| Queen Archivist 24.04.2016 15:15 |
In response to numerous comments on QZ of this type… "it is well-known that John lent other stuff to Greg that mysteriously went astray"… there now follows some ACCURATE facts. I keep on seeing references to me losing things sent to me by fans. This is wrong and unbalanced. In the 19 years I've worked for Queen, one item was lost. Not two or three or several. ONE. A tape kindly loaned to us by John Stuart - I think it was an Ibex live recording - went missing somewhere during the process of making the mightily complicated 12-disc Freddie Mercury Solo Collection in 1999 which took over a year of working with hundreds of tapes. The cassette was in fact lost somewhere on route to EMI, not in a Queen studio, but it was only right and proper, appropriate in the circumstances, that we took full responsibility for it. I personally contacted John to appologise profusely. It was very regrettable and John was very good about it at the time. Only later did he tell the story on Queenzone, despite saying he'd keep it to himself, and several hundred references to it have followed in the intervening two decades... As well as lots of sympathy at every opportunity. It gets brought up regularly, not least because it suits a lot of people and their biased opinions of me to think that we're always losing fans' treasures. One item in 19 years is clearly not a regular occurrence. It was an isolated though regrettable one-off incident. Certain people like to endorse the rumour that we also lost John's (alleged to exist) Hangman acetate. But we didn't. Because we never had it. NO-ONE had it. Including John!! which is very significant would you not agree! No-one had it because it was a figment of imagination. John said he had a Hangman acetate, he said it many times, but when we asked him several times to bring it to the studio for us to play and transfer, he made several transparent excuses not to. Even when Brian appealed for this to happen, John went silent in order to avoid the embarrassing situation of having to admit he had no such acetate... not at that time anyway. If he got it years later, that's another story, but he sure as hell didn't have it when he told us all he did. I believe this has been debated here in more recent times. Has this ghostly acetate EVER emerged??? I told John, and probably the Queenzone community too, back in 2010, that if John supplied his Hangman acetate, we would very likely use it as a bonus item on the 2011 Universal Records bonus disc for the first album. Along with the De Lane Lea demos. I couldn't do or say more than that, could I. I said in this forum that holding back such an historically important and rare Queen treasure, if it existed, would hurt only Queen fans, not me personally, and many of you agreed at that time. It's just that you've conveniently forgotten over the intervening 228 months. Hmmmmmm! Things went suspiciously quiet again. I asked several times more, as did one of my colleagues too. Eventually John said he wouldn't let Brian or QPL borrow his acetate, not because it didn't exist, not because he'd lose face in a massive way on Queenzone if it were revealed he'd made it up, but because....wait for it... I had lost his Ibex cassette ELEVEN years earlier. That was his reason, after first promising we could use it. "Bring it to the studio yourself, then" I said. "No chance of it being lost then, is there?" He declined. Losing that tape was regrettable and embarrassing. I apologised several times. John has had ample sympathy out of it, enough to last a lifetime, and we invited him to the launch event of the Freddie box which he happily accepted and subsequently enjoyed very much. That Ibex tape remains the ONLY item we've lost, despite us having borrowed several hundred items over the years, for books, boxed sets, exhibitions and myriad other projects you've all seen, attended, bought and enjoyed... Such as the book inside The Studio Collection, which features more than a dozen fan-owned treasures loaned to us, and the Ultimate Queen Lyrics book, for which we borrowed two sets of handwritten lyrics from a fan. ALL of those things were returned and everyone was credited. NOTHING was lost. It's great that all those fans were rather less narrow-minded than lots of people here on Moanzone, who just won't let it go: our sole unique slip up of nearly 20 years ago. Thank goodness for the hundreds of fans that were generous enough to loan us hundreds of things for us all to collectively enjoy... None of which, not a sticker, scarf, badge, trade advertisement, costume or handwritten song lyric, were ever lost. Keep these things in fair and reasonable perspective is what I'm saying, before you go on and on and on again about something that happened long long ago. Count up the hundreds of rare and fascinating Queen treasures that have appeared in QPL products this past 20 years, loaned by fans, and know that the total number of those things that we lost, was NONE. Zero. You might mention this too in your summaries of years gone by, if only to be fair and balanced. People keep speculating as to why I so rarely contribute to this forum. It's largely because of tedious bullshit like this being perpetuated by certain fans that were not even on here in 1999, who know next to nothing of the truth, even though I told it in detail at the time and several times since, and whom have made their minds up about me and the work I do, largely based on OTHER people's grievances and prejudices, based on jaded inaccurate unbalanced accounts of an isolated one-off incident that occurred way back in the last century for christ's sake. And I'm not even exaggerating!!! Come on certain Moanzoners.... you know who you are... it's long overdue; get up to speed. Get into the 21st century and into all the great things that have happened as a result of fair-minded generous fans sharing their treasures with QPL, collaborating with us for the betterment of Queen products, instead of moaning and fighting. How long is it reasonable to live 19 years in the past!? GB |
| mr mason 24.04.2016 15:45 |
You the man! |
| vicspec 24.04.2016 15:57 |
Fair enough. What is the current status of a studio version of Hangman? Sounds like John Stuart has been outed as a massive fraud but has another source for a studio version been discovered? |
| BETA215 24.04.2016 16:21 |
Greg, what happened with the I Want It All book? At least tell us the reason why it was never launched. And with the smartphones game? Besides the fact about some promises which weren't much done, suddenly it disappears of the store leaving the people who paid for it without any kind of support. I'm not searching for fights or nothing compared to it, just the truth. Thanks. PS: That tape contained the whole concert, a portion of the concert of better quality than the available version, or it's just the master of the already heard roadie recording? |
| brunogorski 24.04.2016 16:22 |
Great. :') |
| pittrek 24.04.2016 16:22 |
Another chapter in the never ending and quite boring GB vs JSS war book? OK, we get it, you don't like John. We got the message ages ago. No reason to drag it out again especially when John wasn't posting on Queenzone for the last few years and he can't defend himself. Ibex - the problem is much more complicated. Person A pays a lot of money for a tape. Person A sends the tape to Company B. Company B doesn't return the tape, but a digital copy of the tape suddenly gets bootlegged and the bootleggers suddenly make a lot of money. Not the owner of the tape, not anybody owning the copyright to the recording captured on the tape, but some bootlegger (a.k.a. criminal). That's problem numero uno. Problem #2 is what this means - there is (or was) a "leak" - somebody who works or worked for either Queen or the record company has direct access to an illegal bootleg company. BTW what about the Marquee recording from 1970, which was bought on the auction? Hangman - you (Greg) claim that a recording does not exist. John claims it does exist. End of discussion. It's just word against word. I don't really care anymore on whose side is the truth. But I just can't stand the way how you claim that he's a liar simply because he refuses to let it out of this hands. I'm not going to claim it exists, and I'm not going to claim it does not exist. The only thing I can say is that I DON'T KNOW if it exist. The same goes for you. You can only say that you THINK it doesn't exist. If you want to use such absolute terms, you have to prove it, which you failed to do. A few minutes ago I wrote that I'm happy you stopped insulting other Queenzoners and then I read this :-( |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 24.04.2016 16:55 |
Thanks, Greg, for the levelheaded post. Please give us a cool, live release this fall. There is no reason that the live catalog that you have available isn't downloadable for pay on your website. We don't want perfection, just the music. |
| scottmax 24.04.2016 18:05 |
Pick your dummy up Mr Brooks... |
| Marknow 24.04.2016 18:17 |
Adam Lambert. |
| Mr.QueenFan 24.04.2016 18:44 |
pittrek wrote: Another chapter in the never ending and quite boring GB vs JSS war book? OK, we get it, you don't like John. We got the message ages ago. No reason to drag it out again especially when John wasn't posting on Queenzone for the last few years and he can't defend himself.This is very unfair Pittrek, very unfair! I have disagreed with Greg in the past, and told him so at the time. But i'm grown up enough to move forward and focus on what really matters. This time Greg has all the reasons to be offended at what people are saying to him and about him. I would respect people more if instead of writing long posts they just told Greg to fuck off! It would be more honest and it would prevent me from wasting my time reading long posts of people offending him without actually using offensive words. In this case, i appreciate Greg's input about the JSS story. I follow Queenzone since the beginning and Greg told the story exactely how it happened on this forum. Now, if you don't mind i will make my own conclusions about JSS's claims about Hangman. pittrek wrote: Ibex - the problem is much more complicated. Person A pays a lot of money for a tape. Person A sends the tape to Company B. Company B doesn't return the tape, but a digital copy of the tape suddenly gets bootlegged and the bootleggers suddenly make a lot of money. Not the owner of the tape, not anybody owning the copyright to the recording captured on the tape, but some bootlegger (a.k.a. criminal). That's problem numero uno. Problem #2 is what this means - there is (or was) a "leak" - somebody who works or worked for either Queen or the record company has direct access to an illegal bootleg company .Criminal behaviour stays with the person, not the organization or their bosses. Each one is responsible for their own behaviour! pittrek wrote: Hangman - you (Greg) claim that a recording does not exist. John claims it does exist. End of discussion. It's just word against word. I don't really care anymore on whose side is the truth. But I just can't stand the way how you claim that he's a liar simply because he refuses to let it out of this hands. I'm not going to claim it exists, and I'm not going to claim it does not exist. The only thing I can say is that I DON'T KNOW if it exist. The same goes for you. You can only say that you THINK it doesn't exist. If you want to use such absolute terms, you have to prove it, which you failed to do. A few minutes ago I wrote that I'm happy you stopped insulting other Queenzoners and then I read this :-(If the story is as Greg told above i believe JSS has some explanations to give to fans in Queenzone. Because if he was given all the conditions stated above and even had Brian May involved in the request, i want to know why he turned down such request hurting all the Queen fans included myself. Let me remember you Pittrek that JSS is the same person who says that the Fanthology's project many CD's and DVD's were supposed to be shared in Queenzone for free as a response to the fact that QP failed to release the much expected and anticipated Demos Box-set. And then he refuses to let QP use his acetate for an official product? I'll see what he has to say on this matter... or not! But one thing i'm sure, he will read this post, because many people here are connected to him via Facebook. Let's see how this one unfolds. |
| Pim Derks 25.04.2016 01:17 |
A studio version of Hangman. It's like Schrodinger's Song. |
| pittrek 25.04.2016 01:37 |
Mr.QueenFan wrote:No, not at all. Don't get me wrong - I have nothing personally against Greg, I never met him personally, he probably doesn't even know we dealt together because I always used a third person. I am just sick of the JSS bashing which takes too long. WAY TOO LONG. I think it started 10 or more years ago and I'm really sick of it. The 2 of them should discuss it together personally like normal adults and not do this publicly.pittrek wrote: Another chapter in the never ending and quite boring GB vs JSS war book? OK, we get it, you don't like John. We got the message ages ago. No reason to drag it out again especially when John wasn't posting on Queenzone for the last few years and he can't defend himself.This is very unfair Pittrek, very unfair! I have disagreed with Greg in the past, and told him so at the time. But i'm grown up enough to move forward and focus on what really matters. This time Greg has all the reasons to be offended at what people are saying to him and about him. I would respect people more if instead of writing long posts they just told Greg to fuck off! It would be more honest and it would prevent me from wasting my time reading long posts of people offending him without actually using offensive words.Not sure who you mean, hopefully not me, I am always trying to be polite. In this case, i appreciate Greg's input about the JSS story. I follow Queenzone since the beginning and Greg told the story exactely how it happened on this forum. Now, if you don't mind i will make my own conclusions about JSS's claims about Hangman.Of course. Am I claiming something different?pittrek wrote: Ibex - the problem is much more complicated. Person A pays a lot of money for a tape. Person A sends the tape to Company B. Company B doesn't return the tape, but a digital copy of the tape suddenly gets bootlegged and the bootleggers suddenly make a lot of money. Not the owner of the tape, not anybody owning the copyright to the recording captured on the tape, but some bootlegger (a.k.a. criminal). That's problem numero uno. Problem #2 is what this means - there is (or was) a "leak" - somebody who works or worked for either Queen or the record company has direct access to an illegal bootleg company .Criminal behaviour stays with the person, not the organization or their bosses. Each one is responsible for their own behaviour! Well - no. John's refusal to give Queen his Hangman acetate proves absolutely nothing. I have also refused to give something to Queen Productions a few years ago (again dealing via a third person). You know, collectors are strange people sometimes.pittrek wrote: Hangman - you (Greg) claim that a recording does not exist. John claims it does exist. End of discussion. It's just word against word. I don't really care anymore on whose side is the truth. But I just can't stand the way how you claim that he's a liar simply because he refuses to let it out of this hands. I'm not going to claim it exists, and I'm not going to claim it does not exist. The only thing I can say is that I DON'T KNOW if it exist. The same goes for you. You can only say that you THINK it doesn't exist. If you want to use such absolute terms, you have to prove it, which you failed to do. A few minutes ago I wrote that I'm happy you stopped insulting other Queenzoners and then I read this :-(If the story is as Greg told above i believe JSS has some explanations to give to fans in Queenzone. Because if he was given all the conditions stated above and even had Brian May involved in the request, i want to know why he turned down such request hurting all the Queen fans included myself. Let me remember you Pittrek that JSS is the same person who says that the Fanthology's project many CD's and DVD's were supposed to be shared in Queenzone for free as a response to the fact that QP failed to release the much expected and anticipated Demos Box-set. And then he refuses to let QP use his acetate for an official product? I'll see what he has to say on this matter... or not! But one thing i'm sure, he will read this post, because many people here are connected to him via Facebook. Let's see how this one unfolds. BTW if Greg is still reading this, I would really love to read his current "official" word on the Marquee recording. |
