Was Freddie really a good person?

Day dop wrote:

"Barbara's info indicates it was earlier"

We've already addressed that. She put foward two possibilities regarding when they first met. One of those was that he was in denial, and the other was that he simply didn't know. That's speculation. But what you've somehow taken from it, is that "he knew". Nowhere did she say that he knew in 1984. Nowhere did it say the cut finger incident was in 1984. And it certainly didn't happen during the works tour in 1985 either.

"I'll have to find the interview where they said Freddie had all kinds of guys in his room during the 85 tour."

What fucking difference would that make?

The Works tour
Start date 24 August 1984
End date 15 May 1985

Do you notice the dates?

So that brings us to Mary Austin. Where did she say that?
Here?
http://www.freddie.ru/e/archives/daily_mail/
Notice what's been written at the top about David Wigg regarding dates - "I think this interview is worth it, although there are a lot of discrepancies, especially concerning the dates. Certainly David Wigg isn't a Queen expert and he must have confused some facts and events, well-known for everyone who is acquainted at least with Queen discography."
The article itself, written by him says "Freddie lived with the knowledge that he was HIV-positive for seven years. He was 45 when he died from Aids-induced bronchial pneumonia."

But nowhere does it say that Mary said it, those words aren't a quote of hers. Those are David's Wigg's words, and If you do wish to take what David Wigg says as gospel, then Freddie watched DVD footage of his past performances... even though you couldn't get DVD's back then. But take what David Wigg says for gospel when it comes to dates by all means.
You'll find that here. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2301718/Freddie-Mercury-Queen-stars-lover-Mary-Austin-cursed-fortune.html

"So I am expected to take what you say as gospel without any proof but I need photos to get my opinion across???"

Did I say anywhere that you can't double check what I say?

You said "pretty good evidence", now you've changed it to "a fair possibility"

I'm waiting on the "pretty good evidence."

okay, the problem with your barbara argument is WHEN THEY FIRST MET. When was that 84? Then she said gradually over time it become obvious. When did they break up? 85.? So we are talking 84/85. Same time as the works tour. Face it, you have just as little as I have in the way of evidence.

Honestly do you think a guy like Freddie with a huge sex drive and thousands of partners can just dial it down to one partner at the first sign he MIGHT have HIV? Yeah, that is highly unlikely. I don't think he meant to infect anyone but given his reckless nature I am sure he couldn't control himself.

Some people speculate that Freddie and Barbara may have had some hanky panky going on. But if he didn't even let her near his finger, would he have let her near his Johnny Deacon?

Just some food for thought, fellow Queenies.

The HIV-Aids junkies are back on Queenzone again, I see ...

Kahle33 wrote:
I don't think he meant to infect anyone but given his reckless nature I am sure he couldn't control himself.

I can see it now... Freddie, in turmoil, dripping with hideous HIV and desperately trying to prevent himself from spewing it forth over unsuspecting victims... tearing his hair out with the effort, but HE JUST COULDN'T CONTROL HIMSELF!!!

Kahle33 wrote:

Day dop wrote:

"Barbara's info indicates it was earlier"

We've already addressed that. She put foward two possibilities regarding when they first met. One of those was that he was in denial, and the other was that he simply didn't know. That's speculation. But what you've somehow taken from it, is that "he knew". Nowhere did she say that he knew in 1984. Nowhere did it say the cut finger incident was in 1984. And it certainly didn't happen during the works tour in 1985 either.

"I'll have to find the interview where they said Freddie had all kinds of guys in his room during the 85 tour."

What fucking difference would that make?

The Works tour
Start date 24 August 1984
End date 15 May 1985

Do you notice the dates?

So that brings us to Mary Austin. Where did she say that?
Here?
http://www.freddie.ru/e/archives/daily_mail/
Notice what's been written at the top about David Wigg regarding dates - "I think this interview is worth it, although there are a lot of discrepancies, especially concerning the dates. Certainly David Wigg isn't a Queen expert and he must have confused some facts and events, well-known for everyone who is acquainted at least with Queen discography."
The article itself, written by him says "Freddie lived with the knowledge that he was HIV-positive for seven years. He was 45 when he died from Aids-induced bronchial pneumonia."

