| Queen Archivist 29.09.2006 21:29 |
Apparently some of you on QZ are suggesting that I, Greg Brooks, have another identity on this site. Are you mad? I don't. Why the hell would I need to be worried about what I say, or have to cover it up? Jesus! Wake up and get real, please. I've never given a shit before, as you all know and comment about frequently, so Christ knows why anyone would think I'm scared or have reason to hide now!! EVERYTHING I have ever said on this site I have stated openly and honestly. I have never hidden behind bogus names such as YV, Togg, Lester Burnham, Newcastle Dickhead, etc. I have no need to. As I have stated many times here (see my history on QZ), I have no desire to hide. I want everything I say to be attributable to ME, not to some faceless moronic virtual identity. Most things I say here are unpopular and as you all know very well by now, that bothers me not one tiny bit. So why the hell would I need some bogus i.d.? Have a word with your silly selves. What is the point of standing up and being vocal and making your point known, popular or otherwise, if you're then gonna hide behind silly barriers? How pathetic is that. It's always been the case that people like me and John Stuart do NOT know who we are addressing or who is having a pop at us, buy you guys DO know exactly. It's ONE WAY TRAFFIC here on QZ, not a fair and balanced race. You know it's me, but you don't want anyone to know who you are. I've always seen the hypocracy of that, and said as much SEVERAL times - and you all know it. YOU lot use the bogus identities, WE do not. Let's have that straight. BY THE WAY... last time I said this here, 4 of you openly agreed with me. 4 of you had the courage to admit it was a giant hypocracy and ONE WAY TRAFFIC. Everyone should have the COURAGE OF THEIR CONVICTIONS and be willing to stand by and defend what they say. I always have been open about all I have to say, and even John Stuart (he that irritates me even more than the gullible masses from whom he so desperately craves respect) is open about his identity. Good on him for that. I respect that. Even JSS is honest and accountable and sees the hypocracy of being all vocal and mouthy but at the same time hiding being silly faceless nebulous identities. It is futile to have a second identity and say things that cannot be attributable to you. Only cowards in history have done that. I see so many examples on QZ where you guys say, "It's not really him" / "I think it's someone pretending to be him or her." Not just about me, but about numerous others too. EVEN YOU GUYS cannot rely on the intregity of your fellow QZ-ers. Not even you guys know if it's the real such and such person. This only endorses the stupidity and transience of it all. EVERYTHING I have EVER said on QZ has been by Queen Archivist and NO ONE else. You know that much about me by now, if nothing else. Any person who thinks that anything written on this site (under any other alias than Queen Archivist) is from me, when you all know my history here, is even more moronic than I thought. I am happy to stand by all I say and it will always be as Queen Archivist. I have no desire to hide. The stupidity of certain QZ-ers never ceases to astound me. Togg, Lester Burnham, YV, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.... are you so paranoid or insecure or worried for your safety that you must continue to use aliases???? Can you STILL not come out into the open, like normal people? John Stuart and I can, Brian May can, so you can. THEN... everyone will know 100% for certain all the time exactly who is saying what, and no one will be hiding and avoiding accountability. WE SHOULD ALL BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT WE SAY AND DO. I AM. JOHN STUART IS. WHY AREN'Y YOU LOT? Greg Brooks has ONE identity only. Queen Archivist. It has NEVER been otherwise. Any dobts about that have arisen because the software behind QZ is evidently not clever enough to seek out imposters or t |
| Lester Burnham 29.09.2006 21:38 |
