Hi all!

Somehow, our "official" site is on myspace, our "cool" site is here, and our "fun" site for fooling around with friends and fans is on Facebook. We use Facebook for informing and having fun with mostly real friends of ours around our area, so most of the discussions there even are in german. For "official" stuff, such as booking gigs, making contact, we use Myspace. It's like a business card. Facebook is like a bar around the corner (you just have to watch your personal data and bring your own beer).
But we don't have music up on Facebook, since somewhere they say all music uploaded there may be used by them. No thanks.

But what Kopper says is true: you have to use different networks, and last.fm is a good idea.

Cheers, Doc Sanchez

Thanks everyone for your replies, your information is very helpful.

Good answer! :) Bands should set up pages on as many social networking sites as possible. I also highly recommend eBandaGoGo, and don't forget about sites like Last.fm, too. Weirdonia said:

We use both but we don't put our music on Facebook, because of their sketchy terms of use.
We like to say our website is our garage punk hideout page though ;D

Myspace is so much better for gig alerts and stuff like that. Facebook isn't meant for that. Also you have to be careful with your own privacy so I won't add anyone who I'm not aquainted with on facebook. Myspace is walking dead like a zombie, I've been a member of a punk group there and although it has 80 000 members it cannot generate debates on a regular basis. Most of the members on that site are inactive but I guess reporting that or deleting them would be bad publicity.

I hear Facebook is growing as a resource for updating fans about shows.Though many bands still use Myspace as a means to get their music out and meet bands, many people who aren't trying to make a living with their music no longer use Myspace. Social networking sites seem volatile. One day, Myspace is top and then Facebook comes along and knocks it down 5 notches. I think it is important, rather, to have a domain name for stability and then work with the social networking sites as they come and go (That is if the wallet allows).

We use both but we don't put our music on Facebook, because of their sketchy terms of use.
We like to say our website is our garage punk hideout page though ;D

I keep reading Myspace is dead, but I still use it to find out about new bands. Which do you prefer, Myspace or Facebook? If your a band do you need both?

Lutz Vipinderwoman said:

The Road Agent...why not put more up there, but I'd prefer it look more like this..... http://www.funzug.com/index.php/cars/ed-roth-inspired-bubbletop-hot...

For a while I worked as a procurer of rare and out of print books. I had to go to a boring library convention that made the mistake of asking him to do a reading. I believe it was around the time American Tabloid was released or some such, but the place was packed when he started.
And then he started talking. People fled that room like Satan was the guest presenter. By the time he finished it was myself and about ten others. We did get to hang out with him after and chat. Nice guy.

This Fella Got A Full Length Collection (On Youtube) You May Enjoy.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5WFfT5dxYI

Nothin' compares to the original, However This one Kicks Fuckin' Ass.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aFBn8hPugc

I do agree with you on the obvious distance the share holders have to the misanthropic excursions that their cash cow has engaged in. I think it is relevant to understand the nature and history of something so important though. History can teach us who to trust and who not to. As far as the money is concerned, I think the insistence of BP's continued existence by President Obama should very well clear them for the future. I predict that their share holdings will raise dramatically in the next eight months or so. The energy market is the second strongest market in the world and they are quite embedded. Here is a graph comparing the state of shares between BP, Haliburton, and Exxon (immediately after the Valdez) http://www.economist.com/node/16270972. The recent two companies have seen a greater diminishing of share value, but the market is much more volatile than it was in 1989. All in all, they did cap the fucking beast and it has been holding steady for a day or two now. I have a friend down there helping out and she told me that things are getting a bit better. Hope the whole mess of em can pull through though, the Gulf Coast is just too damn big to fail. I appreciate the lively debate.

Alex while drawing a line from the Anglo Iranian Oil Company to BP may be possible it is pointless because none of the CEOs or investors today would have had anything to do with it in the 1950s.

Britain has a chequered past like the USA which it can be as much ashamed of as proud and the Coup d'etat was much more an outcome of Britain's underhanded influence in the dying days of the empire like the Suez Crisis. The oil company sure had a hand in there but I would put more of the blame on the British and American governments at the time than on any multinational today. BP's sins at the moment like any other oil company are enough not to be bothering with the past.

I believe that BP are trying to do what they can as this oil slick is costing them a lot as their share prices have now halved since this mess happened. And sure no one makes money by caring but you have to look after your shareholders otherwise you won't make any money ever.

Here's another good article with Slick Willy Clinton actually advocating the destruction of the well. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20009084-503544.html Alex Patton said:

Okay, first off this is no sort of attempt to bring in any foreign co-conspirators or anything of that nature.

Secondly Mike, in a comprehensively written book on coup's that the U.S. has engaged in during it's very short life entitled "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq" http://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-Change/dp/0..., the author does a fantastic job retelling the history of the Mossadegh coup. It is not in the least bit conspiracy theorist, nor am I. He draws the lineage of the Anglo Oil conglomerate from their Iranian oil days directly up to BP.

