| 4 x Vision 26.10.2009 10:43 |
Hi, it's nice to see so many new faces here at QZ and the boards are starting to get less silly topics being started in favour of some decent chat. BUT... to those of you who have been here for a LONG time and contributed so much too, it''s clear that debates have either been "done to death" or that you haven't the time or interest (not to sound critical of your love of Queen) to discuss the band like you once did? What topics are still of interest to the "big posters"? You guys have so much to offer and it's difficult searching back and reigniting old topics to make them sound interesting, so are their any Queen related debates/topics that would still hold your interest? The only time the boards really light up is when Q_Archivist makes his routine visits. It'd be great though if folk like SirGH, Pittrek, YV, Scully, Penetration_G, John S Stuart, Joxer etc etc share their knowledge (even if they have made a similar point before in an older topic) and thoughts. Their are loads from the Announce section who take little to do with the General/Serious sections whom I'd love to see contribute too... even if it's just to discuss the bootlegs that kindly have been shared. So much debate can be started with just this one area alone. The South Africa gig thread was really interesting some months back after the first half of Sun City was shared for example. Please don't take me as niave, I'm aware that some things get more important the older you get. I'm 30, but I enjoy this place to unwind from work/life, and like to contribute, even in a small way, to as many topics as possible. |
| John S Stuart 26.10.2009 12:03 |
I don't think it is a case of every topic being 'done to death', but, rather, there is not a lot of new stuff to talk about. As a once 'serious' collector, I have lost all interest in repurchasing the same old material in 'new boxes' or re-packaging, as it just doesn't seem genuine any more. To explain, when Freddie was alive and Queen were in their hay-day, then a contemporary new single, red vinyl or picture disc was indeed something special. Something worth tracking down and owning. Now-a-days these new re-issues are deliberately printed as collector's items for the sake of it - and it is just not the same thing. I guess it is like a stamp collector who owns a genuine 'Penny Black'. Once they have that in their collection, a 'Penny Black Commemorative' issue is not the same. In other words, why settle for the substitute if you can have the real thing? Now, I am not knocking that type of collector - each to their own, but for me, it was always about the music. Sure I have other memorabilla, books, mags etc, but that was always secondary to the music. Perhaps if Queen were to provide a few teasers - whether an anthology box set, special CD's with bonus tracks, or even the odd internet download - then perhaps my zeal may be reignited. Until then, I guess it's just trying to recapture former glories, and that seems more difficult with each new crap product released. |
| The Real Wizard 26.10.2009 17:13 |
But for every bad rehash there has been a good release in the past 10 years. For starters, the Freddie boxed set was superb. People slam the ANATO 30th anniversary as being a missed opportunity, but there were a few great bits in that documentary. For one thing, Brian isolated the guitars at the end of Good Company. That was worth the price of admission alone. The live DVDs from 81, 82, and 86 are excellent. There were complaints about Queen Rock Montreal because it's been out many times before, but that's not really the band's fault (unless you want to blame them for not being great businessmen when they were at their peak). The earlier VHS and DVD releases were done without any input from the band. After the director died, they bought the rights back, and were able to put out a version up to their standards. The end result is the best-sounding recording of the band live. It seems they're making their way backwards through the years, and that something from the 70s will be next... Hammersmith 75, according to Brian. For us collectors it may not be the biggest deal, but at least there will then be some 70s Queen other than Live Killers in stores, so the public will be able to discover this era of the band. Instead of griping about what hasn't been released, I just listen to the ones that have been released, or I listen to other artists. And when something comes out worth buying, I'll buy it. If not, I'll pass. It's not like Queen are the only band doing the greatest hits thing over and over again... |
| John S Stuart 26.10.2009 19:40 |
