Was Freddie really a good person?

Kahle33 wrote:

Day dop wrote:

Kahle33 wrote: "Drug addict, to me snorting coke is a drug problem."

It's not necessarily a drug problem at all. Sounds to me like you're a little naive when it comes to drugs.

Kahle33 also wrote: "From what I understand he knew in 1984 that he was infected, his GF at the time, Barabara? claimed that he didn't want her touching him when he cut his finger. So he knew. "

If the book you're talking about is Freddie Mercury: The Definitive Biography: By Lesley-Ann Jones (a bit of a controversial one) then here's what's written. "When we first met, he was either denying it to himself, or he simply didn't know," she [Barbara] said. "After he made his first test eventually [in 1985 she believed, contrary to other reports, though she could not confirm that prompted him to get tested], it changed his life."

Right, so you've automatically assumed the worst Kahele33? That he knew in 1984, just going by what Barbara said, speculating over two possibilities, in a Lesley-Ann Jones book.

Anyway, it all sounds a little sketchy to me, in particular - 'in 1985 she believed, contrary to other reports'. I don't think '85 is when he found out at all, for a number of reasons. There's the accounts of him finding out in Easter '87, and aside from that, Freddie seemed different in mood after '87, far more somber. Whereas you go back to '85 (Live Aid stands out in particular, and Freddie had a sparkle in his eye as if he was a man with no worries and a lot to live for - so I don't think it'd have been that early).
Like some others seem to think, I'd say Freddie had more reasons to suspect something was wrong in '86, but didn't know for sure till 'Easter 87, though he probably had a good idea by that point anyway because of his declining health, but it just wasn't confirmed for sure up until that moment.
I think his Live Aid mood was also to do with Jim. Who knows? It's also possible Barbara liked to put her own twist on things in a "I knew Freddie best" kind way, but then I don't really see any reason to doubt her either so that might be unfair of me to say. As for the cut finger incident, when was that exactly? late 85, early 86? It says in the book that Freddie initially left Barbara towards the end of '85, then went back a few months later. That might've been '86 (and mentions that "a 100 of our friends had died from AIDS by this time"). That might give Freddie a reason to be concerned if nothing else. But overall, it's all a bit vague. Especially when Barbra talks about marks on Freddie's face and dark blue bruises and putting a little make up on him. I guess that might fit the timeline...

Now you also wrote "Yet there are stories as late as 1985 that he was sleeping with people. IF (and of course that is an IF) this stuff is true, that makes him quite a horrible person. I don't buy the whole ignorance over it. Maybe the 70's but not in the mid 80's."

There was a lot of ignorance over HIV and AIDS in the mid 80s, To give you an idea, HIV testing wasn't introduced to the UK (and US) until 1985.
As for general ignorance, that was still around in the early 90s when Freddie died. I think it was his death that brought a fair bit of awareness to HIV/AIDS.
I don't think it started really dawning on Freddie until end of 85 or 86, and by that point, he'd slept with everyone in the picture already as far as I'm aware of. Why would that make Freddie a horrible person? Did Freddie look like a man with a death sentence on his mind in any of the footage in 85? I don't think so. Maybe on the Magic tour, Freddie came over a little differently somehow (that could also be because we know his behaviour changed too).

Then there's the other thing you say, which would predate all the above - "Freddie was selfish, I guess you forgot about the time when someone warned him about AIDS and his response was "darling fuck it". He was willing to put a cheap thrill over his life. That is pretty ignorant and pretty selfish for people who were close to him. "

When was that? In 83 or something? Freddie was most likely drunk, in a nightclub, a little high, and was in the mood where he didn't give a shit about anything and just wanted to have fun. Have you never felt like that? Kind of indestructible? Out having a good time? When you can be flippant about the most serious things in the spur of the moment?

It seems to me, Kahele33, that for some reason, you want to assume the worst all the time, or you're looking at Freddie as if he was a lot worse than what he really was. Or that's how it comes across to me anyway.

The other thing you said "He cheated with Mary and Jim. I think cheating is quite wrong and dishonest."

He'd no doubt agree himself. And by all accounts, didn't Freddie always feel bad about what happened with Mary on some level? And when it comes to Jim, that was at the very beginning, when Freddie wasn't really in relationship mode. Not fully. But he settled down and spent the rest of his life with Jim in the end didn't he? Don't be too quick to judge.

Well I don't think you can make a basis on what he knew and when he knew by a twinkle in his eye or an offhanded comment.

I am just going by waht I've read, and while I know that some of it may not be true, both Mary and Barbara said Freddie was aware of his HIV in 1984 or at least knew he was sick and that it could be spread.