I also believe you have misunderstood what I was saying about nationalization. Mohammed Mossadegh was actually actively attempting to nationalize the oil fields that were being tapped by the British outfit, not really anything to do with British nationalization.

As for the little bit about Beyond Petroleum, here is a fantastic little article published in 2008 about the name change http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/01/15/beyond-petroleum-pays....
Here's some more stuff if you are interested. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/26/business/bp-plans-name-change.html, http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentI..., this one's a bit funny actually http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentI....

I do agree that people make a big deal about stuff when it happens close to home. No one has really said very much about the Nigerian oil explosion here at all. Out of sight, out of mind I guess. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/world/africa/17nigeria.html

Finally, Russia has been dealing with off-shore oil spills for decades. They simply destroy the well entirely. Sometimes they do so with a nuke, sometimes not. This little diddy is actually from Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/02/russian-scientists-urge-b....


Mike Humsgreen said:

No, BP used to be short for British Petroleum however as it was privatised and no longer British, changed its name to BP so consitently calling it British Petroleum is not only wrong but makes the arguements against it sound just made up.

Sure BP evil oil company, can't do anything right, but you find me an oil company that's any better and I'll find you a cure for cancer.

People only give a shit about oil spills when it directly affects them and that's why we hear so many complaints about this one.

Alex as for you banging on the 1950s coupd d'etat in Iran, that's not right. You are thinking of a different British owned Anglo Iranian oil company. As back in the 1950s there was no giant BP multinational and Britain still had nationalised industries. Falling profits were never a problem for any other British nationalised industry so try another one. It was only when Thatcher came in the 80s that the fat eventually got cut from those industries when they were privatised.

The Coup d'etat is more a national discrace on the British and American governments at underhand play than anything to do with any modern business.

Okay, first off this is no sort of attempt to bring in any foreign co-conspirators or anything of that nature.

Secondly Mike, in a comprehensively written book on coups that the U.S. has engaged in during its very short life entitled "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq" http://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-Change/dp/0..., the author does a fantastic job retelling the history of the Mossadegh coup. It is not in the least bit conspiracy theorist, nor am I. He draws the lineage of the Anglo Oil conglomerate from their Iranian oil days directly up to BP.

I also believe you have misunderstood what I was saying about nationalization. Mohammed Mossadegh was actually actively attempting to nationalize the oil fields that were being tapped by the British outfit, not really anything to do with British nationalization.

As for the little bit about Beyond Petroleum, here is a fantastic little article published in 2008 about the name change http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/01/15/beyond-petroleum-pays....
Here's some more stuff if you are interested. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/26/business/bp-plans-name-change.html, http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentI..., this one's a bit funny actually http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentI....

I do agree that people make a big deal about stuff when it happens close to home. No one has really said very much about the Nigerian oil explosion here at all. Out of sight, out of mind I guess. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/world/africa/17nigeria.html

Finally, Russia has been dealing with off-shore oil spills for decades. They simply destroy the well entirely. Sometimes they do so with a nuke, sometimes not. This little diddy is actually from Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/02/russian-scientists-urge-b....


Mike Humsgreen said:

No, BP used to be short for British Petroleum however as it was privatised and no longer British, changed its name to BP so consitently calling it British Petroleum is not only wrong but makes the arguements against it sound just made up.

Sure BP evil oil company, can't do anything right, but you find me an oil company that's any better and I'll find you a cure for cancer.

People only give a shit about oil spills when it directly affects them and that's why we hear so many complaints about this one.

Alex as for you banging on the 1950s coupd d'etat in Iran, that's not right. You are thinking of a different British owned Anglo Iranian oil company. As back in the 1950s there was no giant BP multinational and Britain still had nationalised industries. Falling profits were never a problem for any other British nationalised industry so try another one. It was only when Thatcher came in the 80s that the fat eventually got cut from those industries when they were privatised.

The Coup d'etat is more a national discrace on the British and American governments at underhand play than anything to do with any modern business.

Yep, yer right, BP is just BP and not British Petroleum any more, I can't find a share market entry that states otherwise. And yes, BP is now a global company or a multinational but when yer head office is in the UK: BP's global head office in St James's Square, London (info from their global website) who do you think the press and everyone who believes everything they read are going to point their fingers at? it's going to be where the head honcho sits. And I'm not saying that's right either. And let's not get into the shifting the blame off shore thing that happening as well. And you have to remember that there will be historical memory for lots of people that BP is called British Petroleum; maybe they should have advertised the name change more effectively. "Sure BP evil oil company, can't do anything right, but you find me an oil company that's any better and I'll find you a cure for cancer" Well of course they're evil, you don't make money from caring about shit do you? Just look at all the people topping themselves at Foxcom, the makers of the beloved iphone. The fact that BP is wearing it more than any other oil company at present cause they're the company spraying millions of litres of oil into the gulf. And no I'm not defending the oil companies, they are just as evil, just a little environmentally less destructive at present. Mike Humsgreen said:

No, BP used to be short for British Petroleum however as it was privatised and no longer British, changed its name to BP so consitently calling it British Petroleum is not only wrong but makes the arguements against it sound just made up.
Sure BP evil oil company, can't do anything right, but you find me an oil company that's any better and I'll find you a cure for cancer. People only give a shit about oil spills when it directly affects them and that's why we hear so many complaints about this one. Alex as for you banging on the 1950s coupd d'etat in Iran, that's not right. You are thinking of a different British owned Anglo Iranian oil company. As back in the 1950s there was no giant BP multinational and Britain still had nationalised industries. Falling profits were never a problem for any other British nationalised industry so try another one. It was only when Thatcher came in the 80s that the fat eventually got cut from those industries when they were privatised. The Coup d'etat is more a national discrace on the British and American governments at underhand play than anything to do with any modern business.