Sir GH wrote: But for every bad rehash there has been a good release in the past 10 years. For starters, the Freddie boxed set was superb. People slam the ANATO 30th anniversary as being a missed opportunity, but there were a few great bits in that documentary. For one thing, Brian isolated the guitars at the end of Good Company. That was worth the price of admission alone. The live DVDs from 81, 82, and 86 are excellent. There were complaints about Queen Rock Montreal because it's been out many times before, but that's not really the band's fault (unless you want to blame them for not being great businessmen when they were at their peak). The earlier VHS and DVD releases were done without any input from the band. After the director died, they bought the rights back, and were able to put out a version up to their standards. The end result is the best-sounding recording of the band live. It seems they're making their way backwards through the years, and that something from the 70s will be next... Hammersmith 75, according to Brian. For us collectors it may not be the biggest deal, but at least there will then be some 70s Queen other than Live Killers in stores, so the public will be able to discover this era of the band. Instead of griping about what hasn't been released, I just listen to the ones that have been released, or I listen to other artists. And when something comes out worth buying, I'll buy it. If not, I'll pass. It's not like Queen are the only band doing the greatest hits thing over and over again... I agree. I think that all the products mentioned above have been superb releases, and if Hammy '75 was to be released, that too would be a big deal. It would be nice to see 'Live in Budapest' on Blu-Ray - especially as it did not make an official UK DVD release. (I know all the arguments against another mid 80's release, but I think the visual quality of Blu-ray would be worth it). I also recall seeing the Rainbow gig at the cinema in 1974. If a film master still exists (as opposed to video master) that too could make a fantastic Blu-ray. A set of offical live televised DVD's would be nice. Rio, Wembley, Argentina, Japan. (And yes - even if it did mean Milton Keynes again!) - and that's just the stuff that has been officially available at some time on VHS. Unreleased stuff: Earl's Court, Paris, Houston etc could be added as bonus DVD discs. So I am not knocking re-releases per se, just (IMO) some older VHS' could be dusted down and released as some sort of priority digital format - before yet another re-re-re-release of 'Now That's What I Call Queen 17!" |
| The Real Wizard 26.10.2009 22:12 |
John S Stuart wrote: A set of offical live televised DVD's would be nice. Rio, Wembley, Argentina, Japan. (And yes - even if it did mean Milton Keynes again!) - and that's just the stuff that has been officially available at some time on VHS. Yeah, kind of like the Rush boxed set 'Replay'. Although Argentina and Milton Keynes were never released on VHS... |
| Bo Rhap 27.10.2009 02:08 |
John. I've a feeling that a master must exist of the Rainbow gig.What do you think?Possibly with QPL. Yea,you would have saw the Rainbow gig in the cinemas if you went to see Saturday Night Fever.I'd keep that quiet if i were you(only joking).It was the support film to that flick.At least it was in Glasgow.Although i seem to remember there was a cinema in Glasgow who specialised in showing Rock films on a Saturday night in the mid seventies.It was there i saw Led Zeppelin's The Song Remains The Same film. |
| rschoorl 27.10.2009 06:18 |
|
| FriedChicken 27.10.2009 09:52 |
I think I joined Queenzone around 2000, and before that I was a member of Queenrocker (A similar notice board that crashed, and a lot of the users moved to this place). Now, about 10 years later I still listen to Queen, (I've seen them 8 times on their previous tour) although I don't eat, breathe and live Queen as I used to. I've grown older and with my age also my musical taste and interest changed. I'm still a big admirer (I really hate the word fan) of Queen and now, as a music student and a composer, I still can be moved to tears by the sheer brilliance of Queen music, and the tremendous eye for detail these guys had, and still have. |
| Robin 28.10.2009 08:24 |
Well, being 49 in a few days, life moves on. I am and always will be a huge Queen fan but I really just enjoy listening to a cd or catching them on the radio these days. I don't rush out an buy all things Queen anymore and probably won't. I did offer to buy my son the rock band songs if he wanted......maybe even play the game with him too! Even though I've been a member of this board forever, I hardly post anymore because I'm not as "up" on Queen as I used to be. Time marches on........good to be here though! |
| 4 x Vision 28.10.2009 10:41 |
Bo Rhap wrote: John. I've a feeling that a master must exist of the Rainbow gig.What do you think?Possibly with QPL. Yea,you would have saw the Rainbow gig in the cinemas if you went to see Saturday Night Fever.I'd keep that quiet if i were you(only joking).It was the support film to that flick.At least it was in Glasgow.Although i seem to remember there was a cinema in Glasgow who specialised in showing Rock films on a Saturday night in the mid seventies.It was there i saw Led Zeppelin's The Song Remains The Same film. That's interesting BR, can you remember what Glasgow film house it was? Also, to JSS, is BR right and is this how you got to see it? I never knew cinemas showed concert footage before feature films back in the 70s. Imagine going to see a film and as support to it, some rare Queen footage is shown... great promo |
