Once again, here's a "GENUINE offer" you made a while back:
"Please let's just deal in known facts. You tell me what you know and have, I'll tell you what 'we' know about Queen live concerts, and what we have. GENUINE offer"
Mr. Greg Brooks -- do you have a master copy of Goders Green, or not? Thanks.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Okay, apparently that last question has already been replied to. Apologies.
JSS.... To Queen Archivist: Thank You, that was all I needed, especially as you have written this under the use of your 'official title'.
GB: It is a matter of plain and simple fact that I am Queen's archivist. Whether you interpret my words as official or unofficial or anything else, and why the hell you feel compelled to categorise them anyway, for any reason, is of no interest to me. It's a pointless exercise.
GB: Other than you John, because you want to flex your marginal knowledge of legal words and implications, NOBODY cares whether I, quote, "have written this under the use of your 'official title' or not. How boring to go such a route.
JSS: All this leaves me is to ask you one final question - are your views divorced - or sanctioned by Queen Productions Limited?
GB: What do YOU think John? Do you imagine I have to run every comment I make on QZ past Jim Beach before I say it? Or do you instead think that, like you, I merely say things as I see them and am entitled to express my opinions (whether you like it or not)because it is after all a free country and everyone is permitted open views? What would you think is the most likely scenario?
GB: I have a question for you now. Do you propose to threaten every person that takes issue with you? Are you going to threaten legal action every time someone calls you a wet limp puny sponge, or anything else, some of it much worse? Are you really not able to take it on the chin and rise above it, like the rest of us do??? What makes you so different and special???
GB: A I am as entitled as YOU are John, and Barbara and Janet and Darren1977 and Togg, to express my feelings. They do it, you do it, and that is the way of the world. Retract your kitten claws and just get used to life being like that. It is Sticks And Stones John. Be a big enough man to be at the heart of a heated debate or conversation WITHOUT having to play the "I will sue you" card. If everyone acted that way, like you are, pretty soon no one would dare to say anything on any forum, in case overly sensitive souls like you stamped their feet in tantrum and threatened legal action.
GB: You love to band the words QUEEN PRODUCTIONS and JIM BEACH and YOUR EMPLOYER around all the time, when you get hot under the collar and cannot think of something more sharp or clever to do/say. Now you bring out the last resort "that's libel that is!" card. I am self employed John. I employ myself. I am my boss. I pay my own Nat Ins and tax and holidays. No one else. I have 'clients' for whom I work. I do not have an employer. Is this clear enough to you?
GB: If you are so insecure and so hurt by what I have said, or so offended, that you want to sue me for what you perceive as libel or slander - which is laughable and pathetic, though predictable from you - then you do it. The rest of us, meanwhile, will just get on with it and face the odd inult or offensive remark like adults. You will set an extremely crappy precedent for all internet forum users, but if you think my telling you EXACTLY what I think, and expressing my opinions candidly and honestly, warrants that ridiculous OTT response from you, do it captain Stuart. If you think such threats are going to scare me or make me tone down things to suit you more, you are very wrong.
GB: I can just see you standing up in court saying that nasty Greg Brooks called me a WET LIMP PUNY PATHETIC SPONGE m'lord." It is genuinely laughable. Get off your high horse John, come back down to the real world, calm down, and take it on the chin like I am, even though YOU offend me greatly too, and piss me off more than any human who ever draw breath. Everyone else COPES ok, so I'm sure you can too.
JSS: If they are NOT sanctioned by QPL, by what authority do you use this title?
GB: "By what authority"... Oh Lord! Listen to him. I repeat, It is a matter of plain and simple fact that I am Queen's archivist.
GB: It is a matter of plain and simple fact that I am Queen's archivist. Whether you interpret my words as official or unofficial or anything else, and why the hell you feel compelled to categorise them anyway, for any reason, is of no interest to me. It's a pointless exercise.
GB: Other than you John, because you want to flex your marginal knowledge of legal words and implications, NOBODY cares whether I, quote, "have written this under the use of your 'official title' or not. How boring to go such a route.
JSS: All this leaves me is to ask you one final question - are your views divorced - or sanctioned by Queen Productions Limited?
GB: What do YOU think John? Do you imagine I have to run every comment I make on QZ past Jim Beach before I say it? Or do you instead think that, like you, I merely say things as I see them and am entitled to express my opinions (whether you like it or not)because it is after all a free country and everyone is permitted open views? What would you think is the most likely scenario?
GB: I have a question for you now. Do you propose to threaten every person that takes issue with you? Are you going to threaten legal action every time someone calls you a wet limp puny sponge, or anything else, some of it much worse? Are you really not able to take it on the chin and rise above it, like the rest of us do??? What makes you so different and special???
