[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Togg, you overlook the fact that it has been Greg (again) who brought this topic up in various threads at the same time. It's easy to say "move on", "forgive" but how would you feel
- if someone lost a precious item you lent him and did not only not pay up but instead allowed an employee (free lance or not) to come to a fan board and insult you in the worst possible way over again, called you names, caused you distress, while you stayed calm and never returned the insults?
Because this is what happens here, just search for "GB" or "Queen Archivist" and read up the endless rants and redundant topics by the official archivist of QP posted here on this board just to attack, offend and insult John Stuart who was the victim and not the offender. I wonder how you would feel in his shoes. [/QUOTE]
Digusted and betrayed.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Togg wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Regardless of who lost what etc the fact remains that this has been covered endlessly here, and I think Greg has a point that surely now after all this time we don't need to go through it again!
I feel sorry for John, and maybe things could have been handled better but you know what guys, lifes too short move on[/QUOTE]
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q_FORUM_ID=10&Q_FORUM_NAME=Queen+-++General+Discussion&TOPIC_SUBJECT=Is+there+anyone+left+in+the+universe+who+does+NOT+know%3f&Q=1036808&page=1
From where I sit, I was NOT the instigator who began or invited this topic, so if Greg feels that 'this has been covered endlessly here...’, and that 'surely now after all this time we don't need to go through it again...', then without doubt it was HIS choice (and HIS choice ALONE) to do so.
After deciding to run with HIS choice, surely he cannot expect to commence any thread without some sort of discussion or response?
I am on record many times (both in here and QOL) that I harbour Greg no ill-will or bad feeling, and while it is true that I have moved beyond the literal loss of this cassette, I will never get over the experience – simple because every experience leaves a lasting impression (be it good or bad).
This herein lies the really sad news, because as the Chinese say: ‘Cheat me once – shame on you. Cheat me twice – shame on me’, so personally, I see no reason why anyone would ever trust QPL with a ticket-stub, let alone any rarities they may wish to borrow in the future, and that unfortunately is a situation NOT of MY making...
I feel sorry for John, and maybe things could have been handled better but you know what guys, lifes too short move on[/QUOTE]
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q_FORUM_ID=10&Q_FORUM_NAME=Queen+-++General+Discussion&TOPIC_SUBJECT=Is+there+anyone+left+in+the+universe+who+does+NOT+know%3f&Q=1036808&page=1
From where I sit, I was NOT the instigator who began or invited this topic, so if Greg feels that 'this has been covered endlessly here...’, and that 'surely now after all this time we don't need to go through it again...', then without doubt it was HIS choice (and HIS choice ALONE) to do so.
After deciding to run with HIS choice, surely he cannot expect to commence any thread without some sort of discussion or response?
I am on record many times (both in here and QOL) that I harbour Greg no ill-will or bad feeling, and while it is true that I have moved beyond the literal loss of this cassette, I will never get over the experience – simple because every experience leaves a lasting impression (be it good or bad).
This herein lies the really sad news, because as the Chinese say: ‘Cheat me once – shame on you. Cheat me twice – shame on me’, so personally, I see no reason why anyone would ever trust QPL with a ticket-stub, let alone any rarities they may wish to borrow in the future, and that unfortunately is a situation NOT of MY making...
I get the point (frankly on both sides) it's just that we are adding nothing new here just rehashing old topics, neither side are going to win or change anything, what's done is done and unless someone changes their stance nothing is going to change.
I am well aware of how Greg has behaved in the past here, I have been the target on several occassions and fired back a few, however I do think that it is now time to say water under the bridge, it's not going to get the tape back and un-pirated as it were, so that's why I say move on.
I also was very interested that after many promises he finally did come good with the list of live recordings so maybe he has at least tried to become more of a useful part of the QZ community, which I for one welcome.
John has always been a great contributer here, so long may it remain.
Personally I would just like to see the back of the fighting about old issues that we can't change
I am well aware of how Greg has behaved in the past here, I have been the target on several occassions and fired back a few, however I do think that it is now time to say water under the bridge, it's not going to get the tape back and un-pirated as it were, so that's why I say move on.
I also was very interested that after many promises he finally did come good with the list of live recordings so maybe he has at least tried to become more of a useful part of the QZ community, which I for one welcome.
John has always been a great contributer here, so long may it remain.
Personally I would just like to see the back of the fighting about old issues that we can't change
Yeah, there's a lot of back n forth with no real outcome. This tape thing should just disappear. I share sympathy for John. But I see the point about all the constant bickering over something as silly as this being too much.
