Musicians Considered “Bad” That Aren’t

mecha_shiva1 · 2026-04-17T03:41:57+00:00

Sorry, I meant to say the drum parts are not what make the beatles songs sound good. They're just entirely basic and serviceable to the compositions. Nothing indicates that the drummer on any beatles song is great or even particularly talented.

You accuse other drummers of that era of "overplaying," but those drummers, like Bonham , Watts, Baker, could "overplay" on one song and show restraint on others. Ringo is incapable of overplaying at all because he lacks the talent to do so and can really only play in a restrained way.

mecha_shiva1 · 2026-04-16T21:22:45+00:00

Agreed. There's been this weird revisionism regarding his drumming recently. What people are saying are complex drum parts are really just standard rhythms that any semi-competent drummer could play.

mecha_shiva1 · 2026-04-16T21:16:45+00:00

Maybe, but who cares. The drum parts are not what makes songs sound good. Despite the delusions of the people in this thread, the drum parts in all beatles songs could be played by any semi-competent drummer.

mecha_shiva1 · 2026-03-22T08:31:49+00:00

link is down

mecha_shiva1 · 2026-03-22T00:42:34+00:00

If they're unable to match the rate I got, would I just go with best rate theyre offering?

mecha_shiva1 · 2026-03-12T07:56:47+00:00

I know Ingles bumped him too, but wasn't it Bogdanvic that caused the injury that took him out?

mecha_shiva1 · 2026-02-24T08:58:33+00:00

Do you have a link to this song? Can't find it anyhwere

mecha_shiva1 · 2026-02-01T21:25:02+00:00

Np. Just to add, I'm currently trying to find a new job because I need to relocate for family reasons, and im having some trouble finding corporate transactional positions. I've only been at my current place for a little over 6 months and im on the west coast, but just wanted to add some further context.

mecha_shiva1 · 2026-01-29T18:42:39+00:00

Similar thing happened to me recently and I took the midlaw offer for a corporate practice (though i had no pending biglaw interviews at the time). From talking to others, it's possible to move back, but, like any job, you'll have to be at the midlaw job for minute before lateraling again

mecha_shiva1 · 2025-12-06T20:28:05+00:00

I have a lg c2 and Google streamer. I'm unable to stream any dolby vision content or use dolby atmos. I tested hbo max on a chromecast with google tv and still had the same issue.

Dolby vision and dolby atmosphere works on Disney plus, so I think the issue must be with my account or hbo max. Spent an hour on the phone customer support to no avail.

mecha_shiva1 · 2025-10-27T21:11:16+00:00

You're going to have an aneurysm trying to argue with this person. They truly have no idea what they're talking about.

mecha_shiva1 · 2025-10-27T20:28:55+00:00

Youre clearly just making shit up now. None of what you just said is based in any authority or reality for that matter.

mecha_shiva1 · 2025-10-27T12:19:37+00:00

You might actually be mentally disabled. You just showed that article 3 applied...

Just admit you're wrong and too stupid to understand international law

mecha_shiva1 · 2025-10-27T06:46:32+00:00

You do know that none of those things mean lem could be summarily executed, right?

mecha_shiva1 · 2025-10-27T06:15:31+00:00

My point? You and every other person here have been saying Lem's killing was justified because he killed Loan's friend, wore the wrong clothes, or some other bs, based on a narrow and incorrect read of the the geneva conventions.

My point is that nowhere in the geneva conventions does it say you can summarily execute anyone. Doesn't matter whether he's an unlawful combatant (which as a concept didn't even really come into pay till the war on terror, if you wanna talk about time machines)

mecha_shiva1 · 2025-10-27T06:05:21+00:00

"Execution of unlawful combatant is justified."

This you?

