Brian's Save Me Campaign

I've been emailing Brian a lot about this campaign. I don't know if he ever reads any of it. He only replied once to thank me for the feedback.

The statement he made about having Parson's "guts for garters" - I laughed, but it was over-the-top. Brian can't let them suck him into the negative side like this or he will destroy himself. It is natural that they fight back because he is threatening their way of life and of thinking about things in what for them is the natural order.

I do care a lot about these things and am not just kissing up to Brian. I began reading his Soapbox because of Queen, but was pleasantly surprised that he was speaking out in defence of animals. I have a spot where I pontificate about such things too:
http://the-sacred-web-of-life.blogspot.com/

[QUOTE]cacatua wrote:

The letter just below this Parsons blow-out was supportive, and when he answered he said he was making enemies and being vilified by some.

I think Brian must have heard those remarks, being referred to as "the hairy man" or "a millionaire rock star" about one time too many, and lost it! The letter from Councillor Parsons was pretty nasty and provocative itself. It sounds like Brian is getting really stressed out.[/QUOTE]

I don't buy that.  The 'millionaire rock star' thing is something he needs to be prepared for in this instance as it's not only clear that it will be employed,  but clear that perhaps it should be employed.  It's not irrelevant, and since he can put that fact into a larger context I think he should do so as civilly as possible and as many times as necessary.  Instead he loses his mind, because somebody 'attacked' him.  When he attacks people in the very same way constantly on his soapbox!  He set the tone of the discourse himself a hundred times over.

I know that if I was seeking to not just make decisions for myself but to impose my will on others I would feel a great deal of responsibility to support my position with something other than the fact that I'm right and everybody else is a worthless idiot.  Beneath the dismissive language the councillor is actually making a point of sorts.  Brian is just responding like a stressed out narcissist.   Acting like he's engaged in guerilla warfare, when in fact there is already a law on the books that may be subjected to a free vote (which it's never been as I understand) under a set of circumstances that may or may not come to pass at some unknown time in the future.

Thanks for the correct link :-)

Well, this seems like a nice idea

GratefulFan wrote:

cacatua wrote:

The letter just below this Parsons blow-out was supportive, and when he answered he said he was making enemies and being vilified by some.

I think Brian must have heard those remarks, being referred to as "the hairy man" or "a millionaire rock star" about one time too many, and lost it! The letter from Councillor Parsons was pretty nasty and provocative itself. It sounds like Brian is getting really stressed out.

I don't buy that.  The 'millionaire rock star' thing is something he needs to be prepared for in this instance as it's not only clear that it will be employed,  but clear that perhaps it should be employed.  It's not irrelevant, and since he can put that fact into a larger context I think he should do so as civilly as possible and as many times as necessary.  Instead he loses his mind, because somebody 'attacked' him.  When he attacks people in the very same way constantly on his soapbox!  He set the tone of the discourse himself a hundred times over.

I know that if I was seeking to not just make decisions for myself but to impose my will on others I would feel a great deal of responsibility to support my position with something other than the fact that I'm right and everybody else is a worthless idiot.  Beneath the dismissive language the councillor is actually making a point of sorts.  Brian is just responding like a stressed out narcissist.   Acting like he's engaged in guerilla warfare, when in fact there is already a law on the books that may be subjected to a free vote (which it's never been as I understand) under a set of circumstances that may or may not come to pass at some unknown time in the future.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He didn't do himself any favors to add the "guts for garters" part at the end of the letter, and oddly enough, just an hour ago on Facebook, he told the troops to "keep it clean" in their commentary, "Pro-unters are trying to report us....let's not give them any ammo :)"

Yes, he should have expected to be a target for some unkind remarks himself. It just sounds like he lost it. Not good to have it in bold print though - very hard to unring that bell. But now that the pop-off valve has spouted steam, perhaps things will level out.

http://www.save-me.org.uk/flash/assets/mp3/save-me.mp3

New version of Save Me with Kerry Ellis (probably).