| ANAGRAMER 25.04.2016 01:47 |
Having read the archivist post in full, I must say I am disappointed by his attitude towards fans "Moanzoaners" is not the way to refe to people who, at the end of the day, care about the quality of product issued by QPL and have contributed many invaluable items in the past Looking at the most recent products from QPL, I think the archivist would do well to keep the fans onside and treat us with a degree of respect, otherwise we may have to put up with future releases with reprinted ticket stubs, reprinted silk scarves and celebratory balloons..perish the thought As for the Hangman acetate, questioning a person's integrity will certainly deny you access to his possessions in future |
| Double-U 25.04.2016 02:16 |
There's a big problem with respect on this board. So I can understand the use of the Moanzone metapher. I agree with Pittrek that nearly all of this content we can read in this threat was discussed before and the interaction between Mr. Stuart and Mr. Brooks is better to stay with these men, a table and two classes of good whisky. regards, W. |
| Toon_86 25.04.2016 02:59 |
Hmmm, the one comment from Greg which struck me was "Even when Brian appealed for this to happen,". Is this an admission from Brian that a Hangman studio version does exist? If JSS does indeed own this acetate, would it really be so hard for him to rip it and stick on an FTP server? It would never need to leave his possession. This is 2016, we don't need Royal Mail to deliver stuff anymore. If he has it and doesn't want to share it, then fine, to be fair its not that great a song anyway, I'm sure there are many other items that hopefully QPL will release. I've no faith in them doing that, but we can at least hope |
| Kuijpy 25.04.2016 03:50 |
Bla bla blaa |
| Sebastian 25.04.2016 04:42 |
People spend way too much time talking about people rather than talking to people. |
| Togg 25.04.2016 05:27 |
Back in the day when all this happened there was indeed a huge amount of bullshit on here from some 'collecters' who had what? who didn't have whatever' along with huge amounts shit about how such tapes were collected in the first place. fan recordings, officially released items and white labels all good IMO, however master tapes and tapes removed from studios is another thing, again IMO, people that purchase these are effectively assisting the theft in the first place and I personally take a very dim view of that and I stated as much at the time to much aggressive response. I am personnally greatful that a handful of fans do loan their collections to Greg, were I to own any such treasure I would gladly had it to him to use, he if perfectly correct that one loss in 19 years which was no fault of his cannot keep being brought up here particularly by folk that were not even here at the time and dont know the facts. I personnally think Greg does have a difficult role, he gathers the items and presents it to QP but it is not his choice whether it goes to press... so understandably some stuff doesnt make it and he is probably as dissappointed as the rest of us. I do dislike some of the rants and petty arguments on here that he has got involved in, it is unprofessional and pointless, however that seemed to stop some years back so I for one am happy to see him here contributing, and in this case I'd say he has a right to defend himself regarding this rather constant slur that does seem to come up rather often. |
| Mr.QueenFan 25.04.2016 08:40 |
pittrek wrote: Well - no. John's refusal to give Queen his Hangman acetate proves absolutely nothing. .Of course not, unless he cannot prove it's existence in the first place. |
| brENsKi 25.04.2016 08:42 |
Mr.QueenFan wrote:you miss the point. GB is on here calling people all kinds of things - all completely unfounded. people are liars, twats and god knows what else - just on the basis of disagreeing with GB. what kind of place does the guy's mind reside in?pittrek wrote: Well - no. John's refusal to give Queen his Hangman acetate proves absolutely nothing. .Of course not, unless he cannot prove it's existence in the first place. and why should JSS have to prove anything? GB has called him a liar - without proof. it's a pity the band can't just get an archivist who'll do their job properly - the FIRST time. and act professionally with it. btw - that last statement will soon be "Property of Queen Productions" |
| scottmax 25.04.2016 08:45 |
Seems to me that Mr Brooks is very disrespectful until he wants help with his work, then he comes crawling out of his shell, cap in hand. Also his blatant disregard for people who ask him questions is disgusting, choosing only to answer what suits HIM. He comes over as a very selfish guy, but hey, I don't know him, and only going off what other people say, he himself says, and the podcast he did a while back |
| Queen Archivist 25.04.2016 08:58 |
BETA215 wrote: Greg, what happened with the I Want It All book? At least tell us the reason why it was never launched. And with the smartphones game? Besides the fact about some promises which weren't much done, suddenly it disappears of the store leaving the people who paid for it without any kind of support. I'm not searching for fights or nothing compared to it, just the truth. Thanks. PS: That tape contained the whole concert, a portion of the concert of better quality than the available version, or it's just the master of the already heard roadie recording? GB: Hi beta215. It's a long story. I finished collating all images for the book about 3 years ago, but then there was a problem with the design budget and the designers the publisher had in mind. So they spent a year looking into that, and we lost our slot in the market at that time… shelf space has to be booked, pressing factories booked, shipping, distributors, etc. So… I continued beavering away on it, and each year it got delayed again I simply added that year's memorabilia to the book too… Rainbow 74, Hammersmith 75, the Lyrics book, coloured vinyl Studio Collection, and so on. That was the only good aspect of the delay. The book will be completely up to date. The book WILL definitely happen. I've put far far too much work and effort in to it for it not to happen; it's only a question of when. It's been left that a designer will start on it later this year, with a view to putting it out next year. The mock up pages are really stunning… staggering quality photos, and with only a few things featuring on each page, rather than tons of stuff cluttering each spread. I think it's going to be a staggeringly impactful collection - between 2000-3000, by the way. Thanks for your interest. |
| Queen Archivist 25.04.2016 09:18 |
pittrek wrote: Another chapter in the never ending and quite boring GB vs JSS war book? OK, we get it, you don't like John. We got the message ages ago. No reason to drag it out again especially when John wasn't posting on Queenzone for the last few years and he can't defend himself. Ibex - the problem is much more complicated. Person A pays a lot of money for a tape. Person A sends the tape to Company B. Company B doesn't return the tape, but a digital copy of the tape suddenly gets bootlegged and the bootleggers suddenly make a lot of money. Not the owner of the tape, not anybody owning the copyright to the recording captured on the tape, but some bootlegger (a.k.a. criminal). That's problem numero uno. Problem #2 is what this means - there is (or was) a "leak" - somebody who works or worked for either Queen or the record company has direct access to an illegal bootleg company. BTW what about the Marquee recording from 1970, which was bought on the auction? Hangman - you (Greg) claim that a recording does not exist. John claims it does exist. End of discussion. It's just word against word. I don't really care anymore on whose side is the truth. But I just can't stand the way how you claim that he's a liar simply because he refuses to let it out of this hands. I'm not going to claim it exists, and I'm not going to claim it does not exist. The only thing I can say is that I DON'T KNOW if it exist. The same goes for you. You can only say that you THINK it doesn't exist. If you want to use such absolute terms, you have to prove it, which you failed to do. A few minutes ago I wrote that I'm happy you stopped insulting other Queenzoners and then I read this :-( GB: Pittrek, I'm afraid not for the first time on this matter, you are wrong. I DO like John Stuart. He's an extremely knowledgeable chap with a lot of very interesting things to say. I invited him to the Freddie Mercury Solo box launch in 2000 not least because he's a genuine chap and real Queen fan. It was grey to chat with him and share a beer. Does that sound like I don't like him? Disagreeing with him, or being at odds over some issues, does not equate to disliking him. Don't be so presumptuous. Sweeping inaccurate comments like that potentially cause unnecessary problems. John did irritate me and others in the way he chose to conduct himself in the Hangman acetate affair. It would have so very much easier had he just said, "Ok, hands up to it. I don't have the acetate, and I won't waste any more of your time." I would have respected that. As it was, we all wasted silly time on chasing an item that never was. That would irritate you too, I'm sure. There is no need for John to 'defend himself' as you put it. I'm not attacking him. I'm merely stating the facts for the record. John is decent chap and I wish him well. Is he ok, do you know? Under what circumstances did he cease QZ input? HANGMAN…Pittrek you write….you (Greg) claim that a recording does not exist. John claims it does exist. Again WRONG. I said that John's acetate didn't exist, not at the time he said he had it anyway. And I further stated that I have never heard a studio version in our archive. Categorically never. That is true. I did not say IT DOES NOT EXIST because it might do somewhere in the world for all I know. It might exist somewhere, but not in our archive. Are you getting it now? Please be careful with what you interpret and how report what other people say. MARQUEE… turned out to be recordings from bootlegs of the time. NOT Marquee. Hope that clears up some details. GB |
| Queen Archivist 25.04.2016 09:24 |
Mr.QueenFan wrote:pittrek wrote: Another chapter in the never ending and quite boring GB vs JSS war book? OK, we get it, you don't like John. We got the message ages ago. No reason to drag it out again especially when John wasn't posting on Queenzone for the last few years and he can't defend himself.This is very unfair Pittrek, very unfair! I have disagreed with Greg in the past, and told him so at the time. But i'm grown up enough to move forward and focus on what really matters. This time Greg has all the reasons to be offended at what people are saying to him and about him. I would respect people more if instead of writing long posts they just told Greg to fuck off! It would be more honest and it would prevent me from wasting my time reading long posts of people offending him without actually using offensive words. In this case, i appreciate Greg's input about the JSS story. I follow Queenzone since the beginning and Greg told the story exactely how it happened on this forum. Now, if you don't mind i will make my own conclusions about JSS's claims about Hangman.pittrek wrote: Ibex - the problem is much more complicated. Person A pays a lot of money for a tape. Person A sends the tape to Company B. Company B doesn't return the tape, but a digital copy of the tape suddenly gets bootlegged and the bootleggers suddenly make a lot of money. Not the owner of the tape, not anybody owning the copyright to the recording captured on the tape, but some bootlegger (a.k.a. criminal). That's problem numero uno. Problem #2 is what this means - there is (or was) a "leak" - somebody who works or worked for either Queen or the record company has direct access to an illegal bootleg company .Criminal behaviour stays with the person, not the organization or their bosses. Each one is responsible for their own behaviour!pittrek wrote: Hangman - you (Greg) claim that a recording does not exist. John claims it does exist. End of discussion. It's just word against word. I don't really care anymore on whose side is the truth. But I just can't stand the way how you claim that he's a liar simply because he refuses to let it out of this hands. I'm not going to claim it exists, and I'm not going to claim it does not exist. The only thing I can say is that I DON'T KNOW if it exist. The same goes for you. You can only say that you THINK it doesn't exist. If you want to use such absolute terms, you have to prove it, which you failed to do. A few minutes ago I wrote that I'm happy you stopped insulting other Queenzoners and then I read this :-(If the story is as Greg told above i believe JSS has some explanations to give to fans in Queenzone. Because if he was given all the conditions stated above and even had Brian May involved in the request, i want to know why he turned down such request hurting all the Queen fans included myself. Let me remember you Pittrek that JSS is the same person who says that the Fanthology's project many CD's and DVD's were supposed to be shared in Queenzone for free as a response to the fact that QP failed to release the much expected and anticipated Demos Box-set. And then he refuses to let QP use his acetate for an official product? I'll see what he has to say on this matter... or not! But one thing i'm sure, he will read this post, because many people here are connected to him via Facebook. Let's see how this one unfolds. GB: You put that very well Mr.QueenFan. The insults never bother me (water off a duck's back) but the constant and relentless inaccuracy does. And people jumping on bandwagons who don't know the details and only take the 3rd or 4th hand word of other QZ-ers that have grudges and axes to grind. For such people to gather ALL their facts from such people, and not check them, OR realise they're only hearing half the story at best, is utterly stupid. But it's typical of so many QZers I'm afraid. Thats why I come visit every 3 years or so. Or when I'm after something for a Queen product - yes that's cynical, but true. I'm trying to make the best possible Queen product and even if that means wading through the QZ brown stuff, I'll do it - for a few days anyway. |
| Queen Archivist 25.04.2016 09:30 |
ANAGRAMER wrote: Having read the archivist post in full, I must say I am disappointed by his attitude towards fans "Moanzoaners" is not the way to refe to people who, at the end of the day, care about the quality of product issued by QPL and have contributed many invaluable items in the past Looking at the most recent products from QPL, I think the archivist would do well to keep the fans onside and treat us with a degree of respect, otherwise we may have to put up with future releases with reprinted ticket stubs, reprinted silk scarves and celebratory balloons..perish the thought As for the Hangman acetate, questioning a person's integrity will certainly deny you access to his possessions in future GB: Anagramer, could you please tell us something we don't know? |
| pittrek 25.04.2016 09:41 |
Thanks a lot for the Marquee info. |
| matt z 25.04.2016 09:46 |
scottmax wrote: Seems to me that Mr Brooks is very disrespectful until he wants help with his work, then he comes crawling out of his shell, cap in hand. Also his blatant disregard for people who ask him questions is disgusting, choosing only to answer what suits HIM. He comes over as a very selfish guy, but hey, I don't know him, and only going off what other people say, he himself says, and the podcast he did a while backWow. It's like you've read my mind. There is a holier than thou kinda thing going on, even in the face of sometimes unnecessary criticism. I find it kinda entertaining. With the mostly lackluster releases it's good to see people at least interested enough in something to bicker about it. Rock on, everybody |
| Kuijpy 25.04.2016 09:48 |
I dont believe a word what GB says.... |
| scottmax 25.04.2016 11:32 |
Kuijpy wrote: I dont believe a word what GB says....Tbh I don't think the majority do.... For all of his talk, there's very little to show for it for US, the fans. How long does it take to write sleeve notes, take a few pictures, because he doesn't do the so called remastering does he? The list of live recordings he came out with a few years ago didn't nothing to enhance his case. In my eyes, until he offers something to this site, and not just coming and besmirching people, he may as well stay away |
