yeah yeah. i know you believe the stones are better and you wont accept anything else. But really... I will grant them the first 8 years and being some of their best material. After those 8 years it went down more and more... now they should just retire.

Anyways, waiting for your rebuttal...

but most of all i find it funny that people consider The Beatles "average".... I already do not wanna know what they consider to be above average...

But this is a much harder debate, since I bet you 99% of people on here werent even around when both the bands were in their prime.

Harder to see in hindsight. We grew up in a time when The Beatles and The Stones were always around, so we can not experience the true impact of either band when it was exciting and new like people who were there. That is the missing link.

No you've missed the point entirely.

It was created to show that Beatles fans will hardly give the Stones any iota of credit for anything whatsoever.

I just throw up some bullshit list and just repeatedly say I prefer the Stones and for some reason they can't seem to handle this and will insist on making post after post telling me i'm wrong.
In fact I may be wrong but I don't think I've ever said anywhere on this thread that I hate The Beatles.

I've even repeatedly mentioned this in the thread and yet it still keeps getting bumped and Beatles fanboys still keep falling for it.

I find it hilarious.

I love the stones. But no way in hell were they as good as the Beatles.

okay?

Well the Beatles never had a frontman that looked like this.

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content...1/15091307.jpg

Or a guitarist that looked like that.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-imag...ichards460.jpg

Piss off!

I'd post a picture of The Beatles bass player too but posting female genitalia infected with crabs is probably against the rules.

John Lennon says Hi though
http://www.palenightproductions.com/...ingCorpse1.jpg