| Queen Archivist 31.08.2007 21:32 |
I haven't read ALL the stuff about John SS and Greg B, and who said what, and when, and why, and why Greg should be sacked or forgiven or pitied or taken out for dinner because he's such a lovely chap, or beaten up because he said something that might have upset YV or JSS, etc, coz there is suddenly tons of it to wade thru. But I did skim thru odd bits while I waited for my butler to prepare supper. Firstly, though, can I get this off my English chest because I really hate this particular aspect of internet forums, though THANKFULLY it is rare, so let's have it said and maybe you will agree but probably you won't... It genuinely does amuse me when I see - right on cue - the same old names giving it the same old "Here here Barb" "Well said Barb" "We love you Barb" "Everything you say is correct Barb and we never question anything you say or think for ourselves Barb because it must be true if you said it Barb" and all the other nausiating comments of that nature that require no thought. It makes me laugh out loud that people feel the need to do that. I agree with lots of things I read on QZ... even with Barb sometimes. But even so i never feel the need to be that sickly sweet and in so doing come across as in desperate need of friends. How insecure do you need to be before you travel that road? I find that so very unnecessary - slightly degrading and rather undignified in many respects. What does it say about a person that they do that? I know what I think, but I'd better not say. It puts me in mind of certain rock 'stars' such as Mariah Carey who feel the need to surround themselves by people telling them how great they are all day. "We love you Mariah" "You are so wonderful" "Here here Mariah, you Godess, well done, you are so right again." Yuk! Pass me a sick bucket when these people are about. Certain people on this site, and I suppose in life generally, feel an overwhelming compulsion to FIT IN at any cost. Saying something controvercial, something at odds with Barb, for example, is sure to invite distain or defensive words from fellow QZ-ers, and God forbid that should happen. Whereas the safe bet, backing Barb to the hilt with words of encouragement as she does battle with bullish Brooks the archive man is always sure to go down well and gain a few Brownie points... and I do mean BROWNIE points. But it's all a bit predictable and without class, isn't it? Barb has things to say and though I disagree most of the time - because it cannot be coincidence that Barb never ever agrees with a single thing I say or suggest and never will - I do respect her for saying it, and for being her own person. But all the sycofants (which I cannot spell) out there that cannot wait to get their little WELL SAID, HERE HERE bullshit in at the earliest opportunity, you people are sickly brown-nosed sycophants, and exactly the kind of person that no one wants at their barbecue. If you feel it necessary to do that in order to maintain favour, it says something about you that I find unnerving. I even respect people who say "you are a bastard Greg" "you are a bully and an insulting horrible git." I think it appropriate to air those opinions if you feel it strongly. But to tell someone that they are very clever and lovely and gorgeous, or just to offer a "here here well done" just randomly, just for the sake of it, to remain in their good books, is crass and cheap. There are better words I could use, but you get my gist. Anyway... Secondly... Let's be clear about this. I do NOT hate or despite John Stuart, nor anything like it. I do not hate anyone alive. HATE is for morons and bigots and racists and other such imbecilic humans. I find John irritating in the extreme. I have met with John, spoken with him at length on the phone, 'worked' with him on the freddie box. Very few of you have. None of |
| Boy Thomas Raker 31.08.2007 21:49 |
Greg, I've stated before, that I think your approach in the past towards people here has been below you and your position. Having said that, I admire the fact that you've come back here a little less confrontational. I think for most people it's not a matter of choosing sides, but you, as I'm sure you're aware, have become a lightning rod for everyone's anger towards QP. Absurd, as you are not the decision maker for archival releases or the cover of Queen Rocks Montreal, but that's a goofy indication of the way QZ works. Having said that, as "part" of the Queen machine, you are perceived to be "city hall", and John is "the little guy." He's been wronged, apparently you've apologized (the well is so posioned with you and JSS that he's probably crafting a replying denying contact ever occurred), but I have to ask you in your heart of hearts, does John not have a right to be put out by his treatment from QP? And apologies aside, and I know this isn't your issue, QP have to be far more transparent with their communications. It seems John isn't the only one who has lost stuff, and perceptions are QP, and by extension, you, are either incompent, or worse, thieves. So if someone other than JSS started a thread about lost property, perhaps you could have Brian reach out on his Soapbox, or make restitution. Life is too short for two seemingly good men to be bickering over who can piss the furthest Queen related piss. |
| Erin 31.08.2007 23:53 |
Don't you think you were a tad harsh on those that happen to agree with YV? What would be the point of agreeing with her for the sake of fitting in? There's been times where I would simply quote someone and say, ditto, well said, etc... Glancing back at the thread, I only see a couple of people that responded that way, one of which was Janet. Janet has NO reason to suck up to anyone on here. She, like myself, has been on these forums longer than Barb. She is a smart, well opinionated, genuinely NICE person that I would love to have at my barbecue any day. I haven't met Barb in person, as I have Janet and many others from QZ, but I have known her through the internet for years. She is trustworthy, generous, and I concider her a friend. Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions about the people who post here, Greg. |