| Rick 25.04.2016 11:58 |
Can we have more balloons on the next release? |
| MercurialFreddie 25.04.2016 12:10 |
What a shame... that Marquee tape turned out to be fake :((( Man, it's so irritating and such a let down. I hope that the fan that wanted money for the tape didn't get it but I suppose that some people would enjoy a story in which QProd is ripped off by a fan..... So... a question remains if this show was taped or recorded by a band at all. I guess we can be happy that we've got at least pictures from this gig. Sir GH / The Real Wizard, now you can update the info on your tremendous website about that gig. |
| oligneisti 25.04.2016 12:17 |
I've been lurking here since 1999 and every time Greg Brooks is on the verge of getting my sympathy he says something like "Moanzone" that gets on my nerves. We know there are irritating people here. We have to deal with them but labeling the whole site because of those people is unprofessional for someone representing Queen. |
| cmsdrums 25.04.2016 12:43 |
Your original post on this seem fair enough Greg, and I can understand you wanting to state some facts from your side.. Two questions arise for me: Brian asked John for his copy of Hangman, and you guys wanted to include it on a release. Did Brian's memory at the time solely lead you all to believe that a studio version of the song definitely existed, or were there other indications, or were you 'calling his bluff'? As you have now recently stated a studio version "does not exist" (as opposed to you don't have a copy), is this now definitive and Brian wrongly remembered it being recorded and you have proof it wasn't (if you can prove a negative)? You invited John to the launch of the Freddie box set; a number of fan club members (myself included) were invited to this also and were issued with invites and passes for this, which only a few days before the event were rescinded and our invitations scrapped. Can you advise why this was? Thanks |
| brENsKi 25.04.2016 12:55 |
scottmax wrote:this ^^^Kuijpy wrote: I dont believe a word what GB says....Tbh I don't think the majority do.... For all of his talk, there's very little to show for it for US, the fans. How long does it take to write sleeve notes, take a few pictures, because he doesn't do the so called remastering does he? The list of live recordings he came out with a few years ago didn't nothing to enhance his case. In my eyes, until he offers something to this site, and not just coming and besmirching people, he may as well stay away Rick wrote: Can we have more balloons on the next release?AND this ^^^ |
| luthorn 25.04.2016 13:49 |
Since we have a person of authority here at last, I have only one question: Are UFOs real? Cheers! |
| Mr.QueenFan 25.04.2016 14:44 |
brENsKi wrote: and why should JSS have to prove anything? GB has called him a liar - without proof .. Why? Because if it wasn't for all the dicksucking that goes around on this site towards the "Big" collectors, there's no way people would believe that the "Hangman" acetate exists, let alone be in the hands of JSS. John S Stuart isn't the average Joe who comes here and makes claims. He is a well respected Queen collector and if i'm correct he contributed the the mag "Record Collector", so what he says has a certain impact. John S Stuart claims that he has an item of which there is no trace on the Internet. No one ever heard it or seen it other than him. Brian May doesn't remember recording this song in the studio with Queen. In forty years only one person claimed this, and we don't even know who owned it before him, or what's the story behind the recording of such acetate, and how it got to the hands of collectors - or at least i don't know! Maybe you or anyone reading this knows, but i don't know, so feel free to tell me. According to Greg, he was given all options to come to a professional studio and let a professional transfer it to digital. But being the collector he is he probably did this already in a professional studio, because he knows that an acetate cannot be played many times. Specially when there's ONLY ONE known to exist in ALL world. And by the way Brenski, he was given the chance you mentioned in other post about not losing the acetate out of sight. He refused! When Brian May was included in this negociation, he went quiet, and you don't think he has to prove he has this? After what Greg said in this thread, JSS clearly needs to prove that it exists, even for catalogue purposes, and to let fans know that this is true. Do you think he ever wrote in Record Collector about an item that wasn't proved it existed in the first place? How can collectors put a tag price on an item we don't know exists? If John comes here and says he was taking the piss out of QP, i can understand the humour. I'm all for a good prank, but if he continues to claim to Queen fans that he owns this he needs to prove to the Queen community that it exists. It shows respect for the Queen world. One thing is to say he has it, another thing is to deny Brian May the chance to hear it. It doesn't make sense! I'm not calling JSS a liar, but i'm using my right to scrutinize what people say in public and reach my own conclusions based on their words and behaviour. You can interpret this anyway you want! |
| Battler 25.04.2016 19:30 |
So basically, John S. Stuart is nothing but a massive fraud. This probably means Fanthology is a load of bovine excrement as well, well they probably did have what little they have but David R. Fuller heroically leaked all of it, though unfortunately, Greg and QPL were siding with Fanthology at the time. I am no longer expecting anything from John S. Stuart or anyone else involved in Fanthology. If there's anything new going to be released, I expect it from either QPL or David R. Fuller. In fact, I think QPL should team with Fuller to release the ultimate demo collection. I suspect the Fanthology people might have even been the ones that really flagged sikke's videos on YouTube for copyright infringement in QPL's name. Most probably, sikke was about to release more stuff that Fanthology was sitting on (though probably not much) and so had to be stopped. |
| borap13 25.04.2016 20:30 |
Greg - could you do a Q&A some time on this forum about Queen rarities that exist in the vault? Sorry there are so many assholes who use Queenzone as an opportunity to bitch and moan. |
| Kuijpy 26.04.2016 03:07 |
Greg could do that, but he wouldn't, he dont gives a fuck about other fans. Its just him, him, him, him and him. It took over a year to make the Solo collection, you just transfer the songs to cd, and chose some pictures everybody allready had seen. Fuck Off and Die you Fag |
| dudeofqueen 26.04.2016 03:25 |
Greg, OK - I'm hearing you loud and clear and your recollection of the saga clearly presents some issues around Hangman. As much as I take John S Stuart at his word that he does indeed have the "Hangman" acetate, given his history and status in the world of Queen collecting, I'm also struggling to understand just why it is that there hasn't been even just a single picture of it presented as evidence. John has absolutely no need whatsoever to justify his claim as he himself knows of its existence in his collection, but, if for nothing other than shoving two fingers up at you and QPL, I'd have thought he'd have given some pictorial evidence by now. He hasn't and that's entirely his prerogative. This then leads to the question based on your comment that "Hangman" would have been included had you been able to transfer it from whatever medium: If "Hangman" wasn't available for the bonus disc of the recent re-issue of "Queen", what else was considered but left off? "Silver Salmon"? "Rock N Roll Medley"? "Polar Bear"? Given the paucity of what did emerge on the bonus discs against what has previously been played at Fan Club Conventions and is already available in collecting circles, its tough to actually take your statement at face value; seems more like a ruse to me in order to just get hold of the recording that QPL should have but actually doesn't. As for his Ibex tape, had it been mine, I'd still be struggling to get over someone I'd trusted with it being responsible for its loss. Regardless of its monetary value, something that I'd invested a lot of time and effort in acquiring would, necessarily, become very dear to me in terms of its place in the overall Queen canon. You can't blame him or anyone else that knows the story / history behind it for holding a grudge and failing to trust you or anyone else connected with you and Queen releases. Now you refer to the loss / theft in pretty flippant terms, despite making apologies in previous posts, it seems like you're expecting John and anyone else who either cares about something like this being lost to the Queen community, to share your same "Oh well....." attitude. ps As for pseudonyms, I had to create a new account here simply because I couldn't remember my original login details after staying away from here for a while. If you're that bothered by it, my previous screen name was bennkempster (space between the last n and the k and you have my real name). |
| Battler 26.04.2016 21:15 |
>> As much as I take John S Stuart at his word that he does indeed have the "Hangman" acetate, given his history and status in the world of Queen collecting, << So basically, judging his claim on an ad hominem reason ("I like him/he has a good reputation, so it must be true") rather than cold, hard evidence, and dismissing any evidence to the contrary just because it does not fit your view. His history and status are irrelevant, he made a claim, he needs to back it up with cold, hard evidence otherwise the claim is unsupported and is to be given no consideration. >> I'm also struggling to understand just why it is that there hasn't been even just a single picture of it presented as evidence. John has absolutely no need whatsoever to justify his claim as he himself knows of its existence in his collection, << What he knows himself is not evidence as we can not independently examine it. Even a photo would be circumstantial evidence at best because it's easy to find any old acetate, slap a "Hangman" sticker on it, and pretend it's the real deal. Now a photo accompanied by a recording would be damned good evidence. >> but, if for nothing other than shoving two fingers up at you and QPL, I'd have thought he'd have given some pictorial evidence by now. He hasn't and that's entirely his prerogative. << And it makes the word of John S. Stuart just that - the word of John S. Stuart, without any backing. And it should be taken as such. Believing it because of his history and/or status is nothing but an appeal to authority which is a logical fallacy. |
| Double-U 27.04.2016 03:11 |
Actually I don't get it why no one in the band or the studio stuff knows about a studio version of "Hangman". I mean they played it many times on stage, rehearsed it and I doubt that a complete song wasn't captured on tape. They seemed to be satisfied with it so far that they played it live to the audience. If you take "Let me In Your Heart Again" as an example. In this case they knew it's in the vaults althought it never left the studio as Hnagman did. Okay, it's 10 years younger but actually it's a joke to loose a complete song or don't know if it is recorded in the studio and brought on an acetate or whatever. regards, W. |
| Battler 27.04.2016 10:03 |
- Double-U: Sometimes, songs can be live only. There was one song by Bon Jovi, I forgot which now, but it was about 2000 or so, and it was only released as a live single. Hangman could be in a similar situation. |
| bucsateflon 27.04.2016 13:48 |
mr mason wrote: You the man!yes |
| Double-U 28.04.2016 06:04 |
Battler wrote: - Double-U: Sometimes, songs can be live only. There was one song by Bon Jovi, I forgot which now, but it was about 2000 or so, and it was only released as a live single. Hangman could be in a similar situation.Maybe! But in this case I know I never made a studio version of this song and that makes an acetate impossible so that I'm able to blame someone to be a liar if he claimes to have one. But instead of this QPL asked for it. regards, W. |
| The Real Wizard 28.04.2016 15:49 |
Battler wrote: So basically, John S. Stuart is nothing but a massive fraud. This probably means Fanthology is a load of bovine excrement as well, well they probably did have what little they have but David R. Fuller heroically leaked all of it, though unfortunately, Greg and QPL were siding with Fanthology at the time. I am no longer expecting anything from John S. Stuart or anyone else involved in Fanthology. If there's anything new going to be released, I expect it from either QPL or David R. Fuller. In fact, I think QPL should team with Fuller to release the ultimate demo collection. I suspect the Fanthology people might have even been the ones that really flagged sikke's videos on YouTube for copyright infringement in QPL's name. Most probably, sikke was about to release more stuff that Fanthology was sitting on (though probably not much) and so had to be stopped.Wow, so much anger and hatred for people you don't know. If you don't even know who's in the fanthology, then how do you know they haven't still been putting things out there to this day? You're usually pretty bang on, but 90% of what you've written in thread is completely off the mark. |
| Queen Archivist 28.04.2016 19:45 |
Kuijpy wrote: Greg could do that, but he wouldn't, he dont gives a fuck about other fans. Its just him, him, him, him and him. Fuck Off and Die you FagGB: Firstly, I see you might be Dutch. I have several wonderful friends in Holland. I love the country and its people and I don't want anyone thinking I have anything against Holland. I emphatically do not. I only have something against you. Kuijpy, you are an aggressive, unintelligent twat… to say the least. If you are 13 years old with no friends, it would explain a lot. But I'm sensing you're an adult - albeit with a child's mind and IQ - and therefore fair game and able to stand accountable for your words here on QZ. I have just written, elsewhere on this forum, which was partly aimed at you… I wish people that hide behind silly bogus nicknames, and call me a Fag, and the like, would be open and honest and come and see me in person (you know where I am) and say it to me face. How brave would those nameless spineless "small minded" morons be in that scenario I wonder? So, Kuijpy… put your money where your mouth is, and come and say that, and anything else you have, to my face. Be a man about it. Be brave. Stop hiding behind your bogus nickname. If you feel big enough to insult me while hiding from a distance, I presume you'd be happy to say it directly to my face. I am often in Holland and would love to meet with you. Are you ever in the UK? If so, email me and we can arrange a meeting - unless you are too spineless to stand by your words and be accountable for what comes out of your ugly mind and mouth. Say something clever to that ! GB |
| dudeofqueen 29.04.2016 07:56 |
battler, re: >>he made a claim, he needs to back it up with cold, hard evidence otherwise the claim is unsupported and is to be given no consideration. He doesn't NEED to do anything of the sort. There's no reason to dispute the word of someone that hasn't previously been questioned other than to come to the conclusion that so much doubt exists because some people are so *DESPERATE* to actually HEAR "Hangman" in the studio. >>What he knows himself is not evidence as we can not independently examine it. Even a photo would be circumstantial evidence at best because it's easy to find any old acetate, slap a "Hangman" sticker on it, and pretend it's the real deal. And someone would go to those lengths this long after having put his hand up to say it exists? Surely, if John was that interested in justifying himself, he'd have done that by now......... As someone previously commented, if "Hangman" does appear, its not going to add anything to the reputation of the band and we'd have to wait for some considerable time for QPL come up with a magical re-release or early years rarities box set for it to see the light of day. Sad indeed it is that all we have to show for the band's early rarities is that pile of shite "Mad The Swine".......... >>Now a photo accompanied by a recording would be damned good evidence. And therein lies the rub - you want to hear the recording. |
| Sebastian 29.04.2016 08:12 |
