| goose44 01.02.2015 23:31 |
They lived together on the early years and roger, especially in the early days was feminine and looked like fruit like mr mercury. Roger. Has been accused of,going both ways as well |
| matt z 02.02.2015 00:03 |
Good question. Don't know. Seems reasonable (the question) |
| tomchristie22 02.02.2015 03:35 |
Who suggested Roger was bisexual and when? 'Looked like a fruit like Mr. Mercury' ... 'Has been accused of going both ways'. Both of these are pretty unashamedly anti-gay - the definition of accuse is to claim wrongdoing by somebody. Do you see homosexuality as wrong? |
| tomchristie22 02.02.2015 03:35 |
Also, everybody had long hair at the time. It was the norm in the 1970s. Every member of Queen looked like 'a fruit' by your definition, as did virtually every other popular musician. |
| pittrek 02.02.2015 04:45 |
How low will this forum get? |
| Stelios 02.02.2015 04:58 |
There was this stupid old rumour, i dont know if anyone remembers, that Roger gave a blow job to Freddie. |
| Cruella de Vil 02.02.2015 05:12 |
Dear Goose44, along with you earlier post about who will die next, at least you demonstrate a degree of consistency in the stupidity of what you purport to be conversations of "depth" (sic). Please reconsider you motives and perhaps we may see something of worth in your musings. Until then, I for one will not mourn your absence for a good while. |
| somebody_to_love 02.02.2015 05:52 |
Get a life instead of thinking up ridiculous posts. If you were a decent fan you would only be concerned about the music. How many gay lovers have you had then? |
| Costa86 02.02.2015 05:58 |
This is a new one. I've never heard this before. You couldn't make this crap up. |
| Costa86 02.02.2015 06:02 |
goose44: >says forum has become "dull and stupid" (see post dated 29 Jan 15) >goes on to post the stupidest stuff this forum has seen since Mahler Mahlers Mahler Mahler's incoherent nonsense |
| Voice of Reason 2018 02.02.2015 06:10 |
They were indeed! Lovers of life! |
| Heavenite 02.02.2015 06:52 |
I really doubt it! But I honestly don't care. |
| BETA215 02.02.2015 06:58 |
Costa86 wrote: goose44: >says forum has become "dull and stupid" (see post dated 29 Jan 15) >goes on to post the stupidest stuff this forum has seen since Mahler Mahlers Mahler Mahler's incoherent nonsense It's A Kind Of Jeffa. |
| Hoopsie 02.02.2015 06:58 |
tomchristie22 wrote: 'Looked like a fruit like Mr. Mercury' ... 'Has been accused of going both ways'. Both of these are pretty unashamedly anti-gay - the definition of accuse is to claim wrongdoing by somebody. Do you see homosexuality as wrong?^^This. |
| stevelondon20 02.02.2015 07:46 |
For fucks sake mate. You post so much shit it's unreal. |
| The King Of Rhye 02.02.2015 10:29 |
He said he was going to 'bring new depth' to queenzone.........I think he meant he was going to bring us TO new depths......... |
| The Real Wizard 02.02.2015 13:06 |
The King Of Rhye wrote: He said he was going to 'bring new depth' to queenzone.........I think he meant he was going to bring us TO new depths.........Ding. |
| The Real Wizard 02.02.2015 13:07 |
Stelios wrote: There was this stupid old rumour, i dont know if anyone remembers, that Roger gave a blow job to Freddie.I've never heard it. But thanks for perpetuating it. Bravo to everyone here who has any sense of historical perspective. It was the early 70s, and it was hip to have the androgynous look. It's why Bowie could look like he did and be successful, and why Mercury could be gay and do what he did and be successful without anyone really wondering (or caring) if he was gay. It was only until the early 80s when he developed the Village People look that people started to clue in and react. |
| brENsKi 02.02.2015 13:16 |
i'm trying to understand (but failing) what this has to do with anything? who cares? and why would anyone care? it's irrelevant to anything to do with the band...it didn't change the dynamic in any way, i can't see any direct influences in any of Roger's song writing. why does this even belong in a forum about music? and how does this one poster get away with flagrant use of overtly negative homosexual references? |
| The Real Wizard 02.02.2015 15:11 |
Some people are Neanderthals... For most people this is just a stepping stone in their growth, but for others it's the final step. |
| Costa86 02.02.2015 15:23 |
brENsKi wrote: i'm trying to understand (but failing) what this has to do with anything? who cares? and why would anyone care? it's irrelevant to anything to do with the band...it didn't change the dynamic in any way, i can't see any direct influences in any of Roger's song writing. why does this even belong in a forum about music? and how does this one poster get away with flagrant use of overtly negative homosexual references?It's quite evident, not that we should care or that it should matter, that goose44 is either (a) a repressed homosexual, or (b) an immature teenager, or (c) a hick-type character who still thinks it's funny to laugh at gays. |