GB: A I am as entitled as YOU are John, and Barbara and Janet and Darren1977 and Togg, to express my feelings. They do it, you do it, and that is the way of the world. Retract your kitten claws and just get used to life being like that. It is Sticks And Stones John. Be a big enough man to be at the heart of a heated debate or conversation WITHOUT having to play the "I will sue you" card. If everyone acted that way, like you are, pretty soon no one would dare to say anything on any forum, in case overly sensitive souls like you stamped their feet in tantrum and threatened legal action.
GB: You love to band the words QUEEN PRODUCTIONS and JIM BEACH and YOUR EMPLOYER around all the time, when you get hot under the collar and cannot think of something more sharp or clever to do/say. Now you bring out the last resort "that's libel that is!" card. I am self employed John. I employ myself. I am my boss. I pay my own Nat Ins and tax and holidays. No one else. I have 'clients' for whom I work. I do not have an employer. Is this clear enough to you?
GB: If you are so insecure and so hurt by what I have said, or so offended, that you want to sue me for what you perceive as libel or slander - which is laughable and pathetic, though predictable from you - then you do it. The rest of us, meanwhile, will just get on with it and face the odd inult or offensive remark like adults. You will set an extremely crappy precedent for all internet forum users, but if you think my telling you EXACTLY what I think, and expressing my opinions candidly and honestly, warrants that ridiculous OTT response from you, do it captain Stuart. If you think such threats are going to scare me or make me tone down things to suit you more, you are very wrong.
GB: I can just see you standing up in court saying that nasty Greg Brooks called me a WET LIMP PUNY PATHETIC SPONGE m'lord." It is genuinely laughable. Get off your high horse John, come back down to the real world, calm down, and take it on the chin like I am, even though YOU offend me greatly too, and piss me off more than any human who ever draw breath. Everyone else COPES ok, so I'm sure you can too.
JSS: If they are NOT sanctioned by QPL, by what authority do you use this title?
GB: "By what authority"... Oh Lord! Listen to him. I repeat, It is a matter of plain and simple fact that I am Queen's archivist.
Greg, I'm shocked.
There is really one of you who behavies like an "arrogant arse", like you wrote, but it's not John.
There is really one of you who behavies like an "arrogant arse", like you wrote, but it's not John.
Now I don't want to be involved in this discussion in any way but I had to make one remark: Greg, even though I can see your point, I can tell you you're not gonna win this battle against John for two reasons.
First: John has shared a lot of info with us in the past - you haven't. After many years, all we got from you was a short confusing list of mixed audios and videos that we already knew about before. Yes, I know you are not allowed to tell us many things... but then you can't expect we'll be on your side. Most of your posts on QZ (or QOL) in the past were either worthless chat or personal attacks. And let's face it - you did deserve some of the rude replies you had got.
Secondly: I personally think John is a great psychologist. Could be better education or higher IQ or better knowledge of the language - I really don't know. But his posts always persuade more people than yours :-)
If you start taking us seriously and sharing with us info about Queen recordings, your reputation will undoubtedly increase and people will respect you in the same way as they respect John. This is the way you should go.
First: John has shared a lot of info with us in the past - you haven't. After many years, all we got from you was a short confusing list of mixed audios and videos that we already knew about before. Yes, I know you are not allowed to tell us many things... but then you can't expect we'll be on your side. Most of your posts on QZ (or QOL) in the past were either worthless chat or personal attacks. And let's face it - you did deserve some of the rude replies you had got.
Secondly: I personally think John is a great psychologist. Could be better education or higher IQ or better knowledge of the language - I really don't know. But his posts always persuade more people than yours :-)
If you start taking us seriously and sharing with us info about Queen recordings, your reputation will undoubtedly increase and people will respect you in the same way as they respect John. This is the way you should go.
ZR: Mr. Greg Brooks, why does it take you a whole page to convey one simple idea?
ZR: Hey Greg Brooks, how come do you keep rewording the same idea?
ZR: Dear Mr. Brooks, I wonder how many times you need to tell JSS that he's being a sponge or whatever.
ZR: GB, I think you've made your point now.
ZR: Brooks, we get it.
ZR: Brooks, you've made your point. We get it. No need to write another page saying the same thing all over again.
ZR: Hey Greg Brooks, how come do you keep rewording the same idea?
ZR: Dear Mr. Brooks, I wonder how many times you need to tell JSS that he's being a sponge or whatever.
ZR: GB, I think you've made your point now.
ZR: Brooks, we get it.
ZR: Brooks, you've made your point. We get it. No need to write another page saying the same thing all over again.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr. Scully wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I personally think John is a great psychologist. Could be better education or higher IQ or better knowledge of the language - I really don't know.[/QUOTE]
John is a great writer (after all, I think it's his profession), whereas Greg Brooks needs a little horse sense.