At the end of the day, it's quite simple: whoever wants to believe it exists, will do so even if Freddie resurrects and tells them it doesn't; whoever wants to believe it doesn't exist, will do so even if they hear a recording of it. |
| Vocal harmony 29.04.2016 09:18 |
^^^^ this |
| Vocal harmony 29.04.2016 09:22 |
Queen Archivist wrote:Well said sir!Kuijpy wrote: Greg could do that, but he wouldn't, he dont gives a fuck about other fans. Its just him, him, him, him and him. Fuck Off and Die you FagGB: Firstly, I see you might be Dutch. I have several wonderful friends in Holland. I love the country and its people and I don't want anyone thinking I have anything against Holland. I emphatically do not. I only have something against you. Kuijpy, you are an aggressive, unintelligent twat… to say the least. If you are 13 years old with no friends, it would explain a lot. But I'm sensing you're an adult - albeit with a child's mind and IQ - and therefore fair game and able to stand accountable for your words here on QZ. I have just written, elsewhere on this forum, which was partly aimed at you… I wish people that hide behind silly bogus nicknames, and call me a Fag, and the like, would be open and honest and come and see me in person (you know where I am) and say it to me face. How brave would those nameless spineless "small minded" morons be in that scenario I wonder? So, Kuijpy… put your money where your mouth is, and come and say that, and anything else you have, to my face. Be a man about it. Be brave. Stop hiding behind your bogus nickname. If you feel big enough to insult me while hiding from a distance, I presume you'd be happy to say it directly to my face. I am often in Holland and would love to meet with you. Are you ever in the UK? If so, email me and we can arrange a meeting - unless you are too spineless to stand by your words and be accountable for what comes out of your ugly mind and mouth. Say something clever to that ! GB |
| Costa86 29.04.2016 09:28 |
Queen Archivist wrote:Unbelievable, frankly - completely pointless reply.. Brings to mind bar brawls and red necks. An online argument is not rebutted by challenging the person concerned to discuss it in person. It is either discussed online, or if the person concerned is making an arugment which doesn't even merit a reply because it is so rude/silly/offensive etc., then that person is ignored.Kuijpy wrote: Greg could do that, but he wouldn't, he dont gives a fuck about other fans. Its just him, him, him, him and him. Fuck Off and Die you FagGB: Firstly, I see you might be Dutch. I have several wonderful friends in Holland. I love the country and its people and I don't want anyone thinking I have anything against Holland. I emphatically do not. I only have something against you. Kuijpy, you are an aggressive, unintelligent twat… to say the least. If you are 13 years old with no friends, it would explain a lot. But I'm sensing you're an adult - albeit with a child's mind and IQ - and therefore fair game and able to stand accountable for your words here on QZ. I have just written, elsewhere on this forum, which was partly aimed at you… I wish people that hide behind silly bogus nicknames, and call me a Fag, and the like, would be open and honest and come and see me in person (you know where I am) and say it to me face. How brave would those nameless spineless "small minded" morons be in that scenario I wonder? So, Kuijpy… put your money where your mouth is, and come and say that, and anything else you have, to my face. Be a man about it. Be brave. Stop hiding behind your bogus nickname. If you feel big enough to insult me while hiding from a distance, I presume you'd be happy to say it directly to my face. I am often in Holland and would love to meet with you. Are you ever in the UK? If so, email me and we can arrange a meeting - unless you are too spineless to stand by your words and be accountable for what comes out of your ugly mind and mouth. Say something clever to that ! GB What would you do if Kuijpy turned up in the UK and said the exact same stuff he wrote? Would you proceed to spank him violently? Would you challenge him to bare-knuckle fist fight? Or would you hope that someone conveniently brings out a measuring tape to measure the size of your respective dicks? The one with the bigger dick would be the winner of the argument. Said winner would proceed to strip his shirt off and beat his manly chest, having proven that he is capable of defeating people when he is not hiding behind a screen. And the Queen Archive would have gained absolutely nothing. |
| Vocal harmony 29.04.2016 10:48 |
Costa86 wrote:Not sure that's what GB was trying to achieve.Queen Archivist wrote:Unbelievable, frankly - completely pointless reply.. Brings to mind bar brawls and red necks. An online argument is not rebutted by challenging the person concerned to discuss it in person. It is either discussed online, or if the person concerned is making an arugment which doesn't even merit a reply because it is so rude/silly/offensive etc., then that person is ignored. What would you do if Kuijpy turned up in the UK and said the exact same stuff he wrote? Would you proceed to spank him violently? Would you challenge him to bare-knuckle fist fight? Or would you hope that someone conveniently brings out a measuring tape to measure the size of your respective dicks? The one with the bigger dick would be the winner of the argument. Said winner would proceed to strip his shirt off and beat his manly chest, having proven that he is capable of defeating people when he is not hiding behind a screen. And the Queen Archive would have gained absolutely nothing.Kuijpy wrote: Greg could do that, but he wouldn't, he dont gives a fuck about other fans. Its just him, him, him, him and him. Fuck Off and Die you FagGB: Firstly, I see you might be Dutch. I have several wonderful friends in Holland. I love the country and its people and I don't want anyone thinking I have anything against Holland. I emphatically do not. I only have something against you. Kuijpy, you are an aggressive, unintelligent twat… to say the least. If you are 13 years old with no friends, it would explain a lot. But I'm sensing you're an adult - albeit with a child's mind and IQ - and therefore fair game and able to stand accountable for your words here on QZ. I have just written, elsewhere on this forum, which was partly aimed at you… I wish people that hide behind silly bogus nicknames, and call me a Fag, and the like, would be open and honest and come and see me in person (you know where I am) and say it to me face. How brave would those nameless spineless "small minded" morons be in that scenario I wonder? So, Kuijpy… put your money where your mouth is, and come and say that, and anything else you have, to my face. Be a man about it. Be brave. Stop hiding behind your bogus nickname. If you feel big enough to insult me while hiding from a distance, I presume you'd be happy to say it directly to my face. I am often in Holland and would love to meet with you. Are you ever in the UK? If so, email me and we can arrange a meeting - unless you are too spineless to stand by your words and be accountable for what comes out of your ugly mind and mouth. Say something clever to that ! GB Through the years a number of people on here have posted replies to comments which I'm sure they wouldn't say in a face to face conversation. Hiding behind a keyboard and in some cases an online name probably make you (us) feel safe from having to be answerable for our actions. I think GB was right in his view here. . . Think back to the crap Gerry flung at people he didn't agree with. Would any of that have been said sitting in a bar a coffee shop or anywhere else where people are in direct contact with each other and therefore responsible for the reply which they may elicit. |
| Mr.QueenFan 29.04.2016 19:06 |
dudeofqueen wrote: battler, re: >>he made a claim, he needs to back it up with cold, hard evidence otherwise the claim is unsupported and is to be given no consideration. He doesn't NEED to do anything of the sort. There's no reason to dispute the word of someone that hasn't previously been questioned other than to come to the conclusion that so much doubt exists because some people are so *DESPERATE* to actually HEAR "Hangman" in the studio. >>What he knows himself is not evidence as we can not independently examine it. Even a photo would be circumstantial evidence at best because it's easy to find any old acetate, slap a "Hangman" sticker on it, and pretend it's the real deal. And someone would go to those lengths this long after having put his hand up to say it exists? Surely, if John was that interested in justifying himself, he'd have done that by now......... As someone previously commented, if "Hangman" does appear, its not going to add anything to the reputation of the band and we'd have to wait for some considerable time for QPL come up with a magical re-release or early years rarities box set for it to see the light of day. Sad indeed it is that all we have to show for the band's early rarities is that pile of shite "Mad The Swine".......... >>Now a photo accompanied by a recording would be damned good evidence. And therein lies the rub - you want to hear the recording.I respect John and appreciate is sharings in the past, but that doesn't mean that i won't scrutinize his words and behaviour. And stop judging people on your assumptions - of course John needs to prove with audio that it exists - not to us, but at least to QP or Brian and Roger. Call it ethiquete! He went public with his claim, so don't tell me that he doesn't need to back it up with at least a sample for Brian May be sure that is exists. The problem here is not John having something we all know exists, it's him owning something no one (including the band) know exists. It has nothing to do with us wanting to hear the song - but of course we want! And then you wrote this political correct statement: "He doesn't NEED to do anything of the sort. There's no reason to dispute the word of someone that hasn't previously been questioned other than to come to the conclusion that so much doubt exists because some people are so *DESPERATE* to actually HEAR "Hangman" in the studio." Of course there's the need to dispute the word of someone who hasn't been previously questioned - that's called scrutinity, and it's healthy! Right now Greg Brooks and pretty much all of QP and some Queen fans don't believe that John Stuart was being honest about this claim. And the reasons are obvious - if he could prove it's existence would he deny it to Brian May? I tell you something - right know i really hope that he was pranking QP. I can understand the joke, and in the end we all wanted to do it at some point in time. In fact, i think it's genius! But if he really has it, and the story Greg told in his post about him not answering Brian's request is true, then that wasn't very repectfull to Brian and QP was it? There are four people who are very important in Queen's world: - Freddie, Brian, John, and Roger. And these four gentlemen deserve all the respect from their fans. Brian shouldn't be asking for fans to lend him stuff that HE recorded. Stuff should be getting into his hands without him even asking for it. That's how it works! |
| Sebastian 29.04.2016 19:47 |
Mr.QueenFan wrote: Brian shouldn't be asking for fans to lend him stuff that HE recorded.Not just him, but three other band members, plus outside employees (co-producer, engineers). Brian's not the only person involved. Mr.QueenFan wrote: Stuff should be getting into his hands without him even asking for it. That's how it works!Not necessarily. |
| dudeofqueen 02.05.2016 03:15 |
Mr.QueenFan, re: >>And stop judging people on your assumptions - of course John needs to prove with audio that it exists - not to us, but at least to QP or Brian and Roger. Call it ethiquete! On the assumption that English isn't your first language, I'll forgive you for this. If it's not, the sentence just does not make sense at all. Where on EARTH have I judged anyone based on that comment? >>And these four gentlemen deserve all the respect from their fans. Brian shouldn't be asking for fans to lend him stuff that HE recorded. Stuff should be getting into his hands without him even asking for it. That's how it works! That's the most naïve post I've read on Queenzone for some time. The fact is that the collecting community make up for the negligence of those fine fellows that you so glowingly refer to. If Brian, Roger, QPL etc were so bloody wonderful, there'd be no need for any of this - everything would be in the organisation's possession. The fact is that it isn't and collectors have spent large sums of money preserving the legacy of a band that they care deeply about. Why should they offer up their property for nothing just because QPL asks for it? |
| scallyuk 02.05.2016 05:05 |
This is all I have to say on the matter. I don't know whether JSS has the acetate or not, frankly I don't care. If he does it's his to do with as he pleases, if he doesn't it's been a hell of a prank. However, my encounters with JSS have revealed him as someone who is prepared to pass recordings off as "real Queen Rarities" when they are not. A long long time ago I used to run the Queen Hub, JSS was invited to join by YV, Given his reputation as a serious collector I was surprised when he agreed but he did and he shared what appeared to be a large number of what were at that time very rare tracks. On closer scrutiny the real rarities were shown to be either fakes, (the old mono speaker trick) or renamed files which weren't actually what the title said. His response - it's a laugh. Like the old romans said Caveat emptor. |
| brENsKi 02.05.2016 07:01 |
some very obvious conclusions from this thread: 1] GB will never change - his modus operandi is simple - drop by here (and other forums) from time to time to stir some sh*t, scrounge and generally get everyone to do his job for him. He does it here, because he couldn't get away with it at QOL - they censor everything, and - as a QPL employee they'd fire him 2] Greedy leeching fans will always use as desperate means as possible to try and glean another "rarity" - "i don't believe you have it, prove it!" - how fekkin' childishly unoriginal. it's been tried since forever - and never worked...so why would it now? 3] GB will always come begging - and will NEVER offer any kinda truth in return - remember the "archives - live videos content" misinformation? 4] Collectors do NOT have to prove to ANYONE what they have or don't have. People like JSS should not have their reputation called into question just because some wind-up merchant (GB) decides JSS is fair game - or because some newbie board member thinks they have a instant divine right to EVERY rarity. 5] JSS (or anyone else) would be foolish to lend any more stuff to QPL - it's beyond doubt that they are far too chavalier with other people's things. Bottom Line: All you smart-bollox, grasping leeches can believe what you want. No amount of goading, name-calling and reputation-slighting crap will get you an audio copy of "Hangman". Your attitudes have significantly reduced many serious collectors' visits and willingness to share to almost negligible levels. Perhaps if you'd behaved less "grabby", "insulting" and "disbelieving" then maybe it (Hangman) might have been shared a long time ago. |
| Sebastian 02.05.2016 07:36 |
At the end of the day, and not to disrespect anyone, 'Hangman' is not precisely Queen's magnum opus. Someone else (probably mooghead, but I'm not sure) correctly said a few years ago that the holy grail was definitely the set of 'Bo Rhap' multitracks, and now we've all got that. Anything else will almost invariably pale in comparison. Moreover, loads of rarities are often only heard once or twice and then discarded. There's a reason they're officially unreleased anyway. Of course there are gems here and there, both official and unofficial, but IMO not enough to justify all the flame bait and online heated debates, name-calling and almost bullying. |
| rocknrolllover 02.05.2016 07:59 |
Prince has safe where was found a ton of records that nobody knows about, although he talked about it. My heart feels that soon these records will be released. |
| rocknrolllover 02.05.2016 08:00 |
Idk who this JSS Idk what he done for Queen fans. Who can tell me about this man? |
| Marknow 02.05.2016 11:42 |