| RafaelS 02.02.2015 18:11 |
When you think you hit a new low with the colonoscopy thread, you have something like this coming out of the blue... |
| matt z 02.02.2015 19:01 |
RafaelS wrote: When you think you hit a new low with the colonoscopy thread, you have something like this coming out of the blue...Haha. I'm sure there will be a newer low eventually. It happens. |
| ANAGRAMER 03.02.2015 01:38 |
goose44 wrote: They lived together on the early years and roger, especially in the early days was feminine and looked like fruit like mr mercury. Roger. Has been accused of,going both ways as wellBizarre.... |
| QUEENBRIANMAY 03.02.2015 07:30 |
WHAT STUPID QUESTION, GOOSE 44 IS GAY OR A DICKHEAD FOR SURE |
| Rokku 03.02.2015 09:04 |
With M.Bison intonation from crappy SF movie : "OF COURSE!!!" |
| goose44 03.02.2015 09:07 |
all the hate for no reason at all. just asked a question as there was a rumor about it years ago. thanks for the responses. my posts are dedicated to all the beautiful people in this forum, which is all of you. Thanks for coming along and making this a joyous occassion. |
| thomasquinn 32989 03.02.2015 12:18 |
Costa86 wrote:brENsKi wrote: i'm trying to understand (but failing) what this has to do with anything? who cares? and why would anyone care? it's irrelevant to anything to do with the band...it didn't change the dynamic in any way, i can't see any direct influences in any of Roger's song writing. why does this even belong in a forum about music? and how does this one poster get away with flagrant use of overtly negative homosexual references?It's quite evident, not that we should care or that it should matter, that goose44 is either (a) a repressed homosexual, or (b) an immature teenager, or (c) a hick-type character who still thinks it's funny to laugh at gays. Or D, a wind-up merchant who likes to deliberately provoke outrage and spoil the atmosphere. Or, and I mean that quite seriously, all of the above. And there is always the possibility that this individual has heard something about a Roger Taylor sex tape and has decided to fill in the remaining details regarding said tape according to personal taste and preferences. |
| tero! 48531 03.02.2015 13:46 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Or D, a wind-up merchant who likes to deliberately provoke outrage and spoil the atmosphere.Is it actually spoiling the atmosphere if people are happy to jump in? It would be easy to ignore the topic altogether, or steer the discussion on to a completely different matter, but it's obviously more entertaining to get involved. |
| Saint Jiub 03.02.2015 18:18 |
Ignore a topic on QZ? No way!! LOL |
| tomchristie22 03.02.2015 19:27 |
tero! 48531 wrote:] It would be easy to ignore the topic altogether, or steer the discussion on to a completely different matter, but it's obviously more entertaining to get involved.Then that would leave the thread online, promoting misinformation, without clear discrediting of that information on the same page. It'd be buried on the forum sure, but it'd still come up in online search results (and new users on here do like to unearth old topics, as is evidenced every time someone with three posts resurrects something from 2006). |
| The Real Wizard 03.02.2015 19:30 |
tomchristie22 wrote:The logic. It burns.tero! 48531 wrote:] It would be easy to ignore the topic altogether, or steer the discussion on to a completely different matter, but it's obviously more entertaining to get involved.Then that would leave the thread online, promoting misinformation, without clear discrediting of that information on the same page. It'd be buried on the forum sure, but it'd still come up in online search results (and new users on here do like to unearth old topics, as is evidenced every time someone with three posts resurrects something from 2006). |
| tero! 48531 03.02.2015 23:19 |
tomchristie22 wrote:If somebody searches for factual information about Roger Taylor, the first thing he's going to trust isn't an unanswered question whether Roger and Freddie were lovers.tero! 48531 wrote:] It would be easy to ignore the topic altogether, or steer the discussion on to a completely different matter, but it's obviously more entertaining to get involved.Then that would leave the thread online, promoting misinformation, without clear discrediting of that information on the same page. It'd be buried on the forum sure, but it'd still come up in online search results (and new users on here do like to unearth old topics, as is evidenced every time someone with three posts resurrects something from 2006). And if somebody's stupid enough to ask the same question again in the same topic ten years later, it isn't going to magically turn into more credible evidence. You're actually making the topic more visible for the online searches. Whereas a single question might not even be registered, a discussion with 30 replies would be presented when somebody searches for "Roger's lover" to see his latest girlfriend. |