| John S Stuart 28.10.2009 22:37 |
Van Basten 9 wrote:Bo Rhap wrote: John. I've a feeling that a master must exist of the Rainbow gig.What do you think?Possibly with QPL. Yea,you would have saw the Rainbow gig in the cinemas if you went to see Saturday Night Fever.I'd keep that quiet if i were you(only joking).It was the support film to that flick.At least it was in Glasgow.Although i seem to remember there was a cinema in Glasgow who specialised in showing Rock films on a Saturday night in the mid seventies.It was there i saw Led Zeppelin's The Song Remains The Same film.That's interesting BR, can you remember what Glasgow film house it was? Also, to JSS, is BR right and is this how you got to see it? I never knew cinemas showed concert footage before feature films back in the 70s. Imagine going to see a film and as support to it, some rare Queen footage is shown... great promo BR is exactly 100% correct, and that too is how I got to see the film version. My story differs in that - at that time there were also a lot more 'independant' cinemas as opposed to the giant cinema chains we have today. Most of these smaller 'alternative' cinemas have long closed down. One of my favourites was the 'Capital' cinema in Aberdeen. They screened the Rainbow gig not as the support to 'Saturday Night Fever' (it was the large chains which tied those two films together), rather, I saw the Rainbow concert as support to 'Enter The Dragon' - much more masculine. (Incidently, Queen actually performed live at the Capitol Cinema in Aberdeen, earlier in the same year). However, I am confused about the footage. Was it shot on film - and later released on video? Or Was it shot on video - but later redited/ upscaled for cinema? I have heard rumours of both - and even famous directors such as David Lynch has used video footage as a cinematic technique. So was it really shot on film after all? |
| Sebastian 29.10.2009 00:01 |
I think there's also a bit of normal natural 'honeymoon effect' being worn down after a while. You could say QueenZone already underwent its 'A Night at the Opera' some years ago, and now it's in a more 'The Works' period. Things have also switched to other kinds of research: I remember seven years ago when I said My Life Has Been Saved was John's, and how people thought it was an idiotic remark from a newbie. Now it's sort of common knowledge and is included in many websites. Of course, very little (if any) of the credit belongs to me (hadn't I written it here, one or two weeks later somebody else would've), but it's a good example: the songwriters' debate was big back then, as well as other things (e.g. what was played, who played what, who sang what, vocal ranges... oh I loved that one) that are now more 'quotidian', and as such they lose some of their previous momentum. I beg to differ with John, there are loads of things yet to be discussed in depth, both in journalistic and musicological areas. For instance: * Intervals used for harmony vocals, which could make a great database and offer loads of things if we analysed their recurrence both by creator, style and effect. Something similar could be done about piano parts, piano/bass interplay, guitar/bass interplay, drumming patterns, guitar ensembles, synth orchestras, etc. * Origin and evolution of certain trends, labels and legends (e.g. exactly where was the '180 voices' myth first published, who was the first one to call Brian's guitar the Red Special, which was the first paper to mention Fred's disease or roots, etc). * 'Reconstruction' videos: today I watched a bloke playing Best Friend using an actual Wurlitzer piano. It was great to see him get the exact same sound and play the exact same notes. If that could be made by more people with more songs and bits it'd be ace! Imagine some of our QZ experts recording Millionaire Waltz bit by bit and then mixing it to recreate the original, thus showing the next-best-thing until we can get hold of an actual 'Making of...' for the 'Races' album. Let's put it this way: JS Bach died 259 years and 3 months ago, and there are still research groups, new books, debates, etc... finding new ways to analyse his oeuvre, new ways to interpret his cadences, new cross-references documented, new magic found behind each bar... Sure, Queen were no Bach, their work didn't spawn that amount of pieces in that amount of styles, etc, etc... but still their music is interesting enough, good enough and still unresearched enough (not only for and by professional musicians BTW) to entertain us for 30+ years at least, EVEN IF there were no support from the actual artists, no new products, etc. If only... |
| Yara 29.10.2009 12:09 |
I'd love to me more active in the forum. I love reading and talking about this amazing band, and I think there's still a good deal of interesting things to be discussed and, hey, listened to as well, for those who check the announce board regularly. I've been studying a lot for my final exams and the end of the year is always a quite busy period. So it's nothing personal. I don't have anything against the forum and I love the band, the music and the discussions. I hope I can soon check out the website as often as I did and take part in it. : -))) Take care. Lots of love. |
