I haven't been spending a lot of time in this thread, but the local branch of Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting has asked me to point out a, no doubt unintentional, lapse in completeness in an earlier report (not a comment).
> [post by SilkMuse]
>> ASp: Aren't we supposed to be doing this chronologically? (I was waiting till "17")
>>>[Post deleted by SilkMuse]
I do not comment; I merely report.
--------------------------------------------------------------
>[post by sparteye, jumping to 16]
No objection by ASp.
I do not comment; I merely report.
The (no doubt unintentional) lapse is that between
[post by sparteye, jumping to 16] and the report (not a comment) the aforementioned ASp had posted:
Is there really nothing for the ages between 4 and 17??? I keep coming up blank... and now y'all have posted the 17-related songs I was waiting to explode upon the scene with. 
[white](going to the back of the class now)[/white]
I do not comment, I merely report. I do commend the ARs for advancing from newbie to journeyman in the prosecution of his efforts to demonstrate his greater knowledge of popular music when for all we know he could be a Pooh-Bah if he were to take proper credit for his postings. I do hope he will pay more attention to the little details in his reporting and I would hope that no one ever find him to have committed similar lapses to the one he wrongly attributes to the ASp.
