"I dont see why the originator should get abuse for it"
I hope you're not talking about me there - I wasn't even being remotely abusive!
john bodega
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Mr.Jingles
Some people here are acting as if I said "Freddie was a filthy fag and he deserved to die of AIDS". All I was asking was a simple question about Freddie's choice to ignore the fact that he was highly at risk.
Put yourself in the shoes of Peter Freestone or anyone else who lived with Freddie. Wouldn't you want to know if the person you are living with might be HIV+ or have AIDS?
Put yourself in the shoes of Peter Freestone or anyone else who lived with Freddie. Wouldn't you want to know if the person you are living with might be HIV+ or have AIDS?
ANAGRAMER
Be a man and drop it mr.Jingles
lyricalassasin77
[QUOTE] [b]Zebonka12 wrote:[/b]
"Unlike you, I don't think I'm the leading authority on Queen on here"
This isn't even a discussion about Queen, you numpty. This is about the personal life of a very dead man, and as much as it probably upsets you to hear this - neither you, or the topic starter, or myself are really in a position to be an authority on it. Therefore (as I've already said) what's being said about Freddie here can't (and does not) carry much weight.
The fact that this is seemingly difficult for you to understand speaks volumes.[/QUOTE]
The fact of the matter is you attacked the guy for asking the question. Everything the band has done is in the past, and 90% of the stuff that's discussed on here is the PAST & over and done with yet people still talk about it and ask questions about it. So what if he's dead, as far as I'm concerned the band Queen has been dead for sometime and most of anything that's talked about on here is what they've done in the past not in the present or future yet people still talk about it, his personal life is no different. When your a public figure any sanctity of a "personal life" goes out the window. I'm not saying that's right, but its how things are. Thus it will get commented on again and again no matter how many times you feel the need to pop up on here and condemn it. You act like its your duty to defend his personal life. Its fair game, just like everything else is on here.
"Unlike you, I don't think I'm the leading authority on Queen on here"
This isn't even a discussion about Queen, you numpty. This is about the personal life of a very dead man, and as much as it probably upsets you to hear this - neither you, or the topic starter, or myself are really in a position to be an authority on it. Therefore (as I've already said) what's being said about Freddie here can't (and does not) carry much weight.
The fact that this is seemingly difficult for you to understand speaks volumes.[/QUOTE]
The fact of the matter is you attacked the guy for asking the question. Everything the band has done is in the past, and 90% of the stuff that's discussed on here is the PAST & over and done with yet people still talk about it and ask questions about it. So what if he's dead, as far as I'm concerned the band Queen has been dead for sometime and most of anything that's talked about on here is what they've done in the past not in the present or future yet people still talk about it, his personal life is no different. When your a public figure any sanctity of a "personal life" goes out the window. I'm not saying that's right, but its how things are. Thus it will get commented on again and again no matter how many times you feel the need to pop up on here and condemn it. You act like its your duty to defend his personal life. Its fair game, just like everything else is on here.
Mr.Jingles
[QUOTE] [b]ANAGRAMER wrote:[/b]
Be a man and drop it mr.Jingles[/QUOTE]
Well, you are still replying... keeps the discussion going.
Be a man and drop it mr.Jingles[/QUOTE]
Well, you are still replying... keeps the discussion going.
Unknown
Fact is Peter, Jim, Dave, Mary, Joe and ALL who surrounded Freddie at Garden Lodge were there until the last days (and for a few, the last moments) of his life. They all knew he had AIDS and chose to be with him, support him, love him, and send him off happily and peacefully to a good afterlife journey. That fact was the most amazing, powerful, and encouraging for me because the stupid hysteria about AIDS at that time was damned near unbearable
john bodega
"The fact of the matter is you attacked the guy for asking the question"
There's that bloody 'attacking' word again - I wasn't attacking him! Measured against the silliness of the original post, I think the response has been pretty restrained.
You seem to think that any unfavourable response to a topic is some sort of attack on the rights of the person to ask a question in the first place - not so. If they ask a silly question, they should expect responses of all kinds. Otherwise, why post it in the first place?
There's that bloody 'attacking' word again - I wasn't attacking him! Measured against the silliness of the original post, I think the response has been pretty restrained.
You seem to think that any unfavourable response to a topic is some sort of attack on the rights of the person to ask a question in the first place - not so. If they ask a silly question, they should expect responses of all kinds. Otherwise, why post it in the first place?
lyricalassasin77
[QUOTE] [b]Zebonka12 wrote:[/b]
"The fact of the matter is you attacked the guy for asking the question"
There's that bloody 'attacking' word again - I wasn't attacking him! Measured against the silliness of the original post, I think the response has been pretty restrained.
You seem to think that any unfavourable response to a topic is some sort of attack on the rights of the person to ask a question in the first place - not so. If they ask a silly question, they should expect responses of all kinds. Otherwise, why post it in the first place?[/QUOTE]
Well I didn't really find the question silly but I can see how if you've heard it asked a hundred times on here how it could become annoying. I agree if you post something silly then you will get responses of all kinds.
"The fact of the matter is you attacked the guy for asking the question"
There's that bloody 'attacking' word again - I wasn't attacking him! Measured against the silliness of the original post, I think the response has been pretty restrained.