| YourValentine 01.09.2007 03:27 |
Erin wrote: Don't you think you were a tad harsh on those that happen to agree with YV? What would be the point of agreeing with her for the sake of fitting in? There's been times where I would simply quote someone and say, ditto, well said, etc... Glancing back at the thread, I only see a couple of people that responded that way, one of which was Janet. Janet has NO reason to suck up to anyone on here. She, like myself, has been on these forums longer than Barb. She is a smart, well opinionated, genuinely NICE person that I would love to have at my barbecue any day. I haven't met Barb in person, as I have Janet and many others from QZ, but I have known her through the internet for years. She is trustworthy, generous, and I concider her a friend. Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions about the people who post here, Greg.Well said, Erin!! Hear hear :) @ Greg: My heart is bleeding when I read about the "ordeal" you went through. The frustration!! Phoning for hours, how terrible. I would rather work in a coalmine than having to put up with such a horror. Even 7 years on you cannot get over it, surely QP should pay a therapy for you. |
| cmsdrums 01.09.2007 04:26 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: but you, as I'm sure you're aware, have become a lightning rod for everyone's anger towards QP. Absurd, as you are not the decision maker for archival releases or the cover of Queen Rocks Montreal, but that's a goofy indication of the way QZ works.I think that this is a perfect way of putting it - a lot of the frustration, anger, disappointment at the lack of 'decent' Queen releases is directed towards Greg simply because he is, rightly or wrongly, seen as the representative of the band on this forum. Yes, JSS is completely right to have expressed his dismay at the loss of his very rare product, but I agree with Greg in that the subject has been covered many many times and no matter of talk will recover either the original tape, or restore any degree of trust between the two parties. Yes, if JSS wishes to warn others considering lending material to QP that he had stuff lost then this is his right, but equally so Greg should be free to be ask us again to lend material to him with a promise that it will be returned - just because something was lost/stolen once that we know of does NOT mean that anything else will up the same. I think that we should all be intelligent enough to draw the line when it comes to personal abuse using foul language to ANYONE on the forum, as opposed to being able to put a reasoned response to the point in question if we strongly agree/disagree with it. My opinion from reading many posts over a few years is that JSS does seem to have a lot of knowledge and material that most definitely belongs in a number of future Queen releases (especially the I Want It All book and any possible Archive releases). Although I have not always agreed with the content of JSS's posts, I have never been offended of upset by any of them as he usually tends to put his point across factually and sensibly. In varying measures I have found Greg's posts to be anything between funny, true, polite, or unecessarily offensive. In some cases Greg has responded to assaults on his character using a similar tone (understandable), but other times he has simply started a thread in an antagonistic manner, seemingly simply to bait responses from certain people. At other times Greg's posts are quite amusing and simply pass above quite a few heads who miss the joke. One irritant to me (and I'm sure others) is that Greg will post a serious question and (rightly) expect a response, whereas there are numerous questions, often in follow up to an original post by Greg, that Greg simply does not respond to and seems to ignore (an example is JSS asking if QP would like a master copy of Golders Green as it doesn't appear in Greg's list of material held). As Greg says, we do not know what dealing have taken place over the years between JSS and him, and so I find it very difficult to come down so completely and utterly on one side or the other as some posters have. I think that one problem is that once Greg does make a serious post (either requests for material & info, or simply joining in on a thread), some people simply soon become abusive because they took offence at a post that Greg may have made months before on a different subject. My approach is to judge each post on it's merits and respond accordingly. The end result is that we want any interaction with Greg to be to our benefit, in that we want any archive or live releases to be a comprenhensive as possible. If material isn't known about when a release comes out but then is unearthed in a garage somewhere sometime afterwards then that just can't be helped, but if a release is due and material is purposely heldback (by either QP or 'us')that would/could/should be included, then this really just doesn't help anyone. I hope, but don't expect, that this thread will draw a line under any forum feuds, and that the tone and content of the few offensive messages will now be reviewed by all o |
| CD 01.09.2007 06:14 |
Queen Archivist wrote: Let's move on.So... When is the boxset coming out? |
| Roger's Beard 01.09.2007 06:56 |
CD wrote:Boxset?Queen Archivist wrote: Let's move on.So... When is the boxset coming out? What boxset? Are we getting a boxset? :) |
| Queenfred 01.09.2007 06:58 |
CD wrote:Here here!Queen Archivist wrote: Let's move on.So... When is the boxset coming out? |
| onevsion 01.09.2007 07:21 |
Queenfred wrote:well said!CD wrote:Here here!Queen Archivist wrote: Let's move on.So... When is the boxset coming out? |
| John S Stuart 01.09.2007 07:29 |
