>I ain't see you say shit to the two others who replied
>above.

and reentered the post when you were making your points.


>
>
>Also as far as shocking goes, I think that depends on who you
>talk to. I also don't think Lennon's death affected random
>people in remote parts of the world as much as it did in at
>least semi-developed countries.
>
>
>My previous point was that MJ justifiably reached more
>different types of people than the Beatles did and when he
>died absolutely everyone was affected Not saying his death
>meant more than Lennon's because it didn't, I"m just saying it
>touched more people.

i hear you, but it being more far-reaching doesn't automatically make it more shocking. lennon, as the symbol of peace for his time, was shot for seemingly no reason.

and i think you're underestimating the beatles reach as well.