| Queen Archivist 26.12.2008 08:51 |
As you know, I come and go from QZ. I arrive at 2, 3 or 4 monthly intervals, piss a few of you off a bit, piss a lot of you off a lot, then disappear again when I'm satisfied I've stirred things up enough. I know that's shallow and annoying, but let's be honest here, some of you do truly deserve to get back some of what you dish out. I only give as good as I get. I mean... Holly thingy (is it Holly2003) was suggesting I had an ego thing going on earlier today. Can you believe the hardfaced cheek and irony of it! That's the kind of thing that you have to find amusing here on QZ, like nowhere else... because some conceited people are oblivious to their own immense ego and can simply and so casually overlook their own mighty ego in order to accuse others of the very same thing. We've all seen what she's written about herself in the past. Kettle, pot, black. Cheeky bat! Anyway... she, like me, gives as good as she gets, and that is fair do's in my twisted book. Anyway... I'm bored again I'm afraid. I'm off soon. Busy months ahead. But I will just ask you, before I leave... DARREN1977.... does anyone on QZ actually regard him or anything he writes as a serious? It certainly seems not. Most of you just seem to ignore him, or humour him, and this seems to irritate him, though does do the trick. What's the matter with the poor boy? I mean, apart from his lack of vocabulary - he does love the sweary bad rude words - and a natural gift for beginning a sentence that few will bother to finish, such is its dullness and boredom factor, he says such utterly tedious things... that are so obvious they don't need saying. SURELY, it would be much better, very funny even, and extremely entertaining if certain people were to take legal action against Darren for the libelous things he writes like the moron he is. I would love to see one of the people he has slandered, sue the little creep in Court. AND I would love to meet Darren1977 and resolve any issues he might have. DARREN1977 (wrote)... Greg and Gary are employees, they are not going to say a fucking thing to upset their bosses, namely that cunt jim beach. Darren is a nasty little shit, with limited vocabulary. And though he is only a boy, barely out of teenage clothes and with the mind of child half his age, he is still responsible for the ill-conceived rubbish he writes. It grieves me deeply that you are a fellow countryman of mine. You give the UK a bad name. Indeed, you'd give a fellow inbred moron a bad name. I'd love to see you sued for slander, Darren. And I hope Father Christmas's reindeer dumped all over your carpet. Try to use learn some new words for 2009, and leave the sweary words til you've grown up a lot. |
| Holly2003 26.12.2008 08:55 |
Unless you have something useful of informative to say I would suggest you visit the forum less often. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is bored reading your ego-fuelled rants and thinly-disguised sales pitches for Queen productions. |
| Queen Archivist 26.12.2008 09:13 |
Holly2003 wrote: Unless you have something useful of informative to say I would suggest you visit the forum less often. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is bored reading your ego-fuelled rants and thinly-disguised sales pitches for Queen productions. Holly... your assumption that what I say is of no use and boring, intimating that your words are useful and non-boring, just shows the extent of YOUR ego. Think about it. The things you say and the way in which you express yourself leaves most of us in no doubt that you are as conceited as anyone. Everyone has an ego, and certainly you do. It's just a question of degrees. You're the last person who should be pulling me up. You're clearly oblivious to yours. |
| Holly2003 26.12.2008 09:19 |
Queen Archivist wrote:Holly2003 wrote: Unless you have something useful of informative to say I would suggest you visit the forum less often. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is bored reading your ego-fuelled rants and thinly-disguised sales pitches for Queen productions.Holly... your assumption that what I say is of no use and boring, intimating that your words are useful and non-boring, just shows the extent of YOUR ego. Think about it. The things you say and the way in which you express yourself leaves most of us in no doubt that you are as conceited as anyone. Everyone has an ego, and certainly you do. It's just a question of degrees. You're the last person who should be pulling me up. You're clearly oblivious to yours. A sad off-topic attempt to shift attention to me. This is a useless, repetitive thread designed to stroke your ego. End of. Show some manners. You are a guest here like everyone else. |