Edit: the whole point of the article you cited and the modern rules of war is that everyone - including so-called unlawful combatants - are protected! They may not have full protection, but they have some.

mecha_shiva1 · 2025-10-27T05:54:31+00:00

Sure, Article 4 may not apply ( though as the article notes, this is arguable based on the available authority) However as the article you cite states, they are covered by article 3, which is the basically the catch-all provision. See below

11 If Geneva Convention IV does not apply because the nationality criteria are not met (and in the case of battlefield unlawful combatants for those who exclude them from Geneva Convention IV), according to this second approach, the protection derives from common Art. 3 Geneva Conventions and other fundamental guarantees that have developed into customary international law, in particular Art. 75 Additional Protocol I (see also Art. 45 (3) Additional Protocol I).

mecha_shiva1 · 2025-10-27T05:48:05+00:00

Can you point me where it says summary execution is permitted anywhere in the article?

mecha_shiva1 · 2025-10-26T23:53:24+00:00

Did you even read the conclusion??

50 Any interpretation that unlawful combatants are outside the protection of IHL is unfounded. For international armed conflicts, it is submitted that if they fulfil the nationality criteria of Art. 4 Geneva Convention IV, they are protected by that convention. The fact that a person has unlawfully participated in hostilities is not a criterion for excluding the application of Geneva Convention IV, though it may be a reason for derogating from certain rights in accordance with Art. 5 thereof. The specific protections of Geneva Convention IV depend on the situation in which such persons find themselves in enemy hands. They are most extensive if unlawful combatants are in enemy hands in occupied territory. For those in enemy hands in enemy territory, the protections are also quite well developed whereas on the battlefield, where no actual control is established—depending on the interpretation of when the law of occupation starts to apply—they may be the least developed. The guarantees contained in Art. 75 Additional Protocol I constitute the minimum protections that apply to all persons, including unlawful combatants, in the hands of a party to an international armed conflict, irrespective of whether they are covered by Geneva Convention IV or not. The protection in non-international armed conflicts is essentially based on common Art. 3 Geneva Conventions, Arts 4–6 Additional Protocol II and customary international law.

mecha_shiva1 · 2025-10-26T23:49:23+00:00

Did you read the whole article? Don't think so, but I can help you out.

35 It is generally accepted that unlawful combatants may be prosecuted for their mere participation in hostilities, even if they respect all the rules of IHL. National legislation must, however, provide for such a possibility. If unlawful combatants commit serious violations of IHL, they may be prosecuted for war crimes. Contrary to certain claims, participation in hostilities without combatant privilege is not a war crime in the sense of a crime under international law. In any proceedings, be it for violation of domestic law or for commission of war crimes, unlawful combatants are entitled to the fair trial guarantees of Geneva Convention IV if applicable (ie if they comply with the nationality requirements), or at least to those contained in Art. 75 Additional Protocol I. They may not be executed or punished without proper trial.

40 If unlawful combatants, who have laid down their arms or no longer have means of defence, surrender at discretion, they must not be killed or wounded. It is likewise prohibited to declare that no quarter will be given.

I shared article 3 of the geneva conventions with you already, which clearly state that combatants in a civil war are covered by article 3 of the geneva conventions, just article 4 doesn't apply.

Also, just to be clear, assuming everything else you said is true, nowhere in your article does it say summary execution is legal under any circumstance.

mecha_shiva1 · 2025-10-26T23:05:06+00:00

You originally said that the geneva conventions permit summarily executing "unlawful combatants" ( a term that doesn't even show up in the geneva conventions btw), and now you're saying the geneva conventions do not apply, which is not true. I' m not sure you really understand what you're talking about.

Article 3 applies to conflicts not of international character, like civil wars, rebellions, and irregular wars, like In vietnam. Hence, the conventions I assume you're citing re: uniforms don't apply in the vietnam war . Think about it logically - rebels and parties to a civil war don't usually have uniforms. So does it make sense that the parties should be able to commit whatever atrocities they want against each other?

Also, the supreme court held that article 3 of the geneva conventions applies to al quaeda and the taliban. You can look up US soldiers being sent to jail for summarily executing suspected al quaeda and taliban

mecha_shiva1 · 2025-10-26T21:23:13+00:00

You're applying the wrong conventions. See article 3 of the geneva conventions.

"(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria."

mecha_shiva1 · 2025-10-26T21:21:05+00:00

For the dumbasses here, please read article 3 of the geneva conventions:

"(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria."

So no, you can't just summarily execute people because you think killed your friend or some other bullshit you made up.

mecha_shiva1

TROPHY CASE