big wide world do you hear a Stone Roses song??? When did Simon Cowell last announce that next week is going to be Stone Roses week or any of the contestants on his show choose to belt out that lovely wailing vocal line in ‘Voodoo Ray’?

    “Youngsters buy into it because they are too lazy and stupid to find (let alone create) their own culture.” You think that us “old” people are the enemy of the young? I don’t think I would write people off as dismissively as you do. In fact, I have faith that young people do constantly resist dominant and imposed culture, and create their own.

    And, ironically this is what the Madchester generation did – the mid-1980s was all Wham and ‘Dynasty’ on the TV, an, politically, we were being told there was little future for northern cities with their dirty factories. The City of London was the place to be, apparently. But we created our own culture, and Manchester changed, and music changed.

    I think you’re closer to the answer with your description of ‘Madchester’ as “an easily identifiable commodity. It has a beginning, a middle and an end. It has a visual, a sonic, an anecdotal and a social narrative.” I think this is right in the sense that it’s been turned into a movement like Northern Soul, or punk, or Britpop.

    In my mind, and to my ears, it never had an easily identifiable “sonic narrative” though. I’d like to see someone actually research how the activity that was happening in Manchester in 1988/89 first got turned into ‘Madchester’ and then got distilled into a brand that somehow incorporated Oasis. To my mind, this was a process that diminished the value of the ‘Madchester’ moment; it became a cliche very quickly, and very sadly. The original moment was a lot more open-minded and fluid than the cliche. Do you know what record Ian Brown told me was the best record I ever played at the Hacienda? It was ‘Into the Groovey’ by Ciccone Youth, that Sonic Youth sideline project.

    ‘Madchester’ was a lot more adventurous than what the brand now represents. It’s a shame. But what it means is that young people who resist the ‘Madchester’ cliché are actually more in the spirit of ‘Madchester’ than those who just accept it. Ironically. And confusingly.

  6. samuelbreen Avatar

    Well, seeming that tomorrow is Giro day I won’t keep you much longer as I’m sure you’re itching to catch the 9:31am bus, etc.

    Firstly can you stop using ‘Madchester’ anecdotes in your arguments. I’ve already charged you and your peers of ‘milking it’ so now would probably be an apt moment to hold back on the tales.

    I’m not asking for you to retire – you are entitled to the livelihood you have made for yourself. What I’m accusing you of is hypocrisy (something you have denied but you have failed to offer any argument in response my critique: That as you are inextricably linked to ‘Madchester’ and that every time you broadcast yourself you bring the past kicking and screaming into the present. Furthermore, when you talk about ‘old men telling young people what to do is the opposite of rock and roll’ you need to accept that you are not 22 anymore.

    How can X-Factor viewers be ‘truly passive’? Seeming that they have to vote, they judge new artists as they are presented! And please don’t think young FAC fans are haute. They care about Cheryl Cole just as much as x-factor fans only with their noses turned slightly higher skyward. Also, don’t talk down R&B, that’s a whole genre you’re attacking there (and you teach music journalism?). How many people is that? In fact, how many people watch X-factor?…”sometimes I’m guilty of the opposite (ie. treating people like they have a brain)” …Coming from the man who’s just taken out a large proportion British public. Is it only the appreciators of the ‘small world’ of NME and XFM that you treat with a brain? At least I’m not trying to make out that I often over-estimate peoples’ intelligence.

    I accept that a ‘sonic narrative’ is hard to find and that my previous comment is erroneous.

    “I have faith that young people do constantly resist dominant and imposed culture”

    ‘Have faith’! When I called you an old git it’s because you’re old enough to be my dad.

    “how often in the big wide world do you hear a Stone Roses song???” Too often…are you not getting the gist of my argument?

    “You think that us “old” people are the enemy of the young?” No, but you do.

    “there are also degrees between these ‘passive’ and ‘active’ poles” I agree.

    “I don’t quite agree with your implication that young people are somehow brainwashed by me and Clint Boon and whoever else is in this imaginary conspiracy against young people.” I’m not envisaging a conspiracy here. I am saying that there’s loads of you lot still knocking about and collectively it has an effect on culture. I don’t believe there is a conspiracy theory. I never said brainwashed I said some people consume culture passively, you agreed on this point didn’t you. Also, it’s worth me pointing out that I have first hand experience of these people, please do not belittle me as a conspiracy theorist.

    You’ve taken this far too personally, I took issue with arguments you made in relation to Manchester moving on, not you. Evidently, it’s all about you isn’t it? I want the city to move on but I feel there is no clear direction and without you being able to justify your arguments I can’t see how you are helping.

  7. Dave Haslam Avatar

    Hi Samuel,

    I think our discussion has taken a turn for the worst, and forgive me if I don’t respond to anything further.