I don't think I am looking at this is a negative way. I think it is pretty objective. I am not a Freddie basher. I am calling it like I see it based on what I've read.

I think some people here aren't looking at Freddie in an objective light. I think it should be obvious to most that Freddie was a flawed individual who wrote great music.

But you can make a judgement call based on your faulty reasoning, right?

Even though I've re-written it for you, you're still claiming "Freddie was aware of his HIV in 1984 or at least knew he was sick and that it could be spread."

And that's you going on Barbara's words in the book....
Barbara said "When we first met, he was either denying it to himself, or he simply didn't know,"

Can you see the part that says "simply didn't know"?

But you'll just go with your non-existent "pretty good evidence" that Freddie was sleeping around when he knew he had HIV instead, right?

Then you go on "I think some people here aren't looking at Freddie in an objective light."

That's coming from the person who said " Drug addict, to me snorting coke is a drug problem."

Very objective.

You might find the first post on this thread interesting.
http://www.queenzone.com/forums/1288222/freddie-mercurys-hiv-diagnosis-some-insight-1985-to-1987.aspx

Kahle33 wrote:

Do you really know that Freddie wrote Bohemian Rhapsody? Were you actually there? So you don't know FOR SURE.

See? It can get rather silly.

That is, indeed, a very silly argument. You remind me of another user on here, who often comes up with comparisons like that (as you're new to the forum, you may not have read any of his posts). There's nothing wrong with the discussions, but there comes a moment where you have to walk away.

Zamidoo wrote:

Kahle33 wrote:

Do you really know that Freddie wrote Bohemian Rhapsody? Were you actually there? So you don't know FOR SURE.

See? It can get rather silly.

That is, indeed, a very silly argument. You remind me of another user on here, who often comes up with comparisons like that (as you're new to the forum, you may not have read any of his posts). There's nothing wrong with the discussions, but there comes a moment where you have to walk away.

I am making a point that you can use the excuse "YOU DON'T KNOW FOR SURE" for just about anything. It is a common excuse when people are trying to defend others actions, and its not a very valid excuse. That's all I am saying.

Zamidoo wrote:

Oh, please don't bring up the 'mineshaft' t-shirt. Of course he was a clubber. How he picked up anyone with the haircut he had in that video is another matter, but no-one is disputing that.

Correct me if I am wrong, but what you're you're basically saying is, if you (as you) behaved now as you believe Freddie Mercury did 30-35 years ago, you wouldn't be a good person. I get that.

I don't judge Freddie Mercury by myself and what would constitute being a 'good' person for me because our lives and circumstances are way, way too different. It's impossible. It's a non-starter. Especially with someone like Freddie Mercury, who was so exceptional in so many of his circumstances. I think that's basically what most other people posting here are saying, in various ways. Because it's the only conclusion you can come to when you're faced with the dilemma you outline in your original post.

I don't see the circumstances being all that different. Plenty of people dealt with the same circumstances as Freddie did and didn't make such poor choices.

I find the American has become the country of "its not my fault". No one wants to take responsiblity for themselves or their actions.

True, he wrote amazing music, I am just not going to make excuses for his poor behavior like so many will do.

Pingfah wrote:

Kahle33 wrote:


Drug addict, to me snorting coke is a drug problem.

Then you have no idea what drug addiction, or a drug problem is.

Just out of interest, do you think somebody who eats a hamburger has a hamburger problem?

Clearly, someone who eats a hamburger is a hamburger addict

Kahle33 wrote:

Zamidoo wrote:

Oh, please don't bring up the 'mineshaft' t-shirt. Of course he was a clubber. How he picked up anyone with the haircut he had in that video is another matter, but no-one is disputing that.

Correct me if I am wrong, but what you're you're basically saying is, if you (as you) behaved now as you believe Freddie Mercury did 30-35 years ago, you wouldn't be a good person. I get that.

I don't judge Freddie Mercury by myself and what would constitute being a 'good' person for me because our lives and circumstances are way, way too different. It's impossible. It's a non-starter. Especially with someone like Freddie Mercury, who was so exceptional in so many of his circumstances. I think that's basically what most other people posting here are saying, in various ways. Because it's the only conclusion you can come to when you're faced with the dilemma you outline in your original post.

I don't see the circumstances being all that different. Plenty of people dealt with the same circumstances as Freddie did and didn't make such poor choices.

I find the American has become the country of "its not my fault". No one wants to take responsiblity for themselves or their actions.

True, he wrote amazing music, I am just not going to make excuses for his poor behavior like so many will do.

You seem to be confusing making excuses with not being a judgmental holier-than-thou cunt.

Day dop wrote:


But you can make a judgement call based on your faulty reasoning, right?