Remember, I did not commence or invite this thread. However, I think it would be unfair in the extreme, after viewing this chain set in motion that I, the main thrust of this thread, would be denied the right to reply. Whether this is perceived as ‘being right on cue’, or as the ‘ranting of some crazy old fool’ is immaterial, if Greg believes in the ‘justice and fairness’ he keeps alluding to, then it is only fair that I too am allowed to contribute. First: Only to set the record straight - Greg and I have only met ONCE, and over the course of that evening, we must have spent all of around TWENTY MINUTES in each other’s company. Second: Apart from the fact that I have NEVER worked with Greg, we have spent SOME time on the telephone (hardly hours), which I too found tedious in the extreme. From my point of view, I wanted straight answers to certain questions – ALL of which were evaded. For me, it was a bit like Jeremy Paxman interviewing a blinkered politician whose every answer consisted of deliberately avoiding the point. I guess he will argue that this is untrue, unfair or inaccurate, but in my defence I would argue that Greg’s personality in ‘real life’ is exactly the same as it is in print. All one need do is wade through the amount of mails in which he evades direct questions. So the real problem for him is that I REFUSE to do his work for him, and no matter what games he tries to unseal my lips – he is paid as archivist – not I – so I believe he should do his own spade work. Unfortunately, while this may be endearing in political circles, it does not work for me, and I have therefore NOT communicated with Greg since, as I find, that there are other more valuable (and cooperative) sources to gain information. Now, having said all that, I have moved on. I have ignored him. I do not call, write or e-mail. Greg is no more part of my life than the bees in my garden. We are not some sort of ‘double act’ nor do I hate or pity him. Our only communication is via this public forum – and as this forum is public - the public can see all that exists between us for themselves - and that all our dealings are both open and transparent. (So for cmsdrums and others: you know EXACTLY 'what dealing have taken place over the years between JSS and him...' as it is all a matter of public record). I have been polite in my replies, and have not commenced any dialogue or threads re: his personality. I have not attacked or belittled him on any form, nor have I tried to bully, cajole or take the piss out of his name or position. (Sorry, my name is not Johnny or Sibelius – although it does seem to be a rather grandiose pseudonym). Therefore, I politely ask Greg to leave me alone, to pursuit his own happiness in life, and wish him luck in his endeavours in finding what exactly exists OUTSIDE the Queen vaults. I hope it has been seen that I have been man enough to offer my assistance still, but as can be seen from previous threads, even this support is ignored – or knocked back with scorn and ridicule. This town certainly is big enough for both of us, but I will (as you have so correctly observed – for the last seven or so years) stick to my end of the street, if you stick to yours. May you live in peace and harmony and have a long happy retirement. Is there anything more that I can do or say? |
| Sebastian 01.09.2007 08:21 |
> why Greg should be sacked or forgiven or pitied or taken out for dinner because he's such a lovely chap Your so-called humour becomes rather dull after you keep on doing the same stupid comments. > It puts me in mind of certain rock 'stars' such as Mariah Carey who feel the need to surround themselves by people telling them how great they are all day. She IS an astonishing singer... > Certain people on this site, and I suppose in life generally, feel an overwhelming compulsion to FIT IN at any cost. Wow, you've invented the wheel! Hats off to Greg Freud Brooks! > Saying something controvercial, something at odds with Barb, for example, is sure to invite distain or defensive words from fellow QZ-ers, and God forbid that should happen. First, if one of us happen to agree with Barb (or anyone else for that matter), it's because our opinions match, not because we want to "fit in". Second, "controvercial"? Can't you even write your own language? It amuses me that whenever a non-native speaker makes a slight mistake like that one, their English level is instantly reduced to "you'll never be as fluent as a native". But when a native does it, everybody's got to oversee it... talk about prejudices. > it cannot be coincidence that Barb never ever agrees with a single thing I say or suggest and never will It can easily be a coincidence. So, you're pathologically obsessed with two QZ posters now... > I do NOT hate or despite John Stuart, nor anything like it. From what we've read in your messages, it seems like you're actually in love. John, if you're ever stalked or receive a bouquet with an 'Every Breath You Take' card, you know who did it! > HATE is for morons and bigots and racists and other such imbecilic humans. Indeed. But stupidity is also for morons, as you've thoroughly demonstrated. > coincodentally There you go again... > It IS repetitive. It has already been said by him several times. And until you (QP) settle this matter (preferably in private), you're gonna keep seeing it here, either from John's side, or somebody else's (including me). > That's all, no really big deal. Read the car analogy (if you can read, of course...). > perceptions are QP, and by extension, you, are either incompent, or worse, thieves. Standing ovation! > So... When is the boxset coming out? The same day as Chinese Democracy. > I wanted straight answers to certain questions – ALL of which were evaded. Can't say I'm surprised. > I would argue that Greg’s personality in ‘real life’ is exactly the same as it is in print. For some extent it applies to all of us, I reckon. > I have not attacked or belittled him on any form, nor have I tried to bully, cajole or take the piss out of his name or position. Indeed. But you don't need to: his own posts set him up more than anything someone else could say. > (Sorry, my name is not Sibelius – although it does seem to be a rather grandiose pseudonym). :( That'd have been ace! John Sibelius - very poetic! |