Oh Greg, you and your silly crusades. How can we all honestly think that those other people were you? They all had proper grammar and spelling! And the deluge (look it up) of CAPITALIZED WORDS and jerky... SENTENCE structures!!! in your posts are distinctive only to you. We know who is the real Gregsy-poo, darling :) (Although, you are indeed hiding behind a name... unless your name has changed from Greg Brooks to Queen Archivist. In fact, GB isn't your name, either - just your initials. Oh the hypocrisy - Greggy don't preach!) |
| Queen Archivist 29.09.2006 22:05 |
Hey Lester. People DO believe I write under other identities. Clearly they do. You only have to read the crap they spout out on this site, to see that. They will believe anything on this site because most of them are still going through puberty and they cannot make the distinctions that most adults can. You've got a bit of a thing about me, haven't you! You can't resist jumping in on my threads for another go. What is it that you just can't let go? Is it because I've made you look a bit of a prick on this site before? More than once, in fact - not that that's difficult. You only ever go on about grammar and punctuation, but no one gives a shit about that, Lester, only you do. That shows how dull you are. Do you sit reading your local paper looking for grammatical errors too??? Jesus you must be duller than your silly QZ i.d. Wait a minute... Lester Burnham is probably your real name. That would explain a lot. You need to chill out a bit young chap, relax. There is no need to be so edgy. Be nice for a change. Say something lovely to the Queen Archivist. |
| john bodega 29.09.2006 22:08 |
I don't see the fuss about having nicknames. Do I want to type Rev. Scotty Wilson George Peter Lorenz the 1st, everytime I want to register at a forum? No. Zebonka is 7 letters I won't forget anytime soon, it's damn easy. Anyone who finds my nickname frustrating and is dying to find out what I'm really called (hyuk hyuk) can easily see my e-mail and just *ask*. I might agree with Mr. Brooks on some of his sticking points, who knows; but one of them is not this idea that one can't have a non-de-plume on the internet. |
| Lester Burnham 29.09.2006 22:12 |
Oh Queen, you are so funny. Will you be my e-friend? |
| Smitty 29.09.2006 22:13 |
Queen Archivist wrote: You've got a bit of a thing about me, haven't you! You can't resist jumping in on my threads for another go. What is it that you just can't let go? Is it because I've made you look a bit of a prick on this site before? More than once, in fact - not that that's difficult. You only ever go on about grammar and punctuation, but no one gives a shit about that, Lester, only you do. That shows how dull you are.Well, let's see, In the last two threads you have mentioned him at least once. Think about it. I personally think you'll edit the posts to try to prove me wrong. Oh wait, you probably don't know how. Greg, honestly, just go away. You aren't wanted here. Go plague the Queenonline forums for once... |
| Lester Burnham 29.09.2006 22:18 |
<font color=gold>SMI<font color=1>TTY™ wrote: Well, let's see, In the last two threads you have mentioned him at least once. Think about it. I personally think you'll edit the posts to try to prove me wrong. Oh wait, you probably don't know how.Exactly. I wouldn't have responded if my name wasn't brought up. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 29.09.2006 22:49 |
Also, Lester, one of Greg's favourite rants when confronted with factual errors is to chastise people for sitting on the sidelines if they could do better. Oddly enough, new QZ member Ray Pugh said: "Greg has at least give fans something new and fresh. It's like GB said to you last time, what the hell have YOU ever done? Other than insult someone else's work, what have you written about Queen?...Good or bad, or "utterly useless", as you call it, Greg at least did something, while you did nothing. Are you so lazy you can write no book or magazine things?" If I were so inclined, I could drag up 5 or 6 posts where Greg says the same thing. Very coincidental to have two people with similar thought patterns and writing styles, no? |
| Queen Archivist 29.09.2006 23:01 |