| Fat Lizzy 26.12.2008 09:24 |
Wow, so this actually means you're not going to reply on any things I've said AGAIN... So that is like the 3rd time?... I think you've proven that the only actual immature person on this board is YOU Greg, calling everyone names and stuff, sometimes (mark that word) for no reason. You surely must agree with me that you do overreact sometimes (again, mark that word). I think you should try a different approach to these 'attacks' on this board, instead of instant flaming and name-calling. And react in a different kind of way to polite questions (even if they have been asked 100 times before) and to serious questions. Also, there are loads of people here that want to help you with various things. Be it recordings or other tings like memorabilia. I'm not going back to our little 'fight' as I think it is clear how it's gonna end. Let this be a warning to other people and yourself, as you will not have many 'helpers' left in the end. Their patience and love will end at some point too. I hope you can see the truth in these points, as there really is. I know it's easy to ignore me, after all you've done that before. But give it some thought. What goes around comes around, if you're not friendly... Why do you keep expecting people to be friendly to you??? Anyway, I hope to see you in January at the Dutch convention. I sincerely hope you can make it there. Not so I can smash your head in or something, but because I love your stories about things you find in the archive and also hearing your stories about the history of Queen. You are so different in real life than on this board. I can't blame other people for not believing you're the real Greg Brooks sometimes. Now, do with this story whatever you want. Ignore it, flame it or try to reply decent. This is my last attempt on this forum to talk to you. |
| Queen Archivist 26.12.2008 09:34 |
Holly2003 wrote: Unless you have something useful of informative to say I would suggest you visit the forum less often. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is bored reading your ego-fuelled rants and thinly-disguised sales pitches for Queen productions. Holly, Why don't you direct me to some threads or comments YOU have posted, which are useful and not boring or ego-fuelled, and I'll happily read them. You take it upon yourself to judge my comments with your enormous and not remotely nausiating wisdom and sophistication, so presumably you have written some interesting insightful things yourself. Right??? However, everything I've seen you write in the past usually has a me me me undertone, and therefore not a little degree of ego. |
| Holly2003 26.12.2008 09:46 |
Queen Archivist wrote:Holly2003 wrote: Unless you have something useful of informative to say I would suggest you visit the forum less often. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is bored reading your ego-fuelled rants and thinly-disguised sales pitches for Queen productions.Holly, Why don't you direct me to some threads or comments YOU have posted, which are useful and not boring or ego-fuelled, and I'll happily read them. You take it upon yourself to judge my comments with your enormous and not remotely nausiating wisdom and sophistication, so presumably you have written some interesting insightful things yourself. Right??? However, everything I've seen you write in the past usually has a me me me undertone, and therefore not a little degree of ego. Blah blah. I thought you were leaving: how disappointing. |
| Queen Archivist 26.12.2008 09:51 |
Just as I thought, Holly. I hit the nail right on the head. Truth hurts, and you can't direct me or anyone to anything remotely significant YOU have ever proffered. Blah blah is a transparent way of NOT addressing the issue that has you pegged to a tee! |
| Holly2003 26.12.2008 09:54 |
Queen Archivist wrote: Just as I thought, Holly. I hit the nail right on the head. Truth hurts, and you can't direct me or anyone to anything remotely significant YOU have ever proffered. Blah blah is a transparent way of NOT addressing the issue that has you pegged to a tee! No it's a way of saying I'm bored with your repetitive, ego-fuelled, attention-seeking topics. You're like a rash all over the forum. Show some manners. Now you say something about me in the boring, repetitive, childish and dim-witted way that we've come to expect from you. |
| Queen Archivist 26.12.2008 10:01 |