My word of advice is that holding onto this will only leave a negative impact. I know this won't mean anything, but I'll mention it anyway. My brother saw fit to delete my music from our PC back in 1998. That's my original work, btw. I have no copies or tapes. cd's, etc. So, it's completely gone. But, I hold no grudge and I haven't thought about it for many years.
I know what you'll say, "he's your brother", etc. Fair enough. But I'm just trying to help and say that it's far healthier to forgive something like this.
Adam.
My word of advice is that holding onto this will only leave a negative impact. I know this won't mean anything, but I'll mention it anyway. My brother saw fit to delete my music from our PC back in 1998. That's my original work, btw. I have no copies or tapes. cd's, etc. So, it's completely gone. But, I hold no grudge and I haven't thought about it for many years.
I know what you'll say, "he's your brother", etc. Fair enough. But I'm just trying to help and say that it's far healthier to forgive something like this.
Adam.
"But, I hold no grudge and I haven't thought about it for many years."
Probably you would hold a grudge if he would show up on your favourite website periodically and call you a whiner who cannot let go and how fed up he is with you and you know nothing about music anyway...
Probably you would hold a grudge if he would show up on your favourite website periodically and call you a whiner who cannot let go and how fed up he is with you and you know nothing about music anyway...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Yeah, there's a lot of back n forth with no real outcome. This tape thing should just disappear. I share sympathy for John. But I see the point about all the constant bickering over something as silly as this being too much.
My word of advice is that holding onto this will only leave a negative impact. I know this won't mean anything, but I'll mention it anyway. My brother saw fit to delete my music from our PC back in 1998. That's my original work, btw. I have no copies or tapes. cd's, etc. So, it's completely gone. But, I hold no grudge and I haven't thought about it for many years.
I know what you'll say, "he's your brother", etc. Fair enough. But I'm just trying to help and say that it's far healthier to forgive something like this.
Adam.[/QUOTE]
I agree.
Yes, I think forgiveness is important, not just for one's own benefit (in the case where someone has purposely wronged you), but especially in the cases involving an accident or a foolish mistake.
And as for Mr. Faronhyte's comment to me ("Its easy to be big about it when you aren't out anything"), it is not surprising to me that someone would say such a thing to me on this board, where some people like to spout off without knowing any facts (including me sometimes - ha). But, in fact, I have been "out" much bigger than this little tape, or a car.
My word of advice is that holding onto this will only leave a negative impact. I know this won't mean anything, but I'll mention it anyway. My brother saw fit to delete my music from our PC back in 1998. That's my original work, btw. I have no copies or tapes. cd's, etc. So, it's completely gone. But, I hold no grudge and I haven't thought about it for many years.
I know what you'll say, "he's your brother", etc. Fair enough. But I'm just trying to help and say that it's far healthier to forgive something like this.
Adam.[/QUOTE]
I agree.
Yes, I think forgiveness is important, not just for one's own benefit (in the case where someone has purposely wronged you), but especially in the cases involving an accident or a foolish mistake.
And as for Mr. Faronhyte's comment to me ("Its easy to be big about it when you aren't out anything"), it is not surprising to me that someone would say such a thing to me on this board, where some people like to spout off without knowing any facts (including me sometimes - ha). But, in fact, I have been "out" much bigger than this little tape, or a car.
Regarding Adam's comment, I partially disagree, because the case is not the same IMO: how old was your brother back then? Was your brother a multi-millionaire company with the possibility of compensating you - economically and ethically - for your loss without having to invest over 1% of their income?
I think Mr Faron Hyte's analogy is more appropriate. I'd add this: if I lent my car to a friend and he/she wrecked it, I'd be obviously pissed off. But if I lent my car to Renault SA and they lost it, never compensated me (which would be a tiny effort for them, compared to my friend who'd have to work his/her arse off for quite a long time), and had their employee going on a series of stupid tantrums offending me, that's a completely different story.
I think Mr Faron Hyte's analogy is more appropriate. I'd add this: if I lent my car to a friend and he/she wrecked it, I'd be obviously pissed off. But if I lent my car to Renault SA and they lost it, never compensated me (which would be a tiny effort for them, compared to my friend who'd have to work his/her arse off for quite a long time), and had their employee going on a series of stupid tantrums offending me, that's a completely different story.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Regarding Adam's comment, I partially disagree, because the case is not the same IMO: how old was your brother back then? Was your brother a multi-millionaire company with the possibility of compensating you - economically and ethically - for your loss without having to invest over 1% of their income?
