Brainmay.com - More Senseless Rambling

Re Brian's recent post:

>>Well,
the Blair Memoirs certainly scotched all that. Very cleverly, of
course, Tony has announced his intention to give away the royalties of
his book to help the veterans and dependents of the Iraq war. Cleverly? I
am a writer too ... and I can tell you if you are not Harry Potter it
is not a very lucrative profession .. so, well, forgive me, but I am not
the first to point out that the relatively small amount of money he
would have made from the book might be seen as a small price to pay to
secure his precious 'legacy'.

I'm no fan of Tony Blair, his party of his politics, but decrying Blair's donation of royalties to the Iraq war veterans / dependants is cruel beyond belief.

Blair has done SOMETHING, however small and however it may be viewed given his contribution to what has happened in Iraq.  SOMETHING.  Better than nothing Oh Curly Haired One.  What have YOU done to help protect national / world security?  What have YOU done to ease the suffering of the sick or the bereaved through war? 

Do you have the gumption to place yourself in the decision-making rooms of the world and formulate plans and ideas that could, possibly, make for a peaceful world?  No - you merely rand and babble on like a fucking moron claiming the high ground whilst contrasting international conflict with teh plight of fox cubs.

Brian is presumably suffering from some kind of bizzarre superiority complex at the moment - I hope he gets treatment very soon.

I agree, he does seem to put hand to keyboard a lot these days without  going via his brain!!

I read that jus the advance on Blair's book was £4.6m, so not an insignificant amount to give away, regardless of your own personal thoughts on the motives behind doing so.

When Brian says 'I am an author and know that's it's not very lucrative', I'm tempted to reply to him to say that it is if you actually sell a lot of books!!!

Benn wrote: "I'm no fan of Tony Blair, his party of his politics, but decrying Blair's donation of royalties to the Iraq war veterans / dependants is cruel beyond belief."


Is it? I would argue that Brian has every right to question Blair's motivation for donating his royalties. Blair isn't an ordinary citizen who has made a decision to give to charity. He's a former PM who played a key role in the Iraq war. Like Brian, I too question his motivation.

"Blair has done SOMETHING, however small and however it may be viewed given his contribution to what has happened in Iraq. SOMETHING. Better than nothing Oh Curly Haired One."

One could argue that considering he played a key role in it, this contribution doesn't make up for it.

"What have YOU done to help protect national / world security?"

How did going to Iraq help protect national/world security?

"What have YOU done to ease the suffering of the sick or the bereaved through war?"

Oh please. If Blair cares so much about the suffering of the sick or the bereaved, why go to war?

"Do you have the gumption to place yourself in the decision-making rooms of the world and formulate plans and ideas that could, possibly, make for a peaceful world?"

So Brian can't criticise Blair because he's a musician? What nonsence. Furthermore, considering that you are supporting Blair, even though you yourself are not in the 'decision-making rooms of the world', don't you think you are being hypocritical? You can't have it both ways. If you can support Blair, Brian can criticise him.

Regardless though, when those decisions affect the entire world, citizens such as Brian have every right to criticise the decision makers.

"No - you merely rand and babble on like a fucking moron claiming the high ground whilst contrasting international conflict with teh plight of fox cubs."

Incredible. Not only do you resort to personal abuse (so immature, and what a great way to lose the argument), but you do not realise the hypocricy of this? You accuse him of trying to claim the high ground yet look at what you are doing. This rant of yours (because Benn, that is what you are doing) is incredibly self-righteous and is just a naked attempt to claim the moral high ground. You don't like him criticising Blair for some reason, yet you think you have the right to support Blair? Support and criticism are two sides of the same coin. If Brian can't criticise Blair, because he's a non-politician or some other nonsence, then you can't back Blair for the same reason.

Ultimately Brian has the right to state his opinion, and he has the right to do so on his blog. If you don't agree, fine, but don't pretend that he has no right to say it.

BTW, when did he contrast international affairs with the plight of fox cubs?

"Brian is presumably suffering from some kind of bizzarre superiority complex at the moment - I hope he gets treatment very soon."

That would be the same kind of superiority complex that you obviously suffer from. Perhaps he could seek treatment advice from you.

Amazon, re:

>>One could argue that considering he
played a key role in it, this contribution doesn't make up for it.

Of course it hasn't made up for it.  That would not have been his intention in any way.  I guess he felt he could *do something* and has done.