| Queen Archivist 01.09.2007 10:06 |
Sibelius... Remember, I did not commence or invite this thread. GB: In my opinion you actually did invite my reaction; this thread, Sib - and I'm not trying to be offensive here - by your bringing up that lost tape AGAIN when it was not remotely relevant to Justin's thread (OPEN LETTER TO GREG). GB: It was NOT called OPEN INVITATION TO JOHN STUART TO MENTION HIS LOST TAPE AGAIN. It was meant for ME to address an issue about Mott The Hoople memorabilia, NOT you to bring unrelated matters up. You can see this point, I know you can. GB: It was only because you hijacked that thread, not for the first time, and dragged it all up again that i thought, "Oh for God's sake, please please not that again.. everyone knows about this John. Leave it alone and move on." That's what immediately struck me. Like they say nowadays, can't you just 'get over it'. I know it was upsetting. It was regrettable. It was not planned. I was annoyed too. We apologised PROFUSELY and we gave you a free Freddie box and you attended the press launch of the box in London and was very happy to be there... the very least we could do, yes I know that, because the lost item was impossible to attach a monetry value to. Accidents happen. GB: But honestly, being serious, you keeping on harping back to it, like a man who was wronged by a woman and he just can't let it go, years later, long after everyone else has moved on, does you (and the rest of us by default, let's face it) no favours. I personally find it very tedious and irritating when any person, not just you, goes on and on about old issues and picks over scabs just as soon as they heal. Repitition is not interesting in any form in this context. It just bores people... most people anyway. GB: I have MANY things in my past where i was 'wronged' or 'belittled' (as you put it), when people stiched me up MASSIVELY in fact... but I really see no point in raking it up every 3 or 6 months. I just don't. I have been there and done that, like we all have, and now those things are much better left in the past. GB: You, John, would feel better if you finally got over it and left it in the past. It is history. It is so long in the past that for you to still feel so raw over it, and still so resentful (for want of a better word) says something deeper rooted that you might want to think about. I think the Americans call it 'closure issues'. GB: Live in 2007 and beyond, not in 2000. I cannot stand going over this thing as often as I have had to because of your bringing it up again and again. It's like having to have the same conversation over and over, or like watching the same film endlessly. I feel it's exactly like having to read the same page of a novel every 4 months over seven years. Who would want to do that??? I'm not doing it any more. It's honestly been done completely to death now. >>>>> ...if Greg believes in the ‘justice and fairness’ he keeps alluding to, then it is only fair that I too am allowed to contribute. GB: Yes quite right. >>>>> First: Only to set the record straight - Greg and I have only met ONCE, and over the course of that evening, we must have spent all of around TWENTY MINUTES in each other’s company. Second: Apart from the fact that I have NEVER worked with Greg, we have spent SOME time on the telephone (hardly hours), GB: No John, it WAS hours and hours. It is VIVID in my mind. You asked me once, "Are you sure these long calls are OK, because you are paying for them?" You would not have asked that if the calls were not long. They certainly were. Long and unusually exhaustive. You know this as well as I do. They were unhealthily long and they became slightly heated when I told you that the frustration issue was becoming a major problem for me... we were getting nowhere fast. GB: In fact, to be accurate, we were getting nowhere EXCESSIVELY SLOWLY and I simply could not handle it. It was the |
| Queen Archivist 01.09.2007 10:07 |
Continued......... I guess he will argue that this is untrue, unfair or inaccurate, GB: Actually I agree. Don't put words in my mouth. >>>>> but in my defence I would argue that Greg’s personality in ‘real life’ is exactly the same as it is in print. GB: You do not know me "in real life". My private life is very different to my Queen work and 'perceived' personality on this site, or any site. You know nothing about the real me, John, no more than I do about you. To presume a person is the same in private as in print is stupid and naive. You therefore must believe that Freddie Mercury would have been the same in private as in print, but we all know how wide of the mark that is. What you know about Greg Brooks, John, OUTSIDE of the Queen context could fit on a postage stamp, and there would still be room left to mention your tape again. >>>>> So the real problem for him is that I REFUSE to do his work for him. GB: John, it was MY suggestion that we call it a day. You agreed. If you want to recall it as you refrusing to work with me, that's fine, but you're kidding yourself and portraying it in a certain light to suit you better - strangely. >>>>> and no matter what games he tries to unseal my lips – he is paid as archivist – not I – so I believe he should do his own spade work. GB: I have no desire to be anywhere near your lips, honestly. >>>>> I have not attacked or belittled him on any form, nor have I tried to bully, cajole or take the piss out of his name or position. (Sorry, my name is not Sibelius – although it does seem to be a rather grandiose pseudonym). GB: you used to have a sense of humour once upon a time Sibelius!!!! >>>>> Therefore, I politely ask Greg to leave me alone, GB: Oh dear! OK John. You poor man. I'll leave you alone. Me bully, you victim. I am all ashamed now, and you are coming across as a wet wimpy limp sponge. >>>>> I hope it has been seen that I have been man enough to offer my assistance still, but as can be seen from previous threads, even this support is ignored – or knocked back with scorn and ridicule. GB: Yes Sib, it probably HAS been seen that you 