[QUOTE]
[b]Marcos Napier wrote: [/b]
Saying that one person (...) is an egoist just because he/she disagrees with others (...).
Egoism is a different thing, with a different meaning.
[/QUOTE]
... now let me see: whilst you define yourself a fan of theirs, you did not enjoy this project of THEIRS, so you wish it hadn't happened, and you are happy that it is over.
Which is perfectly fine.
In fact, despite "fan" being just an abbreviation for "fanatic", being a fan doesn't absolutely mean you have to give up your individual judgement, and the right to disagree with their choices, and the freedom to criticise their works you dislike.
But, since you did not enjoy this project of THEIRS, you look down in disgust and disdain at them, and at all those who were happy with them, because YOU weren't happy.
And you give no value or consideration whatsoever to the fact that THEY enjoyed it, and were happy that THEY made it happen, and made others happy through it, and might now be sad that it is over.
Whilst you define yourself a fan of theirs.
Now, I always thought egoism to mean ingrained carelessness about and disregard of others' ***feelings***.
But, English not being my native language, my interpretation might well be SEMANTICALLY wrong.
Would you please care to correct me if that was the case...?
TIA
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE]
[b]gnomo wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Marcos Napier wrote: [/b]
Saying that one person (...) is an egoist just because he/she disagrees with others (...).
Egoism is a different thing, with a different meaning.
[/QUOTE]
... now let me see: whilst you define yourself a fan of theirs, you did not enjoy this project of THEIRS, so you wish it hadn't happened, and you are happy that it is over.
Which is perfectly fine.
In fact, despite "fan" being just an abbreviation for "fanatic", being a fan doesn't absolutely mean you have to give up your individual judgement, and the right to disagree with their choices, and the freedom to criticise their works you dislike.
But, since you did not enjoy this project of THEIRS, you look down in disgust and disdain at them, and at all those who were happy with them, because YOU weren't happy.
And you give no value or consideration whatsoever to the fact that THEY enjoyed it, and were happy that THEY made it happen, and made others happy through it, and might now be sad that it is over.
Whilst you define yourself a fan of theirs.
Now, I always thought egoism to mean ingrained carelessness about and disregard of others' ***feelings***.
But, English not being my native language, my interpretation might well be SEMANTICALLY wrong.
Would you please care to correct me if that was the case...?
TIA
[/QUOTE]
No, I think you nailed it. These trolls obviously only care about themselves, and totally disregard ANYONE that disagrees with them in the slightest on anything. Therefore, our feelings are hurt as a result of their childish actions, and we get very understandably upset and very defensive, as do those trolls with their own doctrine that continues on and on like a broken record that should've been thrown out the window *long ago*.
These bastards are one of the reasons I don't frequent QZ much anymore these days. Nor QOL after seeing what lack of respect goes on over there even from their admins. I got BANNED by an admin, JLD, for demanding fairydandy, over and over, to explain his reasons for forcing his useless anti-QPR doctrine on us, and yet THAT little git hasn't been banned yet! I am profoundly confused by that.
My account is still inactive even though JLP said it would be a week's ban. YEAH RIGHT. Little bastard.
[b]gnomo wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Marcos Napier wrote: [/b]
Saying that one person (...) is an egoist just because he/she disagrees with others (...).
Egoism is a different thing, with a different meaning.
[/QUOTE]
... now let me see: whilst you define yourself a fan of theirs, you did not enjoy this project of THEIRS, so you wish it hadn't happened, and you are happy that it is over.
Which is perfectly fine.
In fact, despite "fan" being just an abbreviation for "fanatic", being a fan doesn't absolutely mean you have to give up your individual judgement, and the right to disagree with their choices, and the freedom to criticise their works you dislike.
But, since you did not enjoy this project of THEIRS, you look down in disgust and disdain at them, and at all those who were happy with them, because YOU weren't happy.
And you give no value or consideration whatsoever to the fact that THEY enjoyed it, and were happy that THEY made it happen, and made others happy through it, and might now be sad that it is over.
Whilst you define yourself a fan of theirs.
Now, I always thought egoism to mean ingrained carelessness about and disregard of others' ***feelings***.
But, English not being my native language, my interpretation might well be SEMANTICALLY wrong.
Would you please care to correct me if that was the case...?
TIA
[/QUOTE]
No, I think you nailed it. These trolls obviously only care about themselves, and totally disregard ANYONE that disagrees with them in the slightest on anything. Therefore, our feelings are hurt as a result of their childish actions, and we get very understandably upset and very defensive, as do those trolls with their own doctrine that continues on and on like a broken record that should've been thrown out the window *long ago*.
These bastards are one of the reasons I don't frequent QZ much anymore these days. Nor QOL after seeing what lack of respect goes on over there even from their admins. I got BANNED by an admin, JLD, for demanding fairydandy, over and over, to explain his reasons for forcing his useless anti-QPR doctrine on us, and yet THAT little git hasn't been banned yet! I am profoundly confused by that.
My account is still inactive even though JLP said it would be a week's ban. YEAH RIGHT. Little bastard.
All those die-hard QPR haters have just gone to the dark side of fandom : feeling entitled to
say what is right or wrong about their favourite band.
Which is ridiculous.
But let us not dwell too much on them, it's too bad for THEM, they just missed the point.
The point is that we got two largely successful and enjoyable tours ! Paul was never an obvious
choice to sing Queen songs given his blues-rock background, but surely there were not many
singers as capable and respectable as him on the market ...
I've seen every major act in concert (Bowie, Stones, McCartney, Page&Plant, REM, Radiohead,
Coldplay) and I can say unbiaisedly that the 2008 QPR Bercy gig was among the very best. During
all those times bitching about the un-rolling setlist, waiting for downloads to be available, I
surely tried to enjoy the whole thing as much as possible.
The only real disappointment was the album, which wasn't on par with their talent and
potential.
Yet QPR has been the best time to be a Queen fan since Made In Heaven, and for that we should
be grateful.
I don't know what the future holds in store, but as our beloved Queen surviving members grow
older and make increasingly rare appearances at WWRY parties, I know I'll miss the QPR days.
Won't you?
say what is right or wrong about their favourite band.
Which is ridiculous.
But let us not dwell too much on them, it's too bad for THEM, they just missed the point.
The point is that we got two largely successful and enjoyable tours ! Paul was never an obvious
choice to sing Queen songs given his blues-rock background, but surely there were not many
singers as capable and respectable as him on the market ...
I've seen every major act in concert (Bowie, Stones, McCartney, Page&Plant, REM, Radiohead,
Coldplay) and I can say unbiaisedly that the 2008 QPR Bercy gig was among the very best. During
all those times bitching about the un-rolling setlist, waiting for downloads to be available, I
surely tried to enjoy the whole thing as much as possible.
The only real disappointment was the album, which wasn't on par with their talent and
potential.
Yet QPR has been the best time to be a Queen fan since Made In Heaven, and for that we should
be grateful.
I don't know what the future holds in store, but as our beloved Queen surviving members grow
older and make increasingly rare appearances at WWRY parties, I know I'll miss the QPR days.
Won't you?
Amen
See? "You don't like QPR, therefore you aren't a fan anymore". It's not that hard to understand what the trolls from the other side mean to say too.
[QUOTE]But,
since you did not enjoy this project of THEIRS, you look down in
disgust and disdain at them, and at all those who were happy with them,
because YOU weren't happy.[/QUOTE]
So... I must act like a sheep and like it regardless, because I'm a fan(atical)? I don't think everybody must agree with me - but at the same time, I don't think I have to like whatever is done by one of the bands that I liked the most just because it has their name on it or for the sake of tradition or nostalgia (this word is getting boring by now) or respect or business or whatever. I do respect them. A lot. But I don't like what they are doing now.
I'm disappointed? Yes. I wish they hadn't gone that bad? Yes. Is this being egostic? I won't lock them down in a dungeon to prevent new releases like TCR. They will quit doing that on their own, hopefully.
One thing that really pissed me off in terms of respect was what Roger said to the fans (something to the likes of "fuck off if you don't like us now). What was that? A piece of knowledge by the best drummer on earth? No, it was just his own disappointment with the (early?) bad criticisms. He shouldn't worry, he will always have someone to play to, whomever is singing.
[QUOTE]But,
since you did not enjoy this project of THEIRS, you look down in
disgust and disdain at them, and at all those who were happy with them,
because YOU weren't happy.[/QUOTE]
So... I must act like a sheep and like it regardless, because I'm a fan(atical)? I don't think everybody must agree with me - but at the same time, I don't think I have to like whatever is done by one of the bands that I liked the most just because it has their name on it or for the sake of tradition or nostalgia (this word is getting boring by now) or respect or business or whatever. I do respect them. A lot. But I don't like what they are doing now.
I'm disappointed? Yes. I wish they hadn't gone that bad? Yes. Is this being egostic? I won't lock them down in a dungeon to prevent new releases like TCR. They will quit doing that on their own, hopefully.
One thing that really pissed me off in terms of respect was what Roger said to the fans (something to the likes of "fuck off if you don't like us now). What was that? A piece of knowledge by the best drummer on earth? No, it was just his own disappointment with the (early?) bad criticisms. He shouldn't worry, he will always have someone to play to, whomever is singing.
[QUOTE]
[b]Marcos Napier wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE][b]gnomo wrote:
[/b]But, since you did not enjoy this project of THEIRS, you look down in
disgust and disdain at them, and at all those who were happy with them,
because YOU weren't happy.[/QUOTE]
So... I must act like a sheep and like it regardless, because I'm a fan(atical)?
[/QUOTE]
I thought I had already answered that question in grammatical English:
[QUOTE]
[b]gnomo wrote: [/b]
In fact, despite "fan" being just an abbreviation for "fanatic", being a fan doesn't absolutely mean you have to give up your individual judgement, and the right to disagree with their choices, and the freedom to criticise their works you dislike.
[/QUOTE]
In fact, it makes no difference to me that you dislike Q+PR, and it sure never crossed my mind to try to make you change your mind. Why should I care?
Nor was I discussing who's a true fan and who's not - I sure do not consider MYSELF a fan, and I would not wish to be classed a "true" one.
I was simply discussing language and semantics, after this statement:
[QUOTE]
[b]Marcos Napier wrote: [/b]
Egoism is a different thing, with a different meaning.
[/QUOTE] [b]
I was simply asking for clarifications about the meaning of "egoism" - specifically whether, in your opinion, stating that something must be OBJECTIVELY wrong just because the subject subjectively happens not to like it (while someone else subjectively happens to like it) could be rightly classified under the definition of "egoism" or not.[/b]
TIA
[b]Marcos Napier wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE][b]gnomo wrote:
[/b]But, since you did not enjoy this project of THEIRS, you look down in
disgust and disdain at them, and at all those who were happy with them,
because YOU weren't happy.[/QUOTE]
So... I must act like a sheep and like it regardless, because I'm a fan(atical)?
[/QUOTE]
I thought I had already answered that question in grammatical English:
[QUOTE]
[b]gnomo wrote: [/b]
In fact, despite "fan" being just an abbreviation for "fanatic", being a fan doesn't absolutely mean you have to give up your individual judgement, and the right to disagree with their choices, and the freedom to criticise their works you dislike.
[/QUOTE]
In fact, it makes no difference to me that you dislike Q+PR, and it sure never crossed my mind to try to make you change your mind. Why should I care?
Nor was I discussing who's a true fan and who's not - I sure do not consider MYSELF a fan, and I would not wish to be classed a "true" one.
I was simply discussing language and semantics, after this statement:
[QUOTE]
[b]Marcos Napier wrote: [/b]
Egoism is a different thing, with a different meaning.
[/QUOTE] [b]
I was simply asking for clarifications about the meaning of "egoism" - specifically whether, in your opinion, stating that something must be OBJECTIVELY wrong just because the subject subjectively happens not to like it (while someone else subjectively happens to like it) could be rightly classified under the definition of "egoism" or not.[/b]
TIA
[b]Fone Bone wrote:
[/b]
...
The point is that we got two largely successful and enjoyable tours ! Paul was never an obvious
choice to sing Queen songs given his blues-rock background, but surely there were not many
singers as capable and respectable as him on the market ...
I've seen every major act in concert (Bowie, Stones, McCartney, Page&Plant, REM, Radiohead,
Coldplay) and I can say unbiaisedly that the 2008 QPR Bercy gig was among the very best. During
all those times bitching about the un-rolling setlist, waiting for downloads to be available, I
surely tried to enjoy the whole thing as much as possible.
The only real disappointment was the album, which wasn't on par with their talent and
potential.
Yet QPR has been the best time to be a Queen fan since Made In Heaven, and for that we should
be grateful.
I don't know what the future holds in store, but as our beloved Queen surviving members grow
older and make increasingly rare appearances at WWRY parties, I know I'll miss the QPR days.
Won't you?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, exactly, I totally agree.
[/b]
...
The point is that we got two largely successful and enjoyable tours ! Paul was never an obvious
choice to sing Queen songs given his blues-rock background, but surely there were not many
singers as capable and respectable as him on the market ...
I've seen every major act in concert (Bowie, Stones, McCartney, Page&Plant, REM, Radiohead,
Coldplay) and I can say unbiaisedly that the 2008 QPR Bercy gig was among the very best. During
all those times bitching about the un-rolling setlist, waiting for downloads to be available, I
surely tried to enjoy the whole thing as much as possible.
The only real disappointment was the album, which wasn't on par with their talent and
potential.
Yet QPR has been the best time to be a Queen fan since Made In Heaven, and for that we should
be grateful.
I don't know what the future holds in store, but as our beloved Queen surviving members grow
older and make increasingly rare appearances at WWRY parties, I know I'll miss the QPR days.
Won't you?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, exactly, I totally agree.
[QUOTE]gnomo wrote: In
fact, despite "fan" being just an abbreviation for "fanatic", being a
fan doesn't absolutely mean you have to give up your individual
judgement, and the right to disagree with their choices, and the
freedom to criticise their works you dislike.
In fact, it makes no difference to me that you dislike Q+PR, and it
sure never crossed my mind to try to make you change your mind. Why
should I care?[/QUOTE]
That's the whole point. As a fan(atical) or not, the individual judgement must be preserved, I suppose. Or are we in North Korea?
To me it doesn't make any difference if you like or not QPR either, if you like it, fine. I won't call you names because of that or compare "my" musical taste with "yours" or "my years as a fan therefore I know more about it than you" as some love to do. All these justifications about why I/you like or not something are just a waste of time as we - I'm saying "we" as in everybody, not towards you specifically - will (fortunately) never agree in everything. But having the rights to say that we disagree in a public place to discuss Queen (and it's variations) stuff is a must, while there isn't a wehateqpr.com forum, I guess.
It should happen in both ways though, but to some it seems that anything that is said that is not "in the book of fan rules" is BS or nonsense. Both these I love/hate QPR behaviours in forums, banning whomever disagrees with the forum "policy" is much more than sad, it's childish.
fact, despite "fan" being just an abbreviation for "fanatic", being a
fan doesn't absolutely mean you have to give up your individual
judgement, and the right to disagree with their choices, and the
freedom to criticise their works you dislike.
In fact, it makes no difference to me that you dislike Q+PR, and it
sure never crossed my mind to try to make you change your mind. Why
should I care?[/QUOTE]
That's the whole point. As a fan(atical) or not, the individual judgement must be preserved, I suppose. Or are we in North Korea?
To me it doesn't make any difference if you like or not QPR either, if you like it, fine. I won't call you names because of that or compare "my" musical taste with "yours" or "my years as a fan therefore I know more about it than you" as some love to do. All these justifications about why I/you like or not something are just a waste of time as we - I'm saying "we" as in everybody, not towards you specifically - will (fortunately) never agree in everything. But having the rights to say that we disagree in a public place to discuss Queen (and it's variations) stuff is a must, while there isn't a wehateqpr.com forum, I guess.
It should happen in both ways though, but to some it seems that anything that is said that is not "in the book of fan rules" is BS or nonsense. Both these I love/hate QPR behaviours in forums, banning whomever disagrees with the forum "policy" is much more than sad, it's childish.
The sad thing is that QPR lovers have been massively trolling us haters while saying that we are 'trolls'.
Here we go again ;(
The point - or at least my point - is that those who don;t like QPR pretty much have nothing to say except 'they shouldn't call themselves Queen' or 'I dont like TCR' or perhaps 'They're in it only for the money' -- all of which is fine BUT NOT ON EVERY BLOODY THREAD! It's fine to say some of these things here, since to an extent this thread invites such comments . But these same points keep getting brought up on almost every QPR thread that gets started. We know what you're going to say because you've said it 100 times before. On the other hand, the QPR threads always offer something new -- for those who ARE interested, such as new recordings, news of setlists, interviews etc. Do you have to bring al of these threads down with the same old crap? It's not that you can't dislike QPR etc, more that people who are interested are just fucking bored listening to all the negativity on every thread.
The point - or at least my point - is that those who don;t like QPR pretty much have nothing to say except 'they shouldn't call themselves Queen' or 'I dont like TCR' or perhaps 'They're in it only for the money' -- all of which is fine BUT NOT ON EVERY BLOODY THREAD! It's fine to say some of these things here, since to an extent this thread invites such comments . But these same points keep getting brought up on almost every QPR thread that gets started. We know what you're going to say because you've said it 100 times before. On the other hand, the QPR threads always offer something new -- for those who ARE interested, such as new recordings, news of setlists, interviews etc. Do you have to bring al of these threads down with the same old crap? It's not that you can't dislike QPR etc, more that people who are interested are just fucking bored listening to all the negativity on every thread.
[QUOTE]
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]
Here we go again ;(
The point - or at least my point - is that those who don;t like QPR pretty much have nothing to say except 'they shouldn't call themselves Queen' or 'I dont like TCR' or perhaps 'They're in it only for the money' -- all of which is fine BUT NOT ON EVERY BLOODY THREAD! (...)[/QUOTE]
But what are the other possible reasons to dislike it? Not liking Paul's beard or his shirts? I don't like it purely by its musical content more than anything else.
It might be boring to read about it in every thread, but it is also boring for us "haters of evil" to read some comments treating this project as the 8th wonder or Jesus coming back or something. It is also boring to see the millions of comments saying how Freddie is a genius, how BoRhap is great etc. etc. and these aren't filled with any negativity. Brian and Roger probably are more bored than anyone to answer these same questions over and over about Freddie and Paul as well - but it's their job and they knew it was coming. This forum is a place where fans can (most of the time) express their opinions on all Queen subjects and this is the only place that can store both the good and the bad.
Maybe just the money subject is a bit exaggerated (and stupid and weak), but the others are valid points and have a common root: the new work is subpar, below average not only compared with what they did, but compared to other similar material of other similar bands (I'm waiting for people asking me for valid examples...). To keep it in the topic subject again, if it was all about the money, they wouldn't quit now (maybe it's not selling as expected, but at least there's some money coming in) and maybe they would have started it at least 10 years ago (and possibly John would be involved).
If it is the only possibility to ever hear some Queen material again (which is a valid point though), fine, the sentimental reasons are more than valid. Just don't say it is the best thing in the world when we know it isn't.
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]
Here we go again ;(
The point - or at least my point - is that those who don;t like QPR pretty much have nothing to say except 'they shouldn't call themselves Queen' or 'I dont like TCR' or perhaps 'They're in it only for the money' -- all of which is fine BUT NOT ON EVERY BLOODY THREAD! (...)[/QUOTE]
But what are the other possible reasons to dislike it? Not liking Paul's beard or his shirts? I don't like it purely by its musical content more than anything else.
It might be boring to read about it in every thread, but it is also boring for us "haters of evil" to read some comments treating this project as the 8th wonder or Jesus coming back or something. It is also boring to see the millions of comments saying how Freddie is a genius, how BoRhap is great etc. etc. and these aren't filled with any negativity. Brian and Roger probably are more bored than anyone to answer these same questions over and over about Freddie and Paul as well - but it's their job and they knew it was coming. This forum is a place where fans can (most of the time) express their opinions on all Queen subjects and this is the only place that can store both the good and the bad.
