| The Left Testicle of Freddie 09.08.2004 15:34 |
It's bound to be part of the boxed sets anyway (which Brian tells me will be released sometime in 2006 - six in total, one released every two months), but the Queen II demos are fantastic. Brian told me that the album did not turn into what they originally set it out to be - the demos are a lot less metally, although they did always plan to have a storybook of songs. There were 13 songs originally (6 on the white side, and 7 on the black), but one song was dropped off each side because of constraints. Fantastic. It has a very live feel to it. |
| Whisperer 09.08.2004 15:36 |
That sounds great! BUT your username tells me that you are not serious :-( |
| The Left Testicle of Freddie 09.08.2004 15:40 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: What are the two songs which were dropped called? And who wrote them?On the white side, originally written by Brian, was a song called "Deep Ridge". On the black side, originally written by Freddie, was a song called "Surrender To The City". Of course, you will recognise this as a lyric at the end of "Black Queen" when it segues into "Funny How Love Is" - this was originally a separate song. |
| Gunpowder Gelatine 09.08.2004 15:48 |
I don't know, this just seems too unbelievable. Plus, I find it unlikely that there's been absolutely no mention of these songs in the past. Wasn't there someone with a screenname Deaky's Left Nut? Any relation? |
| Gunpowder Gelatine 09.08.2004 15:53 |
I don't think anybody's being hostile. We're allowed to have our doubts, as there's not really any proof for or against him. But if what he's saying is true, then great, especially about the boxsets. |
| The Left Testicle of Freddie 09.08.2004 15:55 |
I think you'll like "Surrender To The City", but they left it off because it was far too poppy for the album. Brian and Freddie loved "I Can Hear Music", and "Funny How Love Is" was a blatant homage to the Phil Spector sound also. |
| John S Stuart 09.08.2004 15:56 |
This is absolute bullocks (or should I say one testicle short of the full set?). You have no idea what you are talking about - as the "Queen II" album is perhaps one of the most fairly complete studio sets. The only missing track is "See What A Fool I've Been" which appeared as a B-side anyway. It is true some demos do exist - but only as incomplete/variations of the tracks we already know about. I thought I would call your bluff in the last thread - as it was marginally possible - that you may have known what you were talking about. Now, you expose yourself as either a fool or a liar. |
| The Left Testicle of Freddie 09.08.2004 15:58 |
John S Stuart wrote: This is absolute bullocks (or should I say one testicle short of the full set?). You have no idea what you are talking about - as the "Queen II" album is perhaps one of the most fairly complete studio sets. The only missing track is "See What A Fool I've Been" which appeared as a B-side anyway. It is true some demos do exist - but only as incomplete/variations of the tracks we already know about. I thought I would call your bluff in the last thread - as it was marginally possible - that you may have known what you were talking about. Now, you expose yourself as either a fool or a liar.What have I done to deserve this? Bohemian Rhapsody evolved over time - bits were left in, bits left out, and then the song was completed using the available elements. If that happens with 1 song, it can happen with 13 (or 11 as it ended up). SWAFIB was NEVER intended as a single and was recorded in downtime. Get your facts straight. |
| John S Stuart 09.08.2004 16:07 |
"What have I done to deserve this?" Lied. Need I say more? "Bohemian Rhapsody evolved over time... that happens with 1 song, it can happen with 13..." No agrument... but you are still talking bullocks in this case, because I KNOW about the exact session, and your facts are NOT accurate. "Queen II" is almost as is. Infact, at a very late stage they had too LITTLE to release, so Brian had to revert to a very old 1968 demo. "SWAFIB was NEVER intended as a single and was recorded in downtime. Get your facts straight". I never said it was a single - I said it was "released" anyway. (Which it was). So you get YOUR facts straight. You may think you can wind-up the guys in here, but you can't me. Now go away and play with the traffic. |
| deleted user 09.08.2004 16:11 |
hmmm... the story sounds incredibly new and positive to me too, so I think it's quite obvious that everyone doubts about it. John S Stuart already gave his opinion but the new user has still credit to me: his story doesnt sound so weird. But now we need more details: how do you know all that? Any more proofs? |
| The Left Testicle of Freddie 09.08.2004 16:12 |
John S Stuart wrote: "What have I done to deserve this?" Lied. Need I say more?I have not lied about anything, so yes, you need say more. John S Stuart wrote: "Bohemian Rhapsody evolved over time... that happens with 1 song, it can happen with 13..." No agrument... but you are still talking bullocks in this case, because I KNOW about the exact session, and your facts are NOT accurate. "Queen II" is almost as is. Infact, at a very late stage they had too LITTLE to release, so Brian had to revert to a very old 1968 demo.I too know about the exact session, and I am sorry you are wrong about this. I'm not sure where you have got your information from on this, but why on earth would I bother to learn the entire history of Queen (including song lyrics and album structures) to lie? The truth is that, as with Seven Seas of Rhye, Queen had other tracks that weren't finished that they were working on in the early days, most of which appeared on neither album (although SSOR is the only one acknowledged widely to have been in development, and of course is the only one to appear on both albums). I think someone here is feeling like his nose is a little out of joint, sir. John S Stuart wrote: "SWAFIB was NEVER intended as a single and was recorded in downtime. Get your facts straight". I never said it was a single - I said it was "released" anyway. (Which it was). So you get YOUR facts straight. You may think you can wind-up the guys in here, but you can't me. Now go away and play with the traffic.Oh, put your dummy/pacifier back in your mouth, sir. Don't you think that I know just a little too much to be a troll? |
| John S Stuart 09.08.2004 16:16 |
Thomas are you guys one and the same? Why are you appologising for someone who is blatantly miss-leading the board? I am killing this deliberate misinformation before it spreads, and you question MY information? This is a wind-up. Smell the roses. But I guess this thread sums up this board nicely, on the one hand you have someone like myself (whom you would gladly question) against an unknown with a dubious insulting name in the other. While I do make mistakes, (and I believe only the Pope is infallible), I thought I may have cut a bit more clout than this! And yes, my nose IS out of joint. I really can not believe that anyone on this board would accept that Brian would support someone with a name like "The left testicle of Freddie!" If you are indeed as genuine as you claim - stand up and be counted - and stop hiding behind such a rediculous and degrading title! |
| deleted user 09.08.2004 16:16 |
I'm very curious so now let's wait. After all the modern crap we just got (46664 fact above all), it's such a relief to talk about Queen, especially early times. I admit I may have believed like a fool, though the story didn't sound so weird: now I just hope he's not a liar, and if so I prepare my money for the 6 long awaited boxes. |
| The Left Testicle of Freddie 09.08.2004 16:19 |
<font color=#CC0000>hangman wrote: But now we need more details: how do you know all that? Any more proofs?Queen II is so over the top because they were put out by the relative lack of impact that the first album had, so in a sense they overdid the follow-up. Myself, I love Queen II but having heard all 13 songs, it doesn't sound quite complete. Seven Seas Of Rhye was cut down from around 4 minutes to produce the single version. The full version sounds fantastic, although the version I've heard doesn't sound as good as it could because it was not as heavily produced as the final version. |
| Brian_Mays_Wig 09.08.2004 16:21 |
Yes, I find it hard to believe that a close contact of Mr May refers to himself as The Left Testicle Of Freddie! |
| The Left Testicle of Freddie 09.08.2004 16:26 |
John S Stuart wrote: Thomas are you guys one and the same?You're getting desperate now. John S Stuart wrote: This is a wind-up. Smell the roses. But I guess this thread sums up this board nicely, on the one hand you have someone like myself (whom you would gladly question) against an unknown with a dubious insulting name in the other.?I know your nose was put out of joint. Pathetic. John S Stuart wrote: While I do make mistakes, (and I believe only the Pope is infallible), I thought I may have cut a bit more clout than this!I don't know who you are, John, but I seriously doubt you know Queen better than me. John S Stuart wrote: And yes, my nose IS out of joint. I really can not believe that anyone on this board would accept that Brian would support someone with a name like "The left testicle of Freddie!" If you are indeed as genuine as you claim - stand up and be counted - and stop hiding behind such a rediculous and degrading title!ANYONE who knew the boys would know my username refers to a standing joke throughout the 80s. I am standing up and being counted. |
| Roy ® 09.08.2004 16:34 |
Maybe a strange thing but maybe Mr. Left Testicle is Mr. May Himself. |
| The Left Testicle of Freddie 09.08.2004 16:35 |
omniroy wrote: Maybe a strange thing but maybe Mr. Left Testicle is Mr. May Himself.LOL! Not true, I'm afraid! Certain people are interested in reminding fans that the Queen boxsets are still happening though. So, you could call me a shameless marketing ploy working on behalf of others. You could call me that! |
| The Left Testicle of Freddie 09.08.2004 16:36 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: And that joke is?It refers to an unfortunate occurence which befell Freddie during the recording of "Soul Brother". |
| YourValentine 09.08.2004 16:36 |
I believe John Stuart. He has a name, an email address, a history as a collector and contributor to the Freddie box and an excellent name in the Queenzone community and far beyond. I trust his word until I am proven wrong by a Queen release - but I doubt this will ever happen. |
| deleted user 09.08.2004 16:38 |
Uh-oh, this discussion is getting on fire and even more interesting... |
| Roy ® 09.08.2004 16:49 |
This is absolutely an interesting topic. But Mr. Left Testicle could you prove that everything you said is the truth and nothing but the truth. Maybe you could put a snipped of Surrender To The City on the internet. Maybe I would believe you, because otherwise you have got a really thick thumb. Only many other zoners definitely don’t believe you. I hope that you are speaking the truth |
| Roy ® 09.08.2004 16:56 |
Thanks for calling me stupid (weet jij het beter dan) bt maybe you have got an better idea. |
| Maz 09.08.2004 16:56 |
John S Stuart wrote: This is a wind-up. Smell the roses. But I guess this thread sums up this board nicely, on the one hand you have someone like myself (whom you would gladly question) against an unknown with a dubious insulting name in the other. While I do make mistakes, (and I believe only the Pope is infallible), I thought I may have cut a bit more clout than this!It would appear that those who believe Left Testy over you, John, are not familiar with your information. You have not posted much in these last few months, so it is easy to see how newer members of QZ might not know who you are. As YV mentioned, I have no reason to doubt John's information or creditabilty. Testy's just a wind-up artist having fun at the expense of a few posters. |
| John S Stuart 09.08.2004 16:59 |
"I don't know who you are, John, but I seriously doubt you know Queen better than me". That is very possible. I never PERSONALLY knew the guys, so I do not put that up for discussion and conceed to your intimate relationship. I also accept that bits and bobs of "Queen II" demos do exist - but not in the same drastic fashion you claim - ofcourse we could be arguing the same point from different ends. So in a sense, I do not totally disagree there either, and perhaps we argue over rhetoric and semantics. However, my main contention (and forgive me if this seems insulting) is that without any supporting or creditable evidence, you claim to have re-written the book as far as "Queen II" is concerned, and I thought my "inside information" was pretty solid. Do you blame me for being so incredulous? I welcome genuine discussion, so why not reveal who you REALLY are, because so far you are flying in the face tradition, with nothing to substantiate your stories, and although I am no human encyclopedia, I am not a "troll" either. |
| Roy ® 09.08.2004 17:09 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: omniroy, I did give a better suggestion (in the other topic by the same guy); have Brian mention him (with nickname and saying that he's telling the truth) on his soapbox. He says he'll ask Brian so we'll just have to wait and see.Ok that's wrigth, we have to wait till Brian confirms this |
| John S Stuart 09.08.2004 17:12 |
ANYONE who knew the boys would know my username refers to a standing joke throughout the 80s. |
| agneepath! 11994 09.08.2004 17:15 |
and who said queenzone was getting boring? Seriously, Left Testicle of Freddie has produced no evidence to support his incredible claims, and until he does (which i doubt) I'm with John S Stuart on this one! |
| YourValentine 09.08.2004 17:26 |
In the mean time I worked myself through the other topic, where Freddie's testicle claims to act as Brian's trader - the Houston tape for a mastertape. Now I wonder why anybody takes this serious in any way, it's just plain nonsense. |
| Bill O'Reilly is my name 09.08.2004 17:36 |
Now would be the ideal time for certain parties involved to SHUT UP. Just SHUT UP! |
| Pim Derks 09.08.2004 18:04 |
I dunno if what you're saying is true or not (I have my doubts but I also had doubts with John Stuart at the start so and he proved to be the expert on stuff like this...) but I can't imagine Brian May posting "Yeah, I know this guy who goes by the "Freddie's Left Testicle" nickname" or something similar. |
| Adam Baboolal 09.08.2004 20:56 |
He is hard to take seriously because his claims are almost too fantastic to believe. And even though he will allegedly ask Brian, he also adds that he cannot guarantee that Brian will post anything! So, what then? Because I've read John's past postings, I know he's the real deal. But it's hard to take this new person in when they start off with incredible claims. Heck, even Ted was better than him in the beginning! :) Peace, Adam. |
| deleted user 09.08.2004 21:23 |
I won't discredit either John Stewart or Freddie's Left. However. I do feel the need for the old Queen music to be 'alive' again. We have not had this kind of disscusion on this board about old 'new' Queen music in eons. It's all about the new crap that QP and BM have been putting out. Of course it's crap to me, and I should not say that intedning it to be a generalized statement. I firmly believe that there may be a possibitly of some songs that we haven't heard form any album still locked up in a vault or collection some where. I pray there are. 'Cuz if all we have left is what is being put out now, it's over. So Freddie's Left, if you are on the level, and not just spouting nonsence, I for one can't wait for new music. After all it is QUEEN doing it. Not 2 people pretending to be something they aren't anymore. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 09.08.2004 21:54 |
Intelligence, and common sense is becoming a scarce commodity on this board. John Stuart is an absolutely credible source, and people question him while accepting a wimd-up artist. Oh well, these are the same folks who thought the school teacher on the Fox show who impersonated Freddie was posting here. He wound up every message with "watch the show next week." Knew squat about Queen, it was someone from Fox's marketing department tapping into a fertile ratings ground with some guerillar marketing. Every post a plea to watch the show, and people beleived it was the guy who did Freddie. Never posted before or since. Then again, I didn't believe that Bowie covered Roger's Beautiful Dreams as a b-side in Europe so maybe this guy is on to something. |
| Ron 09.08.2004 23:59 |
sorry ThomasQuinn, but you are wrong. This testicle comes right out of the blue and says that there are two unreleased demos. He even claims that he's heard them incl some unreleased versions of known tracks. How/where if I may ask? |
| musicalprostitute 10.08.2004 00:10 |
This argument is a waste of time, there IS NOT any demos named "Deep Ridge", nor "Surrender To The City", i know this because i know ALOT about Queen and there early recordings. The release was due on March 8th, 1974 and Brian had to use an old demo, so therefore that is one thing that proves that there was NOT enough material. I know there were 6 demos from that album, but the only difference in these from the ones on the LP were that they were slightly incomplete and not very great quality, oh and that on "Funny How Love is" Freddie starts to laugh at the end. I do know that there are a couple of songs that were written, BUT NEVER RECORDED for this LP. I hope i didnt offend anyone, but i know Queen. |
| Mr. Scully 10.08.2004 02:49 |
I don't believe much of what Freddie's left testicle says. But he brought a fresh wind to Queenzone and thanks for that :-) What a relief after all this 46664 & musical crap as hangman says :-) |
| Babel_esp 10.08.2004 03:38 |
This post is incredibly funny. I think that John information is extremely reliable and so has been in the past so why would people think he is not well informed in this case? I personally don't believe the testicle at all - the time will prove him right or wrong. Anyway... Queen II being a short album? of course, if we remember well Queen II and Queen I were released in a few months and also in 1974 it came Sheer Heart Attack - the guys were recording at a high pace searching for a great hit that launched them to the fame. So considering this, I don't think there are many hidden recordings in the vaults (I really hope there are plenty of them anyway!) apart from discarded takes of released songs. Seems logical. |
| Fenderek 10.08.2004 03:43 |
Mr. Scully wrote: But he brought a fresh wind to Queenzone and thanks for that :-)Well, it's been a long time since we were discussing QUEEN II and not "how boys from Queen are/were equipped"... Who knows- maybe THAT'S WHAT THIS HOAX is all about...?!?!? |
| Libor2 10.08.2004 05:06 |
hmm, well, what Freddie’s_Left_etc. said seems to me highly unbelievable. The other thing is we all (or a lot of us) in the corner of our souls want to believe something such is possible. But I also know on many occasions there was said there wasn’t too much material left from old times as Queen used tapes over and over to save up money and rest of unreleased material they used on following records. But even I don’t trust Freddie’s_Right_etc. I will read very carefully Brian’s Soapbox next week. I’m another one who doesn’t like new material too much (Wembley etc.) so I can have got one week of hope for something different (and much much better IMHO). Have a fine day. |
| Sonia Doris 10.08.2004 05:40 |
Good luck... for all (or most) of us |
| The Left Testicle of Freddie 10.08.2004 07:50 |
You can believe what you want, but the people in the know ultimately I know I am telling the truth here. 'Deep Ridge' was due to appear after White Queen, and has a 'Misty Mountain Hop' sound to it, and 'Surrender to the City' is very poppy. There are reasons the experts do not want you to know. And there are reasons that I and other do want you to know. |
| Fenderek 10.08.2004 08:33 |
The Left Testicle of Freddie wrote: You can believe what you want, but the people in the know ultimately I know I am telling the truth here. 'Deep Ridge' was due to appear after White Queen, and has a 'Misty Mountain Hop' sound to it, and 'Surrender to the City' is very poppy. There are reasons the experts do not want you to know. And there are reasons that I and other do want you to know.Some other revelations than, c'mon... What about listing ANATO out-takes...? |
| Penis - Vagina 10.08.2004 09:40 |
|
| Penis - Vagina 10.08.2004 09:40 |
|
| jeff payne 1680 10.08.2004 15:59 |
Hey the left ball or what ever has brought a bit of fun to this board even though he's a fake. Hey Martin I agree about the 46664 thing what would it take to ask Spike, Jamie etc to help in a small gig even for 30 mins. |
| radio_what's_new 11.08.2004 12:47 |
The Left Testicle of Freddie wrote: It's bound to be part of the boxed sets anyway (which Brian tells me will be released sometime in 2006 - six in total, one released every two months), but the Queen II demos are fantastic. Brian told me that the album did not turn into what they originally set it out to be - the demos are a lot less metally, although they did always plan to have a storybook of songs. There were 13 songs originally (6 on the white side, and 7 on the black), but one song was dropped off each side because of constraints. Fantastic. It has a very live feel to it.WHY DON'T YOU DIG A HOLE, JUMP IN IT AND LET YOUR GAY FRIEND FILL THE HOLE ASSHOLE |
| The Left Testicle of Freddie 11.08.2004 20:02 |
radio_what's_new wrote: WHY DON'T YOU DIG A HOLE, JUMP IN IT AND LET YOUR GAY FRIEND FILL THE HOLE ASSHOLESpoken like a true fan, you homophobic fuckwit. |
| iGSM 11.08.2004 20:39 |
<> And Horatio. Queen II is the only album I haven't heard all the way through yet (I am ashamed). I'd like this to be true and if it is, rock on! Anywho, I am skeleton. |
| syncursor 12.08.2004 02:37 |
Why is this such a big deal? I thought as Queen fans we'd all get along better than this. If these songs do exist, that's great. If they don't, I'm sure there'll be lots more in these boxsets that we haven't heard. In 1999, if I had heard that there were so many unreleased recordings from Freddie's solo career, I probably wouldn't have believed it, but that boxset was great and offered much more than I expected. Let's just see what happens. I'm sure many of you know more about Queen than I do, but I'm glad. Not knowing everything leaves room for surprises. :) |
| RMT Fan 12.08.2004 11:23 |
That's a good point of view :) What fun would that be if we knew everything? We need surprises - and we STILL need them, so let's better have some from time to time rather than all at once and then nothing at all! I sometimes manage to find about some 'new' Taylor songs and I know how much happiness it is. I am happy I find sth from time to time. But also we have that forum to exchange our thoughts, so we can talk what we think is true. But when it gets too excited it's not that good, because we can completely disagree and be unpleasant to each other and that we shouldn't want to happen ;) |
| kdj2hot 16.06.2006 15:48 |
I dare to drudge up this old thread. Don't stone me guys, please. ANyway interesting read. About this Left Testicle guy, anyone think it's possible that he was Greg Brooks? Seems to be a similarity in their tone and didn't Greg say he first met Queen in 1989? Maybe his info isn't bullocks...though Brian going back in his personal archive and digging up White Queen just to have something to put on it to make the deadline is pretty convincing evidence that they didnt have so much stuff that they had to remove finished songs from the album. |
| John S Stuart 16.06.2006 18:25 |
I had completely forgotten about this thread. Interesting what can happen in a few years. Anyway, now that a few Queen II 'convention' demos have leaked, other than minor alterations - it seems that the drastically different versions as purported by the testicle - seem more unlikely than ever. |
| Negative Creep 16.06.2006 19:14 |
kdj2hot wrote: About this Left Testicle guy, anyone think it's possible that he was Greg Brooks? Seems to be a similarity in their tone.Yes, having just read numerous posts by the character, I think think it's safe to say it's the same person who has posted as GB and The Queen Archivist. Most of it is taking the piss and the fact he wasn't believed would probably explain a few things. |
| Bohardy 16.06.2006 20:13 |
For fuck's sake. As I said in the Wikipedia post, (which presumaby inspired the dredging up of this post) this guy is just a garden-variety Wind Up Merchant. Just search for all his posts and you'll see. He started off making *almost* believable posts saying he was in contact with Bri and had various bits of insider info. The posts got more and more outlandish until they reached the point where the poster was obviously outing himself as a WUM. Check this one out for example: link "I think think it's safe to say it's the same person who has posted as GB...". - So safe you'd put your house on it? As I remember, Freddie's Left Testicle actually provided some nice debate and amusement at a time when the board sorely needed it. |
| Fenderek 19.06.2006 12:05 |
It needs some right now as well... |
| Pierre 21.06.2006 20:16 |
Hmmm This sounds like sci-fi demos in my ears... |
| Freddie_Jr. 23.06.2006 21:18 |
That would be cool if he was telling the truth though, I'm just surprised no one asked him to post the songs. |
| The Real Wizard 25.06.2006 20:19 |
Very interesting. The left testicle does seem to be Greg. The plot thickens... |
| John S Stuart 26.06.2006 12:27 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Very interesting. The left testicle does seem to be Greg. The plot thickens...So why the disinformation? |
| Cwazy little thing 28.06.2006 06:48 |
Im not convinced its GB - he had the balls at least to appear as himself on here, and takes a shot at people who hide behind screen names. Besides, whatever issues people have with him being unprofessional or whatever, I find it hard to believe he'd go this far. |
| Bohardy 28.06.2006 18:46 |
I have absolutely no idea why anybody would think Freddie's Left Testicle was Greg. One of the posters was some anonymous fool clearly trying to wind us up by posting fantastical tales of unreleased Queen songs and insider info, the other is an archivist with a big chip on his shoulder. |
| The Real Wizard 02.07.2006 18:59 |
John S Stuart wrote:??Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Very interesting. The left testicle does seem to be Greg. The plot thickens...So why the disinformation? Not sure what you're asking... |
| John S Stuart 03.07.2006 15:36 |
If Mr. Leftie was indeed Mr. GB, why distribute disinformation? |
| Togg 06.07.2006 07:01 |
What happened to Thomas Quins posts? why were they deleted? As for the rest, if it was/is Greg than maybe he got fired from his role afther they discovered how he communicates to fans! (arrh we can only dream) Either way it was all rubbish. |
| Rick 06.07.2006 10:00 |
Togg wrote: What happened to Thomas Quins posts? why were they deleted?Hmm, good question, but a better question would be: Where is he? I haven't seen him lately. Is he banned or on holiday or something? |
| Togg 06.07.2006 11:03 |
One would assume banned as his posts have all been deleted! |
| FriedChicken 06.07.2006 11:48 |
John, even if it was Greg. How are you so sure this information isn't true. |
| Bohardy 06.07.2006 13:44 |
Niek, did you see what I said on page 3, about Freddie's Left Bollock's other posts? The guy was clearly winding us up with the rest of his posts, so why would this one post be true? And why on earth would it be Greg? |
| FriedChicken 06.07.2006 14:49 |
Yeah I know what you mean. And also the idea of Seven Seas of Rhye being 4 minutes long would be totally rediculous. But what I meant was: We can't know 100% sure if stuff like this is bullshit or not. Not even huge collectors can know all the stuff Queen recorded from 1971 till 2006 |
| Mr Mercury 06.07.2006 20:06 |
<font color=blue>Rick wrote:I think Thomas was banned actually, though for what reason I dont know. Hence the reason for his posts dissappearingTogg wrote: What happened to Thomas Quins posts? why were they deleted?Hmm, good question, but a better question would be: Where is he? I haven't seen him lately. Is he banned or on holiday or something? |
| AC 07.07.2006 03:54 |
<font color=green><b>Mr Mercury</b> wrote:Thomas Quinn is not banned, as far as I know. Some months ago his account was deleted because he started insulting too many persons (you could say he was spamming the board with insults but it's an exaggeration). His account was deleted as a warning, but he wasn't banned. In fact he joined back and "behaved". But his older posts are lost obviously.<font color=blue>Rick wrote:I think Thomas was banned actually, though for what reason I dont know. Hence the reason for his posts dissappearingTogg wrote: What happened to Thomas Quins posts? why were they deleted?Hmm, good question, but a better question would be: Where is he? I haven't seen him lately. Is he banned or on holiday or something? I looked around and I've seen some recent post from him, although not in the last week. He probably didn't post anything in the last 10 days or so, but I don't know the reason. But his account is still there. |