    I don’t belittle R&B, I just suggest that R&B and X-Factor pop are the dominant forms of music in the mainstream, which is hardly an original insight. It’s just that I don’t quite accept that being a young fan of Madchester is the easiest or most mainstream option for a young person to take.

    “How many people watch X-factor?…” I don’t know Samuel. Why don’t you Google it and find out. I am thinking the answer will be; lots.

    Do I think old people are the enemy of the young? Where do I say that?

    I don’t think it’s all about me at all. You personalised this by writing “fuck off you old git”.

    I think I’ve replied with good grace and attempted to take the discussion on to other things rather than to spend time discussing with you whether or not I’m an old git and whether or not I should fuck off.

    Tomorrow I am giving up some time to talk to two different students (not students of mine) who want some help and quotes with university projects about the Smiths (one of them) and the Hacienda (the other). I have been invited to a university near Nashville to present a lecture on Joy Division. I’m sure there’s more radio and Tv stuff in the pipeline. Etc etc. I feel pleased that people value my thoughts on these subjects. I don’t always say Yes to requests to talk about the past but people seem genuinely interested in all this. I don’t see the point of refusing just in case a blogger somewhere might claim this is somehow ‘milking it’.

    Dave

  8. samuelbreen Avatar

    Apologies for the hostile tone of my last comment, it was uncalled for, a nadir in the debate. I’m clearly getting a bit hysterical and frustrated with FAC at the moment – it was the reason for my initial post – you’ve just got me at the wrong time. For you FAC was/is the movement of your generation and you should feel proud to say you were involved and I understand why you enjoy talking to people about it (although perhaps not in this instance). For me, I see my generation missing so many opportunities to hear great new music – music that seldom features in mainstream media. What is left is little gigs in tertiary venues where there’s an atmosphere of isolation (for want of better words) rather than community.

    If you don’t want to justify your actions that’s fine but I’m disappointed that you don’t justify your arguments. The tone I employed was to draw an opinion from you but in my anger I have provided an opportunity for you to leave the debate.

    Sam

  9. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    What if, shudder to think, it’s simply the case that the music coming out of Manchester 20/30 years ago was more innovative, less derivative than that which the city is producing today and as a result has had a longer shelf life? That might explain a lot, conspiracy theories aside…

    I agree that comparisons of up and coming bands to “classic era” Manchester bands are unhelpful, but those comparisons wouldn’t be made if, for example, Delphic weren’t trying so hard to sound like New Order, in fact if so many young bands weren’t harking dissapointingly back to the 1980’s.

    Personally, I would like to see greater credit given by the City’s music commentators to earlier Manchester acts like 10cc and Van Der Graaf Generator, both as innovative in their way as the Joy Division and Happy Mondays but not linked to the musical heritage of the city to the same degree.

    The narrative which really stifles the Cities heritage as well as its future is the “Year Zero” one that says “everything was shit until the Pistols played the Free Trade Hall and everyone in the audience went off and saved Music Itself and put Manchester on the map”. Manchester was on the map for a long time before that, and, despite everything, thankfully it still is.

  10. Jose Avatar
    Jose

    Sam – it’s such a shame. A lot of your points are valid, or interesting, or pose good questions – and then all that good work is undone by the sneering, rank unpleasantness that permeates both your article and replies.

    You’ve ended up undermining a reasonable arguement with sheer truculence.
    A shame.

  11. samuelbreen Avatar

    Hi Paul,

    What I’m concerned about, using your example of Delphic, is that how come a band like them have got so big? They have an attractive sound but I always find that their sound becomes boring two or three songs into a concert. There are lots of other types of bands in Manchester, youngsters are currently making off-kilter Garage Pop, punk and rockabilly, psychedelic, electronica, ambient, and folk. Yet for some reason, the only sounds that rise to the top, that receive radio play, substantial press or major label interest are the ones that carry a FAC sound. I can only deduce from this that the powers that be are at fault somewhere along the line. Because of the nature of my profession I feel I can see the fault of press and radio however the music industry itself is beyond my scope.

    You’ve made a great point there about ground zero. Only recently was a friend employing this tale. Personally I think of it as one big joke, How can all these people have gone to the gig? Who was there/ who wasn’t? It’s so hard to work out who went, it doesn’t seem worth bothering with as a line of argument.

    The fact that the history books start with those two gigs could explain why Manchester’s musical narrative continues along this vein – as our city’s ‘defining moment’ so to speak, is wrong.

    @Jose,

    Honestly I’ve no idea why anyone would respond to my arguments considering the tone I’ve used. I agree, it really is quite vile. To speak in parental cliche’s, “I’m only letting myself down,” and, “I’ve only got myself to blame”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *