QueenZone discussion #1400661

Kahle33 wrote: as I see it he was a cheater, drug addict, selfish, rude, prone to angry outbursts, and there is pretty good evidence he was sleeping around when he knew he had HIV.

Kahle33 wrote: But I just got done reading a book on him and as I see it he was a cheater, drug addict, selfish, rude, prone to angry outbursts, and there is pretty good evidence he was sleeping around when he knew he had HIV. The whole time I am thinking, here is a guy I idolize, but there is no chance I'd want to know him..

Costa86 wrote: Let's go over the things you mention, which may make him a bad person: - Cheater: He was gay, and for most of his life didn't have a stable partner - that doesn't really make him a cheat. When he was with Jim, he may have cheated on him a few times, but so what? Cheating doesn't make you a bad person, unless it is harmful to your children, etc. - Drug addict: Nothing points to him being an addict. He used cocaine heavily for some time, so what? I would if I could. - Selfish: Nothing points to this - on the contrary, most people who knew him said he was very kind and generous. - Rude: He had his moments - he was for some time the biggest rockstar in the world - that can be a very big thing to handle, and makes it difficult to keep your feet on the ground. But again, although he was demanding and could be a bitchy diva, I don't think he was in general a rude man. - Prone to anger: Maybe, but so what? He wanted it his way, and he reached such a high level of fame that it became difficult to be content with anything less. He wasn't a violent man. Which leaves only the elphant in the room. Did he sleep with other people, although he knew he had HIV? He may have. But then again, what do we mean by "knew"? Until 1987, or at the earliest, 1986, he didn't KNOW for certain. Yes, by 1984-85 he probably had a good idea that he had HIV. In fact, around 1985, he changed his life around and stopped sleeping around as much - at least that's what people who knew him said. Before 1984, as others said, nobody knew much about HIV - during this time he kept being reckless, but so did all the man-whores who slept around and may have come in contact with him. I'm sure he infected several people, but someone also infected him, no? You can't judge these people, apart from saying they were irresponsible and sexually hedonistic. He certainly didn't go around PURPOSEFULLY infecting people.

Zebonka12 wrote: "here is a guy I idolize, but there is no chance I'd want to know him" Then you're a fool! You need to stop idolising/looking up to celebrities and entertainers on the basis of the work they create. If you're lucky and one of your favourite artists is someone like Ted Neeley (ie. alien levels of talent and a really cool dude all in one) then that's awesome. But you're setting yourself up for constant disappointment in life if you keep doing this thing of 'oh wow I thought they were amazing but I just found out they did drugs'. First of all, that's not a problem. Second, it's none of your business. And third, he's been dead for almost a quarter of a century. He doesn't even exist now; just his songs do. It's really a non topic at this point.

Costa86 wrote: Look, if we have to take something from Freddie's life, it's not the bullshit cheating, drugs, and what not. Those are just meaningless games. If we take something, it's his drive for life and for doing what he loved to do with passion and inner vigor, despite his failing health and the fact that his imminent death was inescapable. From him we can learn that even when you feel you're so deep in a dark hole, you must still find the power to climb out of it, and to improve your situation and keep going. Most of us aren't facing death like Freddie was - so whatever it is that may block our path and put us down, we certainly can rise up above it and strive to continue.

Kahle33 wrote: Drug addict, to me snorting coke is a drug problem.

Kahle33 wrote:

Costa86 wrote: Look, if we have to take something from Freddie's life, it's not the bullshit cheating, drugs, and what not. Those are just meaningless games. If we take something, it's his drive for life and for doing what he loved to do with passion and inner vigor, despite his failing health and the fact that his imminent death was inescapable. From him we can learn that even when you feel you're so deep in a dark hole, you must still find the power to climb out of it, and to improve your situation and keep going. Most of us aren't facing death like Freddie was - so whatever it is that may block our path and put us down, we certainly can rise up above it and strive to continue.

Well thats true and I do take that from him. But at the same time, I am just saying, he wouldn't have been anyone I'd want to know personally.

Kahle33 wrote: From what I understand he knew in 1984 that he was infected, his GF at the time, Barabara? claimed that he didn't want her touching him when he cut his finger. So he knew. Yet there are stories as late as 1985 that he was sleeping with people. IF (and of course that is an IF) this stuff is true, that makes him quite a horrible person. I don't buy the whole ignorance over it. Maybe the 70's but not in the mid 80's.

Day dop wrote:

Kahle33 wrote:

Costa86 wrote: Look, if we have to take something from Freddie's life, it's not the bullshit cheating, drugs, and what not. Those are just meaningless games. If we take something, it's his drive for life and for doing what he loved to do with passion and inner vigor, despite his failing health and the fact that his imminent death was inescapable. From him we can learn that even when you feel you're so deep in a dark hole, you must still find the power to climb out of it, and to improve your situation and keep going. Most of us aren't facing death like Freddie was - so whatever it is that may block our path and put us down, we certainly can rise up above it and strive to continue.

Well thats true and I do take that from him. But at the same time, I am just saying, he wouldn't have been anyone I'd want to know personally.

I can't tell why you're like you are Kahle33. A few things spring to mind. You're either a conservative Russian.... or very religious.... or you're about 13 years old with strict parents (possibly conservative Russians or religious) ... or you're just a bit prudish. Or something very similar to one of those, or maybe a mixture. Or you're an Adam Lambert fan.

Zebonka12 wrote: "I just feel like many people give him a pass because he was extremely talented. Me, not so much" You realise how very little currency your 'free pass' has, right? When he was ALIVE, he wouldn't have woken up in the morning, hands shaking with anxiety, going "kaloolie33 doesn't approve of the choices I made with my life!". Think about how little your judgement means now that he's fucking dead. I'd really forgotten just how cunty some guests to this forum could be sometimes. What you think of his behaviour is completely irrelevant; you should be embarrassed for even bringing it up.

Day dop wrote: Kahle33 wrote: "Drug addict, to me snorting coke is a drug problem." It's not necessarily a drug problem at all. Sounds to me like you're a little naive when it comes to drugs. Kahle33 also wrote: "From what I understand he knew in 1984 that he was infected, his GF at the time, Barabara? claimed that he didn't want her touching him when he cut his finger. So he knew. " If the book you're talking about is Freddie Mercury: The Definitive Biography: By Lesley-Ann Jones (a bit of a controversial one) then here's what's written. "When we first met, he was either denying it to himself, or he simply didn't know," she [Barbara] said. "After he made his first test eventually [in 1985 she believed, contrary to other reports, though she could not confirm that prompted him to get tested], it changed his life." Right, so you've automatically assumed the worst Kahele33? That he knew in 1984, just going by what Barbara said, speculating over two possibilities, in a Lesley-Ann Jones book. Anyway, it all sounds a little sketchy to me, in particular - 'in 1985 she believed, contrary to other reports'. I don't think '85 is when he found out at all, for a number of reasons. There's the accounts of him finding out in Easter '87, and aside from that, Freddie seemed different in mood after '87, far more somber. Whereas you go back to '85 (Live Aid stands out in particular, and Freddie had a sparkle in his eye as if he was a man with no worries and a lot to live for - so I don't think it'd have been that early). Like some others seem to think, I'd say Freddie had more reasons to suspect something was wrong in '86, but didn't know for sure till 'Easter 87, though he probably had a good idea by that point anyway because of his declining health, but it just wasn't confirmed for sure up until that moment. I think his Live Aid mood was also to do with Jim. Who knows? It's also possible Barbara liked to put her own twist on things in a "I knew Freddie best" kind way, but then I don't really see any reason to doubt her either so that might be unfair of me to say. As for the cut finger incident, when was that exactly? late 85, early 86? It says in the book that Freddie initially left Barbara towards the end of '85, then went back a few months later. That might've been '86 (and mentions that "a 100 of our friends had died from AIDS by this time"). That might give Freddie a reason to be concerned if nothing else. But overall, it's all a bit vague. Especially when Barbra talks about marks on Freddie's face and dark blue bruises and putting a little make up on him. I guess that might fit the timeline... Now you also wrote "Yet there are stories as late as 1985 that he was sleeping with people. IF (and of course that is an IF) this stuff is true, that makes him quite a horrible person. I don't buy the whole ignorance over it. Maybe the 70's but not in the mid 80's." There was a lot of ignorance over HIV and AIDS in the mid 80s, To give you an idea, HIV testing wasn't introduced to the UK (and US) until 1985. As for general ignorance, that was still around in the early 90s when Freddie died. I think it was his death that brought a fair bit of awareness to HIV/AIDS. I don't think it started really dawning on Freddie until end of 85 or 86, and by that point, he'd slept with everyone in the picture already as far as I'm aware of. Why would that make Freddie a horrible person? Did Freddie look like a man with a death sentence on his mind in any of the footage in 85? I don't think so. Maybe on the Magic tour, Freddie came over a little differently somehow (that could also be because we know his behaviour changed too). Then there's the other thing you say, which would predate all the above - "Freddie was selfish, I guess you forgot about the time when someone warned him about AIDS and his response was "darling fuck it". He was willing to put a cheap thrill over his life. That is pretty ignorant and pretty selfish for people who were close to him. " When was that? In 83 or something? Freddie was most likely drunk, in a nightclub, a little high, and was in the mood where he didn't give a shit about anything and just wanted to have fun. Have you never felt like that? Kind of indestructible? Out having a good time? When you can be flippant about the most serious things in the spur of the moment? It seems to me, Kahele33, that for some reason, you want to assume the worst all the time, or you're looking at Freddie as if he was a lot worse than what he really was. Or that's how it comes across to me anyway. The other thing you said "He cheated with Mary and Jim. I think cheating is quite wrong and dishonest." He'd no doubt agree himself. And by all accounts, didn't Freddie always feel bad about what happened with Mary on some level? And when it comes to Jim, that was at the very beginning, when Freddie wasn't really in relationship mode. Not fully. But he settled down and spent the rest of his life with Jim in the end didn't he? Don't be too quick to judge.

Zamidoo wrote:

Kahle33 wrote: From what I understand he knew in 1984 that he was infected, his GF at the time, Barabara? claimed that he didn't want her touching him when he cut his finger. So he knew. Yet there are stories as late as 1985 that he was sleeping with people. IF (and of course that is an IF) this stuff is true, that makes him quite a horrible person. I don't buy the whole ignorance over it. Maybe the 70's but not in the mid 80's.

I'm not trying to fight with you, Kahle33, but I can only repeat what I said before about no judging when you don't really know what happened. You would have to have followed Freddie's every move from the day he was born to the day he died to really know what sort of person he was. The book you read won't tell you the answer. There was a minefield of ignorance about HIV in the mid-80s, especially 1984, which was the year that the first testing became available (although not widely, that was the following year). There was a lot of disbelief that this was really happening - the concept of a virus that can lie dormant for 10 years and then suddenly start producing symptoms and kill you is not a difficult concept for us now, but back then people were struggling to come to terms with it. Can you imagine, what it must have been like? By the time the first unreliable tests were developed, people had been living for years with the fear of thinking they were ticking time bombs with no way of knowing when the bomb was going to go off (and AIDS symptoms start). From the time the illness came into public view until the first testing became available was several years. It was a tragedy, and still is in many parts of the world. Get the image of Freddie Mercury as an HIV-wielding sex-machine, lurking in clubs with his evil virus out of your head. It's ridiculous. And I'm just going to throw this out there... as you weren't there for every sexual encounter he had (were you?) he could even have used condoms. He could even have worn flippers and a tea-cosy on his head. It's none of your business.

Kahle33 wrote:

Day dop wrote: Kahle33 wrote: "Drug addict, to me snorting coke is a drug problem." It's not necessarily a drug problem at all. Sounds to me like you're a little naive when it comes to drugs. Kahle33 also wrote: "From what I understand he knew in 1984 that he was infected, his GF at the time, Barabara? claimed that he didn't want her touching him when he cut his finger. So he knew. " If the book you're talking about is Freddie Mercury: The Definitive Biography: By Lesley-Ann Jones (a bit of a controversial one) then here's what's written. "When we first met, he was either denying it to himself, or he simply didn't know," she [Barbara] said. "After he made his first test eventually [in 1985 she believed, contrary to other reports, though she could not confirm that prompted him to get tested], it changed his life." Right, so you've automatically assumed the worst Kahele33? That he knew in 1984, just going by what Barbara said, speculating over two possibilities, in a Lesley-Ann Jones book. Anyway, it all sounds a little sketchy to me, in particular - 'in 1985 she believed, contrary to other reports'. I don't think '85 is when he found out at all, for a number of reasons. There's the accounts of him finding out in Easter '87, and aside from that, Freddie seemed different in mood after '87, far more somber. Whereas you go back to '85 (Live Aid stands out in particular, and Freddie had a sparkle in his eye as if he was a man with no worries and a lot to live for - so I don't think it'd have been that early). Like some others seem to think, I'd say Freddie had more reasons to suspect something was wrong in '86, but didn't know for sure till 'Easter 87, though he probably had a good idea by that point anyway because of his declining health, but it just wasn't confirmed for sure up until that moment. I think his Live Aid mood was also to do with Jim. Who knows? It's also possible Barbara liked to put her own twist on things in a "I knew Freddie best" kind way, but then I don't really see any reason to doubt her either so that might be unfair of me to say. As for the cut finger incident, when was that exactly? late 85, early 86? It says in the book that Freddie initially left Barbara towards the end of '85, then went back a few months later. That might've been '86 (and mentions that "a 100 of our friends had died from AIDS by this time"). That might give Freddie a reason to be concerned if nothing else. But overall, it's all a bit vague. Especially when Barbra talks about marks on Freddie's face and dark blue bruises and putting a little make up on him. I guess that might fit the timeline... Now you also wrote "Yet there are stories as late as 1985 that he was sleeping with people. IF (and of course that is an IF) this stuff is true, that makes him quite a horrible person. I don't buy the whole ignorance over it. Maybe the 70's but not in the mid 80's." There was a lot of ignorance over HIV and AIDS in the mid 80s, To give you an idea, HIV testing wasn't introduced to the UK (and US) until 1985. As for general ignorance, that was still around in the early 90s when Freddie died. I think it was his death that brought a fair bit of awareness to HIV/AIDS. I don't think it started really dawning on Freddie until end of 85 or 86, and by that point, he'd slept with everyone in the picture already as far as I'm aware of. Why would that make Freddie a horrible person? Did Freddie look like a man with a death sentence on his mind in any of the footage in 85? I don't think so. Maybe on the Magic tour, Freddie came over a little differently somehow (that could also be because we know his behaviour changed too). Then there's the other thing you say, which would predate all the above - "Freddie was selfish, I guess you forgot about the time when someone warned him about AIDS and his response was "darling fuck it". He was willing to put a cheap thrill over his life. That is pretty ignorant and pretty selfish for people who were close to him. " When was that? In 83 or something? Freddie was most likely drunk, in a nightclub, a little high, and was in the mood where he didn't give a shit about anything and just wanted to have fun. Have you never felt like that? Kind of indestructible? Out having a good time? When you can be flippant about the most serious things in the spur of the moment? It seems to me, Kahele33, that for some reason, you want to assume the worst all the time, or you're looking at Freddie as if he was a lot worse than what he really was. Or that's how it comes across to me anyway. The other thing you said "He cheated with Mary and Jim. I think cheating is quite wrong and dishonest." He'd no doubt agree himself. And by all accounts, didn't Freddie always feel bad about what happened with Mary on some level? And when it comes to Jim, that was at the very beginning, when Freddie wasn't really in relationship mode. Not fully. But he settled down and spent the rest of his life with Jim in the end didn't he? Don't be too quick to judge.

Well I don't think you can make a basis on what he knew and when he knew by a twinkle in his eye or an offhanded comment. I am just going by waht I've read, and while I know that some of it may not be true, both Mary and Barbara said Freddie was aware of his HIV in 1984 or at least knew he was sick and that it could be spread. I don't think I am looking at this is a negative way. I think it is pretty objective. I am not a Freddie basher. I am calling it like I see it based on what I've read. I think some people here aren't looking at Freddie in an objective light. I think it should be obvious to most that Freddie was a flawed individual who wrote great music.

Kahle33 wrote: Do you really know that Freddie wrote Bohemian Rhapsody? Were you actually there? So you don't know FOR SURE. See? It can get rather silly.

Zamidoo wrote:

Kahle33 wrote: Do you really know that Freddie wrote Bohemian Rhapsody? Were you actually there? So you don't know FOR SURE. See? It can get rather silly.

That is, indeed, a very silly argument. You remind me of another user on here, who often comes up with comparisons like that (as you're new to the forum, you may not have read any of his posts). There's nothing wrong with the discussions, but there comes a moment where you have to walk away.

Zamidoo wrote: Oh, please don't bring up the 'mineshaft' t-shirt. Of course he was a clubber. How he picked up anyone with the haircut he had in that video is another matter, but no-one is disputing that. Correct me if I am wrong, but what you're you're basically saying is, if you (as you) behaved now as you believe Freddie Mercury did 30-35 years ago, you wouldn't be a good person. I get that. I don't judge Freddie Mercury by myself and what would constitute being a 'good' person for me because our lives and circumstances are way, way too different. It's impossible. It's a non-starter. Especially with someone like Freddie Mercury, who was so exceptional in so many of his circumstances. I think that's basically what most other people posting here are saying, in various ways. Because it's the only conclusion you can come to when you're faced with the dilemma you outline in your original post.

Pingfah wrote:

Kahle33 wrote: Drug addict, to me snorting coke is a drug problem.

Then you have no idea what drug addiction, or a drug problem is. Just out of interest, do you think somebody who eats a hamburger has a hamburger problem?

Kahle33 wrote:

Zamidoo wrote: Oh, please don't bring up the 'mineshaft' t-shirt. Of course he was a clubber. How he picked up anyone with the haircut he had in that video is another matter, but no-one is disputing that. Correct me if I am wrong, but what you're you're basically saying is, if you (as you) behaved now as you believe Freddie Mercury did 30-35 years ago, you wouldn't be a good person. I get that. I don't judge Freddie Mercury by myself and what would constitute being a 'good' person for me because our lives and circumstances are way, way too different. It's impossible. It's a non-starter. Especially with someone like Freddie Mercury, who was so exceptional in so many of his circumstances. I think that's basically what most other people posting here are saying, in various ways. Because it's the only conclusion you can come to when you're faced with the dilemma you outline in your original post.