Maybe just the money subject is a bit exaggerated (and stupid and weak), but the others are valid points and have a common root: the new work is subpar, below average not only compared with what they did, but compared to other similar material of other similar bands (I'm waiting for people asking me for valid examples...). To keep it in the topic subject again, if it was all about the money, they wouldn't quit now (maybe it's not selling as expected, but at least there's some money coming in) and maybe they would have started it at least 10 years ago (and possibly John would be involved).
If it is the only possibility to ever hear some Queen material again (which is a valid point though), fine, the sentimental reasons are more than valid. Just don't say it is the best thing in the world when we know it isn't.
Well, after a week's discussion I think it's perfectly clear how many of you think. Now that the tour is officially over and judging by Brian's lack of comments and the official list of downloads or lack there of at Queenonline.com, this venture is official over. Sure they can play some more one off concerts in the UK with Paul Rodgers, but they will never tour North America again. It's a shame, and being an American and seeing a dozen shows including 2 in England it's sad really. Let me set the record straight for all those "Well Paul Rodgers is more popular in America because he sang in Bad Company". Well the truth is Bad Company was popular here, about 30 years ago!!!! And never on the same playing field as Queen. Personally I love Paul Rodgers, he's a very good singer, very professional, and very talanted. But he is not even in the same building as Freddie Mercury. It's true I feel like a critic here, and I hate critic's. But the truth is hearing the Show Must Go On played like it's going in slow motion is not cool!!!! WTF, seriously this tour has been a mess from the beginning. They start the tour with One Vision, then drop it, then start it with a lack lustar version of Hammer to Fall, terrible I was there in Birmingham. WTF are they doing. It's like "Hey we have Paul Rodgers but we really don't need him", and from seeing the tour in 2005,2006, and 2008 it's like they have told him, and Pauls only there to collect a pay check. The whole thing really fustrates me, and has been a totally disaster this time around especially. And personally Paul doesn't make it any easier on himself, he has absolutelly no interaction with the audience what so ever!!! I don't know if Brain and Roger have instructed him not to or if he just chosse not to. But this is insane. At least in 2005 he tried to interact with the audience, but this tour he really hasen't said a word even when he does his own songs, it's really weird! I really hope they rebound, if it's with another singer or by themselves, but this prouduct of Queen + just doesn't cut it!
You must've seen a different Paul Rodgers then me. The Paul Rodgers I saw shook hands with people in the audiences,always widely smiling, pointing and waving at people in the audience etc etc. He's a performer for god's sake - perfoming is what he does and what he enjoys.
[b]Headlong24 wrote: [/b]
Well, after a week's discussion I think it's perfectly clear how many of you think. Now that the tour is officially over and judging by Brian's lack of comments and the official list of downloads or lack there of at Queenonline.com, this venture is official over. Sure they can play some more one off concerts in the UK with Paul Rodgers, but they will never tour North America again. It's a shame, and being an American and seeing a dozen shows including 2 in England it's sad really.
[/QUOTE]
====================================
We heard that Queen and Paul Rodgers are negotiating a tour in the USA, Japan and maybe even Australia in September/October 2009. Nothing has been signed but I would not be too pessimistic.
Well, after a week's discussion I think it's perfectly clear how many of you think. Now that the tour is officially over and judging by Brian's lack of comments and the official list of downloads or lack there of at Queenonline.com, this venture is official over. Sure they can play some more one off concerts in the UK with Paul Rodgers, but they will never tour North America again. It's a shame, and being an American and seeing a dozen shows including 2 in England it's sad really.
[/QUOTE]
====================================
We heard that Queen and Paul Rodgers are negotiating a tour in the USA, Japan and maybe even Australia in September/October 2009. Nothing has been signed but I would not be too pessimistic.
Interesting... I suspected they might do Japan again, they always go down so well over there, but I didn't think they would do Oz
From comments by way of a third party (so no idea how true) this is certainly not over at this point, short break then back to work.
From comments by way of a third party (so no idea how true) this is certainly not over at this point, short break then back to work.