Gerolamo wrote: .....Anyway, I hope to see you in January at the Dutch convention. I sincerely hope you can make it there. Not so I can smash your head in or something, but because I love your stories about things you find in the archive and also hearing your stories about the history of Queen. You are so different in real life than on this board. I can't blame other people for not believing you're the real Greg Brooks sometimes. Now, do with this story whatever you want. Ignore it, flame it or try to reply decent. This is my last attempt on this forum to talk to you. Gerolamo, what email address did you send those images to??????? I guess it was to an address (Queen_archive) that I don't use any more - since some tosser on QZ (who shall remain nameless) jammed up that address with some malicious viral thing. Yes... as you say... things are very different in person, when I'm at the Dutch or UK conventions, or anywhere else, than they are on delightful QZ. I think I receive 250-350 emails every week from Queen fans, and even more since the I Want It All memorabilia book began.... and I reply to all (or 99%) of them, eventually. So I can say with honesty that I never saw your stuff. I am intrigued. Would you be kind enough to email Jacky Smith and she'll forward your details to me. I'll then respond via my private address. Thanks |
| Josh Henson 26.12.2008 10:05 |
What was the REAL purpose of all this? |
| Queen Archivist 26.12.2008 10:07 |
Holly2003 wrote:Queen Archivist wrote: Just as I thought, Holly. I hit the nail right on the head. Truth hurts, and you can't direct me or anyone to anything remotely significant YOU have ever proffered. Blah blah is a transparent way of NOT addressing the issue that has you pegged to a tee!No it's a way of saying I'm bored with your repetitive, ego-fuelled, attention-seeking topics. You're like a rash all over the forum. Show some manners. Now you say something about me in the boring, repetitive, childish and dim-witted way that we've come to expect from you. Oooh I've touched a nerve again. Point me to something interesting or insightful YOU have written. It's simple and uncomplicated enough. You're avoiding this point. It's clear why. PS. It's people like you, Holly, precisely people like you, that respond in your hundreds, every time, to my rash-like postings all over this forum. I see that one of my recent postings has over 300 responses from clever individuals including you. Another currently has 80+ and another 160+ |
| Fat Lizzy 26.12.2008 10:18 |
Ok since you replied to my post in a way I hoped for, I'll reply [img=/images/smiley/msn/teeth_smile.gif][/img] I emailed you the links to your address on June 16th. You actually did reply to me (June 19th), saying you would check them out and let me know. So you recieved my mail. Eventually I do understand it was a busy time, when you recieved a lot of emails. Again this will end in the same discussion so we'll let that rest. I would still be willing to help you if I can, though I will have to take pictures all over again. As I have obtained over 50 new items in the past 6 monts. The earliest time to do that will be in January. If you want to, I can send you a list of items I have and email it to that address, or if it's not available anymore I'll contact Jacky. But, let me make clear that I'm not going to spend a couple of days again for nothing. |
| Queen Archivist 26.12.2008 10:34 |
Gerolamo wrote: Ok since you replied to my post in a way I hoped for, I'll reply [img=/images/smiley/msn/teeth_smile.gif][/img] I emailed you the links to your private address gb_home(something - you know which one) on June 16th. You actually did reply to me (June 19th), saying you would check them out and let me know. So you recieved my mail. Eventually I do understand it was a busy time, when you recieved a lot of emails. Again this will end in the same discussion so we'll let that rest. I would still be willing to help you if I can, though I will have to take pictures all over again. As I have obtained over 50 new items in the past 6 monts. The earliest time to do that will be in January. If you want to, I can send you a list of items I have and email it to that address, or if it's not available anymore I'll contact Jacky. But, let me make clear that I'm not going to spend a couple of days again for nothing. Does Your surname begin with Le.... or Gu.... ???? It's Le... I think, right????? I just found them again. GB |
| Holly2003 26.12.2008 10:35 |