But nowhere does it say that Mary said it, those words aren't a quote of hers. Those are David's Wigg's words, and If you do wish to take what David Wigg says as gospel, then Freddie watched DVD footage of his past performances... even though you couldn't get DVD's back then. But take what David Wigg says for gospel when it comes to dates by all means.
You'll find that here. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2301718/Freddie-Mercury-Queen-stars-lover-Mary-Austin-cursed-fortune.html

"So I am expected to take what you say as gospel without any proof but I need photos to get my opinion across???"

Did I say anywhere that you can't double check what I say?

You said "pretty good evidence", now you've changed it to "a fair possibility"

I'm waiting on the "pretty good evidence."

okay, the problem with your barbara argument is WHEN THEY FIRST MET. When was that 84? Then she said gradually over time it become obvious. When did they break up? 85.? So we are talking 84/85. Same time as the works tour. Face it, you have just as little as I have in the way of evidence.

Honestly do you think a guy like Freddie with a huge sex drive and thousands of partners can just dial it down to one partner at the first sign he MIGHT have HIV? Yeah, that is highly unlikely. I don't think he meant to infect anyone but given his reckless nature I am sure he couldn't control himself.

There's no problem with my argument. It was you who brought up Barbara, if you remember, and me that pointed out where you'd gone wrong.

Understand; the fall of 85 is not the same time as the works tour, which ended in May 85. There's some months after May 85 until the fall of 85.
You really seem to have a problem grasping this don't you?
It's a little like you not being able to grasp that taking drugs in moderation does not make you a drug addict or a bad person.

Then you go on with "Honestly do you think a guy like Freddie with a huge sex drive and thousands of partners can just dial it down to one partner at the first sign he MIGHT have HIV?"

What the fuck has that gotta do with the price of fish?

So I'll ask again, you've made the claim that you have "pretty good evidence he was sleeping around when he knew he had HIV"?
The burden of proof lays upon you, as you've made the claim, so it's for you to bring evidence to the table. As yet, nothing you've put forward holds up under scrutiny.

In Barbara's interview she made it sound like the HIV symptoms were gradual. Over a period of months clearly. You are definitely twisting these things to your benefit.

What does his huge sex drive and his thousnads of partners have to do with anything? It identifies a behavior pattern. A pattern that supports my views.

The truth is (and I said this before) you have no clue when Freddie knew what he knew. NONE. But neither do I. All we both have is speculation.

And based on what little we have. It could go either way. Your "proof" is no better than mine.

Kahle33 wrote:

In Barbara's interview she made it sound like the HIV symptoms were gradual. Over a period of months clearly. You are definitely twisting these things to your benefit.

What does his huge sex drive and his thousnads of partners have to do with anything? It identifies a behavior pattern. A pattern that supports my views.

The truth is (and I said this before) you have no clue when Freddie knew what he knew. NONE. But neither do I. All we both have is speculation.

And based on what little we have. It could go either way. Your "proof" is no better than mine.

"You are definitely twisting these things to your benefit."

How the fuck is it to my benefit you clown? Show me where I've twisted anything.

Gradual? Oh, right. That doesn't mean Freddie necessarily KNEW fuck all on the works tour, but he might've had reasons to suspect it was the case by the fall of 85. I've read the pages you're talking about, and Barbara also says "I took one test myself - negative - and that was it. Since there would be no more sex, and no further risk, I didn't need any more tests." The author also mentions how they never discussed AIDS, and Barbara continues "But when one of his early American lovers died of AIDS, he said "Oh my God, this is it," and got very worried. He knew from that moment on that his days were numbered." (Now, that doesn't sound like a man who KNEW beforehand does it, it sounds like someone who suspected it previously - due to the gradual signs - and had a rude awakening.) Then the book says "Barbara and Freddie ceased sexual relations. With Winnie gone, the only person with whom Freddie would have sexual contact from then on was Jim."
Jim, who he'd already slept with. And with Winnie gone, that'd be nearer the end of Freddie and Barbara's relationship. Then the book immediately goes on to tell of Freddie's departure from Munich.

So getting back to your previous comment on this thread "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."

Not true, and not true. Your brain somehow interpreted the information incorrectly.

