London Banter - View Single Post

[email protected] · January 3rd 16, 03:34 PM posted to uk.transport.london

In article , d
() wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 10:25:21 -0600
wrote:
In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 15:28:34 GMT, d wrote:

The Beatles were just the first boy band with all the accompanying
hysteria. Once all the baby boomers have shuffled off this mortal coil
they'll justjust another name in the musical history books. I doubt
many people under the age of 60 actually listens to them on a regular
basis.

[There's something odd about your newsreader. I got none of the above
text in this post, just the headers which is why I'm commenting to
Aurora's comment because his browser did pick up your content. I can't
see the content of your reply to this message of his either.]

Probably a problem with the aioe nttp server which went off air over the
new year. Another of my posts seems to have completely vanished into the
ether.

Why would that get the headers through but not the body text? And the body
was still visible to some in this newsgroup. Whatever, the problem seems to
have at least partly gone away now (there's another of your posts down
thread where I only have the headers).

You're totally wrong about the Beatles if my family is anything to go by.
My daughters (29 and 23) are and always have been as keen on Beatles
music as I am and now my granddaughter (9) is too.

There are always exceptions. But in general the people who listen to
the pop music (this doesn't apply to classical or rock) of a certain
era are people who grew up in that era so the majority of people who
listen to 60s pop music would have had their formative years in that
decade.

My point was that there are exceptions and the Beatles are a big one.

--
Colin Rosenstiel