GratefulFan wrote: I"'m thinking you maybe didn't read all the way to the bottom past the picture..."

Yes, I just read it now. Before I didn't go past the picture. Yeh, saying that 'you'd better be as brave as your words, because if you ever come within sniffing distance of me I'll have your guts for garters, you pathetic, arrogant, jumped-up, snivelling little dweeb' is not a good look at all. I do understand why Brian would be angry (I think that the reference to Brian being a a 'cosseted London rock star' and the comment that he has 'not chafed his hands on anything other than a guitar neck'  are pathetic and do justify an emotional response) but he just went completely OTT.

The problem is that this is a complicated issue, in which there are no good or bad guys, yet Brian's attempt to turn this into a matter of good versus evil just makes him come across as a self-rigteous prick. I have tremendous respect for Brian and his concern for animal rights (particularly in regards to fox hunting), but he needs to acknowledge that farmers and the like who disagree with him, do not do so because they revel in hurting animals. Rather they have legitimate concerns; Brian doesn't have to agree with these concerns, but he should at least acknowledge them. If he did, and if he used reason and continued to rely upon research, and wasn't baited by silly 'millionaire rock star' comments, he wouldn't be so off-puting and I think he would have more success in winning people over to the cause.

Christ.  It does have Kerry Ellis.  I listened to this yesterday until the orchestra kicked in, and then I wandered off.  Well, lots of people who aren't me will love it I suppose.

Does this qualify as the anthem you wanted him to write cacatua?

GratefulFan wrote: Christ.  It does have Kerry Ellis.  I listened to this yesterday until the orchestra kicked in, and then I wandered off.  Well, lots of people who aren't me will love it I suppose.

Does this qualify as the anthem you wanted him to write cacatua? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apparently it is as close as I will get. I listened to the whole thing and assumed too it was Kerry Ellis. He did name the campaign after it so I was expecting some version of the song.

Amazon wrote: GratefulFan wrote: I"'m thinking you maybe didn't read all the way to the bottom past the picture..."

Yes, I just read it now. Before I didn't go past the picture. Yeh, saying that 'you'd better be as brave as your words, because if you ever come within sniffing distance of me I'll have your guts for garters, you pathetic, arrogant, jumped-up, snivelling little dweeb' is not a good look at all. I do understand why Brian would be angry (I think that the reference to Brian being a a 'cosseted London rock star' and the comment that he has 'not chafed his hands on anything other than a guitar neck'  are pathetic and do justify an emotional response) but he just went completely OTT.

The problem is that this is a complicated issue, in which there are no good or bad guys, yet Brian's attempt to turn this into a matter of good versus evil just makes him come across as a self-rigteous prick. I have tremendous respect for Brian and his concern for animal rights (particularly in regards to fox hunting), but he needs to acknowledge that farmers and the like who disagree with him, do not do so because they revel in hurting animals. Rather they have legitimate concerns; Brian doesn't have to agree with these concerns, but he should at least acknowledge them. If he did, and if he used reason and continued to rely upon research, and wasn't baited by silly 'millionaire rock star' comments, he wouldn't be so off-puting and I think he would have more success in winning people over to the cause.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think he tried to keep it civil and based on reputable research, but was just dismissed as being an outsider and derided as a rock star too many times. There are always two sides to these things, but I do think the "other side" kicked some sand in his face while he was trying to play nice. Now he has lost that high ground by going after his detractor.
I guess this was his Death On Two Legs moment.

Although i think in my opinion that he is running in a never-ending marathon, at least he has convictions and beliefs and at least he fights for what he believes, which is more than most celebrities can say.  Lastly, i commend him on his work as a normal citizen, BUT he literally ruined his case with the opening of that letter imo, he shouldn't have opened with the recognization of him being a member of Queen or a rock star, very egotistical and unprofessional imo.