I think Mr Faron Hyte's analogy is more appropriate. I'd add this: if I lent my car to a friend and he/she wrecked it, I'd be obviously pissed off. But if I lent my car to Renault SA and they lost it, never compensated me (which would be a tiny effort for them, compared to my friend who'd have to work his/her arse off for quite a long time), and had their employee going on a series of stupid tantrums offending me, that's a completely different story.[/QUOTE]
Complicating this would be Greg's liability as a contractor (not on staff at QP, right?). Also, is Greg allowed to act as an agent, negotiating compensation on behalf of QP? Is Greg being blamed for something that isn't his fault and that he has no power (authority) to remedy? Or is it all his fault and he has no backing from QP (money) to remedy? Or is it the fault of QP, and they have no intention of making compensation to JSS? And why the 1% reference? That seems arbitrary to me.
I think Mr Faron Hyte's analogy is more appropriate. I'd add this: if I lent my car to a friend and he/she wrecked it, I'd be obviously pissed off. But if I lent my car to Renault SA and they lost it, never compensated me (which would be a tiny effort for them, compared to my friend who'd have to work his/her arse off for quite a long time), and had their employee going on a series of stupid tantrums offending me, that's a completely different story.[/QUOTE]
Complicating this would be Greg's liability as a contractor (not on staff at QP, right?). Also, is Greg allowed to act as an agent, negotiating compensation on behalf of QP? Is Greg being blamed for something that isn't his fault and that he has no power (authority) to remedy? Or is it all his fault and he has no backing from QP (money) to remedy? Or is it the fault of QP, and they have no intention of making compensation to JSS? And why the 1% reference? That seems arbitrary to me.
"Complicating this would be Greg's liability as a contractor (not on staff at QP, right?). Also, is Greg allowed to act as an agent, negotiating compensation on behalf of QP? Is Greg being blamed for something that isn't his fault and that he has no power (authority) to remedy? Or is it all his fault and he has no backing from QP (money) to remedy? Or is it the fault of QP, and they have no intention of making compensation to JSS? And why the 1% reference? That seems arbitrary to me."
If you had bothered to read the posts of other people (mainly John's) you would not ask all these questions which were already addressed. Speaking of dragging on an issue with redundant posts....
If you had bothered to read the posts of other people (mainly John's) you would not ask all these questions which were already addressed. Speaking of dragging on an issue with redundant posts....
I don't think it's a matter of taking sides. I think we all like the fact that both John and Greg post on here, regardless of if we like them or not.
But I'm not too sure of what the end result will be. I can totally see John's point, I can totally see Greg's point.
This is why I don't worry about bootlegs or unreleased tracks and don't understand why people value them so much. Maybe I'd appreciate it more if I knew how it all worked, but from what I can see, John is disappointed that he loaned something to QP and didn't get it back. It was a recording that was made, probably without the band's proper consent, right? I mean, John you weren't holding the boom mic or running the sound board that night, right? Then years later, the company that manages the person on your recording asks for it or you just give it to them. Why would they give it back? I mean, yeah, maybe the actual plastic shell and tape is yours, but what is on that tape certainly isn't.
Why does anyone with an unofficial release think they are entitled to profit from someone else's work? What about the band? The film or audio crew? The owners of the venue that put on the show? Have they been properly compensated?
But I'm not too sure of what the end result will be. I can totally see John's point, I can totally see Greg's point.
This is why I don't worry about bootlegs or unreleased tracks and don't understand why people value them so much. Maybe I'd appreciate it more if I knew how it all worked, but from what I can see, John is disappointed that he loaned something to QP and didn't get it back. It was a recording that was made, probably without the band's proper consent, right? I mean, John you weren't holding the boom mic or running the sound board that night, right? Then years later, the company that manages the person on your recording asks for it or you just give it to them. Why would they give it back? I mean, yeah, maybe the actual plastic shell and tape is yours, but what is on that tape certainly isn't.
Why does anyone with an unofficial release think they are entitled to profit from someone else's work? What about the band? The film or audio crew? The owners of the venue that put on the show? Have they been properly compensated?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"Complicating this would be Greg's liability as a contractor (not on staff at QP, right?). Also, is Greg allowed to act as an agent, negotiating compensation on behalf of QP? Is Greg being blamed for something that isn't his fault and that he has no power (authority) to remedy? Or is it all his fault and he has no backing from QP (money) to remedy? Or is it the fault of QP, and they have no intention of making compensation to JSS? And why the 1% reference? That seems arbitrary to me."
If you had bothered to read the posts of other people (mainly John's) you would not ask all these questions which were already addressed. Speaking of dragging on an issue with redundant posts....
