You’re comment is so poorly written I can’t even read it.

I’ve always thought that as well — she looks like a transvestite. 

Here's a list that has as much meaning as any meaningless top-ten list. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

I think you mean transcendent, not transcending.

"It really is a shame that he didn't have quite the career he deserved"

Says who? The guy had a massive amount of success. But, according to you, that wasn't enough?

I don't think there is any truth in your entire comment -- just a series of cliches.
This 2003 album alone disproves your sweeping assertion.

I’m an editor for TV, and I had two opportunities to meet him — I passed both times.

First off, calm down with the exclamation marks — it’s a childish, uneducated way of writing, and it doesn’t help your reply. And your claim of seeing the show in Seattle is unconvincing. It sounds more like you watched the concert/movie that we’ve all seen, and you’re clearly cutting and pasting other people’s writings into your reply. 67k is not a record — The Who had already played to 75k at the Silverdome. Not only are you creating “facts” out of thin air, but these “facts” still have nothing to do with the comments I made previously. Also, you seem to know nothing about music itself: “Wings wiped it out last night with a spectacular extravaganza that was the highlight of their American tour”. This is plagiarism first of all, and it’s a completely empty statement. Your reply doesn’t have a single idea or thought (let alone a single grammatically correct sentence). Like I said before, if you want to take the time and actually construct an argument (instead of using other people’s words, as if they were your own), I’ll be happy to discuss this topic.

No, I am playing nice. I was just explaining the sub-title under my name. Pure irony.