>>Oh
please. If Blair cares so much about the suffering of the sick or the
bereaved, why go to war?

Because there is / was a need to *do something* about the situation in that country.  The only recorse left was war and it was successful.  Death is a by-product of war and the troops KIA knew what they were signing up for when they joined whichever service.

>>So
Brian can't criticise Blair because he's a musician?

Nope - I didn't say that, now, did I.  That's your twist on what I've written.

>>What nonsence.

You said it.

>>Furthermore, considering that you are supporting Blair, even though you
yourself are not in the 'decision-making rooms of the world', don't you
think you are being hypocritical? You can't have it both ways. If you
can support Blair, Brian can criticise him.Regardless though,
when those decisions affect the entire world, citizens such as Brian
have every right to criticise the decision makers.

And he can.  I never said that he **could not** criticise him.  Of course he can.  As I can of Brian and you can of me.  I can call him a fucking idiot - as he can of me and I can of you and you can of me.  If we choose to.  Please, feel free.  Brian's a strange and mostly sickening throw back to a bye-gone age where all humans love each other and they love their animals.  The reality is that war is a real part of everyday life for millions who couldn't give a rat's ass about fox cubs.

>>Incredible.
Not only do you resort to personal abuse (so immature, and what a great
way to lose the argument), but you do not realise the hypocricy of
this? You accuse him of trying to claim the high ground yet look at what
you are doing. This rant of yours (because Benn, that is what you are
doing) is
incredibly self-righteous and is just a naked attempt to claim
the
moral high ground.

Here we have a pattern forming; this is you , AGAIN, interpreting my words to be something else.  I don't want or need to claim any high ground.  And, AGAIN, Brian's allowed to rant, as am I, as are you.  Try not to make this something that it's not if you can.  Pretty please?

>>You don't like him criticising Blair for some
reason, yet you think you have the right to support Blair?

There you go.  You got it.  I don't *like* it and I'm saying that.  Good.

>>Support and
criticism are two sides of the same coin. If Brian can't criticise
Blair, because he's a non-politician or some other nonsence, then you
can't back Blair for the same reason.Ultimately Brian has the
right to state his opinion, and he has the right to do so on his blog.
If you don't agree, fine, but don't pretend that he has no right to say
it.

So, if you take away your creative *interpretation* of what I wrote, you agree with me that we are ALL allowed to say what we like in any way we like to say it.  Excellent stuff.

>>Perhaps he could seek treatment advice
from you.

Or from you as a creative interpreter and twister of words who then subsequently turns that into their own rant?

Benn wrote: Amazon, re:


">>One could argue that considering he played a key role in it, this contribution doesn't make up for it."

"Of course it hasn't made up for it. That would not have been his intention in any way. I guess he felt he could *do something* and has done."

Yes, but Brian was questioning his motivation, which he was perfectly entitled to do so.

"Because there is / was a need to *do something* about the situation in that country. The only recorse left was war and it was successful."

Are you serious? There was absolutely no need to do anything (you do realise that no WMD has been found), and in no way was war even a good option, yet alone 'the only recorse left.' As for it being successful, tell that to the Iraqis who are still being killed as a result of the war.

">>So Brian can't criticise Blair because he's a musician?"

"Nope - I didn't say that, now, did I. That's your twist on what I've written."

That is what you are implying. You are absolutely implying that. When you say "What have YOU done to help protect national / world security? What have YOU done to ease the suffering of the sick or the bereaved through war?" and "Do you have the gumption to place yourself in the decision-making rooms of the world and formulate plans and ideas that could, possibly, make for a peaceful world?" you are absolutely doing that.

">>What nonsence."

"You said it."

That's right, it is nonsence.

"And he can. I never said that he **could not** criticise him."

No, but you imply it. Instead of focusing on what he says, you attack the fact that he's saying it.

"I can call him a fucking idiot - as he can of me and I can of you and you can of me. If we choose to. Please, feel free."

Which is why I call you a hypocrite.

" Brian's a strange and mostly sickening throw back to a bye-gone age where all humans love each other and they love their animals."

Strange? Perhaps. Sickening? Why, because he doesn't believe that people should hate each other? Right. Look, Brian can be extreme sometimes, he can be a little naive, but I don't understand how it is sickening.

"The reality is that war is a real part of everyday life for millions who couldn't give a rat's ass about fox cubs."

Please provide the quote where he compared war with the treatment of fox cubs, otherwise you're just being deceitful.

