| Boy Thomas Raker 15.09.2006 09:35 |
New music blog site Idolator posted the following on Brian and his My space rant, funny about perceptions outside of the Queen world. May's rage seems a little over the top; after all, his imitators aren't particularly convincing (nobody would believe that this chucklehead is the guy who wrote "Dragon Attack"). But judging by his website's oft-updated "Soapbox" section, May has an opinion on just about everything, from amateur astronomy to fake Freddie Mercury autographs on eBay to saving the British hedgehogs; in other words, he seems like the typically nerdy MySpacer. And he could totally use it to get his band discovered! |
| deleted user 15.09.2006 12:04 |
It's the dork and dweebs that use MySpace, not the nerds. Or, this is the data I gathered from a large historical database and person-to-person interviews. Nerds aren't cool enough for MySpace (they are below dorks and dweebs on the social climber's ladder) so they have to make their own web-sites. |
| deleted user 15.09.2006 13:58 |
nerds aren't below dorks and dweebs, they're a different breed. dweebs and nerds often overlap, but there are more nerds than dweebs. both nerds and dweebs are subcategories of dorks, although there are dorks who are neither dweebs nor nerds, though not all of the time. everyone can be a dork on occasion, but not everyone possesses the talent for nerdiness and dweebdom. i would like to add that there is such a thing as "popular nerd/dweeb," who rests higher on the supposed social ladder than the rest of nerd-dweeb-dorks. |
| deleted user 15.09.2006 14:04 |
i sort of agree with whoever wrote the idolator thing, but it's also kind of silly to accuse someone of being over-opinionated on a BLOG...i mean, that's what they're for. being opinionated. and THIS person clearly is (as david bowie would say) "over-endowed with opinions," as s/he has an opinion on brian may's opinons. and i am even more guilty, because i have an opinion on his/her opinion on brian's opinions. ha. |
| deleted user 15.09.2006 14:12 |
i do think that brian is incredibly naive about biodiversity though. |
| Richard Orchard 15.09.2006 15:44 |
Brian, for a guy who is supposed to be clever, is pretty clueless about lots of things. I think he "shouts" before he properly thinks about things. Great, great musician / songwriter though. Which is why i kind of skip his rants. |
| deleted user 15.09.2006 15:49 |
amen. |
| rocks. 15.09.2006 16:45 |
Richard Orchard wrote: Great, great musician / songwriter though. Which is why i kind of skip his rants.:O Why! They're so entertaining!! He does have a point about the animals, but he's just SOOOOO opinionated! :P |
| Rikke 15.09.2006 16:56 |
How dare ANYONE to call Brian a chucklehead?! Now, he's a great debater, and every word is from his own mind. I absolutely love his soapbox, and read it as often af possible. Use it to get his band discovered? I just don't get that! He can't possibly get Queen more discovered - everyone knows the band, and I cannot believe that Brian would sink that deep. He wouldn't. I may have misunderstood something in the text, but english isn't my native language xD Nerdy MySpacer - tut! |
| rocks. 15.09.2006 16:59 |
Rikke wrote: |
| deleted user 15.09.2006 17:23 |
yes, and "chucklehead" was referring to the rogue myspacer, not brian. i wouldn't mind his rants so much if he wouldn't degenerate so quickly into outright hatred. these conservationists whom he despises have a legitimate point that he is missing in his outrage over their methods: though the invasive species themselves are not at fault, their presence DOES do a great harm to native species. countless species have gone extinct because of the careless introduction of non-native species...i particularly resented his citing the scottish birds' lack of intelligence as a good reason for not protecting them. since when do we measure the value of a creature by its intelligence? and it's not as simple as saying, if you leave the animals alone, they'll all be fine and live together peacefully. pretending this isn't a problem will simply result in the destruction of more species...do we want to live in a world where there is no kiwi, or bilby, or where none of the native hawaiian songbirds remain because they have been outcompeted by sparrows? we caused this problem, so we have a responsibility to do something about it. now, if he has considered that perspective, and still comes to the conclusion that the ends do not justify the means, that's fine, but rushing to call people flat out evil doesn't accomplish anything. personally i think there are better ways to do this than just shooting the animals, relocation would be one. take them back to their native habitat. sorry, just had to get that off my chest:) |
