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]Brickbat
(19,339 posts)115. I did read, and I think it's funny you think 40 is too old for a punk band.
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