"Here we have a pattern forming; this is you , AGAIN, interpreting my words to be something else. I don't want or need to claim any high ground."

Your words are pretty easy to interpret. You, a war supporter, are accusing Brian, a war opponent, of ranting and babbling on like 'like a fucking moron' and you do so in a post in which you absolutely stated that he has no right to criticise the war since he's a non-politician; yet you have the right to back it.

"And, AGAIN, Brian's allowed to rant, as am I, as are you. Try not to make this something that it's not if you can. Pretty please?"

Brian does rant, but so did you. I'm not making it into anything that's it's not. You absolutely did rant.

" ">>You don't like him criticising Blair for some
reason, yet you think you have the right to support Blair?"

"There you go. You got it. I don't *like* it and I'm saying that. Good."

Your sarcasm aside, I think that this is what it is. The fact that you revealed yourself to be a war supporter in this post proves it. You have no problem backing the war, even though you are in the same position as Brian, yet you dislike him criticising it.

"So, if you take away your creative *interpretation* of what I wrote, you agree with me that we are ALL allowed to say what we like in any way we like to say it. Excellent stuff."

Here's a tip. Accusing someone of creatively interpretating what you say, when it's pretty obviuous what you mean, doesn't work. It is obvious to anyone what you meant. Your denying it simply proves that you're an intellectual coward.

Also, considering that you don't think that Brian should even say it, and I think that he has the right to say whatever he wants, no I don't agree with you. At all.

You know, if you do believe that Brian has the right to criticise the war (and I don't believe that you do), it would help to actually focus on what he says, rather than the fact he is saying it at all.

">>Perhaps he could seek treatment advice
from you."

"Or from you as a creative interpreter and twister of words who then subsequently turns that into their own rant?"

Wow, how clever. Turning my own insult back against me. Except that I'm not a creative interpreter, I'm a resonable interpeter and you are an intellectual coward; I don't twist words, you do so in an attempt to deny that you mean what is pretty obvious; and as for ranting, I guess it takes one to know one.

Hey Benn, you rant at Brian, Brian rants at Tony Blair, I think Brian has more first hand experience of Mr Blair than you have of Brian.
Enough said.

Yes! How dare anyone criticize Brian, or any of the band members lol. And while we're criticizing, since Brian is against fox hunting and animal cruelty in general, he therefore has the brain capacity of a chimp:) Its about time these celebrities started living in the real world imho.

This website and brian's really makes me embarrassed to be a Queen fan most of the time.

Oh and thankyou to the asshats in briton that introduced foxes and rabbits to australia, "that went well" didn't it. Luckily we can still kill them here before they destroy all the native wildlife.

j2003lp wrote:

Oh and thankyou to the asshats in briton that introduced foxes and rabbits to australia, "that went well" didn't it. Luckily we can still kill them here before they destroy all the native wildlife.

Where is briton and who are you quoting?

I'm sure Brian thinks that the £4,600,000 advance that Tony Blair got for his memoirs, plus the royalties for the fastest selling memoir in history, is something to be scoffed at. I wonder how much Brian got for Bang!?

Blair is a moron who may at least be smart enough to feel guilt for listening to ol' George Dubya. Blair took out the PM of Canada for a  beer and asked him if he should go out to Iraq. Jean Chretien, the Canadian Prime Minister, said the evidence of WMD was so weak that he wan't going to the Iraq war and that blair can make up his own mind.
So out oif guilt he is giving royalties away. What a saint! Brian is 100% totally correct here!!!!!!

Yerah if it wasn't for Blair, these veterans wouldnt need his royalties. So I guess blair doing "something" doesn't even begin to make up for the misery he helped cause.

Calm down j2001, you got your revenge - we now have fosters lager in the UK.

By the way, sorry to interrupt, but you should have spellchecked the address of Brian's website before you started the topic. It just looks so funny with the ia reversed.

Carry on.

Graeme Arnott wrote: Hey Benn, you rant at Brian, Brian rants at Tony Blair, I think Brian has more first hand experience of Mr Blair than you have of Brian.
Enough said.
I've met Brian May more times than Brian has met Tony Blair, so can I have a pop at Brian then?

Let's face it, the funny thing is that Brian has actually gone out and bought the book! (or even worse, was given a freebie which means no donation to the soldiers cause)

This thread is a joke.

Totally agree Gregsynth, the negativity aimed at Brian is now getting a bit extreme, is this a Queen fans forum?