Bulsarian wrote: Although i think in my opinion that he is running in a never-ending marathon, at least he has convictions and beliefs and at least he fights for what he believes, which is more than most celebrities can say.  Lastly, i commend him on his work as a normal citizen, BUT he literally ruined his case with the opening of that letter imo, he shouldn't have opened with the recognization of him being a member of Queen or a rock star, very egotistical and unprofessional imo.
The reason he mentioned that was because the councellor mentioned it. It was the councellor who first brought it up (attacking Brian for being a 'cosseted London rock star' and stating that Brian hadn't 'chafed his hands on anything other than a guitar neck'), so I don't think it was unreasonable that Brian brought it up. He could, however, have been less agressive; certainly the last line was OTT.

Amazon wrote:

Yes, I just read it now. Before I didn't go past the picture. Yeh, saying that 'you'd better be as brave as your words, because if you ever come within sniffing distance of me I'll have your guts for garters, you pathetic, arrogant, jumped-up, snivelling little dweeb' is not a good look at all. I do understand why Brian would be angry (I think that the reference to Brian being a a 'cosseted London rock star' and the comment that he has 'not chafed his hands on anything other than a guitar neck'  are pathetic and do justify an emotional response) but he just went completely OTT.

The problem is that this is a complicated issue, in which there are no good or bad guys, yet Brian's attempt to turn this into a matter of good versus evil just makes him come across as a self-rigteous prick. I have tremendous respect for Brian and his concern for animal rights (particularly in regards to fox hunting), but he needs to acknowledge that farmers and the like who disagree with him, do not do so because they revel in hurting animals. Rather they have legitimate concerns; Brian doesn't have to agree with these concerns, but he should at least acknowledge them. If he did, and if he used reason and continued to rely upon research, and wasn't baited by silly 'millionaire rock star' comments, he wouldn't be so off-puting and I think he would have more success in winning people over to the cause.

***************************

Yep.

[QUOTE]cacatua wrote:

I think he tried to keep it civil and based on reputable research, but was just dismissed as being an outsider and derided as a rock star too many times. There are always two sides to these things, but I do think the "other side" kicked some sand in his face while he was trying to play nice. Now he has lost that high ground by going after his detractor.
I guess this was his Death On Two Legs moment.[/QUOTE]

I think you're being too generous. I've rarely seen him be even remotely civil on this topic on the Soapbox.  In fact he's blindingly obnoxious about 90% of the time.  And the vocal members of his new Facebook crew are at about 85%. When he started doing press for the Badger Trust challenge and Save Me I thought he was finally hitting a really great tone, but it didn't last.  Frankly, you better be ready to effectively and graciously defend being an outsider and a wealthy rock star when you're, um, an outsider and a wealthy rock star.  If I were waging his campaign the first step I'd take is right into the shoes of the people upon whom I was trying to foist my world view.  I'd start with understanding that it might feel pretty galling from their vantage point and go on from there.   Laser beam compassion for animals is no good to any living thing if the cost is near total tone deafness to your effect on a great number of actual people.

It's just wasteful because there is no one on the planet that can gently persuade any better than him when he turns it on.  There are many examples, but I always think of the commentary for the 'It's a Hard Life' video.  That video is the most absurb spectacle ever printed to film, but by the end of his words you feel warm and inspired and connected to Fred and connected to the band.  Why can't he just do that?  People would follow him anywhere.

GratefulFan wrote:

cacatua wrote:

I think he tried to keep it civil and based on reputable research, but was just dismissed as being an outsider and derided as a rock star too many times. There are always two sides to these things, but I do think the "other side" kicked some sand in his face while he was trying to play nice. Now he has lost that high ground by going after his detractor.
I guess this was his Death On Two Legs moment.