Boy Thomas Raker... and co. Stop being so thick. Have a ponder instead about who the other person might be??? Come on... it's not THAT difficult to work out. Yes, agreed, the sentiment is VERY similar to those I have pointed out myself. But it isn't me. It could be someone close though, couldn't it. That would explain certain things. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE IDENTICAL. There, there it is spelt out for you. It could be a chap that has come into MY threads before and wound you guys right up like clockwork mice. Someone on QZ has ALREADY spotted this person ONLY contributes to my threads, no one else's. Stop being so dence and get your sense of humour out. This person winds you up and you go for it EVERY single time. Remember when he and I wound you all up on the Freddie site back in 2000???? You thought it was ALL me then, didn't you, but it wasn't. Thinking caps on. It ain't difficult. Think about it boys...... |
| Boy Thomas Raker 29.09.2006 23:14 |
IT'S JOHN STUART!!! |
| Queen Archivist 29.09.2006 23:17 |
Nope. Not John. The person I mean has a wicked sense of humour and is witty and sharp - not remotely dull and insecure. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 29.09.2006 23:22 |
I categorically deny it's me. |
| Crezchi 29.09.2006 23:44 |
Greg, if you want to be taken seriously here EVER, lose the 'Queen Archivist' name and post under something else. I could care less if you are the 'Archivist' or not. You shouldn't come here and expect us to give you respect on a silver platter, you have to earn respect like all of us. I know there are alot of QZ's that are just impossible, but get over them, they are not worth it. Until you can offer this site some useful resources or imformation, and i am not asking for media, just information, then leave! Or drop the Queen Archivist shit and be a normal fan. I have a respectful and serious question for you... Why exactly are you here? And please do not ramble on about something else when you answer, be straight to the point, we deserve that much. |
| Lester Burnham 29.09.2006 23:57 |
Charles Baer? |
| Smitty 30.09.2006 00:04 |
Lester Burnham wrote: Charles Baer?Nah. Do you see "weenis" in any of the posts... I rest my case. |
| Crezchi 30.09.2006 00:08 |
Who is Charles Baer? My name is Charles, but not Baer. lol |
| The Real Wizard 30.09.2006 01:30 |
let's get it ON , ah yeah |
| max_fast 30.09.2006 02:44 |
<font color=?B2F><b>Crezchi wrote: Greg, if you want to be taken seriously here EVER, lose the 'Queen Archivist' name and post under something else. I could care less if you are the 'Archivist' or not. You shouldn't come here and expect us to give you respect on a silver platter, you have to earn respect like all of us. I know there are alot of QZ's that are just impossible, but get over them, they are not worth it. Until you can offer this site some useful resources or imformation, and i am not asking for media, just information, then leave! Or drop the Queen Archivist shit and be a normal fan. I have a respectful and serious question for you... Why exactly are you here? And please do not ramble on about something else when you answer, be straight to the point, we deserve that much.That is true! Since I am following this forum, Mr. Brooks is only starting stupid discussions with people he does not like for one reason or the other. One time he was asking for rare film material from the fans. Even then he started to get inpolite and rude. The only reason why I keep my filmed footage is his behaviour. I think that it is his fault that serious collectors prefer to keep their rarest and most interesting pieces. And all because he has no manners and treats people in here like idiots. |
| john bodega 30.09.2006 04:45 |
I didn't care when Brian May was being 'impersonated' and I sure as hell don't care if someone may or may not be posting like GB; or in fact be, GB pretending to be someone else. Bigger. Fish. To. Fry. Why is this thread even here?! |
| Sebastian 30.09.2006 08:48 |
Is this a serious discussion? |
| magicalfreddiemercury 30.09.2006 09:32 |
Sebastian wrote: Is this a serious discussion?And is it even about Queen? |
| Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira 30.09.2006 09:50 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:No, it's not. *edit*Sebastian wrote: Is this a serious discussion?And is it even about Queen? Cheers, Ogre- |
| Queen Archivist 30.09.2006 11:08 |
To Max-fast who wrote... One time he was asking for rare film material from the fans. Even then he started to get inpolite and rude. YES. TRUE. BECAUSE I ENCOUNTERED SOME REAL IMBECILES. EVEN SOME QZ PEOPLE AGREED THAT MANY STUPID PEOPLE WITH STUPID COMMENTS HAD REPLIED TO THAT REQUEST PURELY TO GET THEMSELVES ATTENTION, AND NO OTHER REASON. THERE ARE LOTS OF THEM ON THIS SITE MAX. The only reason why I keep my filmed footage is his behaviour. THEN YOU ARE STUPID TOO. WHAT A RIDICULOUS REASON TO HOLD BACK... BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE GREG BROOKS' ATTITUDE. THIS IS ILLOGICAL AND CHILDISH, AND PRECISELY THE KIND OF COMMENT I'M TALKING ABOUT. THIS HAS NO SENSE TO IT, MAX. YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU WILL NOT BE SHARING ANY PRECIOUS QUEEN GEMS YOU 'MIGHT' HAVE, WITH THE WIDER QUEEN COMMUNITY, BECAUSE OF ONE PERSON.... ME, AND IT IS TOTALLY FLAWED THINKING. YOU MAKE YOURSELF LOOK LIKE A TWAT WITH SUCH ILL THOUGHT OUT COMMENTS. YOURS ARE THE THOUGHTS OF A YOUNG MAN (OR WOMAN) I THINK. I think that it is his fault that serious collectors prefer to keep their rarest and most interesting pieces. And all because he has no manners and treats people in here like idiots. IF YOU AND OTHERS HOLD BACK GREAT STUFF BECAUSE OF ME, MORE FOOL YOU. I THINK THESE ARE THE THOUGHTS AND FLAWED LOGIC OF A PERSON WHO IS NOT THINKING ABOUT OR SEEING THE WIDER MORE IMPORTANT PICTURE. MY GUESS IS THAT YOU ARE IN YOUR LATE TEEN OR EARLY 20'S, AND THUS ARE UNLIKELY TO HAVE GENUINE QUEEN RARITIES THAT WE DO NOT ALREADY HAVE. I FURTHER THINK YOU ARE SAYING THIS PURELY IN ORDER TO MAKE YOUR POINT, BUT NOT REALISING YOUR POINT IS LUDICROUS IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT FALLS AT THE VERY FIRST HURDLE. IF ANYONE HAS GEMS RELATING TO QUEEN, THEN WHY WOULD THEY LET AN ARCHIVIST PERSON GET UP THEIR NOSE TO SUCH AN EXTENT? WHY WOULD ANYONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND TAKE SUCH A PATHETIC STANCE? YOU SHOULD RE-THINK YOUR SILLY POINT MAXIMUS. |
| Smitty 30.09.2006 11:13 |
Queen Archivist wrote: THIS IS ILLOGICAL AND CHILDISH, AND PRECISELY THE KIND OF COMMENT I'M TALKING ABOUT.Hmmm, like all of the crap you post here. If you were to HELP Queen fans and not just bug them, you'd probably get much more respect. Just a thought. |
| brENsKi 30.09.2006 11:42 |
Queen Archivist wrote: Nope. Not John. The person I mean has a wicked sense of humour and is witty and sharp - not remotely dull and insecure.and you say you don't provoke anger? |
| brENsKi 30.09.2006 11:43 |
Sebastian wrote: Is this a serious discussion?well it's not funny, so it must by default be serious |
| Queen Archivist 30.09.2006 11:44 |
SMITTY... How many more times do I have to say this... I don't care about getting respect here on QZ, or commandinng respect, you guys respecting me more, or less, or at all. QZ-ers losing respect for me is something that does not enter my thinking until someone mentions I don't get much of it. they say it as if I would care about it. YOU are pre-occupied with respect. I am NOT. I care about the respect of Roger and Brian and Jim Beach and Justin and Kris and Sarah and Pete, etc, because they know me vastly better than anyone here ever will. They see the work I do and things I find and uncover, and the numerous things we as a great team participate in (most of which never sees the light of day). There is a huge amount of genuine mutual respect between us - there has to be. It is natural and normal and a very nice thing. To be trusted by the people you respect most in this world, enough to be left in their home, alone, logging memorabilia, is the hugest compliment I can imagine. It shows a trust and respect element that cannot be paralled here on QZ. Do you see what I mean? You know yourself Smitty, I'm sure... we all care about respect, but