[/QUOTE]
"If you had bothered?" I have read many of John's posts. My next question is, if things are so cut and dry, then why has not John been able to solve this problem on his own in a timely manner?
If you had bothered to read the posts of other people (mainly John's) you would not ask all these questions which were already addressed. Speaking of dragging on an issue with redundant posts....
[/QUOTE]
"If you had bothered?" I have read many of John's posts. My next question is, if things are so cut and dry, then why has not John been able to solve this problem on his own in a timely manner?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I don't think it's a matter of taking sides. I think we all like the fact that both John and Greg post on here, regardless of if we like them or not.
But I'm not too sure of what the end result will be. I can totally see John's point, I can totally see Greg's point.
This is why I don't worry about bootlegs or unreleased tracks and don't understand why people value them so much. Maybe I'd appreciate it more if I knew how it all worked, but from what I can see, John is disappointed that he loaned something to QP and didn't get it back. It was a recording that was made, probably without the band's proper consent, right? I mean, John you weren't holding the boom mic or running the sound board that night, right? Then years later, the company that manages the person on your recording asks for it or you just give it to them. Why would they give it back? I mean, yeah, maybe the actual plastic shell and tape is yours, but what is on that tape certainly isn't.
Why does anyone with an unofficial release think they are entitled to profit from someone else's work? What about the band? The film or audio crew? The owners of the venue that put on the show? Have they been properly compensated?[/QUOTE]
Yes. These are very good questions.
But I'm not too sure of what the end result will be. I can totally see John's point, I can totally see Greg's point.
This is why I don't worry about bootlegs or unreleased tracks and don't understand why people value them so much. Maybe I'd appreciate it more if I knew how it all worked, but from what I can see, John is disappointed that he loaned something to QP and didn't get it back. It was a recording that was made, probably without the band's proper consent, right? I mean, John you weren't holding the boom mic or running the sound board that night, right? Then years later, the company that manages the person on your recording asks for it or you just give it to them. Why would they give it back? I mean, yeah, maybe the actual plastic shell and tape is yours, but what is on that tape certainly isn't.
Why does anyone with an unofficial release think they are entitled to profit from someone else's work? What about the band? The film or audio crew? The owners of the venue that put on the show? Have they been properly compensated?[/QUOTE]
Yes. These are very good questions.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Donna13 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"Complicating this would be Greg's liability as a contractor (not on staff at QP, right?). Also, is Greg allowed to act as an agent, negotiating compensation on behalf of QP? Is Greg being blamed for something that isn't his fault and that he has no power (authority) to remedy? Or is it all his fault and he has no backing from QP (money) to remedy? Or is it the fault of QP, and they have no intention of making compensation to JSS? And why the 1% reference? That seems arbitrary to me."
If you had bothered to read the posts of other people (mainly John's) you would not ask all these questions which were already addressed. Speaking of dragging on an issue with redundant posts....
[/QUOTE]
"If you had bothered?" I have read many of John's posts. My next question is, if things are so cut and dry, then why has not John been able to solve this problem on his own in a timely manner?[/QUOTE]
Donna13 Can I remind you these posts are NOT of my making. What should I do while these tirades are still made against me? Keep silent?
More to the point, what should my fellow members of QZ do when they witness such behaviour? Keep silent also?
Tyrany and freedom of thought are poles apart, and whether you agree or disagree with what is taking place - ultimately you have a choice - like a bad television station you can refuse to tune in.
However, for some of us, this is more about 'bear-bating' and I do not think that such sport should be tolerated anywhere - and especially not in a forum which exist primarily to discuss the music of a rock band.
If you had bothered to read the posts of other people (mainly John's) you would not ask all these questions which were already addressed. Speaking of dragging on an issue with redundant posts....
[/QUOTE]
"If you had bothered?" I have read many of John's posts. My next question is, if things are so cut and dry, then why has not John been able to solve this problem on his own in a timely manner?[/QUOTE]
Donna13 Can I remind you these posts are NOT of my making. What should I do while these tirades are still made against me? Keep silent?
More to the point, what should my fellow members of QZ do when they witness such behaviour? Keep silent also?
Tyrany and freedom of thought are poles apart, and whether you agree or disagree with what is taking place - ultimately you have a choice - like a bad television station you can refuse to tune in.