Queen Archivist wrote:Holly2003 wrote:Oooh I've touched a nerve again. Point me to something interesting or insightful YOU have written. It's simple and uncomplicated enough. You're avoiding this point. It's clear why. PS. It's people like you, Holly, precisely people like you, that respond in your hundreds, every time, to my rash-like postings all over this forum. I see that one of my recent postings has over 300 responses from clever individuals including you. Another currently has 80+ and another 160+Queen Archivist wrote: Just as I thought, Holly. I hit the nail right on the head. Truth hurts, and you can't direct me or anyone to anything remotely significant YOU have ever proffered. Blah blah is a transparent way of NOT addressing the issue that has you pegged to a tee!No it's a way of saying I'm bored with your repetitive, ego-fuelled, attention-seeking topics. You're like a rash all over the forum. Show some manners. Now you say something about me in the boring, repetitive, childish and dim-witted way that we've come to expect from you. It would, of course, be hugely egotistical and pretentious of me to do that. But I wouldn't expect you to understand something so basic. Thanks for the predictable dim-witted answer though. It confirms everything I've said previously about the pretentious, condescending, arrogant, and infantile amateurs that Queen surround themselves with. However, they can expect a big financial wake up call in 2009. |
| Queen Archivist 26.12.2008 11:10 |
Holly... It would, of course, be hugely egotistical and pretentious of me to do that. But I wouldn't expect you to understand something so basic. Thanks for the predictable dim-witted answer though. It confirms everything I've said previously about the pretentious, condescending, arrogant, and infantile amateurs that Queen surround themselves with. However, they can expect a big financial wake up call in 2009. GB: And you think you DON'T come across as a 'condescending, arrogant, and infantile amateur'??? "However, they can expect a big financial wake up call in 2009".... Says who? Little know all Holly??? How arrogant and totally conceited you are. Like you're the big expert!!! What the Hell do you know. If you knew a 100th of the stuff that the people I work with know, you'd be 10 times smarter than you are now. Wake up call, indeed! Have you heard yourself! If YOU surrounded yourself with some of 'the pretentious, condescending, arrogant, and infantile amateurs that Queen surround themselves with' (as you put it) you too might be a multi millionaire and acknowledged as among the world's finest song writers and musicians too. But you don't, and you DEFINITELY are not. Instead you're a conceited amateur who knows bugger all, but nevertheless takes it on herself to forewarn Queen. EGO MANIAC or what?! And YOU lecture about ego. You know NOTHING about any of them, Holly. You are the only amateur here - which you display more and more each time you open your teenage cake hole. Silly girl! Offer us your expert opinion on Girls Aloud instead. |
| Holly2003 26.12.2008 11:27 |
You just keeping digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole. You are the classic hanger-on. Hunter Thompson used to laugh at those who think themselves important because they hung around important people. I'm sure he had nobodies like you in mind when he wrote that. |
| Queen Archivist 26.12.2008 11:45 |
While you, Holly, just keep on evading anything that you don't like the sound of. Ignoring the things that hits the nails on the head, as you have above, only displays your inability to deal with the things that ring true. This will have been said to you before in your personal family/friends circle. Yes... another nail hit there! Call me a Hanger On if you like, but I don't evade tricky truthful issues like you continue to do. It's obvious to others here too, as well as me. Anything Holly doesn't want to hear, or like, Holly deflects by raising further points. Hangers On... WTF?? I'm going out to a friends now. Catch you later Holly. Don't be so prickly all the time. So you evade issues you don't like the sound of, and it keeps being said to you. No matter. There are worse things. You could be Darren1977's sister!!!! . |
| brians wig 26.12.2008 11:58 |
If you're off again Greg, hope you have a good new year and the work you're doing in the next few months is Queen related AND comes to fruition for us! |
| Fat Lizzy 26.12.2008 12:08 |