| rocks. 15.09.2006 17:27 |
Brian wasnt saying dont remove the hedgehogs, he was just saying move them. He didnt say anything opposed to moving them just killing them. |
| deleted user 15.09.2006 17:39 |
but what about the swans? the people advocating for them certainly don't want them relocated, they don't want anything to change at all. and yet he portrays them as the good, decent people who are fighting the evil, bad scientists. there's such a thing as a middle position. obviously, if relocation is a viable option and the government STILL favors shooting them, then they're just lazy and obviously wrong. |
| rocks. 15.09.2006 17:44 |
<font color="queenie">macbethscrazywife wrote: but what about the swans? the people advocating for them certainly don't want them relocated, they don't want anything to change at all. and yet he portrays them as the good, decent people who are fighting the evil, bad scientists. there's such a thing as a middle position. obviously, if relocation is a viable option and the government STILL favors shooting them, then they're just lazy and obviously wrong.About swans, well, I read the thing, and I dont see why the mute swans need to be killed, if they dont get along, let them fight it out on their own :D :P its sort of stupid all this killing... *edit* I really want to e-mail Brian and ask him what his suggestion for a solution would be, just let them all live?? I would think that would be his response. Im not going to bother with it though, Im sure thats what he's thinking anyway. |
| deleted user 15.09.2006 18:06 |
"let them fight it out on their own" is exactly the attitude that has led to so many extinctions in the past two centuries. the swan problem is perhaps not the most drastic example, since the trumpeter swan is not so threatened. but think about somewhere like guam...the introduction of the brown tree snake nearly destroyed guam's ecology. without measures to control the snake's population, not even the vestiges of guam's former biodiversity would remain. as it is, we will never regain what we have lost, and guam is still suffering from consequences the introducer couldn't have even imagined. don't get me wrong. i am all for relocation where that is a possibility. but doing nothing is just not an option. |
| rocks. 15.09.2006 18:52 |
Fine, doing nothing is just not an option, but with the swans, I think we cold let it be. Maybe not with that guam situation, but the swans... |
| deleted user 15.09.2006 19:52 |
perhaps-i don't know the details about the respective swan populations that well. it seems to me, though, that there ought to be plenty of zoos out there who would take in 40 or so swans... |
| rocks. 15.09.2006 20:09 |
<font color="queenie">macbethscrazywife wrote: perhaps-i don't know the details about the respective swan populations that well. it seems to me, though, that there ought to be plenty of zoos out there who would take in 40 or so swans...Seriously, why do people feel the need to slaughter other things... |
| deleted user 15.09.2006 20:21 |
well...our natural diet includes meat. it says something that some people have the will power to suppress that side of their natures. i rather doubt that all of the swans' defenders are vegetarians, though. i could be wrong. |
| rocks. 15.09.2006 20:28 |
<font color="queenie">macbethscrazywife wrote: well...our natural diet includes meat. it says something that some people have the will power to suppress that side of their natures. i rather doubt that all of the swans' defenders are vegetarians, though. i could be wrong.i meant uneccesarily. If we eat it whatever, i eat meat, i wont argue that, but if we have no use of them, whats the point, its wasting th swans, and everybodys time and money, and im sure zoos would love to have swans. or give them to some conservation, theyd take them, but whats the point of shooting them, nothing. |
| deleted user 15.09.2006 20:40 |
^this is true. i don't understand trophy hunting either. |
| rocks. 15.09.2006 21:31 |
<font color="queenie">macbethscrazywife wrote: ^this is true. i don't understand trophy hunting either.me either, its so STUPID! |