| john bodega 30.10.2009 01:33 |
Nonsense! There's plenty of topics to come - just think of the "Thank You" topic we can get started once Hangman finds it's way out there ... |
| FriedChicken 02.11.2009 15:35 |
I totally agree with Sebastian, There's still so much to discuss, but I think most people here rather talk about Brian's hair or if Freddie was bisexual or not... A shame really, since both aspects didn't make them good composers. As for me, I'm still thinkin about writing a book on Queen's productional side. A shame that so little is known about a band so well known of their productional skills.... |
| Sebastian 02.11.2009 16:04 |
Maybe Brian's Sampson, and after he lost his hair he also became blind. So, from then on, he started using wigs, and becoming a backing musician for an American Idol loser instead of willing to work with Rick Wakeman or Steve Vai. |
| The Real Wizard 02.11.2009 21:44 |
Sebastian wrote: Maybe Brian's Sampson, and after he lost his hair he also became blind. So, from then on, he started using wigs, and becoming a backing musician for an American Idol loser instead of willing to work with Rick Wakeman or Steve Vai. You really are a broken record. You've said these things far, far too many times... 1) Brian and Roger said Paul was Freddie's favourite singer as a marketing tactic 2) Brian isn't collaborating with whoever you think he should be collaborating with 3) There aren't 180 voices on BoRhap (although someone even showed you an alternative way to mathematically come to this conclusion a few weeks back) Stop reiterating the same old tired points. You are so much better than this. |
| Sebastian 02.11.2009 22:08 |
Why do you care anyway? And just for the (broken) record: 1a. I'm not denying Paul's great. 1b. I'm not denying Fred probably admired him (there's nothing pre-2004 to confirm or deny it). 1c. I am stating he was not his favourite or one of his top idols, hence making the whole charade quite unethical. 1d. Why should Maylor resort to such ridiculous strategy? They're better than that. 2a. I'm not attacking people who admire 5ive, Robbie Williams, Pink or Adam Labert. 2b. I am, however, commenting on the fact that while Fred was alive (and shortly after he died), Brian and Roger collaborated with Michael Kamen, David Bowie, Steve Howe... now it's Pink, Britney and an American Idol loser. Hardly a progress IMO. 2c. Why should Maylor resort to such (good, but not good enough IMO) partnerships (PR aside)? They're better than that. 3a. I'm not denying that Bo Rhap (or any other song for that matter) could've had literally hundreds of takes. 3b. I am, however, clearing that there are no 138, 160, 180 or 200 simultaneous voices. Even before the multitracks surfaced, I was always defending that theory. As Zeb cleverly pointed out, there's no point in doubling them that many times after certain 'saturation point' (my words, not Zeb's), where 200 wouldn't be different from 20. And, BTW, considering the (still rough compared to today's standards) audio technology, having that amount of bounced overdubs would've ruined the quality of the sound. Even if the whole transparent tape story happened to be true (which I still doubt, TBH), it still doesn't mean they actually recorded 180 simultaneous voices. BTW, many producers exaggerate when speaking about their records, and Roy was not an exception: just read what he said about the Darkness' sophomore album... 3c. If the topic arises twenty times, then I'll repeat the same thing twenty times. Mostly because each of those twenty, I learn a lot. And by the way, you forgot loads of things in my broken record: * Roger did not compose Innuendo. * You Don't Fool Me was not part of 'Hot Space' sessions. * The fact Brian sings a one-minute Hitman demo does not demonstrate he wrote the whole thing (or even that snippet). * Good Company was recorded with a baritone ukelele, not a ukelele banjo. * The Bo Rhap BBC documentary is sloppy to say the least. * John did not play a Fender Rhodes on Best Friend. * There are no keyboard synths on Another One Bites the Dust. * Freddie's shitty solo album does not prove he was a shit composer. * 'Saw V' was not bad per se, but 'IV' is a hell of a lot better. My favourite's the sixth now, to be honest, I loved it. * Late era Queen was not mainly Freddie, was not mainly Brian, was not mainly John and was not mainly Roger. * The four of them could compose for instruments they were not too good performers on, and did so, many times. And my most frequent bits of broken record, of which I'm very proud: * Brian + Freddie + Roger are not Queen (they were though, for some months or so). * Brian + Freddie + John are not Queen. * Brian + Roger + John are not Queen. * Roger + Freddie + John are not Queen. * Brian + Freddie are not Queen. * Brian + Roger are not Queen. * Brian + John are not Queen. * Freddie+ Roger are not Queen. * Freddie + John are not Queen. * Roger + John are not Queen. And at the end of the day, I'm not: * Offending anybody. * Imposing my point of view (whoever disagrees has all the right to). * Forcing you (or anybody else) to read my broken record. So Bob, you could either: * Chase me on-line like a stalker, asking me to change my personality (something I've never asked you to do, BTW). Or * Respect my perspective, considering we've been over this in the past, and you know neither side's gonna switch. Or: * Refrain from reading anything I write (here or elsewhere), let alone reply. Both the second and third choice seem perfect for me, while the first is only a waste of time for both sides. It's your call. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 03.11.2009 04:19 |
John S Stuart wrote: I don't think it is a case of every topic being 'done to death', but, rather, there is not a lot of new stuff to talk about. As a once 'serious' collector, I have lost all interest in repurchasing the same old material in 'new boxes' or re-packaging, as it just doesn't seem genuine any more. To explain, when Freddie was alive and Queen were in their hay-day, then a contemporary new single, red vinyl or picture disc was indeed something special. Something worth tracking down and owning. Now-a-days these new re-issues are deliberately printed as collector's items for the sake of it - and it is just not the same thing. I guess it is like a stamp collector who owns a genuine 'Penny Black'. Once they have that in their collection, a 'Penny Black Commemorative' issue is not the same. In other words, why settle for the substitute if you can have the real thing? Now, I am not knocking that type of collector - each to their own, but for me, it was always about the music. Sure I have other memorabilla, books, mags etc, but that was always secondary to the music. Perhaps if Queen were to provide a few teasers - whether an anthology box set, special CD's with bonus tracks, or even the odd internet download - then perhaps my zeal may be reignited. Until then, I guess it's just trying to recapture former glories, and that seems more difficult with each new crap product released.couldn't agree more. in the 80's and 90's I used to be hunting for all new limited editions and rarities as they came onto the market via Record Collector magazine or music fairs but since about 95/96 i've either got all i want or started to see the same ol' stuff repackaged as something new so my interest as waned |
| The Real Wizard 03.11.2009 09:23 |
Sebastian wrote: So Bob, you could either: * Chase me on-line like a stalker, asking me to change my personality (something I've never asked you to do, BTW). I'm not asking you to change your personality. I just think that reiterating the same points over and over again verbatim makes for repetitiveness and, ultimately, bad reading. |
| Sebastian 03.11.2009 09:53 |
Sir GH wrote:Sebastian wrote: So Bob, you could either: * Chase me on-line like a stalker, asking me to change my personality (something I've never asked you to do, BTW).I'm not asking you to change your personality. I just think that reiterating the same points over and over again verbatim makes for repetitiveness and, ultimately, bad reading. I'm not saying you're asking me to change my personality. I'm saying you could do that if you wanted to, but that'd only annoy the hell out of me, you and people who read those threads. So, if I want to repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat that PR was not FM's favourite singer, that BM could pick much better musicians to collaborate with and that there are no 180 simultaneous voices in Bo Rhap, then that's my prerogative. Agree? Fine. Disagree? Fine. But just as I don't tell you what to do or what not to do, I'll apreciate if you return the courtesy. Moreover, during this last couple of weeks I've taken part in 6 or 7 threads, and in most of them you've been replying to my posts, sometimes accusing me of having an agenda (funny you should say that when you can't read minds, and then complain about me not using 'IMO' or something to that effect), asking me to 'stop' doing something (have you ever heard of the word 'please'?), etc. That almost qualifies as stalking. And I wonder: have I ever done that to your posts? If so, please tell me where. If not, then please (you see, I do know about that word) don't tell me what to do or what not to do. If I ever offend you, your nationality, ethnicity, sex, religion, occupation or physical features, you've got all the right to complain (and I should be kicked out of the forum immediately). But otherwise, I'm not doing any harm when (if) I repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat that PR was not FM's favourite singer, that BM could pick much better musicians to collaborate with and that there are no 180 simultaneous voices in Bo Rhap. |
| john bodega 03.11.2009 11:50 |