You wrote on your above comment "What does his huge sex drive and his thousnads of partners have to do with anything? It identifies a behavior pattern. A pattern that supports my views."

What views? That you have no clue when Freddie knew what he knew, as you said in the next paragraph?

So what this all boils down to, is you made a claim that there's pretty good evidence, but you have none that holds up under scrutiny whatsoever, and you have no clue when Freddie knew.

Brilliant.

Day dop wrote:

So what this all boils down to, is you made a claim that there's pretty good evidence, but you have none that holds up under scrutiny whatsoever, and you have no clue when Freddie knew.

Brilliant.

The main thrust of this post was to talk about Freddie on a personal scale. I wasn't trying to get bogged down in the AIDS discussion. I even was willing to move past that aspect and admit that I have no clue. As I have said now for quite sometime. No one knows. Its all speculation.

Kahle33 wrote:

The main thrust of this post was to talk about Freddie on a personal scale. I wasn't trying to get bogged down in the AIDS discussion. I even was willing to move past that aspect and admit that I have no clue. As I have said now for quite sometime. No one knows. Its all speculation.

And as you wrote earlier "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. "

Your whole attitude throughout this thread has essentially been: I don't know, therefore I'll judge him as a horrible person.
(Not just on the AIDS subject either.)

Which says more about you than anyone else.

Holly2003 wrote:

The HIV-Aids junkies are back on Queenzone again, I see ...

To be fair, I don't think it was obvious that the OP was a troll (or just a person with bizarre reasoning who likes to argue) until the end of page 2, and up to that point the discussion was about several other things as well.

What concerns me is that what you've said above may prove the point in the original post about drug addiction, and more seriously the point about the hamburger later in this topic thread, using the same reasoning...

It wasn't obvious to me until about page 2 that people here were just going to engage in celebrity worship.

The HIV thing is uncertain, I said that from the beginning. I do think there is good circumstantial evidence to support it. Maybe. Maybe not. It was not the main thrust of my argument.

You meet Freddie right now, and forget the music part of it. This guy doesn't know you. He doesn't want to know you. He doesn't trust you. You will never get to know him. He might use you for sex but if you get attached you will never see him again. He is reckless. He does drugs. He cheats. He is selfish. He can be straight out rude. . But be careful what you say because he could fly into a rage.

Is that a guy you want to know? Seriously? That is not a guy I want to know. I think if you want to know someone like that, you are crazy.


Look, I've been a Queen fan for 17 years now. Since I was 15 y/o...but I don't get caught up in the celebrity worship.

Kahle33 wrote: I

You meet Freddie right now, and forget the music part of it. This guy doesn't know you. He doesn't want to know you. He doesn't trust you. You will never get to know him. He might use you for sex but if you get attached you will never see him again. He is reckless. He does drugs. He cheats. He is selfish. He can be straight out rude. . But be careful what you say because he could fly into a rage.

Is that a guy you want to know? Seriously? That is not a guy I want to know. I think if you want to know someone like that, you are crazy.

Was just talking about this last week- I know a guy that is a jerk. A gossipy, snarky, smart ass jerk who basically pisses me off every time I talk to him. But he is fun to be around and, once you know him, a wonderfully caring and thoughtful  person- he just has a smart mouth that gets the best of him 200 times a day. I have been friends with him for close to 30 years now and I count him as one of my closest friends, but he is still a jerk.

People are far more than a list of attributes and a list of character flaws.
People can be complicated- one thing to one person and something entirely different to someone else.

It is impossible to know someone after the fact, and double especially hard when said person had a stage persona that often overlapped into real life.

And again- people are not black and white "good" or "bad"- and it is childish to think that they are.
Judging people, especially people you have never even met, is a losing game- you are almost certain to get it wrong.

Zamidoo wrote:

To be fair, I don't think it was obvious that the OP was a troll (or just a person with bizarre reasoning who likes to argue) until the end of page 2, and up to that point the discussion was about several other things as well.

What concerns me is that what you've said above may prove the point in the original post about drug addiction, and more seriously the point about the hamburger later in this topic thread, using the same reasoning...

I think it is a troll. If not it'd have to be seriously dense. All it's doing it repeating itself now.