Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: not that this is at all significant but. . . a FORTY YEAR OLD in a PUNK band? really??? [View all]treestar
(82,383 posts)88. Not at all
What's the age limit?
Punk came on the scene in the lat 70s - some of those people must be one 40 by now.
The Stones are in their late 60s now. Are they supposed to stop?
Sounds like ageism.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
116 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
not that this is at all significant but. . . a FORTY YEAR OLD in a PUNK band? really??? [View all]
niyad
Aug 2012
OP
That's one of the sillier things you could be complaining about here. (nt)
Posteritatis
Aug 2012
#14
reading comprehension helps. I asked if he wasn;t a bit old to be in a punk band, something that
niyad
Aug 2012
#112
try reading-- I asked if he wasn't a bit old to be in a punk band, seeing that it brings to mind
niyad
Aug 2012
#114
Christopher Lee's put some metal albums out in the last couple years, too. (nt)
Posteritatis
Aug 2012
#44
Not sure where you're listening to get the impression that's what it's all like today. (nt)
Posteritatis
Aug 2012
#52
Not yet, but I will. I'll never figure out why Metallica got huge and Testament didn't.
Throd
Aug 2012
#74
Not really. The punk bands I liked when punk first came out, are probably in their late 50s..
progressivebydesign
Aug 2012
#91