Queen Archivist wrote:Gerolamo wrote: Ok since you replied to my post in a way I hoped for, I'll reply [img=/images/smiley/msn/teeth_smile.gif][/img] I emailed you the links to your private address gb_home(something - you know which one) on June 16th. You actually did reply to me (June 19th), saying you would check them out and let me know. So you recieved my mail. Eventually I do understand it was a busy time, when you recieved a lot of emails. Again this will end in the same discussion so we'll let that rest. I would still be willing to help you if I can, though I will have to take pictures all over again. As I have obtained over 50 new items in the past 6 monts. The earliest time to do that will be in January. If you want to, I can send you a list of items I have and email it to that address, or if it's not available anymore I'll contact Jacky. But, let me make clear that I'm not going to spend a couple of days again for nothing.Does Your surname begin with Le.... or Gu.... ???? It's Le... I think, right????? I just found them again. GB Le... Jerome Lelkes |
| Darren1977 26.12.2008 14:19 |
Thank you Greg. Have a happy new year. What about those sales figures for the box then? |
| BIG JOHN STUD 26.12.2008 15:33 |
Queen Archivist: I'M STICKING MY PENIS IN YOU AND YOU JUST LOVIN IT !! |
| Darren1977 27.12.2008 04:43 |
GB Said:Call me a Hanger On if you like, but I don't evade tricky truthful issues like you continue to do. |
| cmsdrums 27.12.2008 05:37 |
This is fascinating stuff..... Anyway, Greg, I think that a lot of the more serious posters with more fairly balanced views (which, if you look at my posting history I could fairly consider myself to be) , do get a little irked by the fact that in nearly one of your topics some genuinely interesting questions appear that you constantly ignore. The fact that you then continue to engage in the toing and froing with the insults rather than spend your limited time here answering the intriguing questions, doesn't end up helping matters with regard to seome people's attitude to you! If you are able to pick out a selection of decent questions to post answers to before you head off for your next absence, this woud be great! Cheers |
| john bodega 27.12.2008 07:10 |
God he is such a nipple. There comes a time when the effort to be 'right' in a debate far exceeds the returns. These public slanging matches lack any dignity at all. |
| Reading Princess 27.12.2008 09:46 |
Hi Greg, I noticed you slagging Darren1977 off for his “his lack of vocabulary” and “limited vocabulary”. Here's some examples of your extensive vocab repertoire... “Anyway... that tedious factor aside...”, “even some tedious Billy-No-Mates”, “such utterly tedious things...” “but I got so thoroughly bored”, “and boring us all death with?”, “Benn.... how boring.”, “A bit boring and set in your ways”, “and a bit bored at the moment”, “Anyway... I'm bored again I'm afraid”, “dullness and boredom factor”. Your utterly pointless posts speak volumes about you. It is clear that you were probably bullied at school and the results are now on show for all to see. |
| Queen Archivist 27.12.2008 10:05 |
Clear.... stop being a bosom. |
| Reading Princess 27.12.2008 14:53 |
He's still here kids! And he's found a new word for tit! |
| Reading Princess 28.12.2008 19:02 |
He's all over the place now.... As I said a couple of posts ago about being bullied, he's now done a whole rant about it over on General Discussion... "It's a bit like being at school where most of the people turn an uncomfortable blind eye when the unpopular kid gets picked on, rather than jumping in and stopping it. That would take balls. It's easier NOT to step in, and hard to make a stand (against the flow)" He may be having a nervous breakdown. |
| john bodega 28.12.2008 21:04 |
If he weren't the Queen Archivist, he'd be banned by now. I bet you ten bucks if I start acting like him (5 redundant threads a day, things like that) I'll have my account removed or something. |
| Donna13 29.12.2008 16:23 |
I don't think he means to start new threads all the time; I think he is just clicking on the wrong thingie. |
| Micrówave 29.12.2008 16:25 |
Queen Archivist wrote: I think I receive 250-350 emails every week from Queen fans Man, I get about that many a week about increasing the size of my you-know-what. You think we're on a weird email list or something? |
| Saint Jiub 01.01.2009 16:29 |
Greg's "question of slander" is like the pot calling the kettle black. QPL is the only company that I know of that tacitly approves the public trashing of rude customers by an employee or consultant. |
| scallyuk 01.01.2009 18:09 |