'have been man enough to offer assistance...with scorn and ridicule... bla bla bla, etcetera' But I truly and genuinely believe you are coming across as a wet wimpy limp sponge. Where is your back bone, man? You can take a bit of ridicule and knocking and jokes written around fictitious conversations with my mum, surely to God. I do. I get jibes and ridicule all the time. So what! Rise above it. Have a wee word with yourself and stop getting all hurt about such trivialities. >>>>> This town certainly is big enough for both of us, but I will (as you have so correctly observed – for the last seven or so years) stick to my end of the street, if you stick to yours. GB: Yes Johnny. >>>>> May you live in peace and harmony and have a long happy retirement. Is there anything more that I can do or say? GB: A bit sickly and creepy, but I'll take it that you are sincere and I too hope you have a right nice time. GB: Love to all the people that love you. And love to Dunkeld too. It's a fabuolus place I know very well. GB: Can we not mention your tape ever again please. :-) |
| Pim Derks 01.09.2007 10:12 |
Oh boy. Seems the Queen boxsets are delayed once again as Greg seems to have lots and lots of time on his hands. |
| John S Stuart 01.09.2007 10:14 |
Greg: FACT: For the record - I did NOT receive a FREE Freddie box set - I bought my own. I even have the receipt from HMV. I am sure that this can be easily confirmed by Jim Beach as it was his idea that I should be removed from the 'promotional' list - and you can't even get that right. FACT: Because of my job, ALL my telephone calls are legally recorded. I can produce transcriptions if you like, but I will not embarrass you. Suffice to say your memory is as factually inaccurate as your claims. FACT: Other than that, we have not 'spoken' in seven years, so I believe it is YOU who should 'let go' and find 'closure'. FACT: An experience (good or bad) is called that (an experience) because it is exactly that (an experience!). These live with us forever, and while I have moved on - I will NEVER forget - why should I? Why should I pay the price for your incompetence? Finally, this is a free country (and forum). I did not know there was a statute of limitations, or a pre-set number of the occassions I was allowed to raise an issue. As I said, I did not raise these issues - you did, but even if I DID raise the issue it is NOT for you to deny me that right, and if others are bored, they can simply 'change the channel'. But so long as they are raised, and there is breath in my lungs, I will NOT allow you to perpetaute half-truths, untruths or even down right lies about me or mine. You claim it is over. If that is true - simply shut up. If you can not do that, then do not expect me to roll over and die on your say so. As for every hydra head you decapitate - seven new ones will arise. Furthermore, for the life of me, I can not understand why either you - or Queen Productions have so much to fear from a simple man like myself. Could it be that if we keep picking away at that scab, further unsavioury things will be lurking underneath? For example, how is it possible that a tape could be stolen from EMI and end up being bootlegged without being noticed - or how is it possible for material locked up in the Queen vaults to end up here in Queenzone? Now for the record, I have politely asked you to leave me be, and politely requested you to refrain from writing more intimidating, insulting, degrading and/or derogatory material. This is a public forum of record, and as such, CAN be used as evidence of libel, and although I do not wish to go down that road, I am sure that my solicitors would be more than happy to add these communal communications to their portfolios. Now, as long as you are a man of your word, then I do not see any reason for this communication to continue. |
| Zak Royen 01.09.2007 12:49 |
sounds crazy you didn't even get a free copy of the FM box, John. (do i sound like a sycophant, Mr. Brooks, or simply like someone expressing his opinion?) |
| Zak Royen 01.09.2007 12:56 |
BTW, Mr. Brooks... You've been asked, "do QP own a master copy of Golders Green?" As part of the deal you made with Queenzoners a while back, couldn't you provide a clear answer to that? Thank you. |
| Donna13 01.09.2007 13:06 |
|
| on my way up 01.09.2007 13:18 |
Zak Royen wrote: BTW, Mr. Brooks... You've been asked, "do QP own a master copy of Golders Green?" As part of the deal you made with Queenzoners a while back, couldn't you provide a clear answer to that? Thank you.the list he gave didn't make us much wiser. first we were going to be told more about existing video and then suddenly there was video and audio in the list. for example:slane castle, only audio or also video? munich '79, of course there is audio but there is also video:the entire show? He promised us to deliver and he didn't. Sorry greg, but that's what I think. Fans gave as much datailed info as possible and still do about every day. Your part of the deal wasn't detailed. You will agree with me, I hope. I fully understand that QP can't give detailed info but maybe it's better to say so than promise things without keeping the promises. This forum proves that Queen has many fans and there's still a lot to be done in the Queen world. Sadly, it looks like the fans are more concerned about these things than QP. I hope QP will prove I'm wrong. This is how they can do that: releasing the anthology box sets. Releasing 70's concerts or a box with several shows on Cd or audio-DVD from the 70's. And many other projects that are NOT rereleases of Greatest Hits sets! |
| cmsdrums 01.09.2007 13:30 |