No, BP used to be short for British Petroleum however as it was privatised and no longer British, changed its name to BP so consitently calling it British Petroleum is not only wrong but makes the arguements against it sound just made up.

Sure BP evil oil company, can't do anything right, but you find me an oil company that's any better and I'll find you a cure for cancer.

People only give a shit about oil spills when it directly affects them and that's why we hear so many complaints about this one.

Alex as for you banging on the 1950s coupd d'etat in Iran, that's not right. You are thinking of a different British owned Anglo Iranian oil company. As back in the 1950s there was no giant BP multinational and Britain still had nationalised industries. Falling profits were never a problem for any other British nationalised industry so try another one. It was only when Thatcher came in the 80s that the fat eventually got cut from those industries when they were privatised.

The Coup d'etat is more a national discrace on the British and American governments at underhand play than anything to do with any modern business.

First, British Petroleum is the major player in this debacle. Haliburton was contracted by B.P. to drill the well and it was ultimately B.P.'s decision to go with cheaper blow off valves and cut as many other corners as possible. I think that it is extremely important to keep the handle British Petroleum alive, despite their attempts to assuage the public by assuming the much more wholesome, albeit transparent, name Beyond Petroleum. This is the very same oil conglomerate that willingly hired American agents to oust the democratically elected president of Iran in the 1950's because they were afraid of falling profits. While there is more than enough blame to go around, the corporation that would have been profiting the most from this faulty rig would have been BP, and there fore the blame is custom fit for their monetarily cushioned shoulders. Haliburton heads did in fact testify in a public senate hearing and admitted, to the extent that bureaucrats will, that they were responsible for certain faults. The clean up will be extensive and the extent of the damage will not be understood for many years. The idea that they hit an asphalt volcano seems highly implausible. The sheer fact that they have been going to great lengths not to compromise the availability of the oil in the well shows that it is not mere asphalt they are dealing with. They could have destroyed the well months ago, but were wholeheartedly set on sucking every last bit of oil they could out of Deep Water Horizon.

I believe that "BP" is the brand of the British Petroleum company. Has anyone seen the conspiracy theory thing doing the rounds on other forums that it's not an oil well that's gone sour but that BP drilled into the side of an asphalt volcano? I haven't found any articles about it just conspiracy nuts raving about it. Mike Humsgreen said:

I don't know why so many Americans insist on calling BP British Petroleum when it is a multinational that hasn't been called that in over 10 years. And the Obama administration and media has been careful not to let much blame fall on any of the home grown US contractors despite it being Haliburton Energy Services who should be taking a large preportion of the blame for leasing out faulty rigs.

But either way looking at the destruction of marine life, it's heart breaking to think how long it will take again for the fishing industry there to pick up. I mean does anyone know how long the contamination might last?

He was absolutely hilarious in Bruno though.

OK, it's the monthly BOMP! Some info: Everyone invited! ART FART OR PIE CHART - bring the graphics folks! We only live thru your artsy looking blood spilled over paper and weird kinds of fabric! Keep it coming and post all kinds of HUMBUG from classy to messy, polished or demolished - BIG or small - short or TALL - THE RNR graphic artist group is happy about all graphic ramblings!

NOW, that's how I like it! The whole bunch of recruits showing up and showcasing their swell graphic exploits! It'll be cool to see what you guys came up with.

I think every episode had at least one good laugh. Sometimes it feels surreal to the point that you ask yourself if you should laugh or not. Not because it's not funny but it seems almost serious in a way, a weird way.

i kinda like that you dont know what you get when watching reno911! whater is it shit or blast off...there´s too much series that calcukates every inch of the script ho make sure everybody get it. Reno 911! is unbalanced, unstable but the show itself is always one possibility for laugh riot. Shane-O said:

Reno 911 is hit or miss. Some episodes were really good, and some others were just....Meh.
The Shield is a top ten show for me, it had me hooked from the beginning, and I havent seen the final season yet. Havent watched the Wire, but I have heard nothign but good things about it, so I will rent the series DVDS that are available and check it out.

I have read about this movie in the past but i've never actually seen it. I'll add it to my list - Thanks! Lutz Vipinderwoman said:

I don't know that it has much of a reputation, but The Bandit Queen (1994) based on a true story about a real female bandit (Thuggie?) in India....when it comes to rape and the revenge. Hard to watch at points and a bit a natural tearjerker, but one of my favorites.