Why we might care: for the last several years the winner of Cowell's reality TV show has been propelled immediately to #1 in time for the culturally-significant-for-Brits Xmas Top 40.
This year a backlash campaign to shove 'Killing in the Name' above it took off on Facebook and, in an unlikely outcome, the people who joined the group actually followed through and bought the RATM track during the correct time window.
(The link was posted before the programme aired on BBC Radio 1 and turned out to be completely accurate.)
Nice to see the shoe on the other foot for once. The number of quirky American things we have to figure out. Second base? wtf is second base... etc etc
Comments
Why we might care: for the last several years the winner of Cowell's reality TV show has been propelled immediately to #1 in time for the culturally-significant-for-Brits Xmas Top 40.
This year a backlash campaign to shove 'Killing in the Name' above it took off on Facebook and, in an unlikely outcome, the people who joined the group actually followed through and bought the RATM track during the correct time window.
(The link was posted before the programme aired on BBC Radio 1 and turned out to be completely accurate.)
"the culturally-significant-for-Brits Xmas Top 40"
You've just made an entire storyline from Love Actually make more sense to me.
Nice to see the shoe on the other foot for once. The number of quirky American things we have to figure out. Second base? wtf is second base... etc etc
And what's funny about trojans?
Also I never forget watching a US TV show, where they said someone slid down the stairs on their fanny. I never laughed so hard.
Strange how this explanation changes a flagged post into a genuinely interesting one.
If the submission can't be understood within its own context, then the title should indeed have been more explicit.
Sometimes it's difficult to be succinct in < 80.
I always held the suspicion that there is a difference between good and bad writing.