I don't see the circumstances being all that different. Plenty of people dealt with the same circumstances as Freddie did and didn't make such poor choices. I find the American has become the country of "its not my fault". No one wants to take responsiblity for themselves or their actions. True, he wrote amazing music, I am just not going to make excuses for his poor behavior like so many will do.

Day dop wrote: But you can make a judgement call based on your faulty reasoning, right? Even though I've re-written it for you, you're still claiming "Freddie was aware of his HIV in 1984 or at least knew he was sick and that it could be spread." And that's you going on Barbara's words in the book.... Barbara said "When we first met, he was either denying it to himself, or he simply didn't know," Can you see the part that says "simply didn't know"? But you'll just go with your non-existent "pretty good evidence" that Freddie was sleeping around when he knew he had HIV instead, right? Then you go on "I think some people here aren't looking at Freddie in an objective light." That's coming from the person who said " Drug addict, to me snorting coke is a drug problem." Very objective.

Day dop wrote:

Kahle33 wrote:

Zamidoo wrote: Oh, please don't bring up the 'mineshaft' t-shirt. Of course he was a clubber. How he picked up anyone with the haircut he had in that video is another matter, but no-one is disputing that. Correct me if I am wrong, but what you're you're basically saying is, if you (as you) behaved now as you believe Freddie Mercury did 30-35 years ago, you wouldn't be a good person. I get that. I don't judge Freddie Mercury by myself and what would constitute being a 'good' person for me because our lives and circumstances are way, way too different. It's impossible. It's a non-starter. Especially with someone like Freddie Mercury, who was so exceptional in so many of his circumstances. I think that's basically what most other people posting here are saying, in various ways. Because it's the only conclusion you can come to when you're faced with the dilemma you outline in your original post.

I don't see the circumstances being all that different. Plenty of people dealt with the same circumstances as Freddie did and didn't make such poor choices. I find the American has become the country of "its not my fault". No one wants to take responsiblity for themselves or their actions. True, he wrote amazing music, I am just not going to make excuses for his poor behavior like so many will do.

You seem to be confusing making excuses with not being a judgmental holier-than-thou cunt.

Kahle33 wrote:

Day dop wrote: But you can make a judgement call based on your faulty reasoning, right? Even though I've re-written it for you, you're still claiming "Freddie was aware of his HIV in 1984 or at least knew he was sick and that it could be spread." And that's you going on Barbara's words in the book.... Barbara said "When we first met, he was either denying it to himself, or he simply didn't know," Can you see the part that says "simply didn't know"? But you'll just go with your non-existent "pretty good evidence" that Freddie was sleeping around when he knew he had HIV instead, right? Then you go on "I think some people here aren't looking at Freddie in an objective light." That's coming from the person who said " Drug addict, to me snorting coke is a drug problem." Very objective.

I don't see how my reasoning is faulty. Barabara said he may not have known as the start of reltionship, but he knew by the end. I am quite certain he hadn't tested positive (as you stated test weren't around then). But AIDS was a big thing. Freddie knew he slept all over and he knew about AIDS and according to Barbara he had symptoms by 1984/1985. Yet he he still slept around on the 1985 tour. But you know what, lets give him the benefit of the doubt and say she got the dates wrong, or she isn't credible. For the sake of argument that is fine. I still don't think Freddie was a good person. He was reckless, arrogant, cheated, did drugs, could be rude, angry outbursts. Can't really make excuses for that. He was a flawed individual who wrote great music.

KumoNin wrote: Are you a troll, Kahle33?

Day dop wrote:

Kahle33 wrote:

Day dop wrote: But you can make a judgement call based on your faulty reasoning, right? Even though I've re-written it for you, you're still claiming "Freddie was aware of his HIV in 1984 or at least knew he was sick and that it could be spread." And that's you going on Barbara's words in the book.... Barbara said "When we first met, he was either denying it to himself, or he simply didn't know," Can you see the part that says "simply didn't know"? But you'll just go with your non-existent "pretty good evidence" that Freddie was sleeping around when he knew he had HIV instead, right? Then you go on "I think some people here aren't looking at Freddie in an objective light." That's coming from the person who said " Drug addict, to me snorting coke is a drug problem." Very objective.

