| matt z 26.07.2019 16:19 |
Since the ADVANCED EDITOR does not work: Here to mark the occasion of Rogerick's 70th Birthday! link link I know it's not healthy to supremely extol or praise the virtues of someone you don't know personally. But(!) as a fan, and once (possibly returning) musician... it's significant to honor the guys who you either looked up to, or who inspire you. What will YOU do for Roger Taylor's Birthday? Toast? Instagram post? Write a poem? Get Roger's face tattooed somewhere? Be Nicer to Senior Citizens today? ..... Just asking. Personally, I'm just anxious for John Deacon's birthday. ;-) |
| bucsateflon 26.07.2019 17:57 |
He is the perfect example for the "luckiest people in the history of human kind" |
| stevelondon20 26.07.2019 18:29 |
I'll listen to Electric Fire matt. A classic!! |
| OhioMustapha 26.07.2019 18:41 |
bucsateflon and ringo starr. |
| mooghead 26.07.2019 19:39 |
bucsateflon wrote: He is the perfect example for the "luckiest people in the history of human kind"What a cunt thing to say. Well done xx |
| Stick 26.07.2019 21:01 |
Why? It's obvious he's right. Whatever Rogers success in life and how hard he has worked for it, in the end luck is the key thing. There are lots and lots of people who have abilities, work hard etc but just have bad luck in life. Life makes you, you can't make life. There are just too many factors that make up our life and universe to try to control. Luck is always the biggest aspect of what you can get out of life. Please disprove Mooghead if I'm somehow wrong in this. Also, even if bucsateflon were wrong, why not ask him what he meant by it (thereby keeping the possibility of prejudice motivating your opinion open) or just tell him you think he is wrong. By just saying he is a cunt, doesnt that actually make you the cunt for that response? Just trying to provide a mirror for you. Or maybe I'm just another cunt. |
| NastyQueenie74 27.07.2019 02:54 |
I put The Lot on in Spotify. Also went through the Taylor-penned tracks I know on bass |
| bucsateflon 27.07.2019 06:28 |
bucsateflon wrote: He is the perfect example for the "luckiest people in the history of human kind"most of you miss the relevance of "in the history of human kind". It has nothing to do with his skills or hes work, but more to do with the perfect time and the place he was born, hes upbringing, the choice he made for hes life, the adulation and nonthreatening fame he has, the experiences of entertaining millions and be entertained by millions$, the fact he reached 70 going strong for 80 in the same manner he knows... And yes Ringo Starr is another perfect example, were not even kings and Queens thru ages never had it this good. |
| stevelondon20 27.07.2019 07:02 |
Couldn't agree more with Mooghead! |
| matt z 27.07.2019 16:35 |
Whereas I would've said fortunate, you make a better case for it being luck. (With some perseverance and skill of course) How fortunate for those guys to have met Freddie. Very well put, buscateflon So much for phrases never said on a Queenzone forum! |
| philip storey 27.07.2019 18:07 |
Some guys have all the luck ,does the same apply to John Deacon ,who played Bass . Roger played Drums ,Bass,Guitar.Vocals,Synth,4 solo albums plus work with ,The Cross. |
| Stick 27.07.2019 22:25 |
bucsateflon wrote: most of you miss the relevance of "in the history of human kind". It has nothing to do with his skills or hes work, but more to do with the perfect time and the place he was born, hes upbringing, the choice he made for hes life, the adulation and nonthreatening fame he has, the experiences of entertaining millions and be entertained by millions$, the fact he reached 70 going strong for 80 in the same manner he knows... And yes Ringo Starr is another perfect example, were not even kings and Queens thru ages never had it this good.Exactly. And tons of other factors that influenced why and how he came to have the life he has led up to this point. I would gladly trade my life with that of Roger, |
| stevelondon20 28.07.2019 10:20 |
I think most people would mate! |
| cmsdrums 30.07.2019 09:58 |
"One of the luckiest people in the history of human kind" ....really? Whilst luck plays a part in everyone's life, does his talent, determination, intelligence, hard work etc.. not count for anything? Ultimately 'lucky' is all relative anyway....likely ALL of us here are in that category of where and when we're born...We've all seemingly got: internet access, ability to listen to Queen's music when we like, enough income to buy tickets to see them live, enough food and drink to survive, a roof over our heads....etc..etc... Compare that to homeless, starving, persecuted people the world over. Roger has had two failed marriages, the death of his best friend at a young age which also effectively brought his employment to an end at that point too, solo work output that has not had the critical or commercial success he would likely want.....how does any of that make him one of the 'luckiest people in all of human kind'? As I say, everything is relative, and to come out with that statement on a post celebrating his birthday is just pointless. |
| bucsateflon 30.07.2019 12:31 |
cmsdrums wrote: "One of the luckiest people in the history of human kind" ....really? Whilst luck plays a part in everyone's life, does his talent, determination, intelligence, hard work etc.. not count for anything?no, if you were born in 1845 in Russia, for example |