Even though I've re-written it for you, you're still claiming "Freddie was aware of his HIV in 1984 or at least knew he was sick and that it could be spread."

And that's you going on Barbara's words in the book....
Barbara said "When we first met, he was either denying it to himself, or he simply didn't know,"

Can you see the part that says "simply didn't know"?

But you'll just go with your non-existent "pretty good evidence" that Freddie was sleeping around when he knew he had HIV instead, right?

Then you go on "I think some people here aren't looking at Freddie in an objective light."

That's coming from the person who said " Drug addict, to me snorting coke is a drug problem."

Very objective.

I don't see how my reasoning is faulty. Barabara said he may not have known as the start of reltionship, but he knew by the end. I am quite certain he hadn't tested positive (as you stated test weren't around then). But AIDS was a big thing. Freddie knew he slept all over and he knew about AIDS and according to Barbara he had symptoms by 1984/1985. Yet he he still slept around on the 1985 tour.

But you know what, lets give him the benefit of the doubt and say she got the dates wrong, or she isn't credible. For the sake of argument that is fine.

I still don't think Freddie was a good person. He was reckless, arrogant, cheated, did drugs, could be rude, angry outbursts. Can't really make excuses for that.

He was a flawed individual who wrote great music.

Day dop wrote:

Kahle33 wrote:

Zamidoo wrote:

Oh, please don't bring up the 'mineshaft' t-shirt. Of course he was a clubber. How he picked up anyone with the haircut he had in that video is another matter, but no-one is disputing that.

Correct me if I am wrong, but what you're you're basically saying is, if you (as you) behaved now as you believe Freddie Mercury did 30-35 years ago, you wouldn't be a good person. I get that.

I don't judge Freddie Mercury by myself and what would constitute being a 'good' person for me because our lives and circumstances are way, way too different. It's impossible. It's a non-starter. Especially with someone like Freddie Mercury, who was so exceptional in so many of his circumstances. I think that's basically what most other people posting here are saying, in various ways. Because it's the only conclusion you can come to when you're faced with the dilemma you outline in your original post.

I don't see the circumstances being all that different. Plenty of people dealt with the same circumstances as Freddie did and didn't make such poor choices.

I find the American has become the country of "its not my fault". No one wants to take responsiblity for themselves or their actions.

True, he wrote amazing music, I am just not going to make excuses for his poor behavior like so many will do.

You seem to be confusing making excuses with not being a judgmental holier-than-thou cunt.

Now the personal attacks....

Sorry once that starts you've lost the argument. I know that no matter what I say people will make excuses for bad behavior for the sake of celebrity worship. Its Americans theme.

Have fun.

Are you a troll, Kahle33?

Kahle33 wrote:

Day dop wrote:


But you can make a judgement call based on your faulty reasoning, right?

Even though I've re-written it for you, you're still claiming "Freddie was aware of his HIV in 1984 or at least knew he was sick and that it could be spread."

And that's you going on Barbara's words in the book....
Barbara said "When we first met, he was either denying it to himself, or he simply didn't know,"

Can you see the part that says "simply didn't know"?

But you'll just go with your non-existent "pretty good evidence" that Freddie was sleeping around when he knew he had HIV instead, right?

Then you go on "I think some people here aren't looking at Freddie in an objective light."

That's coming from the person who said " Drug addict, to me snorting coke is a drug problem."

Very objective.

I don't see how my reasoning is faulty. Barabara said he may not have known as the start of reltionship, but he knew by the end. I am quite certain he hadn't tested positive (as you stated test weren't around then). But AIDS was a big thing. Freddie knew he slept all over and he knew about AIDS and according to Barbara he had symptoms by 1984/1985. Yet he he still slept around on the 1985 tour.

But you know what, lets give him the benefit of the doubt and say she got the dates wrong, or she isn't credible. For the sake of argument that is fine.

I still don't think Freddie was a good person. He was reckless, arrogant, cheated, did drugs, could be rude, angry outbursts. Can't really make excuses for that.

He was a flawed individual who wrote great music.

Where did Barbra say he had the symptoms in 84?
And you're aware that there was 12 months in 1985, right?
Everything didn't just happen in one week.

KumoNin wrote:

Are you a troll, Kahle33?

No, I made a statement, provided some pretty good evidence to back that up, and will defend my points.

It doesn't make sense to me how people can justify the things about Freddie I listed.

But have fun.

Day dop wrote:

Kahle33 wrote:

Day dop wrote:


But you can make a judgement call based on your faulty reasoning, right?

Even though I've re-written it for you, you're still claiming "Freddie was aware of his HIV in 1984 or at least knew he was sick and that it could be spread."

And that's you going on Barbara's words in the book....
Barbara said "When we first met, he was either denying it to himself, or he simply didn't know,"

Can you see the part that says "simply didn't know"?