I think you're being too generous. I've rarely seen him be even remotely civil on this topic on the Soapbox.  In fact he's blindingly obnoxious about 90% of the time.  And the vocal members of his new Facebook crew are at about 85%. When he started doing press for the Badger Trust challenge and Save Me I thought he was finally hitting a really great tone, but it didn't last.  Frankly, you better be ready to effectively and graciously defend being an outsider and a wealthy rock star when you're, um, an outsider and a wealthy rock star.  If I were waging his campaign the first step I'd take is right into the shoes of the people upon whom I was trying to foist my world view.  I'd start with understanding that it might feel pretty galling from their vantage point and go on from there.   Laser beam compassion for animals is no good to any living thing if the cost is near total tone deafness to your effect on a great number of actual people.

It's just wasteful because there is no one on the planet that can gently persuade any better than him when he turns it on.  There are many examples, but I always think of the commentary for the 'It's a Hard Life' video.  That video is the most absurb spectacle ever printed to film, but by the end of his words you feel warm and inspired and connected to Fred and connected to the band.  Why can't he just do that?  People would follow him anywhere.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't disagree with anything you have said, because it is all true. BUT I am less judgemental about it because I have an artistic nature too, and that tends to make you inclined to have emotions stronger than more normal people, which creates the drive to do works of art. But it makes one prone to getting stressed out more easily and having a meltdown. If the stressing factors aren't relieved, then one's body starts to pour chemicals like adrenaline into the system, and if a tipping point is reached then you have clinical depression. Been there, done that, and I have to be careful. I know that Brian has battled deprssion too. I am tired of people attaching some sort of stigma to it, as in the end it is a medical condition, and it is very hard to put on a "happy face" to get out of it when your system is still dumping chemicals toxic to the nervous system into it so that you are swimming against that torrent of negativity. People commit suicide just to make it stop. Medication helps but won't necessarily make everything "peachy."

I roared when I first saw Brian's reply to this guy! So did my husband. But unfortunately Brian published it, and these things have a way of coming back to bite you in the ass. I speak of topics concerning the natural world on my blog but I try to keep away from attacking possible readers and just share what I feel about it. However, after Brian launched his Save Me campaign I got to wondering about a horrible practice that they were "bringing back'' some years ago in the USA called "live pigeon shoots." I found that it is still done in Pennsylvania, and there is a thoroughly brutal video of one of these. Apparently it is a "family" event, and the kids are employed to go stomp on the many wounded birds, many of which were raised inside for this purpose and had never flown, so that when they were sprung from the "traps" they just stood there, bewildered, and these "contestants" shot them where they stood. After a round the kids dash out and stomp on the flopping birds, or beat them to death on something, or yank their heads off and then carry them back to throw them into a barrel. In spite of all that, some of them are still alive when thrown into that barrel and slowly die of their wounds or suffocate. If you think I am exaggerating, there is a link to this video at my blog (and a link to the blog in a previous post)

I am getting upset just writing about this. When I watched the video it nearly made me throw up, and I don't usually react that way. It is just that heinous to me because I am a great bird lover, and my cockatoo was sitting in my lap as I watched. I don't think I could stay anything nearly civil if I were to run across anyone who participated in this "sport."  Now I don't know what sort of horrible videos Brian may have seen, or what sort of situations he may have witnessed on behalf of his rescued babies, but he feels very passionately about the subject, and it will likely take a lot less provocation to get him worked up to the point of lashing out on this topic than most others, which won't necessarily be helpful. Add other daily stressors and lack of sleep, perhaps too much caffiene, and it is a recipe for a meltdown.

That is why I am not so unforgiving as yourself and some others about Brian's behavior. Hopefully he has gotten a grip after venting. As they say, "You catch more flies with sugar than vinegar."

Yes, I am loyal, and call me a "Stepford" if you wish. If that is the worst thing I ever get called then I can live with it.

Brian has a new Save Me statement at the soapbox. It is much more positive than yesterday, and now that he has gotten a tates of Facebook, he has decided he likes it and will settle in as himself.