| thomasquinn 32989 30.07.2019 12:39 |
bucsateflon wrote:Like Rimsky-Korsakov? Or Tchaikovsky?cmsdrums wrote: "One of the luckiest people in the history of human kind" ....really? Whilst luck plays a part in everyone's life, does his talent, determination, intelligence, hard work etc.. not count for anything?no, if you were born in 1845 in Russia, for example |
| bucsateflon 30.07.2019 13:11 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Like Rimsky-Korsakov? Or Tchaikovsky?First of all, one major element, the "time" aspect. To qualify for the "luckiest people in the history of human kind" you have to be born at the end of WW2 or very close to it... not gonna go into details why is that. now lets see your stupid example Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky born in 1840 died at 53 years old of "cholera from drinking unsoiled water at a local restaurant". does he fit on the list for "luckiest people in the history of human kind"? |
| cmsdrums 30.07.2019 13:28 |
bucsateflon wrote:Which is the exact point I made in my post by saying all of us here are lucky by virtue of "WHERE and WHEN we're born..."cmsdrums wrote: "One of the luckiest people in the history of human kind" ....really? Whilst luck plays a part in everyone's life, does his talent, determination, intelligence, hard work etc.. not count for anything?no, if you were born in 1845 in Russia, for example |
| thomasquinn 32989 30.07.2019 14:28 |
bucsateflon wrote:Riiiight, so you arbitrarily come up with some standards and move the goalposts whenever the results don't suit your preconceptions, got it.thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Like Rimsky-Korsakov? Or Tchaikovsky?First of all, one major element, the "time" aspect. To qualify for the "luckiest people in the history of human kind" you have to be born at the end of WW2 or very close to it... not gonna go into details why is that. now lets see your stupid example Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky born in 1840 died at 53 years old of "cholera from drinking unsoiled water at a local restaurant". does he fit on the list for "luckiest people in the history of human kind"? So, born at the end of WWII it is. Never mind the inflated living standards of some privileged groups throughout history, they don't qualify. Why? Because bucsateflon says so. Move over, social history. The alt right oracle's fantasies are way better than real historiography. |
| Stick 30.07.2019 16:07 |
Happiness is relative, luck isnt. Everything good in life is because of luck. All the good things you can bring to life to further your goals is because of luck. You did not create yourself and everything you become after you are born is based on how lucky you were at birth. Time, place, abilities, type of upbringing, emotional and physical development. Everything is luck. Also, humans like us have been around for at least 200.000 years. Billions of humans have walked this earth already your own luck is just how you yourself interpret it. Some correlate it to happiness, some correlate it to processes they don't understand. But if you see good as luck, which it is seeing how the factors involved in life are infinite, than everything is all about luck. |
| bucsateflon 30.07.2019 17:36 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Riiiight, so you arbitrarily come up with some standards and move the goalposts whenever the results don't suit your preconceptions, got it. So, born at the end of WWII it is. Never mind the inflated living standards of some privileged groups throughout history, they don't qualify. Why? Because bucsateflon says so. Move over, social history. The alt right oracle's fantasies are way better than real historiography.I really, really believe your brain does not function right. you are as they say.... mentally handicapped ! |
| The Real Wizard 30.07.2019 18:21 |
bucsateflon wrote:Resorting to insults after you've had your ass handed to you. I'd expect no different. Thomasquinn is one of the most intelligent people you will ever speak with in your life. If only you didn't suffer from Dunning Kruger effect, you'd understand the point he made.thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Riiiight, so you arbitrarily come up with some standards and move the goalposts whenever the results don't suit your preconceptions, got it. So, born at the end of WWII it is. Never mind the inflated living standards of some privileged groups throughout history, they don't qualify. Why? Because bucsateflon says so. Move over, social history. The alt right oracle's fantasies are way better than real historiography.I really, really believe your brain does not function right. you are as they say.... mentally handicapped ! bucsateflon wrote: First of all, one major element, the "time" aspect. To qualify for the "luckiest people in the history of human kind" you have to be born at the end of WW2 or very close to it... not gonna go into details why is that.Plenty have argued that there are many points in human history that were the best times to be alive - the beginning of the industrial revolution, the Renaissance, the formation of Agrarian societies, etc. You clearly haven't thought this through. Or you're just not as smart as you think you are. |