But you'll just go with your non-existent "pretty good evidence" that Freddie was sleeping around when he knew he had HIV instead, right?

Then you go on "I think some people here aren't looking at Freddie in an objective light."

That's coming from the person who said " Drug addict, to me snorting coke is a drug problem."

Very objective.

I don't see how my reasoning is faulty. Barabara said he may not have known as the start of reltionship, but he knew by the end. I am quite certain he hadn't tested positive (as you stated test weren't around then). But AIDS was a big thing. Freddie knew he slept all over and he knew about AIDS and according to Barbara he had symptoms by 1984/1985. Yet he he still slept around on the 1985 tour.

But you know what, lets give him the benefit of the doubt and say she got the dates wrong, or she isn't credible. For the sake of argument that is fine.

I still don't think Freddie was a good person. He was reckless, arrogant, cheated, did drugs, could be rude, angry outbursts. Can't really make excuses for that.

He was a flawed individual who wrote great music.

Where did Barbra say he had the symptoms in 84?
And you're aware that there was 12 months in 1985, right?
Everything didn't just happen in one week.

I believe I said I was willing to give up on that part of my argument. No one knows for sure. It could really go either way. You don't know. I don't know. But there is at least some evidence for my point to be the valid one as there is some for the other side as well.

In any event. I am done. I said my piece. Provided my reasoning. Agree/Disagree whatever. I personally think a lot of this anger and defending is nothing more than celebrity worship.

Queen is my second favorite band (behind The Beatles) and Freddie is one of the best songwriters ever.

But I am not blinded by that. Sorry.

Kahle33 wrote:

Day dop wrote:

Kahle33 wrote:

Zamidoo wrote:

Oh, please don't bring up the 'mineshaft' t-shirt. Of course he was a clubber. How he picked up anyone with the haircut he had in that video is another matter, but no-one is disputing that.

Correct me if I am wrong, but what you're you're basically saying is, if you (as you) behaved now as you believe Freddie Mercury did 30-35 years ago, you wouldn't be a good person. I get that.

I don't judge Freddie Mercury by myself and what would constitute being a 'good' person for me because our lives and circumstances are way, way too different. It's impossible. It's a non-starter. Especially with someone like Freddie Mercury, who was so exceptional in so many of his circumstances. I think that's basically what most other people posting here are saying, in various ways. Because it's the only conclusion you can come to when you're faced with the dilemma you outline in your original post.

I don't see the circumstances being all that different. Plenty of people dealt with the same circumstances as Freddie did and didn't make such poor choices.

I find the American has become the country of "its not my fault". No one wants to take responsiblity for themselves or their actions.

True, he wrote amazing music, I am just not going to make excuses for his poor behavior like so many will do.

You seem to be confusing making excuses with not being a judgmental holier-than-thou cunt.

Now the personal attacks....

Sorry once that starts you've lost the argument. I know that no matter what I say people will make excuses for bad behavior for the sake of celebrity worship. Its Americans theme.

Have fun.

Why am I suspecting you're Russian again, troll?

Day dop wrote:

Kahle33 wrote:

Day dop wrote:

Kahle33 wrote:

Zamidoo wrote:

Oh, please don't bring up the 'mineshaft' t-shirt. Of course he was a clubber. How he picked up anyone with the haircut he had in that video is another matter, but no-one is disputing that.

Correct me if I am wrong, but what you're you're basically saying is, if you (as you) behaved now as you believe Freddie Mercury did 30-35 years ago, you wouldn't be a good person. I get that.

I don't judge Freddie Mercury by myself and what would constitute being a 'good' person for me because our lives and circumstances are way, way too different. It's impossible. It's a non-starter. Especially with someone like Freddie Mercury, who was so exceptional in so many of his circumstances. I think that's basically what most other people posting here are saying, in various ways. Because it's the only conclusion you can come to when you're faced with the dilemma you outline in your original post.

I don't see the circumstances being all that different. Plenty of people dealt with the same circumstances as Freddie did and didn't make such poor choices.

I find the American has become the country of "its not my fault". No one wants to take responsiblity for themselves or their actions.

True, he wrote amazing music, I am just not going to make excuses for his poor behavior like so many will do.

You seem to be confusing making excuses with not being a judgmental holier-than-thou cunt.

Now the personal attacks....

Sorry once that starts you've lost the argument. I know that no matter what I say people will make excuses for bad behavior for the sake of celebrity worship. Its Americans theme.

Have fun.

Why am I suspecting you're Russian again, troll?

I have no idea. Born and Raised in America. Right in Good Old Philadelphia. Can't get much more American than Philly. Can you?