rocknrolllover wrote: Idk who this JSS Idk what he done for Queen fans. Who can tell me about this man? JSS is long time sorcerer of the Queen, the best band in England, ever. He bought forgotten music of the Queen (the best band in England, ever) from unknown heart. To us, much was new about him, and his music sounds new, with his words all brain proper true. He became trapped in the attic of the archive, like Anne Frank. There Greg Brooks found his smell one day in the virtual archive of Queen (the best band in England, ever) and he was very tremendous "I have the kite". They had the vocal improv. Morse code facts, hearsay, desperate creative choices, nobody can remember first winner. Many Queen (the best band in England, ever) fans were retarded with shame Then Freddie appeared in the sky and took JSS to heaven, they both had a shit on Greg Brooks and laughed heartily. Freddie and JSS live in heaven free from the pox of the archive. Freddie is the girl and JSS is the boy, I think... |
| brENsKi 02.05.2016 13:35 |
Marknow wrote:laughed this much in years, i haven't.rocknrolllover wrote: Idk who this JSS Idk what he done for Queen fans. Who can tell me about this man?JSS is long time sorcerer of the Queen, the best band in England, ever. He bought forgotten music of the Queen (the best band in England, ever) from unknown heart. To us, much was new about him, and his music sounds new, with his words all brain proper true. He became trapped in the attic of the archive, like Anne Frank. There Greg Brooks found his smell one day in the virtual archive of Queen (the best band in England, ever) and he was very tremendous "I have the kite". They had the vocal improv. Morse code facts, hearsay, desperate creative choices, nobody can remember first winner. Many Queen (the best band in England, ever) fans were retarded with shame Then Freddie appeared in the sky and took JSS to heaven, they both had a shit on Greg Brooks and laughed heartily. Freddie and JSS live in heaven free from the pox of the archive. Freddie is the girl and JSS is the boy, I think... how special you are, no idea you have . |
| Negative Creep 02.05.2016 18:06 |
The whole Hangman story is an odd one, but it seems to be deeply rooted in the "war" between Greg Brooks and John Stuart. If you had such an item and have gone as far as telling people on forums and even QPL - why would you never offer any proof whatsoever of its existance, in as little as a photograph or even a 10 second clip? I don't believe anyone here knows John Stuart on a personal level (??), so I find the "he doesn't need to prove it" stuff odd. All I know is that he is a committed collector, who has shared stuff in the past. In this instance the "he doesn't owe anyone anything" line to be utter bollocks - he's made a claim that he's never backed up and no one should blindly believe anything. Just because Greg Brooks does pop up on here acting like a bit of a bellend, doesn't add any credence to the Hangman acetate claim. And just because someone has a huge collection and has traded interesting stuff in the past, doesn't mean they can't lie about anything. There's no explanation as to why there's never been any proof offered, Does he fear he'll finally be tracked down and burgled if he 100% confirms its existance? LOL It would be interesting to know when the Hangman claim came up, in relation to the Ibex tape going missing (which if I remember correctly GB believed wasn't even the master - just a cassette dub?). If you wanted to piss Greg Brooks/QPL off by not letting them near it - a photograph proving its existance would be the ultimate. Similarly, if you wanted to be taken seriously by QPL, the same applies. I can't help but think it doesn't exist and was just a means of either trying to extract something from GB or just to piss him off. Hey, maybe even the claim had been used in trading circles to access stuff he doesn't have as the never materialing mega rarity is dangled in front of people? |
| brENsKi 03.05.2016 08:11 |
but that's the whole point. He (JSS) doesn't need to prove anything to anyone. here. ever. In another thread (which JSS started) he offered complete access to ALL of his rarities to anyone from Queen Productions - only exception being NOT Greg Brooks. http://www.queenconcerts.com/queenzone/1230682.html an offer like that is more than enough proof for me - and should be for any reasonable person. think about it: They (QPL) take him up on his offer - and EVERYONE knows that this stuff does indeed exist. He can't back out - as this will discredit him as a fraud. NB: The ONLY person who comes out of this with NO CREDIT whatsoever is Greg Brooks. why? think about this too: You're archivist for QPL and someone on a fan board offers Queen full access to their collection, but makes it plain that the only person not touching it is YOU. What do you do? Proper responsible thing (as archivist) is to contact your bosses and ensure they know this stuff is available. What did GB do? he engaged in his usual puerile flame/insult war. He could've been the bigger man, he could've done HIS JOB properly - and guaranteed himself more archiving work in the process - but he chose not to. Because deep down he couldn't give a f**k. Deep down he's not really interested in the actual nub of the matter - the archive. |
| rocknrolllover 03.05.2016 08:34 |
JSS has nothing in his collection, except for a pair of false teeth. |
| brENsKi 03.05.2016 11:09 |
rocknrolllover wrote: JSS has nothing in his collection, except for a pair of false teeth.when YOU learn to read and grasp proper logic you may make some progress - and even be taken seriously. Until then you can carry on behaving like a dick - but ultimately, there' only YOURSELF amused by your comments - and other kiss fans with nicknames like "Alive II" "Dressed To Kill" etc |
| rocknrolllover 03.05.2016 11:10 |
brENsKi wrote:It looks like I am not a trollrocknrolllover wrote: JSS has nothing in his collection, except for a pair of false teeth.when YOU learn to read and grasp proper logic you may make some progress - and even be taken seriously. Until then you can carry on behaving like a dick - but ultimately, there' only YOURSELF amused by your comments, |
| Negative Creep 03.05.2016 14:20 |
brENsKi wrote: but that's the whole point. He (JSS) doesn't need to prove anything to anyone. here. ever. In another thread (which JSS started) he offered complete access to ALL of his rarities to anyone from Queen Productions - only exception being NOT Greg Brooks. http://www.queenconcerts.com/queenzone/1230682.html an offer like that is more than enough proof for me - and should be for any reasonable person. think about it: They (QPL) take him up on his offer - and EVERYONE knows that this stuff does indeed exist. He can't back out - as this will discredit him as a fraud. NB: The ONLY person who comes out of this with NO CREDIT whatsoever is Greg Brooks. why? think about this too: You're archivist for QPL and someone on a fan board offers Queen full access to their collection, but makes it plain that the only person not touching it is YOU. What do you do? Proper responsible thing (as archivist) is to contact your bosses and ensure they know this stuff is available. What did GB do? he engaged in his usual puerile flame/insult war. He could've been the bigger man, he could've done HIS JOB properly - and guaranteed himself more archiving work in the process - but he chose not to. Because deep down he couldn't give a f**k. Deep down he's not really interested in the actual nub of the matter - the archive.Aside from the fact Greg Brooks would end up with the material in any case whether dealt with direct or not as he deals with the archive, Brooks has claimed in this thread that he got Brian involved and John Stuart still wasn't forthcoming. So that renders most of your points void, and surely does show JS to be a fraud? And I'm fairly certain, if no such recording resided in the archives, Brooks would go to great lengths to coax it out of whoever had it using any means available - be that money or band member intervention. Also, JS can easily contact band members management - so the claim that he's ready to help, but not via Brooks appears to be nonsense. And you've instantly come back with the "he doesn't need to prove anything EVER" bollocks again too. Yawn. As much as I have no special reason to not believe the claim (apart from there being no evidence "provided" - in fact refused to be provided), I certainly have no reason at all TO believe it. Did you not read Greg's post, or do you believe he is lying? So just to clarfiy - despite John Stuart refusing to deal with anyone at all at QPL (not just Greg Brooks) or provide anything at all to confirm the existance of such an acetate.... everyone should just take his word on that? OK. |
| Mr.QueenFan 03.05.2016 15:14 |
brENsKi wrote: but that's the whole point. He (JSS) doesn't need to prove anything to anyone. here. ever. In another thread (which JSS started) he offered complete access to ALL of his rarities to anyone from Queen Productions - only exception being NOT Greg Brooks. http://www.queenconcerts.com/queenzone/1230682.html an offer like that is more than enough proof for me - and should be for any reasonable person. think about it: They (QPL) take him up on his offer - and EVERYONE knows that this stuff does indeed exist. He can't back out - as this will discredit him as a fraud. (...) .Greg Brooks wrote: link "Even when Brian appealed for this to happen, John went silent in order to avoid the embarrassing situation of having to admit he had no such acetate..." and "I told John, and probably the Queenzone community too, back in 2010, that if John supplied his Hangman acetate, we would very likely use it as a bonus item on the 2011 Universal Records bonus disc for the first album. (...) "Hmmmmmm! Things went suspiciously quiet again. I asked several times more, as did one of my colleagues too. Eventually John said he wouldn't let Brian or QPL borrow his acetate, not because it didn't exist, not because he'd lose face in a massive way on Queenzone if it were revealed he'd made it up, but because....wait for it... I had lost his Ibex cassette ELEVEN years earlier. That was his reason, after first promising we could use it. "Bring it to the studio yourself, then" I said. "No chance of it being lost then, is there?" He declined. " This was 2010, the year of the so called John's open invitation to Greg. |
| Mr.QueenFan 03.05.2016 18:14 |
dudeofqueen wrote: Mr.QueenFan, re: >>And stop judging people on your assumptions - of course John needs to prove with audio that it exists - not to us, but at least to QP or Brian and Roger. Call it ethiquete! On the assumption that English isn't your first language, I'll forgive you for this. If it's not, the sentence just does not make sense at all. Where on EARTH have I judged anyone based on that comment? .You wrote: "He doesn't NEED to do anything of the sort. There's no reason to dispute the word of someone that hasn't previously been questioned other than to come to the conclusion that so much doubt exists because some people are so *DESPERATE* to actually HEAR "Hangman" in the studio. " You're implying that people are only asking for evidence (so much doubt exists) of this because they are DESPERATE to hear Hangman in the studio. You're judging people on your assumptions. And this is not true! People do want to hear it, but after recent posts by Greg Brooks it's only normal that people start to ask why didn't JSS provided any evidence of his claims at least to QP? dudeofqueen wrote: >>And these four gentlemen deserve all the respect from their fans. Brian shouldn't be asking for fans to lend him stuff that HE recorded. Stuff should be getting into his hands without him even asking for it. That's how it works! That's the most naïve post I've read on Queenzone for some time. .Says the guy who's too scared to say what he really thinks on this matter and keeps tap dancing around this issue. dudeofqueen wrote: The fact is that the collecting community make up for the negligence of those fine fellows that you so glowingly refer to. If Brian, Roger, QPL etc were so bloody wonderful, there'd be no need for any of this - everything would be in the organisation's possession. The fact is that it isn't and collectors have spent large sums of money preserving the legacy of a band that they care deeply about. Why should they offer up their property for nothing just because QPL asks for it?I say what i think and so i'm really not interested in collectors feelings when they feel threatened by public scrutinity, which seems to be your case. Next time you reply to me try not to be so condescending. If you were not aware that you were being condescending, then i forgive you. And English is not my first language. |
| The Real Wizard 03.05.2016 22:41 |
This thread is a complete joke, because a studio run of Hangman exists in the vaults. And if Greg doesn't know this, then either he's incompetent or hasn't been given access to it. Or he's going through this entire process for kicks. |
| Mr.QueenFan 04.05.2016 06:16 |
The Real Wizard wrote: This thread is a complete joke, because a studio run of Hangman exists in the vaults. And if Greg doesn't know this, then either he's incompetent or hasn't been given access to it. Or he's going through this entire process for kicks.First, if you know something that can clarify this issue for all Queen fans just speak up. It's more respectful than to just call this thread a joke. And if you know something, why are you letting people waste their energies discussing something you know to be a lie? What do you mean by what you said? And how do you know this to be true? And secondly, instead of just calling this whole thread a joke, i would love to hear your input about "scullyuk" claims (previous page) of John S Stuart joining the Hub to share fake demos and renamed files. Can you do it, or are you going to pretend is ok, like the rest of hypocrits in Queenzone? Because last time i checked, on the Announce section you and others are the first ones to condemn such behaviour, but on this thread everybody is confortably silent about this. I wonder why? |
| dudeofqueen 04.05.2016 08:02 |
Mr.QueenFan, re: >>I say what i think and so i'm really not interested in collectors feelings when they feel threatened by public scrutinity, which seems to be your case. But it appears that you write / post before you do any of this so-called thinking. Perhaps best to stop that with immediate effect, eh? What evidence is there of ANY collector that chooses to contribute to these forum pages being threatened by your so-called "public scrutiny"? Why on EARTH would they feel so given that, in virtually each and every case, those same collectors are the people that have so freely provided elements of their collections for REAL public scrutiny? >>Next time you reply to me try not to be so condescending. If you were not aware that you were being condescending, then i forgive you. Nope - fully aware of being very condescending. And I will be again should you deserve a response of that kind. |
| Mr.QueenFan 04.05.2016 09:05 |
dudeofqueen wrote: Mr.QueenFan, re: >>I say what i think and so i'm really not interested in collectors feelings when they feel threatened by public scrutinity, which seems to be your case. But it appears that you write / post before you do any of this so-called thinking. Perhaps best to stop that with immediate effect, eh? .I didn't asked for your opinion. I decide what i do! dudeofqueen wrote: What evidence is there of ANY collector that chooses to contribute to these forum pages being threatened by your so-called "public scrutiny"? Why on EARTH would they feel so given that, in virtually each and every case, those same collectors are the people that have so freely provided elements of their collections for REAL public scrutiny? ..You make too much noise! dudeofqueen wrote: >>Next time you reply to me try not to be so condescending. If you were not aware that you were being condescending, then i forgive you. Nope - fully aware of being very condescending. And I will be again should you deserve a response of that kind.You are replying to sarcasm here. Just to let you know. |
| dudeofqueen 04.05.2016 10:30 |
mr.QueenFan, re: >> I didn't asked for your opinion. I decide what i do! Well done you. Really thrilled you felt you could share that with us. I'm sure you'll have lots to tell your support group at your next meeting. >>You make too much noise! Really? You can hear me all the way up there in Portugal can you? That's some fucking pair of ears you've got old son! >>You are replying to sarcasm here. Just to let you know. Are you sure you understand the concept; sarcasm as a form of wit (incorrectly and, unfairly labelled sometimes as its lowest form) is *generally* lost on those outside of the British Isles. Nothing in that sentence indicated sarcasm - perhaps it was a private gag. But you've taken us away from the heart of the discussion which are the two questions I put to you and you haven't answered: What evidence is there of ANY collector that chooses to contribute to these forum pages being threatened by your so-called "public scrutiny"? Why on EARTH would they feel so given that, in virtually each and every case, those same collectors are the people that have so freely provided elements of their collections for REAL public scrutiny? |