As the internet is considered a printed medium it would be libel not slander (note no capital letter) but a "researcher" should know that. The discussion about the singles box set is a no win situation. EMI,Jim and the accountants are looking for maximum return on minimum investment. We are looking for maximum content at REASONABLE COST. Even if we had got Greg's proposed set there would have been a few here complaining that it was too expensive. Like all of us the Queen organisation and EMI are looking at what will hit their bank accounts at the end of the day so if the marketing guys forecast xxx sales for this and only xx sales for the original plan at a significantly higher profit margin the accountants will recommend the one that gives the max return. |
| Saint Jiub 01.01.2009 18:39 |
scallyuk wrote: As the internet is considered a printed medium it would be libel not slander (note no capital letter) but a "researcher" should know that. The discussion about the singles box set is a no win situation. EMI,Jim and the accountants are looking for maximum return on minimum investment. We are looking for maximum content at REASONABLE COST. Even if we had got Greg's proposed set there would have been a few here complaining that it was too expensive. Like all of us the Queen organisation and EMI are looking at what will hit their bank accounts at the end of the day so if the marketing guys forecast xxx sales for this and only xx sales for the original plan at a significantly higher profit margin the accountants will recommend the one that gives the max return. Assuming a reasonable ROI (return on investment), a reputable company would strive to maximize customer satisfaction and release both items, and not have an unwarranted obsession about not flooding the market. |
| Negative Creep 03.01.2009 16:06 |
What would have made the most sense was to have released the original planned version in addition to a boxset of replica 7" singles. They must have some idea how many of each they could shift.... so they could then market them as limited editions giving them an air of presudo collectability. Isn't it interesting that for the same money, you can buy the Queen singles vol 1 box, which consists of 13 CD singles or the Kinks pye albums box consisting of 10 CD albums - both sets released in the same year. |
| scottmax 05.01.2009 04:37 |
Why does Greg actually come on here? Does he give us exclusives or the like? Or does he just cause even more resentment and make himself look like a tool? Greg, unless you've got something informative to tell us, why don't you go back to QPL and do work on the anthology, dvd's that we actually want to see, and not abuse your position by talking shite. I wonder, does Dr May know about your ramblings? |
| scallyuk 05.01.2009 16:44 |
Panchgani wrote: Assuming a reasonable ROI (return on investment), a reputable company would strive to maximize customer satisfaction and release both items, and not have an unwarranted obsession about not flooding the market.Define reasonable , lol. Agreed but for EMI/Parlophone Queen are no longer a major band. they have a great back catalogue but the market for new stuff especially since the best known "face" is dead and cannot promote it is limited. As far as customer satisfaction goes hardcore Queen fans who would buy the big box set represent a miniscule amount of their overall customer base so they don't need to give a monkeys about what we feel. It's not like we're going to say "if I can't buy a big Queen box I'll never buy anything else from one their other artists again", is it. "We" aren't important in terms of overall customer satisfaction. |
| cmsdrums 06.01.2009 07:52 |
scallyuk wrote: Define reasonable , lol. Agreed but for EMI/Parlophone Queen are no longer a major band. they have a great back catalogue but the market for new stuff especially since the best known "face" is dead and cannot promote it is limited. As far as customer satisfaction goes hardcore Queen fans who would buy the big box set represent a miniscule amount of their overall customer base so they don't need to give a monkeys about what we feel. It's not like we're going to say "if I can't buy a big Queen box I'll never buy anything else from one their other artists again", is it. "We" aren't important in terms of overall customer satisfaction. I agree, but even though they are not as huge as they were, Queen's legacy surely means that they would still far outsell a lot of other artists who get comprehensive, interesting, well thought out, good value career spanning box sets? |
| Negative Creep 06.01.2009 08:03 |
The idea that a Queen anthology set, featuring previously unreleased material, wouldn't sell that well is frankly fucking hilarious. And how does anyone think it wouldn't be promoted? Of course it fucking would?!! |