I don't see how my reasoning is faulty. Barabara said he may not have known as the start of reltionship, but he knew by the end. I am quite certain he hadn't tested positive (as you stated test weren't around then). But AIDS was a big thing. Freddie knew he slept all over and he knew about AIDS and according to Barbara he had symptoms by 1984/1985. Yet he he still slept around on the 1985 tour. But you know what, lets give him the benefit of the doubt and say she got the dates wrong, or she isn't credible. For the sake of argument that is fine. I still don't think Freddie was a good person. He was reckless, arrogant, cheated, did drugs, could be rude, angry outbursts. Can't really make excuses for that. He was a flawed individual who wrote great music.

Where did Barbra say he had the symptoms in 84? And you're aware that there was 12 months in 1985, right? Everything didn't just happen in one week.

Kahle33 wrote:

Day dop wrote:

Kahle33 wrote:

Zamidoo wrote: Oh, please don't bring up the 'mineshaft' t-shirt. Of course he was a clubber. How he picked up anyone with the haircut he had in that video is another matter, but no-one is disputing that. Correct me if I am wrong, but what you're you're basically saying is, if you (as you) behaved now as you believe Freddie Mercury did 30-35 years ago, you wouldn't be a good person. I get that. I don't judge Freddie Mercury by myself and what would constitute being a 'good' person for me because our lives and circumstances are way, way too different. It's impossible. It's a non-starter. Especially with someone like Freddie Mercury, who was so exceptional in so many of his circumstances. I think that's basically what most other people posting here are saying, in various ways. Because it's the only conclusion you can come to when you're faced with the dilemma you outline in your original post.

I don't see the circumstances being all that different. Plenty of people dealt with the same circumstances as Freddie did and didn't make such poor choices. I find the American has become the country of "its not my fault". No one wants to take responsiblity for themselves or their actions. True, he wrote amazing music, I am just not going to make excuses for his poor behavior like so many will do.

You seem to be confusing making excuses with not being a judgmental holier-than-thou cunt.

Now the personal attacks.... Sorry once that starts you've lost the argument. I know that no matter what I say people will make excuses for bad behavior for the sake of celebrity worship. Its Americans theme. Have fun.

Day dop wrote:

Kahle33 wrote:

Day dop wrote:

Kahle33 wrote:

Zamidoo wrote: Oh, please don't bring up the 'mineshaft' t-shirt. Of course he was a clubber. How he picked up anyone with the haircut he had in that video is another matter, but no-one is disputing that. Correct me if I am wrong, but what you're you're basically saying is, if you (as you) behaved now as you believe Freddie Mercury did 30-35 years ago, you wouldn't be a good person. I get that. I don't judge Freddie Mercury by myself and what would constitute being a 'good' person for me because our lives and circumstances are way, way too different. It's impossible. It's a non-starter. Especially with someone like Freddie Mercury, who was so exceptional in so many of his circumstances. I think that's basically what most other people posting here are saying, in various ways. Because it's the only conclusion you can come to when you're faced with the dilemma you outline in your original post.

I don't see the circumstances being all that different. Plenty of people dealt with the same circumstances as Freddie did and didn't make such poor choices. I find the American has become the country of "its not my fault". No one wants to take responsiblity for themselves or their actions. True, he wrote amazing music, I am just not going to make excuses for his poor behavior like so many will do.

You seem to be confusing making excuses with not being a judgmental holier-than-thou cunt.

Now the personal attacks.... Sorry once that starts you've lost the argument. I know that no matter what I say people will make excuses for bad behavior for the sake of celebrity worship. Its Americans theme. Have fun.

Why am I suspecting you're Russian again, troll?

Kahle33 wrote:

Day dop wrote:

Kahle33 wrote:

Day dop wrote:

Kahle33 wrote:

Zamidoo wrote: Oh, please don't bring up the 'mineshaft' t-shirt. Of course he was a clubber. How he picked up anyone with the haircut he had in that video is another matter, but no-one is disputing that. Correct me if I am wrong, but what you're you're basically saying is, if you (as you) behaved now as you believe Freddie Mercury did 30-35 years ago, you wouldn't be a good person. I get that. I don't judge Freddie Mercury by myself and what would constitute being a 'good' person for me because our lives and circumstances are way, way too different. It's impossible. It's a non-starter. Especially with someone like Freddie Mercury, who was so exceptional in so many of his circumstances. I think that's basically what most other people posting here are saying, in various ways. Because it's the only conclusion you can come to when you're faced with the dilemma you outline in your original post.

I don't see the circumstances being all that different. Plenty of people dealt with the same circumstances as Freddie did and didn't make such poor choices. I find the American has become the country of "its not my fault". No one wants to take responsiblity for themselves or their actions. True, he wrote amazing music, I am just not going to make excuses for his poor behavior like so many will do.