It's not stalking, exactly. For him to be stalking you, it'd have to take place in an area that you might frequent but one which he would have absolutely no other reason to be in. Neighbours can't exactly stalk each other; they merely co-exist in a small area and consequently they see more of one another than they'd like to. Trouble ensues. But that's not stalking - you guys just both use the same forum. Now, if Bob follows you to a poodle discussion board to tell you that there WERE 180 simultaneous poodles in competition on Sunday's dog show extravaganza, then that might be stalking. |
| The Real Wizard 03.11.2009 11:50 |
Of course, live and let live is always the best way. But I just think you're taking this all a bit too seriously. I'm just making observations and you're taking them far too personally. If you're confident that you're always doing the right thing, you should have no need to react so strongly. |
| Sebastian 03.11.2009 12:04 |
Sir GH wrote: Of course, live and let live is always the best way. But I just think you're taking this all a bit too seriously. I'm just making observations and you're taking them far too personally. If you're confident that you're always doing the right thing, you should have no need to react so strongly. I'm not always doing the right thing. Nobody is. Reacting strongly would be telling you to fuck off (which would be totally uncalled for). This is simply, as you say, live and let live. D'you think I'm a broken record? Fine. Just stay away from it if it bothers you. And by the way: * Paul Rodgers was NOT Freddie's favourite singer. * Brian sort of messed up his choice of collaborators lately. * There are no 180 simultaneous voices in Bo Rhap. Zeb: Good point. But there is the concept of cyber-stalking. I don't think Bob's doing it per se, but he's slowly getting there. |
| The Real Wizard 03.11.2009 14:26 |
Accusing someone of cyber-stalking (a very serious infraction of privacy) without any kind of proof is a form of slander. Watch where you're going with that one, my friend. We're discussing a band. Let's not let it get out of hand. |
| Sebastian 03.11.2009 15:05 |
I didn't accuse you. I wrote: 'I don't think Bob's doing it per se, but he's slowly getting there'. And I stand by it. Proof? The amount of comments I've made these last few days that have absolutely nothing to do with you, but to which you've readily replied each time with stronger (direct or indirect) labels. Certainly not cyberstalking, certainly far from it but... as I said, slowly getting there. But d'you know how can you keep this broken-record-with-an-agenda-to-demonise-Brian-and-Roger-plus-a-criminal-intention-to-slander-you from bothering you? By: * Not telling me what to do (unless I'm directly insulting you, which I'm not). * Respecting my POVs and whether I want to repeat them five, twenty or a hundred times (or maybe a hundred and eighty). * Ignoring my posts if they're too problematic for you. * And by the way, it was you who moved the topic away from the band (my comment on BM's choice of collaborators, even if it annoys you, is related to the band) by telling I was a broken record. And now you're the one complaining about it... PS: Accusing me of having an agenda against B+R without any kind of proof (besides your own speculation) is also a form of slander. How is that different? PS2: Accusing me of accusing you of cyberstalking without any kind of proof is also a form of slander. |
| The Real Wizard 03.11.2009 15:29 |
Sebastian wrote: PS: Accusing me of having an agenda against B+R without any kind of proof (besides your own speculation) is also a form of slander. Holding an opinion about a musician is an arrestable offense, like stalking? Now this is starting to get out of hand. In summary, I gave you some constructive criticism which you reacted strongly to, so now I know better for next time. Let's move on, please. |
| john bodega 03.11.2009 15:56 |
I agree, you guys are above this. This is a cyber-clusterfuck. |
| 4 x Vision 03.11.2009 17:48 |
Agreed, kiss and make up... for the sake of the threads, cos you are both two of the biggest contributors to this site. I've been in one of these situations before with another QZer and they go absolutely nowhere. Now... I'd like to think that I respect that person's opinions and vice versa. |
| Sebastian 03.11.2009 20:22 |
Sir GH wrote:Sebastian wrote: PS: Accusing me of having an agenda against B+R without any kind of proof (besides your own speculation) is also a form of slander.Holding an opinion about a musician is an arrestable offense, like stalking? Now this is starting to get out of hand. In summary, I gave you some constructive criticism which you reacted strongly to, so now I know better for next time. Let's move on, please. Calling somebody a broken record is not constructive criticism. And telling you not to tell me what to do is not reacting strongly. Things would've been very different if I'd told you to fuck off, that would be reacting strongly. It's funny, anyway, how you only reply to the PS but completely overlook my explanation of how I was NOT calling you a cyberstalker (though I am stating you're getting there at this pace), and the PS2 as well. |