| The Real Wizard 04.05.2016 11:23 |
Mr.QueenFan wrote:I can't control what people talk about, nor do I know what's in whose private collections.The Real Wizard wrote: This thread is a complete joke, because a studio run of Hangman exists in the vaults. And if Greg doesn't know this, then either he's incompetent or hasn't been given access to it. Or he's going through this entire process for kicks.First, if you know something that can clarify this issue for all Queen fans just speak up. It's more respectful than to just call this thread a joke. And if you know something, why are you letting people waste their energies discussing something you know to be a lie? What do you mean by what you said? And how do you know this to be true? And secondly, instead of just calling this whole thread a joke, i would love to hear your input about "scullyuk" claims (previous page) of John S Stuart joining the Hub to share fake demos and renamed files. Can you do it, or are you going to pretend is ok, like the rest of hypocrits in Queenzone? Because last time i checked, on the Announce section you and others are the first ones to condemn such behaviour, but on this thread everybody is confortably silent about this. I wonder why? But I can definitely attest to the character of JSS, and that he would never willingly spread something that's a fake or somehow otherwise deficient. He is responsible for leaking countless excellent, at the time uncirculated Queen goods. His versions of some of the BBC tracks are still the best available. Let's not vilify the people who have provided the community with music that has been enjoyed by thousands, and vilified generally by people who either stole his property or condoned said theft. Anyone else was welcome to track down the BBC masters and post them here, but only he did. Instead, it's easier for certain lazy trolls to sit on one's soapbox and complain that the gift wrap wasn't the correct colour So much has happened at this place before you posted here regularly, but those days are long gone. It hasn't seen any real action in years. The fact that my post generated only one reply says all that needs to be said about the state of affairs here. People aren't being quiet because of some sort of conflict of interest. People aren't posting because this website is pretty much dead. As for the Queen vaults - let's just let the actual players involved hash this one out. Not that Brooks will be back any time soon. His annual fact finding mission is clearly long over, so off to the wings he goes again. |
| AlbaNo1 04.05.2016 13:00 |
As long as someone I don't know can vouch for the honesty of someone else I don't know which is being challenged by another someone else I don't know I'll ask no questions. But then again I don't know. |
| Mr.QueenFan 04.05.2016 14:55 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Scallyuk told that when John S Stuart was confronted with this, is answer was - and i quote - "it's a laugh." That tells me that he was aware of what he was doing. Of course he can always come here and tell that it's a lie - he has all the right to defend himself.Mr.QueenFan wrote:I can't control what people talk about, nor do I know what's in whose private collections. But I can definitely attest to the character of JSS, and that he would never willingly spread something that's a fake or somehow otherwise deficient. .The Real Wizard wrote: This thread is a complete joke, because a studio run of Hangman exists in the vaults. And if Greg doesn't know this, then either he's incompetent or hasn't been given access to it. Or he's going through this entire process for kicks.First, if you know something that can clarify this issue for all Queen fans just speak up. It's more respectful than to just call this thread a joke. And if you know something, why are you letting people waste their energies discussing something you know to be a lie? What do you mean by what you said? And how do you know this to be true? And secondly, instead of just calling this whole thread a joke, i would love to hear your input about "scullyuk" claims (previous page) of John S Stuart joining the Hub to share fake demos and renamed files. Can you do it, or are you going to pretend is ok, like the rest of hypocrits in Queenzone? Because last time i checked, on the Announce section you and others are the first ones to condemn such behaviour, but on this thread everybody is confortably silent about this. I wonder why? The Real Wizard wrote: He is responsible for leaking countless excellent, at the time uncirculated Queen goods. His versions of some of the BBC tracks are still the best available. Let's not vilify the people who have provided the community with music that has been enjoyed by thousands, and vilified generally by people who either stole his property or condoned said theft. .I don't see anyone vilifying JSS. I see people - me included - searching for some answers about contradicting stories. This acetate matter is the only thing that is being questioned at the moment, and people have the right to know who's bullshiting who. The Real Wizard wrote: So much has happened at this place before you posted here regularly, but those days are long gone. It hasn't seen any real action in years. .I read this site since around 1999, and i started to post with another nickname around the early 2000's. Around 2010 i had to change my username because i lost the old password due to the fact that i was a couple of years without logging here. I know what has been going on. The Real Wizard wrote: The fact that my post generated only one reply says all that needs to be said about the state of affairs here. People aren't being quiet because of some sort of conflict of interest. People aren't posting because this website is pretty much dead. .That's not 100% true, because i see other thread started by Greg Brooks that has already nine pages of insults to him. So of course there's a conflist of interests. You giuys are so scared of John S Stuart that you don't even dare to question anything about him. Only me and a couple of other people are being honest with what is happening. If we are being lied to, then it's not our fault! The Real Wizard wrote: As for the Queen vaults - let's just let the actual players involved hash this one out. .Why make a claim if you're going to leave everything as it was before? This is a very weak reply. |
| Mr.QueenFan 04.05.2016 15:07 |
edit |
| Mr.QueenFan 04.05.2016 15:11 |
dudeofqueen wrote: mr.QueenFan, re: >> I didn't asked for your opinion. I decide what i do! Well done you. Really thrilled you felt you could share that with us. I'm sure you'll have lots to tell your support group at your next meeting. >>You make too much noise! Really? You can hear me all the way up there in Portugal can you? That's some fucking pair of ears you've got old son! >>You are replying to sarcasm here. Just to let you know. Are you sure you understand the concept; sarcasm as a form of wit (incorrectly and, unfairly labelled sometimes as its lowest form) is *generally* lost on those outside of the British Isles. Nothing in that sentence indicated sarcasm - perhaps it was a private gag. But you've taken us away from the heart of the discussion which are the two questions I put to you and you haven't answered: What evidence is there of ANY collector that chooses to contribute to these forum pages being threatened by your so-called "public scrutiny"? Why on EARTH would they feel so given that, in virtually each and every case, those same collectors are the people that have so freely provided elements of their collections for REAL public scrutiny?Don't expect me to take you seriously with this kind of tone. |
| dudeofqueen 05.05.2016 03:12 |
Mr.QueenFan, re: >>Don't expect me to take you seriously with this kind of tone. And you bothered to actually type this response and post it? Surely a person of your calibre has *FAR* better things to do....... Still, no answer to the questions - not surprising really. Your reasoning with regard to the central issue of this thread has more holes than a kitchen sieve........ |
| Sebastian 05.05.2016 06:48 |
dudeofqueen wrote: Mr.QueenFan, re: >>Don't expect me to take you seriously with this kind of tone. And you bothered to actually type this response and post it? Surely a person of your calibre has *FAR* better things to do....... Still, no answer to the questions - not surprising really. Your reasoning with regard to the central issue of this thread has more holes than a kitchen sieve........Indeed. I'm still waiting for Mr.QueenFan's response to a several months-old thread... |
| dudeofqueen 05.05.2016 08:20 |
Sebastian, re: >>I'm still waiting for Mr.QueenFan's response to a several months-old thread... No chance - you more than likely put him in a position where he had exposed his utter lack of knowledge and understanding so, rather than admit his shortcomings, he took the conscious decision to ignore you. |
| Sebastian 05.05.2016 09:16 |
dudeofqueen wrote: he took the conscious decision to ignore you.I think both of us are happier that way. |
| Mr.QueenFan 05.05.2016 09:57 |
Sebastian wrote:Here:dudeofqueen wrote: Mr.QueenFan, re: >>Don't expect me to take you seriously with this kind of tone. And you bothered to actually type this response and post it? Surely a person of your calibre has *FAR* better things to do....... Still, no answer to the questions - not surprising really. Your reasoning with regard to the central issue of this thread has more holes than a kitchen sieve........Indeed. I'm still waiting for Mr.QueenFan's response to a several months-old thread... link I welcome public scrutinity to my texts. People can read and reach their own conclusions about the behaviour of posters in that particular thread. Edit to correct link. |
| dudeofqueen 05.05.2016 10:29 |
Mr.QueenFan, re: >>I welcome public scrutinity to my texts You love this "public scrutiny" thing, don't you; why is that? (So much so that you can't be bothered to spell check prior to posting.) |
| Sebastian 05.05.2016 11:14 |
How about replying to this?
Sebastian wrote:Talk about making a claim and then not being able to back it up...Mr.QueenFan wrote: And i'm not counting the fact that when the Queen multitracks were leaked you were proved wrong in so many assumptions that it's not even fun!Really? Which ones? |
| YourValentine 06.05.2016 05:26 |
For what it's worth here is my take on the JSS vs QPL saga: I think John was not so angry about the loss of the IBEX tape and subsequent appearance on ebay and download pages, apparently he was angry about the lack of responsibility taken by QPL. They could have paid for the lost tapes and everything would have been buried there and then. I wonder who can blame him for this. The story about the hub is different in my memory: John did join the hub in around 2004 but it was certainly the wrong place for him at the time. We shared mostly audience recorded live concerts etc in which he was not interested and he was actually not able to encode his studio recordings into a shareable digital format. He tried to make up for this by sharing stuff like teaser pleasers and demos that were already circulating in the the collector community but he did not stay long when he realised that hatred was the only response he received from the hub community (not from scallyuk!). He left after only a few visits and nobody was hurt in the process. The Hangman acetate - one might think Hangman is the only studio recording Queen never released. It's funny how people who never collected anything and never made an effort but downloaded everything from QZ (and were always more than welcome to do so!) get all wound up by the idea that there might be a single recording they cannot get their hands upon. Please think about that. What did all these people ever do for the Queen community and what did John in contrast contribute with all his knowledge he shared and his huge collection that was effectively stolen from him and spread in the community (some even paid money for the stolen items). I won't comment about the reasons why John does not post here anymore but it's rather pathetic that the Queen Archivist appears here on the forum and drags this old story up - what does he expect to gain? If he is so sure that the Hangman acetate does not exist he should just say it and maybe people can relax about the issue. I do not care what people think about John - he is a lovely, honest and serious guy and I feel lucky I met him through my Queen interest. If people feel better throwing dirt at a person they know nothing about, they can feel free to do so, we have freedom of speech on this forum. It says more about the people who do it than about JSS |
| Sebastian 06.05.2016 07:40 |
Very interesting, thank you. Most people, when given a choice between two versions of the same story, will almost universally pick the one that sounds more spectacular or dramatic. And, obviously, 'there was a bit of a misunderstanding and he left with no harm having been done' is far less soapy than 'he smeared the Hub with fakes.' Guess which one people will believe the most! |
| brENsKi 06.05.2016 08:41 |
thanks Barb. your comments are welcome - they reiterate what Real Wizard and myself (among others) have tried to say. it's a pity those that keep slighting John in this way are so easily led by the utterly clueless and ineffective (at his actual job) Queen Archivist. One thing has occurred to me. These people - even if John posted a 15-second youtube clip of Hangman playing - would STILL not be satisfied. the thinking of the modern fan is that of an immediate entitlement to everything. These single-minded, selfish creatures are unable to think in terms of how they'd feel about stuff they paid tens of thousands of £s for being "lost" and then sold by thieves. Why? because they are incapable of conceiving of the idea of actually putting the legwork into searching, finding and paying for something themselves in the first place!!! People who believe GB over a respected, long-standing member of this community, should be ashamed of themselves. Sometimes, silence is a much better way to make a point. JSS has maintained his dignity, GB and his "bleating flock of fleece-heads" are behaving like fools |
| Mr.QueenFan 06.05.2016 09:48 |