You seem to be confusing making excuses with not being a judgmental holier-than-thou cunt.

Now the personal attacks.... Sorry once that starts you've lost the argument. I know that no matter what I say people will make excuses for bad behavior for the sake of celebrity worship. Its Americans theme. Have fun.

Why am I suspecting you're Russian again, troll?

I have no idea. Born and Raised in America. Right in Good Old Philadelphia. Can't get much more American than Philly. Can you?

Zebonka12 wrote: "This sounds an awful lot like you are just trying to remain blindly loyal to Freddie on a personal level" What part of 'it doesn't matter' or 'it's not your business' are you incapable of processing? He is dead, and has been since 1991. Everyone he ever fucked is dead, AIDSy, or has a clean bill of health. He is officially incapable of spreading a single speck of HIV to anyone ever again, unless maybe Mary Austin sneezes too closely to his urn. The question of whether or not his music rocks is completely separate. You're simply not mentally equipped to look at one without the other; that's fine. It's not me giving tacit approval to his conduct. What I am saying to you is that it does not matter and that your judgement has no currency. I can keep repeating that, you can keep ignoring me - that's fine. It just makes you cunty, is all I'm saying.

Kahle33 wrote: I am 32 y/o same age as Freddie was in 1979. I am actually bisexual but am in a relationship with a woman.

Kahle33 wrote: Now you are the one trolling....lol

Zebonka12 wrote: "I think historians in general would be out of work if we took that idea" I think comparing this thread to what historians do is a bit of a leap.

Day dop wrote: "there is pretty good evidence he was sleeping around when he knew he had HIV" Like most people, from all that we're able to know, I've come to the conclusion that Freddie would've suspected this to have been the case at the latter part of '85, or any time after. Baring that in mind, aside from Jim who he'd already slept with, who are these people that he slept with after the fall of '85? Where's the "pretty good evidence"? Even if you had a list of people, which you haven't, are you suggesting that people who suspect they have HIV don't use condoms? Where's this photograph you have of Freddie having sex with a complete stranger on the Magic tour? Oh right, you have nothing. Zilch.

Zebonka12 wrote: "This sounds an awful lot like you are just trying to remain blindly loyal to Freddie on a personal level" What part of 'it doesn't matter' or 'it's not your business' are you incapable of processing? He is dead, and has been since 1991. Everyone he ever fucked is dead, AIDSy, or has a clean bill of health. He is officially incapable of spreading a single speck of HIV to anyone ever again, unless maybe Mary Austin sneezes too closely to his urn. The question of whether or not his music rocks is completely separate. You're simply not mentally equipped to look at one without the other; that's fine. It's not me giving tacit approval to his conduct. What I am saying to you is that it does not matter and that your judgement has no currency. I can keep repeating that, you can keep ignoring me - that's fine. It just makes you cunty, is all I'm saying.

Kahle33 wrote:

Day dop wrote: "there is pretty good evidence he was sleeping around when he knew he had HIV" Like most people, from all that we're able to know, I've come to the conclusion that Freddie would've suspected this to have been the case at the latter part of '85, or any time after. Baring that in mind, aside from Jim who he'd already slept with, who are these people that he slept with after the fall of '85? Where's the "pretty good evidence"? Even if you had a list of people, which you haven't, are you suggesting that people who suspect they have HIV don't use condoms? Where's this photograph you have of Freddie having sex with a complete stranger on the Magic tour? Oh right, you have nothing. Zilch.

But your conclusion that it was late 85 could be wrong. Barbara's info indicates it was earlier. Mary also said it was earlier. I'll have to find the interview where they said Freddie had all kinds of guys in his room during the 85 tour. So I am expected to take what you say as gospel without any proof but I need photos to get my opinion across??? Again, no one knows, not you or I. But there is certainly a fair possibility that Freddie slept around knowing he was infected. We don't know either way.

Kahle33 wrote: Yes, Freddie did pay for it with his life and he didn't deserve that nor do I think he intentionally wanted to infect people. But it clear that he thought with the wrong head. Acted on impulse, was very reckless.