I really don't understand why people still try to communicate with Greg Brooks through this notice board. While he can be funny sometimes, he's clearly not capable of having a conversation, and he's been demonstrating that for years. It's a waste of time.
It's out of question that John has all right to complain, and Greg should either apologize or (even better) simply shut up.
I personally think John is a great psychologist. Could be better education or higher IQ or better knowledge of the language - I really don't know.[/QUOTE]
John is a great writer (after all, I think it's his profession), whereas Greg Brooks needs a little horse sense.
I really don't understand why people still try to communicate with Greg Brooks through this notice board. While he can be funny sometimes, he's clearly not capable of having a conversation, and he's been demonstrating that for years. It's a waste of time.
It's out of question that John has all right to complain, and Greg should either apologize or (even better) simply shut up.
Greg's English DOES get better when he's pissed off. That should count for something, shouldn't it? I think the two of you should be tied by the wrists and forced to down a few bottles together, that should take the egdes off a bit.
I wonder who holds his liquor better, a Scot or someone who's been near Queen for a big part of his life?
I wonder who holds his liquor better, a Scot or someone who's been near Queen for a big part of his life?
After "not" reading all the posts by Greg and John, what i can say is:
It´s obvious that this discussion is time consuming for both of you. Maybe it´s time to stop!
Unless you guys are having fun, a thing like this can become stressfull for both of you.
Just let go!
Take care
It´s obvious that this discussion is time consuming for both of you. Maybe it´s time to stop!
Unless you guys are having fun, a thing like this can become stressfull for both of you.
Just let go!
Take care
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Fireplace wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I wonder who holds his liquor better, a Scot or someone who's been near Queen for a big part of his life? [/QUOTE]
Scottish people cannot hold their drink.
There, I've said it.
I wonder who holds his liquor better, a Scot or someone who's been near Queen for a big part of his life? [/QUOTE]
Scottish people cannot hold their drink.
There, I've said it.
As I am not a Queen collector nor a Queen expert nor a music expert nor the owner of any knowledge or item that might be of interest to either QPL or the collectors' or the experts' community, I have no wish to be involved in this endless pointless quarrelling.
But I'd like to bring to Mr. Brooks' attention a detail that he seems to have overlooked in the heat of the argument:
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]JSS: If they are NOT sanctioned by QPL, by what authority do you use this title?
GB: "By what authority"... Oh Lord! Listen to him. I repeat, It is a matter of plain and simple fact that I am Queen's archivist. What do YOU think John? Do you imagine I have to run every comment I make on QZ past Jim Beach before I say it?[/QUOTE]I for one think I can safely say almost no-one on this board thinks that, Mr.Brooks.
I also think I can safely say that many on this board have this feeling that, before posting something, you'd better ask yourself if your comment might displease or irritate Mr.Beach.
For the plain and simple fact that you are Queen's archivist, I mean.
Because there's this gut feeling around, that the day said Mr.Beach feels that some of the things you wrote with the official "Queen Archivist" hat on might be detrimental to QPL's business or reputation, you might be in for a funny surprise or two...
Good luck!
But I'd like to bring to Mr. Brooks' attention a detail that he seems to have overlooked in the heat of the argument:
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]JSS: If they are NOT sanctioned by QPL, by what authority do you use this title?
GB: "By what authority"... Oh Lord! Listen to him. I repeat, It is a matter of plain and simple fact that I am Queen's archivist. What do YOU think John? Do you imagine I have to run every comment I make on QZ past Jim Beach before I say it?[/QUOTE]I for one think I can safely say almost no-one on this board thinks that, Mr.Brooks.
I also think I can safely say that many on this board have this feeling that, before posting something, you'd better ask yourself if your comment might displease or irritate Mr.Beach.
For the plain and simple fact that you are Queen's archivist, I mean.
Because there's this gut feeling around, that the day said Mr.Beach feels that some of the things you wrote with the official "Queen Archivist" hat on might be detrimental to QPL's business or reputation, you might be in for a funny surprise or two...
Good luck!
Some clients of our company are unfair, disrespectful, tedious and some even try to deceive us. But if my employer caught me talking to one of them in a manner similar to the one the official Queen Archivist uses towards us – all clients or at least potential future clients of his contractor (QPL) – he wouldn't hesitate to sack me. And if I was a freelancer, he wouldn't hesitate a second to sue me.
I don't think, the management of QPL has recognized their archivist's activities on the internet yet. I'd be extremely surprised why they'd still let him write in their name without applying some sort of "prescribed terminology".
I don't think, the management of QPL has recognized their archivist's activities on the internet yet. I'd be extremely surprised why they'd still let him write in their name without applying some sort of "prescribed terminology".
Edit: Well, it is a beautiful day here in Virginia. Time to stop thinking of this stuff.