John S Stuart wrote: Greg: Could it be that if we keep picking away at that scab, further unsavioury things will be lurking underneath? For example, how is it possible that a tape could be stolen from EMI and end up being bootlegged without being noticed - or how is it possible for material locked up in the Queen vaults to end up here in Queenzone?That is a good point (although possibly should be under a new topic) - it does appear that any time something gets out from under the nose of QP or EMI, they are very quick to attack the people who collect such material under good faith, as collectors and not for monetary gain, rather than having a good look at their own security procedures and employees to find out exactly how the item in question escaped their vaults. Im sure someone will now say that if somebody acquires a rare track then they are stealing from QP or EMI, and deserve all the attacks that come their way. My argument would be that if the material is owned by QP or EMI, and therefore presumably only handled by people directly employed or sub-contracted to them, then any 'leak' could actually be considered official as it MUST have come from somebody employed by QP or EMI. |
| CD 01.09.2007 14:29 |
Queen Archivist wrote: GB: In fact, to be accurate, we were getting nowhere EXCESSIVELY SLOWLY.Thats the way we (Majority) of fans feel about the box set and other Queen stuff. We try to get as much as we can (information, songs e.t.c). All we want is something new or interesting every so often. JSS has provided us with a lot more inforamtion and tracks e.g. the skip demoes then you have. Although we recognise you cannot disclose secret stuff from QP but maybe tell us something from your private collection for instance. Just my thought on the matter. Thanks for your time and best regards. |
| Mr Faron Hyte 01.09.2007 19:50 |
The simple conclusion is that Greg likes to generate his own attention, so in that regard, he's rather like Britney Spears and other similarly talentless old trollops. |
| ok.computer 01.09.2007 21:20 |
Mr Faron Hyte wrote: The simple conclusion is that Greg likes to generate his own attention, so in that regard, he's rather like Britney Spears and other similarly talentless old trollops.(mentally places Greg's face on Brittany's body) *shudder* |
| newcastle 86! 16483 01.09.2007 21:54 |
sad scottish twat lol............ life after qz? na nah |
| Lester Burnham 01.09.2007 21:57 |
newcastle 86! wrote: sad scottish twat lol............ life after qz? na nah...huh? |
| Queen Archivist 01.09.2007 23:14 |
John Stuart... Furthermore, for the life of me, I can not understand why either you - or Queen Productions have so much to fear from a simple man like myself. GB: You are so full of crap it's laughable. You arrogant arse, you seriously believe QP or me (or anyone else) has anything to fear from an indivdiual as simple as you. What planet are you living on??? Fear???????? HAVE A WORD WITH YOUR SILLY SELF, and make it an urgent priority. God only knows where that concept came from, or why it filtered its way into your head. When do you dream these things up Mr Kray-Stuart... you big frightening terrifying man you? I hope you heard the mass collective wave of QZ-ers at home who exclaimed aloud together in their collective astonishment. Who the hell do you think you are that anyone would 'fear' you. Have you heard yourself? You truly are diluded. "simple' man is right. "I can not understand why either you - or Queen Productions have so much to fear from a simple man like myself" LISTEN TO YOURSELF. My God! I've heard some arrogance in my time from you - among the 'pity me' and 'be my friend' bullshit - but now you are in a superleague all on your own. And then you spout off the legal crap too, about libel and your solicitors. GROW UP for goodness sake. Yesterday I called you nothing more that a wet wimpy limp sponge, and I bloody stand by it. Don't threaten me with your legal rubbish John, just because I have aired my true feelings for you and showed you up for the big girls blouse you are. This is a forum to air our respective views. You did so, I did so. I don't like all the crap you write, and you feel likewise. But don't then suddenly get all up yourself and stamp your feet and have a tantrum and resort to legal threats because that only makes you look like a complete and utter pleb with nothing better to say or dream up. If YOU had not hijacked Justin Leiter's thread, directed at GREG BROOKS, and not you, it was nothing to do withyou whatsoever, and left well alone, kept your moaning and complaining that we've ALL heard before MANY times already - then none of this would have followed and you wouldn't be all upset and tearful and hurt. STOP going on about your bloody lost tape in unrelated threads left right and centre, stop boring 96% of QZ-ers to death with your particular way of 'reporting' things, and then you and I won't have to clash. That would suit you and me and everyone. You're threatening solicitors and libel charges today, are you going to be telling your mum about me next? Stop being so damned WET and puny and pathetic. Are you a man or a great big mouse, for God's sake????? If I never have to speak with you again, or hear you drivelling on and on about what a shitty time you have had, and how hard done-by you are, and how all QZ-ers should feel sorry for you and your terrible plight, it will be too soon. Show just a tiny bit of backbone John. You don't like what I say, fine. You bore me to death too. I find your comments insulting in the extreme also. But if I were to find myself resorting to threatening you with solicitors over points of libel, just because you expressed yourself candidly and honestly, I would think myself a complete and utter wet wimpy pitiful spineless twat who ought to be ashamed of my sorry self. I am very happy to "leave you alone" and not frighten you any more, or "intimidate" you (as if!!!) or hurt your poor fragile sensibilities. I was very happy doing so for this past few months until you got on everyone's tits again with yet another mention of your tape. I was happy to avoid you and ignore all signs on QZ of you being you. Let me get back to that... and stop going on about that sodding tape PLEASE.. Enough already. Libel and solicitors indeed!!!! Grow a back bone for goodness sake. |
| Rami 02.09.2007 01:49 |