only in certain circles. Yes? If the dickhead who lives oposite your house is a moron, and his kids are horrible too, do YOU care whether they respect you or not? Do you care a jot if your newsagent, who irritates you, respects you or not? Or if the bloke that punches you in the face on the football pitch, respects you? Of course you don't. Do you care if your work colleagues, family, friends, wife, girlfriend, kids, respect you???? Of course you do. Tht matters enormously. Does Smitty or YV or John Stuart give a damn if Greg Brooks respects them? NO. Do i need or crave your respect, or that of the QZ community? I do not. Why would I? Why do so many of you genuinely believe that I am troubled by that aspect? It is mentioned on QZ probably more than any other point... Greg would get more respect if THIS if THAT. Smitty, the person you dislike most in your place of work, or at your local pub, would RESPECT you much more if you would only do this, or that, or if you would do what HE thinks you should be doing. DO YOU CARE???? You do not. I'm not trying to be a smart arse. I'm just saying that respect only matters if you have it from the people in your world that truly matter. |
| Queen Archivist 30.09.2006 11:49 |
Dear Brenski... Queen Archivist wrote: Nope. Not John. The person I mean has a wicked sense of humour and is witty and sharp - not remotely dull and insecure. ********* and you say you don't provoke anger? NO BRENSKI. I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT. I SAY THE EXACT OPPOSITE IN FACT... AND MANY TIMES. I DO SOMETIMES PROVOKE ANGER, AMONG OTHER THINGS, BECAUSE THOUGH I TAKE INSULTS ON THE CHIN, AND DON'T GET UPSET ABOUT IT, WHEN I GIVE SOME OF IT BACK OUT... WHEN I WIND UP QZ-ERS LIKE THEY TRY TO WIND ME UP, SOME OF THEM GET EXTREMELY, HUGELY, MASSIVELY UPSET AND ANGRY. YOU KNOW THAT OLD ADDAGE... THEY CAN GIVE IT OUT, BUT NOT TAKE IT BACK. YOU HAVE TO PITY THEM... OR TAKE THE MICKEY FUTHER, IF THAT'S ALL THEY RESPOND TO. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, AND YOU MUST KNOW IT'S TRUE TOO. I ENSURE IT'S NOT ONE WAY TRAFFIC. INSULTS AND WIND-UPS AND ANGER AND SUCH LIKE, IS A TWO WAY STREET. |
| QUEENROCKS_1991 30.09.2006 12:20 |
Why are you shouting ? to QA I have been reading all this people have right to say what they want to say fine but why the cap on ? |
| max_fast 30.09.2006 12:55 |
Dear Mr. Brooks, I am keeping my material for copyright reasons first of all. It is from television and it is uncut raw material. I suppose the TV station does not have any of that anymore. And if I would not have had connections at that time, I would not have this material too. So it is only half legal. Actually when you asked for some film footage I thought about contacting you, but when I saw how you treat people in here, I changed my mind quickly. And I think many collectors here have the same feelings about this. So there is nothing childish about this. And why should I care about the others? If they can see this footage or not? You don't care about anyone in here. So don't ask me to care about anyone!! |
| Queen Archivist 30.09.2006 15:16 |
Max-fast Your comments are devoid of sense. You are using me as the reason not to offer the wider QZ community and Queen fans generally worldwide something interesting, and that is by anyone's standards, totally stupid. If everyone used your philosophy, NOTHING new would ever reach our ears or eyes, or boxed sets or books or tv or radio, don't you know that. Do not let your personal views of me, or anyone else, cloud your judgement or influence common sense decisions - although it seems it's too late; you already have. |
| Asterik 30.09.2006 16:42 |
Another monologue of caps locks and rants. Oh dear. PS QA, what do you think of Queen under review volume 2? |
| TheGame 30.09.2006 16:45 |
Have to agree with Greg on this one, but i'm afraid this is the truth with some collectors. I think its quite selfish not sharhing rare gems if only Greg is the problem. There might be other reasons, ok...but dont let someone like Greg be the reason for not sharing. QP should also be much better the way they approach fans with releases. Dont you also think so Greg? btw: welcome back Greg, always gives me a blast when you post. It would be nice if it was possible to talk serious with you, but i guess this might not be possible on QZ as you mostly talk ¤#%"&! |