You seem to think that any unfavourable response to a topic is some sort of attack on the rights of the person to ask a question in the first place - not so. If they ask a silly question, they should expect responses of all kinds. Otherwise, why post it in the first place?[/QUOTE]
Well I didn't really find the question silly but I can see how if you've heard it asked a hundred times on here how it could become annoying. I agree if you post something silly then you will get responses of all kinds.
magsmagenta
Brilliant answer, those were very different times with very different attitudes. The shift since then has been enormous in both the gay and straight communities, and what happened to Freddie and others like Kenny Everett had a lot to do with that.
magsmagenta
john bodega
"I can see how if you've heard it asked a hundred times on here how it could become annoying"
I just haven't got any respect for moral crusades, that's all. It's ball-bustingly one sided to single Freddie out for being irresponsible when sex takes (at least) two people to decide to do it. And I just think setting such a vague moral standard is unfair when I'm willing to wager that most posters on this forum aren't able to live up to it themselves. It's irresponsible to smoke cigarettes, when you come right down to it, but I bet there's at least a few people here who smoke, or used to. Or tried it once when they were young and lacked proper judgement.
I dunno.
I just haven't got any respect for moral crusades, that's all. It's ball-bustingly one sided to single Freddie out for being irresponsible when sex takes (at least) two people to decide to do it. And I just think setting such a vague moral standard is unfair when I'm willing to wager that most posters on this forum aren't able to live up to it themselves. It's irresponsible to smoke cigarettes, when you come right down to it, but I bet there's at least a few people here who smoke, or used to. Or tried it once when they were young and lacked proper judgement.
I dunno.
splicksplack
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.Jingles wrote:[/b]
From what I read, Freddie didn't know he had AIDS until a lump was removed from his body in 1987 and he was officially diagnosed with the disease.
[/QUOTE]
What was that then? A lump of AIDS? Or maybe it was a lump of Gayness.
Whay the fuck are you on?
From what I read, Freddie didn't know he had AIDS until a lump was removed from his body in 1987 and he was officially diagnosed with the disease.
[/QUOTE]
What was that then? A lump of AIDS? Or maybe it was a lump of Gayness.
Whay the fuck are you on?
GratefulFan
^ In defence of Mr. Jingles, that phrasing may have come via Jim Hutton who claimed that Freddie first broached the subject of his diagnosis by saying "the doctors have just taken a big lump out of me", likely referencing a skin biopsy.
GratefulFan
[QUOTE] [b]magsmagenta wrote:[/b]
The shift since then has been enormous in both the gay and straight communities, and what happened to Freddie and others like Kenny Everett had a lot to do with that.[/QUOTE]
I think that's true now in retrospect, but at the time it played a role in reinforcing unjust perceptions that depended on a sense of distance from the disease. Privileged gay celebrities struck down by AIDS supported the narrative that defined HIV as a judgement on immorality and self indulgence and it maintained the illusion of remoteness. Attitudes ultimately changed because they had to. One by one the imagined barriers between the disease and the average person fell away until we all knew this could be any of us in the blink of one bad decision or stroke of ill luck. Only then I think the culture could collectively look at people like Fred and Kenny and Rock Hudson and fully see humanity and tragedy, and only then could they become effective symbols of awareness and compassion.
The shift since then has been enormous in both the gay and straight communities, and what happened to Freddie and others like Kenny Everett had a lot to do with that.[/QUOTE]
I think that's true now in retrospect, but at the time it played a role in reinforcing unjust perceptions that depended on a sense of distance from the disease. Privileged gay celebrities struck down by AIDS supported the narrative that defined HIV as a judgement on immorality and self indulgence and it maintained the illusion of remoteness. Attitudes ultimately changed because they had to. One by one the imagined barriers between the disease and the average person fell away until we all knew this could be any of us in the blink of one bad decision or stroke of ill luck. Only then I think the culture could collectively look at people like Fred and Kenny and Rock Hudson and fully see humanity and tragedy, and only then could they become effective symbols of awareness and compassion.
magsmagenta
[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]magsmagenta wrote:[/b]
The shift since then has been enormous in both the gay and straight communities, and what happened to Freddie and others like Kenny Everett had a lot to do with that.[/QUOTE]
I think that's true now in retrospect, but at the time it played a role in reinforcing unjust perceptions that depended on a sense of distance from the disease. Privileged gay celebrities struck down by AIDS supported the narrative that defined HIV as a judgement on immorality and self indulgence and it maintained the illusion of remoteness. Attitudes ultimately changed because they had to. One by one the imagined barriers between the disease and the average person fell away until we all knew this could be any of us in the blink of one bad decision or stroke of ill luck. Only then I think the culture could collectively look at people like Fred and Kenny and Rock Hudson and fully see humanity and tragedy, and only then could they become effective symbols of awareness and compassion.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] [b]magsmagenta wrote:[/b]
The shift since then has been enormous in both the gay and straight communities, and what happened to Freddie and others like Kenny Everett had a lot to do with that.[/QUOTE]
I think that's true now in retrospect, but at the time it played a role in reinforcing unjust perceptions that depended on a sense of distance from the disease. Privileged gay celebrities struck down by AIDS supported the narrative that defined HIV as a judgement on immorality and self indulgence and it maintained the illusion of remoteness. Attitudes ultimately changed because they had to. One by one the imagined barriers between the disease and the average person fell away until we all knew this could be any of us in the blink of one bad decision or stroke of ill luck. Only then I think the culture could collectively look at people like Fred and Kenny and Rock Hudson and fully see humanity and tragedy, and only then could they become effective symbols of awareness and compassion.[/QUOTE]