YourValentine wrote: For what it's worth here is my take on the JSS vs QPL saga: I think John was not so angry about the loss of the IBEX tape and subsequent appearance on ebay and download pages, apparently he was angry about the lack of responsibility taken by QPL. They could have paid for the lost tapes and everything would have been buried there and then. I wonder who can blame him for this. .No one can blame him for this, but perhaps it's better that he responds for himself and not you. Your theory falls appart the moment Greg stated that JSS accepted Greg's apology and even accepted QP's invitation for the Freddie's Box-set launch party. And considering that JSS used this forum for an open invitation for QP to have access to his archive it's clear that his problem is not with QP in general but with Greg Brooks personally. YourValentine wrote: The story about the hub is different in my memory: .So are you saying that the user scallyuk is lying? YourValentine wrote: John did join the hub in around 2004 but it was certainly the wrong place for him at the time. We shared mostly audience recorded live concerts etc in which he was not interested and he was actually not able to encode his studio recordings into a shareable digital format. .Scallyuk said: "On closer scrutiny the real rarities were shown to be either fakes, (the old mono speaker trick) or renamed files which weren't actually what the title said. His response - it's a laugh. " YourValentine wrote: He tried to make up for this by sharing stuff like teaser pleasers and demos that were already circulating in the the collector community but he did not stay long when he realised that hatred was the only response he received from the hub community (not from scallyuk!).Stop treating Queenzoners as stupid! He didn't try to do anything to make up for anything. He was disespecting the Hub and the community with his fake uploads and that's why he received hatred. He knew what he was doing, becaue as scallyuk said when he was confronted with it he said : "it's a laugh." The fact that you - YourValentine - wants Queen fans to believe that by 2004 a collector of John's status couldn't encode his studio recordings into a shareable digital format its laughable and people deserve from you more respect than that! Again scallyuk said :"A long long time ago I used to run the Queen Hub, JSS was invited to join by Barb Johann, Given his reputation as a serious collector I was surprised when he agreed but he did and he shared what appeared to be a large number of what were at that time very rare tracks. " It wasn't "teaser pleasers and demos" like you try to make us believe. It was fake demos and according to scallyuk "renamed files which weren't actually what the title said". Doesn't John knows how to rename files either? YourValentine wrote: He left after only a few visits and nobody was hurt in the process. .Well, i don't see this kind of attitude with people who have the same behaviour in the announce section of this forum. YourValentine wrote: The Hangman acetate - one might think Hangman is the only studio recording Queen never released. .This has nothing to do with what's being discussed here! YourValentine wrote: It's funny how people who never collected anything and never made an effort but downloaded everything from QZ (and were always more than welcome to do so!) get all wound up by the idea that there might be a single recording they cannot get their hands upon. .Instead of trying to shame people on their status why don't you stick to the discussion taking place? People have the right to make questions. And people don't get wound up by the idea that there might be a single recording they cannot get their hands upon. People - me - are only trying to understand who bullshiting who. Because clearly one of them - Greg Brooks or John S Stuart - is bullshiting the Queen community with the "Hangman" acetate issue. Trying to understand who, is not being disrespectful to anyone. At least from me there isn't disrespect towards John. YourValentine wrote: Please think about that. What did all these people ever do for the Queen community and what did John in contrast contribute with all his knowledge he shared and his huge collection that was effectively stolen from him and spread in the community (some even paid money for the stolen items). .I see, and that gives John the right to disrespect other Hub users by sharing fakes? Ok. And mind you, 2004 was before the Fuller leaks thing, so John isn't a saint either. YourValentine wrote: I won't comment about the reasons why John does not post here anymore .Probably for the same reason many people don't post here anymore. Lack of moderation! Many people get offended on a daily basis on this forum, but i don't see you pop-up do deffend them. But you are unconfortable with people questioning JSS claims. Sad, really! And it shows that you are aware of what's happening here, which is even worst considering you are one of the Administ. of this forum (at least i think you are, if you're not then i'm sorry for the mistake). YourValentine wrote: but it's rather pathetic that the Queen Archivist appears here on the forum and drags this old story up - what does he expect to gain? If he is so sure that the Hangman acetate does not exist he should just say it and maybe people can relax about the issue. .So you can definitely say to all Queen fans still reading this thread that Greg Brooks is lying? That's all i need to know. You say that Greg is being pathetic by bringing this issue again. JSS made an open invitation to QP in Queenzone (2010) giving them access to his archive. He just didn't want to deal with Greg. Greg stated here that in 2010 other people contacted John for the "Hangman" acetate, even on behalf of Brian May and John went silent. So Barb, can you tell us that Greg is lying? And after such occurences- if true - can you 100% tells us that the acetate does exist? If you can, then do it! Be frontal about it, insteat of calling pathetic to what others are saying, because reading this thread already gives me an idea of whom the pathetic really are. YourValentine wrote: I do not care what people think about John - he is a lovely, honest and serious guy and I feel lucky I met him through my Queen interest. .And that's all there is. Your Queen interest! And that's why most of you are scared to say the things that are obvious. Interest! I don't have an interest for his collection, and i don't care about being friends with JSS or Greg Brooks, that's why i'm independent enough to make the right questions. You and others here are just scared that your interests are being jeopardized. And by the way, me and others here are also lovely, honest, and serious guys. Just ask our moms, and they will tell you! YourValentine wrote: If people feel better throwing dirt at a person they know nothing about, they can feel free to do so, we have freedom of speech on this forum. It says more about the people who do it than about JSS .That never stoped people of throwing dirt at Greg Brooks, and Brian May, and Roger Taylor, and Adam Lambert and to each other on this forum. But enough of the "It says more about the people who do it than about JSS". This is just to try to shame people who are questioning John's claims. In fact, all of your post was just to see if people would stop doing this! (continues in next reply) |
| Mr.QueenFan 06.05.2016 09:53 |
Continuation But i still don't understand why you consider that people making questions are throwing dirt at John. Look, there's much worst things being said in this forum on a daily basis that what is happening here. Interestingly enough, you never said that people should stop insulting Greg Brooks everytime he comes here, or stop insulting Adam Lambert or Brian May. But i guess insults on this forum are alright with you, depending of who's on the other end - receiving the insults! |
| Sebastian 06.05.2016 10:00 |
How about replying to this?
Sebastian wrote:Talk about making a claim and then not being able to back it up...Mr.QueenFan wrote: And i'm not counting the fact that when the Queen multitracks were leaked you were proved wrong in so many assumptions that it's not even fun!Really? Which ones? |
| brENsKi 06.05.2016 10:03 |
Mr.QueenFan wrote: Continuation But i still don't understand why you consider that people making questions are throwing dirt at John. Look, there's much worst things being said in this forum on a daily basis that what is happening here. Interestingly enough, you never said that people should stop insulting Greg Brooks everytime he comes here, or stop insulting Adam Lambert or Brian May. But i guess insults on this forum are alright with you, depending of who's on the other end - receiving the insults!has it never occurred to you that JSS has nothing to prove because he really can't be bothered with this crap anymore? he has no obligation to YOU or anyone else to give an account of himself. he's not here ..so why the fuck would you think he'll answer. you and your like are no better than the "torch bearing mobs" demanding a witch burning and here's the rub: whatever he does have - YOU and similarly-minded people will see NONE OF IT !!! only TWO people to blame for this 1] Greg Brooks - for allowing something there was only one copy of to be "lost" and then sold 2] David Fuller - and we all know why the fact that YOU are unable to see what GB is really about says more about you than it does GB. Sure, I'll argue the sh*t with GB - but that's because i like to think there's some balance to "doing to him, as he does to others" - at least my arguments are cohesive - unlike yours and GB's. |
| Mr.QueenFan 06.05.2016 14:29 |
brENsKi wrote:Yes, but that doesn't mean we at Queenzone can't or shouldn't discuss this.Mr.QueenFan wrote: Continuation But i still don't understand why you consider that people making questions are throwing dirt at John. Look, there's much worst things being said in this forum on a daily basis that what is happening here. Interestingly enough, you never said that people should stop insulting Greg Brooks everytime he comes here, or stop insulting Adam Lambert or Brian May. But i guess insults on this forum are alright with you, depending of who's on the other end - receiving the insults!has it never occurred to you that JSS has nothing to prove because he really can't be bothered with this crap anymore? . brENsKi wrote: he has no obligation to YOU or anyone else to give an account of himself. he's not here ..so why the fuck would you think he'll answer. you and your like are no better than the "torch bearing mobs" demanding a witch burning .I'm not demanding him to do anything! And why all the hate in your speech? Did i offended you in any way? brENsKi wrote: and here's the rub: whatever he does have - YOU and similarly-minded people will see NONE OF IT !!! .I don't know what you mean by this. brENsKi wrote: only TWO people to blame for this 1] Greg Brooks - for allowing something there was only one copy of to be "lost" and then sold 2] David Fuller - and we all know why .I never heard that the "Hangman" acetate was at a time inside QP. Maybe you can share some light on his? What happened to John S Stuart with his Ibex tape, unfortunate as it was, has been happening with Queen's music throughout the years as well. Many things in the hands of collectors got there by criminal behaviour as well. And in those cases i don't see anyone complaining! brENsKi wrote: the fact that YOU are unable to see what GB is really about says more about you than it does GB. .You have to be more specific than that. As i said before i had an altercation with Greg once on this forum but i moved on. This time he came here with a simple request and he was the one being insulted. I know about the incomplete live recordings list that he shared some years ago as part of a deal, but i don't know if we can blame him or Jim Beach, because if my memory serves me right, he had to ask Jim's permission to make that public deal with the community. But either case, that doesn't mean i'm gonna treat everything Greg says as being a lie and everything JSS says as being true face value, when i see contradicting behaviour from the same people on this forum. brENsKi wrote: Sure, I'll argue the sh*t with GB - but that's because i like to think there's some balance to "doing to him, as he does to others" - at least my arguments are cohesive - unlike yours and GB's.And i accept your perception, but instead of being so general about it, you can go through all my replies throughout this thread and specify where my arguments aren't cohesive. On page two of this thread i replied to you, but you never replied back. I don't mind being proven wrong, because i'm not trying to be right. I think we can debate without insults, and if you think i'm not cohesive just point out where i failed to make a consistent argument based on what was being said. |
| Marknow 06.05.2016 14:42 |
Well, this has turned into a right nonsensical shit show. Again..... Well played by the OP, drops a grenade in the room and walks off laughing. Played much? |
| brENsKi 06.05.2016 16:56 |
Mr.QueenFan wrote:re-read my post - i didn't specify - i said "something with only one copy"brENsKi wrote:only TWO people to blame for this 1] Greg Brooks - for allowing something there was only one copy of to be "lost" and then sold 2] David Fuller - and we all know why .I never heard that the "Hangman" acetate was at a time inside QP. Maybe you can share some light on his? Mr.QueenFan wrote:What happened to John S Stuart with his Ibex tape, unfortunate as it was, has been happening with Queen's music throughout the years as well.and that makes it ok? does it? why don't YOU stop and think, just how many collections and releases would be incomplete without collector's (like JSS) actually collecting things...any decent person - would publically apologise - GB has not done so - because he isn't a decent person (imo) Mr.QueenFan wrote:Many things in the hands of collectors got there by criminal behaviour as well. And in those cases i don't see anyone complaining!sometimes you talk some amazing shit - how can something "thrown out" be stolen? collector buying "garbage" is not committing a crime ffs. - you're just a GB apologist Mr.QueenFan wrote:I know about the incomplete live recordings list that he shared some years ago as part of a deal, but i don't know if we can blame him or Jim Beach, because if my memory serves me right, he had to ask Jim's permission to make that public deal with the community. But either case, that doesn't mean i'm gonna treat everything Greg says as being a lie and everything JSS says as being true face value, when i see contradicting behaviour from the same people on this forum.where is the contradicting behaviour from JSS? he hasn't been here in years! - GB on the other hand is a constant source of contradiction...including (but not limited to) his famed "what live videos we actually have in the archives" BS - face facts - he shouldn't promise said info if he knows he can't deliver - he promised it to use it as leverage to get info from people here - and then delivered misinformation deliberately bottom line? whatever you call yourself these days Gerry, you're still the same person, and i suspect it won't be long before you go nuclear again. |
| Mr.QueenFan 06.05.2016 18:46 |
brENsKi wrote:You're right, my mistake! So i assume you're talking about the Ibex tape.Mr.QueenFan wrote:re-read my post - i didn't specify - i said "something with only one copy" .brENsKi wrote:only TWO people to blame for this 1] Greg Brooks - for allowing something there was only one copy of to be "lost" and then sold 2] David Fuller - and we all know why .I never heard that the "Hangman" acetate was at a time inside QP. Maybe you can share some light on his? brENsKi wrote:No, it doesn't! But it makes all the simpathy JSS is receiving about this tape very hypocritical, when it's very clear that no one gives a shit. People just want to be on JSS's good grace. That's very disrespectful to him! It's friendship based on interest, something that i never apply in my life. Because if they did cared about such things, they would also be offended by the leaks from inside Queen Production studios to the hands of collectors.Mr.QueenFan wrote:What happened to John S Stuart with his Ibex tape, unfortunate as it was, has been happening with Queen's music throughout the years as well.and that makes it ok? does it? . brENsKi wrote: why don't YOU stop and think, just how many collections and releases would be incomplete without collector's (like JSS) actually collecting things...any decent person - would publically apologise - GB has not done so - because he isn't a decent person (imo) .Greg Brooks apologised to John S Stuart privately. He even recognized that in this forum, and if my memory is correct JSS never denied it. JSS went public with this tape thing after he promised Greg to keep this private. As you can see, i'm not taking sides, i'm just telling what happened based on their interaction in this forum over the years. Should one of them come here a deny what the other says, i will have new information. For the time being, this is all i know. Greg being a decent person or not is not my problem. brENsKi wrote:I don't know why you insist that people making questions have to be GB apologists. I'm not, and in the past when i disagreed with him i told him so - in fact i was very direct to him, like i always am! You say collector buying "garbage" is not committing a crime. True! But the master tapes of the "NOTW" missing are not garbage! Many demo tapes in the hands of collectors - all over Youtube - isn't garbage either! It was leaked by someone who shouldn't have donne it in the first place, because probably they were on a pay check from QP, and did it against the band's wishes.Mr.QueenFan wrote:Many things in the hands of collectors got there by criminal behaviour as well. And in those cases i don't see anyone complaining!sometimes you talk some amazing shit - how can something "thrown out" be stolen? collector buying "garbage" is not committing a crime ffs. - you're just a GB apologist . brENsKi wrote:Read again scallyuk reply on page 3. Wer're talking about the person who's running the Hub at the time (2004) stating that JSS deliberately shared fake demos and renamed files. When confronted with it is answer was: "It's a laugh."Mr.QueenFan wrote: I know about the incomplete live recordings list that he shared some years ago as part of a deal, but i don't know if we can blame him or Jim Beach, because if my memory serves me right, he had to ask Jim's permission to make that public deal with the community. But either case, that doesn't mean i'm gonna treat everything Greg says as being a lie and everything JSS says as being true face value, when i see contradicting behaviour from the same people on this forum.where is the contradicting behaviour from JSS? he hasn't been here in years! - . Not my words, so i don't know why you get so offended with me and others. For me this is contradictory behaviour, because this is not the JSS who loggs into Queenzone. (continues in next reply) |