Day dop wrote: "Barbara's info indicates it was earlier" We've already addressed that. She put foward two possibilities regarding when they first met. One of those was that he was in denial, and the other was that he simply didn't know. That's speculation. But what you've somehow taken from it, is that "he knew". Nowhere did she say that he knew in 1984. Nowhere did it say the cut finger incident was in 1984. And it certainly didn't happen during the works tour in 1985 either. "I'll have to find the interview where they said Freddie had all kinds of guys in his room during the 85 tour." What fucking difference would that make? The Works tour Start date 24 August 1984 End date 15 May 1985 Do you notice the dates? So that brings us to Mary Austin. Where did she say that? Here? link Notice what's been written at the top about David Wigg regarding dates - "I think this interview is worth it, although there are a lot of discrepancies, especially concerning the dates. Certainly David Wigg isn't a Queen expert and he must have confused some facts and events, well-known for everyone who is acquainted at least with Queen discography." The article itself, written by him says "Freddie lived with the knowledge that he was HIV-positive for seven years. He was 45 when he died from Aids-induced bronchial pneumonia." But nowhere does it say that Mary said it, those words aren't a quote of hers. Those are David's Wigg's words, and If you do wish to take what David Wigg says as gospel, then Freddie watched DVD footage of his past performances... even though you couldn't get DVD's back then. But take what David Wigg says for gospel when it comes to dates by all means. You'll find that here. link "So I am expected to take what you say as gospel without any proof but I need photos to get my opinion across???" Did I say anywhere that you can't double check what I say? You said "pretty good evidence", now you've changed it to "a fair possibility" I'm waiting on the "pretty good evidence."

Kahle33 wrote: I don't think he meant to infect anyone but given his reckless nature I am sure he couldn't control himself.

Kahle33 wrote:

Day dop wrote: "Barbara's info indicates it was earlier" We've already addressed that. She put foward two possibilities regarding when they first met. One of those was that he was in denial, and the other was that he simply didn't know. That's speculation. But what you've somehow taken from it, is that "he knew". Nowhere did she say that he knew in 1984. Nowhere did it say the cut finger incident was in 1984. And it certainly didn't happen during the works tour in 1985 either. "I'll have to find the interview where they said Freddie had all kinds of guys in his room during the 85 tour." What fucking difference would that make? The Works tour Start date 24 August 1984 End date 15 May 1985 Do you notice the dates? So that brings us to Mary Austin. Where did she say that? Here? link Notice what's been written at the top about David Wigg regarding dates - "I think this interview is worth it, although there are a lot of discrepancies, especially concerning the dates. Certainly David Wigg isn't a Queen expert and he must have confused some facts and events, well-known for everyone who is acquainted at least with Queen discography." The article itself, written by him says "Freddie lived with the knowledge that he was HIV-positive for seven years. He was 45 when he died from Aids-induced bronchial pneumonia." But nowhere does it say that Mary said it, those words aren't a quote of hers. Those are David's Wigg's words, and If you do wish to take what David Wigg says as gospel, then Freddie watched DVD footage of his past performances... even though you couldn't get DVD's back then. But take what David Wigg says for gospel when it comes to dates by all means. You'll find that here. link "So I am expected to take what you say as gospel without any proof but I need photos to get my opinion across???" Did I say anywhere that you can't double check what I say? You said "pretty good evidence", now you've changed it to "a fair possibility" I'm waiting on the "pretty good evidence."

okay, the problem with your barbara argument is WHEN THEY FIRST MET. When was that 84? Then she said gradually over time it become obvious. When did they break up? 85.? So we are talking 84/85. Same time as the works tour. Face it, you have just as little as I have in the way of evidence. Honestly do you think a guy like Freddie with a huge sex drive and thousands of partners can just dial it down to one partner at the first sign he MIGHT have HIV? Yeah, that is highly unlikely. I don't think he meant to infect anyone but given his reckless nature I am sure he couldn't control himself.

Kahle33 wrote: In Barbara's interview she made it sound like the HIV symptoms were gradual. Over a period of months clearly. You are definitely twisting these things to your benefit. What does his huge sex drive and his thousnads of partners have to do with anything? It identifies a behavior pattern. A pattern that supports my views. The truth is (and I said this before) you have no clue when Freddie knew what he knew. NONE. But neither do I. All we both have is speculation. And based on what little we have. It could go either way. Your "proof" is no better than mine.

Day dop wrote: So what this all boils down to, is you made a claim that there's pretty good evidence, but you have none that holds up under scrutiny whatsoever, and you have no clue when Freddie knew. Brilliant.

Kahle33 wrote: The main thrust of this post was to talk about Freddie on a personal scale. I wasn't trying to get bogged down in the AIDS discussion. I even was willing to move past that aspect and admit that I have no clue. As I have said now for quite sometime. No one knows. Its all speculation.

Holly2003 wrote: The HIV-Aids junkies are back on Queenzone again, I see ...

Zamidoo wrote: To be fair, I don't think it was obvious that the OP was a troll (or just a person with bizarre reasoning who likes to argue) until the end of page 2, and up to that point the discussion was about several other things as well. What concerns me is that what you've said above may prove the point in the original post about drug addiction, and more seriously the point about the hamburger later in this topic thread, using the same reasoning...