| thomasquinn 32989 04.02.2015 06:56 |
tero! 48531 wrote:tomchristie22 wrote:If somebody searches for factual information about Roger Taylor, the first thing he's going to trust isn't an unanswered question whether Roger and Freddie were lovers.tero! 48531 wrote:] It would be easy to ignore the topic altogether, or steer the discussion on to a completely different matter, but it's obviously more entertaining to get involved.Then that would leave the thread online, promoting misinformation, without clear discrediting of that information on the same page. It'd be buried on the forum sure, but it'd still come up in online search results (and new users on here do like to unearth old topics, as is evidenced every time someone with three posts resurrects something from 2006). You'd expect that, but sadly, no, that's not how it works. I deal with the question of verifying/falsifying information professionally, and even trained professionals (myself included) have trouble distinguishing reliable and unreliable sources, an even bigger hurdle for people who casually look for information. Generally, people will believe what they want to believe and rationalize the quality of sources they come across accordingly. All it often takes for "hearsay" to become "fact" is one carefully formulated reference to a source who would seem credible (authority fallacy) - even if the source doesn't (fully) corroborate the claims - because hardly anyone *ever* checks sources, much less check them meticulously. |
| tomchristie22 04.02.2015 07:25 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Generally, people will believe what they want to believe and rationalize the quality of sources they come across accordingly.Well said and very thought provoking - I've definitely caught myself doing this in my own research. |
| The Real Wizard 04.02.2015 10:22 |
^ yup. Confirmation bias. Either you adjust your beliefs to match new information, or you adjust new information to match your beliefs. Or - just don't have beliefs at all and make the need for evidence your only crutch. But the problem is, more people have a need for belief than a need for evidence. I'd like to think our species is slowly getting better at this. |
| Grahame 04.02.2015 12:37 |
Fuck sake, what a bloody pathetic post... |
| tero! 48531 04.02.2015 13:08 |
tomchristie22 wrote:There's no nice way to say it, but If you take QUESTIONS as your source material, you have no business doing research in the first place.thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Generally, people will believe what they want to believe and rationalize the quality of sources they come across accordingly.Well said and very thought provoking - I've definitely caught myself doing this in my own research. Anybody able to read should also understand the purpose of the ? symbol. I would understand your concern if this was an indirect question, but there's really no way to make an error here. |
| Saint Jiub 04.02.2015 18:32 |
"They lived together on the early years and roger, especially in the early days was feminine and looked like fruit like mr mercury. Roger. Has been accused of,going both ways as well" ... Does the above opening "statement" in this topic even remotely look like "Fact"? It merits no attention whatsoever. Being well into the second page of this topic might grant this "fact" some legitimacy however. |
| tomchristie22 04.02.2015 19:02 |
tero! 48531 wrote: There's no nice way to say it, but If you take QUESTIONS as your source material, you have no business doing research in the first place. Anybody able to read should also understand the purpose of the ? symbol. I would understand your concern if this was an indirect question, but there's really no way to make an error here.The original poster doesn't just pose a question though, he backs it up with nonsense 'evidence' and allegedly someone having claimed that Roger's bisexual. It's true though, no sensible and judicious person would take it seriously. |
| BETA215 04.02.2015 20:08 |
We only need a post called: "In the relationship Roger had with Freddie, who was top?". That would be the straw that breaks the camel. |
| Gregsynth 04.02.2015 20:34 |
This thread makes me horny. |
| tero! 48531 04.02.2015 23:10 |
BETA215 wrote: We only need a post called: "In the relationship Roger had with Freddie, who was top?". That would be the straw that breaks the camel.Are we discussing THAT topic, or is this something else? Did I misread the name of the topic on the top of the page? |
| matt z 07.02.2015 05:50 |
Let me confirm this rumor for you all. IT IS TRUE. ..... ... They are/were both lovers of life and singers of song. End of story . |