Beatles or Stones?

I've been wondering what to write about all day. I've started on several topics, but nothing seemed to really inspire me to write more than a few sentences. I would like to thank one Rosie D, 27, from Dallas, TX for changing that. She gave the stupidest answer I could possibly imagine to a very simple question. Let me backtrack a bit to give you the proper perspective.

I was lazily sitting in front of the computer, trying to feel inspired to write something. And by trying to feel inspired, I mean wasting my time on StumbleUpon. I was directed to DonQ's LadyData. This website "gather[s] unfiltered opinions from a massive team of lady insiders. Then [they] make that data available to you." Okay, interesting concept.

Well it just so happened that StumbleUpon took me to a particular question on DonQ that I would take quite seriously. It simply asked Beatles or Stones? If you clicked the link, you can see that the overwhelming majority of the women polled (83%) preferred the Beatles over the Stones. You can also highlight each girl who answered and find their name, age, location, and a one sentence reason for their choice.

Good answer, Erika T., 23, of Miami, FL.

Forewarning: if you do not understand that this question is asking whether the women prefer The Beatles or The Rolling Stones, I recommend you do not continue to read.

Both sides had their women who didn't particularly care for either, or liked both, so these women just picked one because they didn't care, maybe slightly preferred one over the other, maybe they heard a song from the Beatles recently, or they received a dramatic sign from God.

God loves sending messages via baby.

I found that those who picked the Beatles had more who had a particular attachment to the band or had something at least slightly more insightful to say about them than "So good." Also, without Mick Jagger, apparently only 14% would have picked the Stones.

And now, the source of inspiration for this post, the one Rosie D. Oh, Rosie. Rosie, Rosie, Rosie. Shame on you. May the shame of a thousand has-been rock 'n roll legends rest squarely on your ignorant shoulders.

It's hard to think of a way to graphically portray shame.

Especially of the rock'n roll variety.

At first, when I read your answer, I thought that maybe you didn't finish your thought. Maybe you were halfway through writing your reason for picking The Stones and your house was demolished by a Buffalo stampede. They have those in Texas still, right?

Seriously. They are.

But no. I eventually realized the reason for your answer. The only reason you could have given the response, "Stones can be pretty," is that you actually thought the question was asking if you prefer beetles or stones. In your vacuous, cultureless brain, you read "Beatles or Stones" and thought you were being asked if you prefer scurrying, hard-shelled insects, or lifeless lumps of rock.

A tough choice we've all had to make.

Words cannot describe the shock I felt upon this realization. I can wrap my head around the fact that maybe upon first reading the question you may be confused. But then I imagine you sitting there, staring at the question. It's spelled out for you right there. The Beatles. Not Beetles. And when paired with the Stones. It's one of those questions everyone has been asked at least once, that or the popular variant of the question, "Beatles or Zeppelin?" According to Rosie D, that question is asking if you prefer bugs or blimps.

Why not both?

And she is 27 years old. I know, those bands have both been around much longer than 27 years. I know, it's not everybody's type of music. But both of them are such cultural icons, both made such an impact on music as a whole, and for the headbanging love of the rock'n roll gods if that question isn't asked ALL THE TIME!

Congratulations, Rosie. You are an idiot.

Rosie, even Ringo Starr is ashamed of you.