| TRS-Romania 30.09.2006 17:29 |
Greg has a problem which is: Dissocial-Narcistic-Paranoid- Antisocial Personality Disorder Personality disorder, usually coming to attention because of a gross disparity between behaviour and the prevailing social norms, and characterized by - very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression - callous unconcern for the feelings of others - gross and persistent attitude of irresponsi- bility and disregard for social norms, rules and obligations - persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights - perceives attacks on his or her character and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack - displays rapidly shifting and shallow expression of emotions - shows self-dramatization, theatricality, and exaggerated _expression of emotion - shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes - markedly dysharmonious attitudes and behaviour, involving usually several areas of functioning, e.g. affectivity, arousal, impulse control, ways of perceiving and thinking, and style of relating to others |
| Micrówave 01.10.2006 21:29 |
Hey Greg, I guess now this gives you "celebrity status". Pretty soon someone will probably start their own MySpace page claiming to be you. I'd take it as a complement, rather than get angry. Look what happened to Brian? Everyone thinks now he's a grumpy old man. Perhaps the time for an appearance by The Fake Greg Brooks is at hand... One wonders. |
| The Fake Greg Brooks 01.10.2006 21:35 |
I would appreciate it if you would simply leave me alone. I am very busy right now going thru some old remixes of Jesus and adding a horn section. |
| ***Marial-B*** 01.10.2006 21:58 |
TRS-Romania wrote: Greg has a problem which is: Dissocial-Narcistic-Paranoid- Antisocial Personality Disorder Personality disorder, usually coming to attention because of a gross disparity between behaviour and the prevailing social norms, and characterized by - very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression - callous unconcern for the feelings of others - gross and persistent attitude of irresponsi- bility and disregard for social norms, rules and obligations - persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights - perceives attacks on his or her character and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack - displays rapidly shifting and shallow expression of emotions - shows self-dramatization, theatricality, and exaggerated _expression of emotion - shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes - markedly dysharmonious attitudes and behaviour, involving usually several areas of functioning, e.g. affectivity, arousal, impulse control, ways of perceiving and thinking, and style of relating to othersStefan, we got the point, so stop posting this NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jesus, you're getting as annoying as GB |
| Raf 01.10.2006 22:04 |
Woh oh oh oh Woh oh oh oh Woh oh oh oh Woh oh oh oh In the name of love What more in the name of love? In the name of love What more in the name of love? |
| Crezchi 01.10.2006 22:06 |
The Fake Greg Brooks wrote: I would appreciate it if you would simply leave me alone. I am very busy right now going thru some old remixes of Jesus and adding a horn section.lmfao |
| ***Marial-B*** 01.10.2006 22:06 |
Oh my... But I prefer U2's spamming xD |
| Carol! the Musical 01.10.2006 22:40 |
No one reads your long, winding, boring- ass posts. xD |
| Crezchi 02.10.2006 15:17 |
WAH WAH WAH WAH SOMEBODY DELETED MY POSTS! WAH WAH WAH |
| Poo, again 02.10.2006 16:31 |
Seriously, Greg needs to get a life. Haven't you got better things to do? How's your wife? Ooh, right, I was with her last night, I should know. BUUUUUURRRNNN!! :O (I was not fully capable of grasping the consequences of my actions while typing all of the above) |
| Micrówave 02.10.2006 16:35 |
Oh yeah, you really got him there! |