Being quiet for most of the time, I'd like to add a reply to this thread. I have never been bored by any of John's posts (and I have read many of them). John S Stuart is obviously one of the top Queen experts who is willing to share lots of information and even downloads on Queenzone. GREAT!! BUT I am terribly shocked that there is a unbelievably rude guy called GB on Queenzone who regularly abuses Queen fans. I he were just another Queen fan, it would be sad enough. However, this - may I dare write -primitive guy is in charge of the archive of one of the biggest rock bands there has ever been. This is very strange. If this guy is representative of QP we are in big trouble... I simply cannot believe it. I mean, where is the style?? PS: Do we have any proof that "GB" is indeed the real Greg Brooks?? I still can't believe it. |
| John S Stuart 02.09.2007 03:17 |
To Queen Archivist: Thank You, that was all I needed, especially as you have written this under the use of your 'official title'. All this leaves me is to ask you one final question - are your views divorced - or sanctioned by Queen Productions Limited? If they are NOT sanctioned by QPL, by what authority do you use this title? If you are indeed sanctioned by QPL, and use this title with full authority - you are sure you have the full backing of Jim Beach & co for their contents? Not that it really matters, but, as the internet is a printed medium for all to read (and therefore certainly covered by libel laws - but I am sure Mr. Beach will keep you correct on that score) it really is only a question of responsibility, and regardless whether written as 'Greg Brooks' or 'Queen Archivist', it matters not in the slightest for you, but it could make a world of difference for your employer. |
| ern2150 02.09.2007 03:25 |
I would just like to state for the record that JSS is not Ian Levine, nor is he at all similar. Thank you, and good day. |
| Zak Royen 02.09.2007 03:59 |
Mr. Brooks, it is YOU, not JSS, who sound utterly pathetic. Why do you have to keep rewording the same "idea" over and over again whenever you lose your temper? "Wet wimpy limp sponge"? Alright, I think we got it now. And by the way, who besides yourself has complained about the 'lost tape story' being boring? Don't speak on "everyone"'s behalf. You don't like that story because it is embarrassing YOU, that's it. (How ironic that an archivist should advise someone to "stop living in the past" :P) |
| Zak Royen 02.09.2007 04:04 |
Once again, here's a "GENUINE offer" you made a while back: "Please let's just deal in known facts. You tell me what you know and have, I'll tell you what 'we' know about Queen live concerts, and what we have. GENUINE offer" Mr. Greg Brooks -- do you have a master copy of Goders Green, or not? Thanks. |
| Zak Royen 02.09.2007 04:22 |
Okay, apparently that last question has already been replied to. Apologies. |
| Queen Archivist 02.09.2007 07:39 |
JSS.... To Queen Archivist: Thank You, that was all I needed, especially as you have written this under the use of your 'official title'. GB: It is a matter of plain and simple fact that I am Queen's archivist. Whether you interpret my words as official or unofficial or anything else, and why the hell you feel compelled to categorise them anyway, for any reason, is of no interest to me. It's a pointless exercise. GB: Other than you John, because you want to flex your marginal knowledge of legal words and implications, NOBODY cares whether I, quote, "have written this under the use of your 'official title' or not. How boring to go such a route. JSS: All this leaves me is to ask you one final question - are your views divorced - or sanctioned by Queen Productions Limited? GB: What do YOU think John? Do you imagine I have to run every comment I make on QZ past Jim Beach before I say it? Or do you instead think that, like you, I merely say things as I see them and am entitled to express my opinions (whether you like it or not)because it is after all a free country and everyone is permitted open views? What would you think is the most likely scenario? GB: I have a question for you now. Do you propose to threaten every person that takes issue with you? Are you going to threaten legal action every time someone calls you a wet limp puny sponge, or anything else, some of it much worse? Are you really not able to take it on the chin and rise above it, like the rest of us do??? What makes you so different and special??? GB: A I am as entitled as YOU are John, and Barbara and Janet and Darren1977 and Togg, to express my feelings. They do it, you do it, and that is the way of the world. Retract your kitten claws and just get used to life being like that. It is Sticks And Stones John. Be a big enough man to be at the heart of a heated debate or conversation WITHOUT having to play the "I will sue you" card. If everyone acted that way, like you are, pretty soon no one would dare to say anything on any forum, in case overly sensitive souls like you stamped their feet in tantrum and threatened legal action. GB: You love to band the words QUEEN PRODUCTIONS and JIM BEACH and YOUR EMPLOYER around all the time, when you get hot under the collar and cannot think of something more sharp or clever to do/say. Now you bring out the last resort "that's libel that is!" card. I am self employed John. I employ myself. I am my boss. I pay my own Nat Ins and tax and holidays. No one else. I have 'clients' for whom I work. I do not have an employer. Is this clear enough to you? GB: If you are so insecure and so hurt by what I have said, or so offended, that you want to sue me for what you perceive as libel or slander - which is laughable and pathetic, though predictable from you - then you do it. The rest of us, meanwhile, will just get on with it and face the odd inult or offensive remark like adults. You will set an extremely crappy precedent for all internet forum users, but if you think my telling you EXACTLY what I think, and expressing my opinions candidly and honestly, warrants that ridiculous OTT response from you, do it captain Stuart. If you think such threats are going to scare me or make me tone down things to suit you more, you are very wrong. GB: I can just see you standing up in court saying that nasty Greg Brooks called me a WET LIMP PUNY PATHETIC SPONGE m'lord." It is genuinely laughable. Get off your high horse John, come back down to the real world, calm down, and take it on the chin like I am, even though YOU offend me greatly too, and piss me off more than any human who ever draw breath. Everyone else COPES ok, so I'm sure you can too. JSS: If they are NOT sanctioned by QPL, by what authority do you use this title? GB: "By what authority"... Oh Lord! Listen to him. I repeat, It is a matter of plain and simple fact that I am Queen's archivist. |