| The Real Wizard 30.07.2019 18:25 |
Stick wrote: Happiness is relative, luck isnt. Everything good in life is because of luck. All the good things you can bring to life to further your goals is because of luck. You did not create yourself and everything you become after you are born is based on how lucky you were at birth. Time, place, abilities, type of upbringing, emotional and physical development. Everything is luck. Also, humans like us have been around for at least 200.000 years. Billions of humans have walked this earth already your own luck is just how you yourself interpret it. Some correlate it to happiness, some correlate it to processes they don't understand. But if you see good as luck, which it is seeing how the factors involved in life are infinite, than everything is all about luck.Nicely done. Indeed, the universe is random and unsympathetic. So much boils down to sheer luck. |
| Saint Jiub 30.07.2019 23:51 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Did link appear magically on the internet because of sheer luck?Stick wrote: Happiness is relative, luck isnt. Everything good in life is because of luck. All the good things you can bring to life to further your goals is because of luck. You did not create yourself and everything you become after you are born is based on how lucky you were at birth. Time, place, abilities, type of upbringing, emotional and physical development. Everything is luck. Also, humans like us have been around for at least 200.000 years. Billions of humans have walked this earth already your own luck is just how you yourself interpret it. Some correlate it to happiness, some correlate it to processes they don't understand. But if you see good as luck, which it is seeing how the factors involved in life are infinite, than everything is all about luck.Nicely done. Indeed, the universe is random and unsympathetic. So much boils down to sheer luck. Roger may have been lucky, but would Queen have existed or become successful without Roger's talents, efforts and valuable influence? |
| Stick 31.07.2019 00:06 |
You clearly dont understand what is meant here by luck. |
| bucsateflon 31.07.2019 06:16 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Plenty have argued that there are many points in human history that were the best times to be alive - the beginning of the industrial revolution, the Renaissance, the formation of Agrarian societies, etc. You clearly haven't thought this through. Or you're just not as smart as you think you are.If I say the earth is round, you go against and say the earth is flat. That shows how stupid you are making yourselves look like retards, you are succeeding in going full retard, no doubt... I am talking about "the top luckiest people in the history oh human kind" and your imbecilic counter response is "the formation of Agrarian societies" and that other moron says a man dead at 54 from cholera is a good example also. Are really that idiotic? I think you are. |
| The Real Wizard 31.07.2019 14:06 |
bucsateflon wrote: If I say the earth is round, you go against and say the earth is flat.That's rich, coming from someone who moved the goalposts earlier when proven wrong. bucsateflon wrote: I am talking about "the top luckiest people in the history oh human kind" and your imbecilic counter response is "the formation of Agrarian societies" and that other moron says a man dead at 54 from cholera is a good example also. Are really that idiotic? I think you are.Well, let's recap: You said to qualify to be in the "top luckiest people in the history of human kind, you have to be born at the end of WW2 or very close to it." I provided a rational counterargument to challenge your position that 20th century celebrities are at the top of the food chain, because basic understanding of epistemology and sociology says there are many ways to define "lucky" in historical context. Instead of thinking this through and providing a rational rebuttal, you called me "full retard." You certainly have the potential to be intelligent, but you seem to be more interested in calling people names than learning something. Good luck with that. |
| The Real Wizard 31.07.2019 14:19 |
Saint Jiub wrote: Did link appear magically on the internet because of sheer luck? Roger may have been lucky, but would Queen have existed or become successful without Roger's talents, efforts and valuable influence?Indeed not. But everything is ultimately a combination of things we can and cannot control. Queenlive.ca entailed a fuck ton of work on my part, but here is an incomplete list of things that had nothing to do with me: -the invention of recorded audio -the invention of radio -the existence of Queen and all of their influences -the invention of cameras -the existence of photographers -the invention of computers -the invention of the internet -being born in a country, a time in history, and into a decent enough family where I have the time and space to pursue such interests -my health Any one of these things doesn't happen, and there's no website. |
| bucsateflon 31.07.2019 15:17 |
The Real Wizard wrote: You certainly have the potential to be intelligent, but you seem to be more interested in calling people names than learning something. Good luck with that.you are starting to crack |