However, for some of us, this is more about 'bear-bating' and I do not think that such sport should be tolerated anywhere - and especially not in a forum which exist primarily to discuss the music of a rock band.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Why does anyone with an unofficial release think they are entitled to profit from someone else's work? What about the band? The film or audio crew? The owners of the venue that put on the show? Have they been properly compensated?[/QUOTE]
I was born into and live in a capitalist system, and although I accept that I may be crucified for my own sins - I do not think that I can be crucified for all of our societies failings.
In otherwords, thinking about a Picasso painting, once filthy lucre exchanges hands, then the painting becomes no longer the property of Picasso, but the property of the new legal owner. In a court of law, because Picasso accepted a fair exchange - his rights of ownership are transfred or relinquished, and can not complain if his work esculates in value many years later.
It is this Capitalist principle on which the Western world thrives.
However, I am very sad that no one seems to grasp the bigger picture here.
The issue at stake is NOT about cassette tapes or lost property, but, much broader principles. Why is it that I am the only one who seems to see this - especially since I am NOT the source of all this muck-racking?
What must I do to gain a bit of dignity?
Why does anyone with an unofficial release think they are entitled to profit from someone else's work? What about the band? The film or audio crew? The owners of the venue that put on the show? Have they been properly compensated?[/QUOTE]
I was born into and live in a capitalist system, and although I accept that I may be crucified for my own sins - I do not think that I can be crucified for all of our societies failings.
In otherwords, thinking about a Picasso painting, once filthy lucre exchanges hands, then the painting becomes no longer the property of Picasso, but the property of the new legal owner. In a court of law, because Picasso accepted a fair exchange - his rights of ownership are transfred or relinquished, and can not complain if his work esculates in value many years later.
It is this Capitalist principle on which the Western world thrives.
However, I am very sad that no one seems to grasp the bigger picture here.
The issue at stake is NOT about cassette tapes or lost property, but, much broader principles. Why is it that I am the only one who seems to see this - especially since I am NOT the source of all this muck-racking?
What must I do to gain a bit of dignity?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I
But I'm not too sure of what the end result will be. I can totally see John's point, I can totally see Greg's point.
This is why I don't worry about bootlegs or unreleased tracks and don't understand why people value them so much. Maybe I'd appreciate it more if I knew how it all worked, but from what I can see, John is disappointed that he loaned something to QP and didn't get it back. It was a recording that was made, probably without the band's proper consent, right? I mean, John you weren't holding the boom mic or running the sound board that night, right? Then years later, the company that manages the person on your recording asks for it or you just give it to them. Why would they give it back? I mean, yeah, maybe the actual plastic shell and tape is yours, but what is on that tape certainly isn't.[/QUOTE]
i think you have missed the point. the tape in question cost John money to obtain. he lent it to QPL in good faith, THEY agreed to return it after copying it. they insisted on the original to make a best quality copy. they lost it. without John's goodwill the FM Boxset would've had a gaping hole. An agreement was made - end of argument.
- and Greg is behaving like a child. - most of his postings in QZ have been (at best) purile and (at worst) inflammatory. The ONLY piece of genuine information he gave us was something MOST of us could've worked out (by talking amongst ourselves) - the list of live film in the archives - and he even "gave" us that in return for loads of hard work by QZers.
Greg - if you really want to retain ANY dignity round here - then give John back his dignity. Stop baiting him and ask your employers to write an apology to John.
But I'm not too sure of what the end result will be. I can totally see John's point, I can totally see Greg's point.
This is why I don't worry about bootlegs or unreleased tracks and don't understand why people value them so much. Maybe I'd appreciate it more if I knew how it all worked, but from what I can see, John is disappointed that he loaned something to QP and didn't get it back. It was a recording that was made, probably without the band's proper consent, right? I mean, John you weren't holding the boom mic or running the sound board that night, right? Then years later, the company that manages the person on your recording asks for it or you just give it to them. Why would they give it back? I mean, yeah, maybe the actual plastic shell and tape is yours, but what is on that tape certainly isn't.[/QUOTE]
i think you have missed the point. the tape in question cost John money to obtain. he lent it to QPL in good faith, THEY agreed to return it after copying it. they insisted on the original to make a best quality copy. they lost it. without John's goodwill the FM Boxset would've had a gaping hole. An agreement was made - end of argument.
- and Greg is behaving like a child. - most of his postings in QZ have been (at best) purile and (at worst) inflammatory. The ONLY piece of genuine information he gave us was something MOST of us could've worked out (by talking amongst ourselves) - the list of live film in the archives - and he even "gave" us that in return for loads of hard work by QZers.
Greg - if you really want to retain ANY dignity round here - then give John back his dignity. Stop baiting him and ask your employers to write an apology to John.