| pittrek 02.09.2007 08:03 |
Greg, I'm shocked. There is really one of you who behavies like an "arrogant arse", like you wrote, but it's not John. |
| Mr. Scully 02.09.2007 10:03 |
Now I don't want to be involved in this discussion in any way but I had to make one remark: Greg, even though I can see your point, I can tell you you're not gonna win this battle against John for two reasons. First: John has shared a lot of info with us in the past - you haven't. After many years, all we got from you was a short confusing list of mixed audios and videos that we already knew about before. Yes, I know you are not allowed to tell us many things... but then you can't expect we'll be on your side. Most of your posts on QZ (or QOL) in the past were either worthless chat or personal attacks. And let's face it - you did deserve some of the rude replies you had got. Secondly: I personally think John is a great psychologist. Could be better education or higher IQ or better knowledge of the language - I really don't know. But his posts always persuade more people than yours :-) If you start taking us seriously and sharing with us info about Queen recordings, your reputation will undoubtedly increase and people will respect you in the same way as they respect John. This is the way you should go. |
| Zak Royen 02.09.2007 10:42 |
ZR: Mr. Greg Brooks, why does it take you a whole page to convey one simple idea? ZR: Hey Greg Brooks, how come do you keep rewording the same idea? ZR: Dear Mr. Brooks, I wonder how many times you need to tell JSS that he's being a sponge or whatever. ZR: GB, I think you've made your point now. ZR: Brooks, we get it. ZR: Brooks, you've made your point. We get it. No need to write another page saying the same thing all over again. |
| Hank H. 02.09.2007 13:49 |
Mr. Scully wrote: I personally think John is a great psychologist. Could be better education or higher IQ or better knowledge of the language - I really don't know.John is a great writer (after all, I think it's his profession), whereas Greg Brooks needs a little horse sense. I really don't understand why people still try to communicate with Greg Brooks through this notice board. While he can be funny sometimes, he's clearly not capable of having a conversation, and he's been demonstrating that for years. It's a waste of time. It's out of question that John has all right to complain, and Greg should either apologize or (even better) simply shut up. |
| Fireplace 02.09.2007 15:49 |
Greg's English DOES get better when he's pissed off. That should count for something, shouldn't it? I think the two of you should be tied by the wrists and forced to down a few bottles together, that should take the egdes off a bit. I wonder who holds his liquor better, a Scot or someone who's been near Queen for a big part of his life? |
| Bobby_brown 02.09.2007 15:53 |
After "not" reading all the posts by Greg and John, what i can say is: It´s obvious that this discussion is time consuming for both of you. Maybe it´s time to stop! Unless you guys are having fun, a thing like this can become stressfull for both of you. Just let go! Take care |
| Holly2003 02.09.2007 16:00 |
Fireplace wrote: I wonder who holds his liquor better, a Scot or someone who's been near Queen for a big part of his life?Scottish people cannot hold their drink. There, I've said it. |
| gnomo 03.09.2007 03:46 |
As I am not a Queen collector nor a Queen expert nor a music expert nor the owner of any knowledge or item that might be of interest to either QPL or the collectors' or the experts' community, I have no wish to be involved in this endless pointless quarrelling.
But I'd like to bring to Mr. Brooks' attention a detail that he seems to have overlooked in the heat of the argument:
Queen Archivist wrote: JSS: If they are NOT sanctioned by QPL, by what authority do you use this title? GB: "By what authority"... Oh Lord! Listen to him. I repeat, It is a matter of plain and simple fact that I am Queen's archivist. What do YOU think John? Do you imagine I have to run every comment I make on QZ past Jim Beach before I say it?I for one think I can safely say almost no-one on this board thinks that, Mr.Brooks. I also think I can safely say that many on this board have this feeling that, before posting something, you'd better ask yourself if your comment might displease or irritate Mr.Beach. For the plain and simple fact that you are Queen's archivist, I mean. Because there's this gut feeling around, that the day said Mr.Beach feels that some of the things you wrote with the official "Queen Archivist" hat on might be detrimental to QPL's business or reputation, you might be in for a funny surprise or two... Good luck! |
| Nummer2 03.09.2007 06:48 |
Some clients of our company are unfair, disrespectful, tedious and some even try to deceive us. But if my employer caught me talking to one of them in a manner similar to the one the official Queen Archivist uses towards us – all clients or at least potential future clients of his contractor (QPL) – he wouldn't hesitate to sack me. And if I was a freelancer, he wouldn't hesitate a second to sue me. I don't think, the management of QPL has recognized their archivist's activities on the internet yet. I'd be extremely surprised why they'd still let him write in their name without applying some sort of "prescribed terminology". |
| Donna13 03.09.2007 08:14 |
Edit: Well, it is a beautiful day here in Virginia. Time to stop thinking of this stuff. |