| Mr.QueenFan 06.05.2016 18:54 |
brENsKi wrote: GB on the other hand is a constant source of contradiction...including (but not limited to) his famed "what live videos we actually have in the archives" BS - face facts - he shouldn't promise said info if he knows he can't deliver - he promised it to use it as leverage to get info from people here - and then delivered misinformation deliberately .I completely agree with this! But because at the time i remember him saying that he got permission from Jim Beach, i'm thinking that he only revealed what he could. Either way, it was a very poor decision from QP because it completely ruined the trust between the fans and them. brENsKi wrote: bottom line? whatever you call yourself these days Gerry, you're still the same person, and i suspect it won't be long before you go nuclear again. .I'm not Gerry - whoever that his - but you still haven't said specifically where i failed to make cohesive arguments. And i still don't understand your tone, considering that i am not offending you. I'm willing to let this go. But if people keep replying to me and stating that i'm the one with poor judgement skills, the least they can do is to point it out specifically. I don't mind being proven wrong! But what i see happening is people getting condescending, agressive and even moralists. They fail to have a mature argument that supports their views. They make noise, and try to shame others into silence. They talk about freedom of speech, yet what they realy are wanting to do is censore those who dare to ask questions. In the end, i don't care that John pranked QP. I care more about the Hub story than everything else. But one of the things i was after when i pursued this thread was to see the reaction of "some" users. People got scared that three people dared to question the words and actions of one big collector, yet on a daily basis people offend each other on this forum like it's nothing. It's good to see who's the Boss in the Queen world and who are the followers who go against what they preach on a daily basis in this same forum, because they are scared to lose whathever it is they have to lose in the collectors world. A very revealing thread indeed! |
| RStanton 06.05.2016 18:57 |
Marknow wrote: Well, this has turned into a right nonsensical shit show. Again..... Well played by the OP, drops a grenade in the room and walks off laughing. Played much?Exactly! Talk about a great way to bury bad news - nobody is complaining about no Hyde Park this year just 100 posts arguing around in circles, surely the fire should be turned on to QPL for the Hyde Park decision not each other...well played Greg Brooks! |
| Sebastian 06.05.2016 19:10 |
Mr.QueenFan wrote: ...Hey, how about replying to this? Sebastian wrote:Talk about making a claim and then not being able to back it up...Mr.QueenFan wrote: And i'm not counting the fact that when the Queen multitracks were leaked you were proved wrong in so many assumptions that it's not even fun!Really? Which ones? |
| Doga 06.05.2016 19:39 |
link |
| BETA215 06.05.2016 23:46 |
The more I read Sebastian's comment, the more I keep thinking he's Gerry. Gerry, the unfortunate Gerry. The useless guy who bumps shit till the nonsense. |
| brENsKi 07.05.2016 03:10 |
Mr.QueenFan wrote:you've just made the same mistake again. whose fault is it that GB promises something and then doesn't deliver? It's not Jim Beach's - it's GB's. He made a promise to QZ that he couldn't follow through. In exactly the same way he promised to safely return JSS's tape. On BOTH occasions GB blames others for his own mistakes - a secretary for the loss of the tape, and JB for the "permission" thing. GB should take responsibility for his own sh*t.brENsKi wrote: GB on the other hand is a constant source of contradiction...including (but not limited to) his famed "what live videos we actually have in the archives" BS - face facts - he shouldn't promise said info if he knows he can't deliver - he promised it to use it as leverage to get info from people here - and then delivered misinformation deliberately .I completely agree with this! But because at the time i remember him saying that he got permission from Jim Beach, i'm thinking that he only revealed what he could. Either way, it was a very poor decision from QP because it completely ruined the trust between the fans and them. brENsKi wrote:bottom line? whatever you call yourself these days Gerry, you're still the same person, and i suspect it won't be long before you go nuclear again.. Mr.QueenFan wrote:I'm not Gerry - whoever that his - but you still haven't said specifically where i failed to make cohesive arguments.well my replies (above and below) demonstrates your inability to follow a logical argument. Mr.QueenFan wrote:But what i see happening is people getting condescending, agressive and even moralists. They fail to have a mature argument that supports their views. They make noise, and try to shame others into silence. They talk about freedom of speech, yet what they realy are wanting to do is censore those who dare to ask questions.and what are YOU doing? see your comment below - yet again YOU'RE telling us what happened - without an grain of proof. at least I (and similar people are basing our judgments on fact - there is nothing to prove JSS has misled anyone. so don't judge. GB on the other hand is Mr Contradiction - so i call it as it is. Mr.QueenFan wrote:In the end, i don't care that John pranked QP. I care more about the Hub story than everything else. But one of the things i was after when i pursued this thread was to see the reaction of "some" users.And don't go branding people "users" - I'm not a collector - i sold ALL of my collectable stuff when the process got "out of hand" - almost 30 years ago! Mr.QueenFan wrote:People got scared that three people dared to question the words and actions of one big collector, yet on a daily basis people offend each other on this forum like it's nothing.Scared of what exactly? There's no point trying to discuss with you - you've made your mind up on GB's say-so. It'll be a sad day for justice the day you get appointed to Jury Service!!! What proof have YOU got that JSS pranked QP? NONE. so why say it? If you're not Gerry, then your definitely behaving like GB's alter-ego. |
| YourValentine 07.05.2016 03:15 |
@ MrQueenFan I do not know you and I do not care about your rant. I replied to the Queen Archivist's post re IBEX tapes and Hangman acetate and to schallyuk re hub story. I have every respect for scallyuk who was our first hub owner and I consider him a friend but I think his memory fails him in this case. I have no respect for you who spills nothing but hatred here, never shared anything and then has the guts to complain about "lack of moderation". Do not bother to answer because I won't bother to read it. |
| rocknrolllover 07.05.2016 03:27 |
YourValentine wrote: @ MrQueenFan I do not know you and I do not care about your rant. I replied to the Queen Archivist's post re IBEX tapes and Hangman acetate and to schallyuk re hub story. I have every respect for scallyuk who was our first hub owner and I consider him a friend but I think his memory fails him in this case. I have no respect for you who spills nothing but hatred here, never shared anything and then has the guts to complain about "lack of moderation". Do not bother to answer because I won't bother to read it. Your right words |
| musicland munich 07.05.2016 03:36 |
rocknrolllover wrote:Now that's what I call priceless !!!YourValentine wrote: @ MrQueenFan I do not know you and I do not care about your rant. I replied to the Queen Archivist's post re IBEX tapes and Hangman acetate and to schallyuk re hub story. I have every respect for scallyuk who was our first hub owner and I consider him a friend but I think his memory fails him in this case. I have no respect for you who spills nothing but hatred here, never shared anything and then has the guts to complain about "lack of moderation". Do not bother to answer because I won't bother to read it.Your right words |
| rocknrolllover 07.05.2016 03:46 |
musicland munich wrote:rocknrolllover wrote:Now that's what I call priceless !!!YourValentine wrote: @ MrQueenFan I do not know you and I do not care about your rant. I replied to the Queen Archivist's post re IBEX tapes and Hangman acetate and to schallyuk re hub story. I have every respect for scallyuk who was our first hub owner and I consider him a friend but I think his memory fails him in this case. I have no respect for you who spills nothing but hatred here, never shared anything and then has the guts to complain about "lack of moderation". Do not bother to answer because I won't bother to read it.Your right words I can't help agree :-D |
| Mr.QueenFan 07.05.2016 17:30 |
YourValentine wrote: @ MrQueenFan I do not know you and I do not care about your rant. I replied to the Queen Archivist's post re IBEX tapes and Hangman acetate and to schallyuk re hub story. I have every respect for scallyuk who was our first hub owner and I consider him a friend but I think his memory fails him in this case. .I also have respect for scallyuk, that's why i believe his words. Because he speaks about his direct experience as someone responsible for the Hub during this time (2004). Scallyuk claimed that JSS's answer to his sharing of fake demos and renamed files was. "it's a laugh". There's no need for you to get mad at me, because i'm only using the words of BOTH of your friends. You just have to decide in which friend you believe more, and which friend you want this community to believe more! I don't have anything to do with it. As an Admin. of this forum you should be impartial, but you're not and then you get mad when someone points it out to you. YourValentine wrote: I have no respect for you who spills nothing but hatred here, never shared anything and then has the guts to complain about "lack of moderation". .I don't know what one thing as to do with another. Many people complain about lack of moderation in Queenzone. And you're saying that people who never shared here don't have the same freedom of speech as people who have contributed in the past. This is clearly not my definition of free speech! Because i'm direct, you say my replies are full of hate. But you are the one disrespectind ALL users here with your attitude. You want people to be scared of openly discuss something, only because you don't agree with it. You don't intimidate me with your attitude! I don't care if you don't like what i write. I will let other Queenzoners decide for themselves if you're mature enough to be an Admin. of a forum. YourValentine wrote: Do not bother to answer because I won't bother to read it .b.Typical last words of someone with your attitude! You come here to offend me, and then try to prevent me from answering you with the typical insecure girlish reply " i won't bother to read it.". Not impressed! And as an Admin. of this forum you should be bothered to read what goes on on active threads. But i think this thread isn't going to progress further, so i'm going to give it a rest. Other Queenzoners can read it and get their own conclusions about what's being discussed and who respects who in this forum. |
| Sebastian 07.05.2016 18:45 |
@Mr.QueenFan: Hey, how about replying to this?
Sebastian wrote:Talk about making a claim and then not being able to back it up... You still haven't had the balls or any evidence to support your claim, which you made on the 23rd of October 2015.Mr.QueenFan wrote: And i'm not counting the fact that when the Queen multitracks were leaked you were proved wrong in so many assumptions that it's not even fun!Really? Which ones? |
| BETA215 07.05.2016 20:34 |
Talk Mr.QueenFan. I'm not against you, but if you make such a claim, at least say something. Back it, or say sorry. I don't know. Say something about it. Talk about which ones, for example. |
| dudeofqueen 09.05.2016 03:30 |
NEWSFLASH Mr.QueenFan is a complete and utter buffoon. He's proof positive that you ought to be made to purchase a license and go through a rigorous screening process prior to being allowed access to a computer. |
| Sebastian 09.05.2016 08:55 |
Aren't buffoons meant to be funny? |
| dudeofqueen 09.05.2016 09:10 |
Sebastian, re: >Aren't buffoons meant to be funny? Depending on your interpretation of the word I guess. Funny "ha ha" or funny "bloody idiot"? Austin Powers or Donald Trump........? |
| Sebastian 09.05.2016 14:46 |
In this case, it's not funny at all, just annoying :) |
| joerijoerijoeri 15.05.2016 06:14 |
It's just like Greg Brooks, along with some others here, are still very new to internet message boards. 'He's proof positive that you ought to be made to purchase a license and go through a rigorous screening process prior to being allowed access to a computer.' Let's state the obvious: this is not the world we live in. Everyone can go online and post whatever they want and off course there will be trolls. What strikes me most is that when a random poster / troll says something insulting, GB disproves his own point that he is not insulted by taking the time to write such an elaborate reply, completely taking the bait that was set out for him. Water off a ducks back, not really. Especially the 'come say that to my face' lines makes him sound like someone who has zero experience with the internet. I mean I'm sure GB would teach the Dutch guy a mean lesson if he would indeed show up in real life, he would undoubtedly wipe the floor with that Dutch riffraff that dares to insult him on a message board! But that will never happen and GB might try to just not pay so much mind to it. I mean good god, this guy is officially representing QPL online and he actually goes into flamewars in the exact same childish manner as the guy who called him out... If you're reading this, I have absolutely nothing against you, Greg. My point is that this whole thread was meant to 'set the record straight' but instead it turns out to create more petty insults. Not the way to demand the respect you want. |
| Penetration_Guru 16.05.2016 16:18 |
Losing that tape was regrettable and embarrassing. I apologised several times. John has had ample sympathy out of it, enough to last a lifetime, and we invited him to the launch event of the Freddie box which he happily accepted and subsequently enjoyed very much.I was one of a group of fans with an invite to a launch party that was "cancelled" at the last minute. What a way to find out I was persona non grata already... edit - seems I wasn't the only one. |
| RedSpecialTones 19.05.2016 06:56 |
HANGMAN IN STUDIO VERSION NON EXISTS ( Non acetate etc..)..Point..cheers all. |
| dudeofqueen 19.05.2016 08:34 |
RedSpecialTones, re: >HANGMAN IN STUDIO VERSION NON EXISTS ( Non acetate etc..)..Point..cheers all. Fuck me! Please don't tell me that Yoda's grandson is now contributing to this thread...... |
| TheGame 31.05.2016 07:57 |
Why cant people just make up their own mind about this case? Too many things have been said and world is a strange place. Sometimes only the persons involved knows the real truth. I think people can make their own judgement. Mr.QueenFan have good points and i think people are sometimes afraid to talk against the big collector community. I rare comment on QZ, but this story between JS and GB have been never ending. I know what i think, but i wont debate it online. I think the rest should do the same. |
| dudeofqueen 31.05.2016 08:26 |
TheGame, re: >Too many things have been said and world is a strange place. Sometimes only the persons involved knows the real truth. I think people can make their own judgement. Life comes prior to death. The Arctic is cold. Donald Trump is going to create mass terrorism across the globe. All indisputable facts as you've stated above......... >I rare comment on QZ, but this story between JS and GB have been never ending. I know what i think, but i wont debate it online. I think the rest should do the same. There'd be little point in keeping the Forum section of the site open if everyone thought this way........ |