| re: Andrew Lloyd Moneybags | |
|
Posted by: |
Pudding 08:20 pm UTC 04/29/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Andrew Lloyd Moneybags - pidunk 07:53 pm UTC 04/29/07 |
| > You can tell me, because you think it is bullshit, that > Jim is not who Jim really is, and you can tell me that > things you want to be true are true, and things you don't > want to be true aren't true, and your statements are, as > you say, bollocks. I am not going to go without my comment > here, that my entire lifetime of life experience and > training, little as it is in comparison with > professionals, is untrue. Broadway is as appealing as it > is to those who seek it out because it is the Broadway > Community, not the perhaps revolutionistically aspired, > Broadway Conglomerate. You can't take over a culture > simply by declaring it non-existent. Do you set yourself a target each day of how much nonsense you can say? I've never said Jim isn't who Jim is, you have Mrs.Jimbles. I'm guessing you didn't care to read fully what I said after what you did (it's difficult I know) In short I'll summarise, please try and keep up: You claimed that having 200 investors of a show was "the nature of Broadway" and I replied It might be for the odd show or two, but it isn't the nature. Pud | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Andrew Lloyd Moneybags - pidunk 07:53 pm UTC 04/29/07 |
| Next: | re: Andrew Lloyd Moneybags - pidunk 08:35 pm UTC 04/29/07 |
| Thread: |
|