The Jackson 5

[your mother]

25 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

My mother came from Michaels mouth? Wrong on so many levels..... either that or I just have a dirty mind.

 

You're grounded. 

[thewayiam]

1 hour ago, Nobody Interesting said:

SR for Saturday - Please let Ed be Saturday.

 

1 hour ago, your mother said:

I've heard the foos are Saturday 

It probably is Foo's for Saturday. It'll be very tempting but I was a much bigger Jacko fan than Jackson 5.

[stuartbert two hats]

42 minutes ago, thewayiam said:

 

It probably is Foo's for Saturday. It'll be very tempting but I was a much bigger Jacko fan than Jackson 5.

I doubt that. They're his brothers, they loved the guy.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Jacko: only the band that The Jacksons could have been.

[thewayiam]

27 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I doubt that. They're his brothers, they loved the guy.

What does that have to do with me being a bigger of MJ solo?

[Gucci Piggy]

I was genuinely going to reply to Stu saying I can't wait for Gazza to attempt to reply to this without even understanding the post.

[CaledonianGonzo]

I'm a big fan of Jacko and the lads, but not so much of Jacko and the lads.

[dentalplan]

2 hours ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Gazza and pals in their fancy dress again, I see.

[Michaels denim shorts]

25 minutes ago, thewayiam said:

What does that have to do with me being a bigger of MJ solo?

 

[stuartbert two hats]

3 hours ago, thewayiam said:

What does that have to do with me being a bigger of MJ solo?

You see, the way your sentence was constructed, there was an ambiguity.  It could be read in one of two ways:

1. You have a preference of Michael Jackson's work over that of The Jackson 5.
2. You liked Michael Jackson as a person more than the members of The Jackson 5 liked Michael Jackson.

Of course, the context strongly implied that the first option was the intended meaning, so I chose to exploit the ambiguity and wilfully subvert expectations, replying as if the second interpretation was the intended meaning.  This is even more unlikely when you consider the familial relationship between the band members, thus increasing the cognitive dissonance when the expectation is subverted and hopefully the humour.

Hope this helps.

Edited February 19, 2017 by stuartbert two hats
clarification on pt1, "section" -> "second"

[Nobody Interesting]

5 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

You see, the way your sentence was constructed, there was an ambiguity.  It could be read in one of two ways:

1. You have a preference of Michael Jackson's work over that of The Jackson 5.
2. You liked Michael Jackson more than the members of The Jackson 5 liked Michael Jackson.

Of course, the context strongly implied that the first option was the intended meaning, so I chose to exploit the ambiguity and wilfully subvert the expectation by replying as if the section interpretation was the intended meaning.  This is even more unlikely when you consider the familial relationship between the band members, thus increasing the cognitive dissonance when the expectation is subverted and hopefully the humour.

Hope this helps.

If I am love them who is I and is it I that love them or them that loves I?

 

[thewayiam]

1 hour ago, Michaels denim shorts said:

 

 

57 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

You see, the way your sentence was constructed, there was an ambiguity.  It could be read in one of two ways:

1. You have a preference of Michael Jackson's work over that of The Jackson 5.
2. You liked Michael Jackson as a person more than the members of The Jackson 5 liked Michael Jackson.

Of course, the context strongly implied that the first option was the intended meaning, so I chose to exploit the ambiguity and wilfully subvert the expectation by replying as if the second interpretation was the intended meaning.  This is even more unlikely when you consider the familial relationship between the band members, thus increasing the cognitive dissonance when the expectation is subverted and hopefully the humour.

Hope this helps.

There is nothing what so ever for me to dislike any members of the Jackson 5 more than others as people so no there isn't another way of looking at it. Let's not put in context what isn't there.

1 hour ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

I'm a big fan of Jacko and the lads, but not so much of Jacko and the lads.

Let's cut out the fucking shit shall we!

I'm on about the musician, not who he chose to spend his time with or what allegedly happened.

[Michaels denim shorts]

Lol, the joke was just a play on words with his brothers liking him mate, I was merely pointing it out that it went (and still seems to be going) completely over your head. Let's put our handbags away shall we 

[CaledonianGonzo]

26 minutes ago, thewayiam said:

Let's cut out the fucking shit shall we!

I'm on about the musician, not who he chose to spend his time with or what allegedly happened.

To be clear, the only lads I'm referring to are the zombified chaps from off of the Thriller video.

[Slugworth]

This is great Sunday reading. Don't stop

 

(till you get enough)

[CaledonianGonzo]

Need to get a t shirt with this on the front

and "Let's cut out the fucking shit shall we!" written on the back.

[SwedgeAntilles]

6 hours ago, Will-2609 said:

I was genuinely going to reply to Stu saying I can't wait for Gazza to attempt to reply to this without even understanding the post.

[Rubber Soldier]

5 hours ago, thewayiam said:

 

There is nothing what so ever for me to dislike any members of the Jackson 5 more than others as people so no there isn't another way of looking at it. Let's not put in context what isn't there.

Let's cut out the fucking shit shall we!

I'm on about the musician, not who he chose to spend his time with or what allegedly happened.

 

[tevaburger]

not familiar with The Jacksons, and obviously missed them at all of my previous Glastonburys... aren't they the band that suddenly hit it big in '84 off that one hit song they did with Mick Jagger? State of something? arrogantly thought they could pull off a Victory tour of US stadiums off that one hit? 

[H.M.V]

20 minutes ago, tevaburger said:

not familiar with The Jacksons, and obviously missed them at all of my previous Glastonburys... aren't they the band that suddenly hit it big in '84 off that one hit song they did with Mick Jagger? State of something? arrogantly thought they could pull off a Victory tour of US stadiums off that one hit? 

Seriously? 

 

Jacksons had a string of bangers in the 70's. Go to YouTube and put your dancing shoes on. 

[FuzzyDunlop]

Just caught up on this thread. Classic efests moments right here.

 

Edited February 20, 2017 by FuzzyDunlop

[nikkic]

One of the best threads in a while. 

[Mezhyp1]

I've just came here to catch up and showered the place with Monday morning upvotes 

Edited February 20, 2017 by Mezhyp1

[CaledonianGonzo]

Ooh.  redbubble have a belting t-shirt with which I'm going to buy to commemorate this wonderful philosophical exchange of ideas.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Have you been given this as an exclusive, Neil?

 

Edit: Just reread it.  Siblings theme, eh?  Marley Brothers? Kuti Brothers?  Isley Brothers?

Edited February 20, 2017 by CaledonianGonzo