A Fan's Property, Lost by Greg Brooks in the Last Century, circa 1999

mr.QueenFan, re:

>> I didn´t asked for your opinion. I decide what i do!

Well done you. Really thrilled you felt you could share that with us. I'm sure you'll have lots to tell your support group at your next meeting.


>>You make too much noise!

Really? You can hear me all the way up there in Portugal can you? That's some fucking pair of ears you've got old son!

>>You are replying to sarcasm here. Just to let you know.

Are you sure you understand the concept; sarcasm as a form of wit (incorrectly and, unfairly labelled sometimes as its lowest form) is *generally* lost on those outside of the British Isles. Nothing in that sentence indicated sarcasm - perhaps it was a private gag.

But you've taken us away from the heart of the discussion which are the two questions I put to you and you haven't answered:

What evidence is there of ANY collector that chooses to contribute to these forum pages being threatened by your so-called "public scrutiny"?

Why on EARTH would they feel so given that, in virtually each and every case, those same collectors are the people that have so freely provided elements of their collections for REAL public scrutiny?

[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

This thread is a complete joke, because a studio run of Hangman exists in the vaults.

And if Greg doesn't know this, then either he's incompetent or hasn't been given access to it. Or he's going through this entire process for kicks.
[/QUOTE]

First, if you know something that can clarify this issue for all Queen fans just speak up. It´s more respectful than to just call this thread a joke. And if you know something, why are you letting people waste their energies discussing something you know to be a lie?

What do you mean by what you said?
And how do you know this to be true?

And secondly, instead of just calling this whole thread a joke, i would love to hear your input about "scullyuk" claims (previous page) of John S Stuart joining the Hub to share fake demos and renamed files. Can you do it, or are you going to pretend is ok, like the rest of hypocrits in Queenzone?
Because last time i checked, on the Announce section you and others are the first ones to condemn such behaviour, but on this thread everybody is confortably silent about this. I wonder why?[/QUOTE]

I can't control what people talk about, nor do I know what's in whose private collections.

But I can definitely attest to the character of JSS, and that he would never willingly spread something that's a fake or somehow otherwise deficient. He is responsible for leaking countless excellent, at the time uncirculated Queen goods. His versions of some of the BBC tracks are still the best available. Let's not vilify the people who have provided the community with music that has been enjoyed by thousands, and vilified generally by people who either stole his property or condoned said theft.

Anyone else was welcome to track down the BBC masters and post them here, but only he did. Instead, it's easier for certain lazy trolls to sit on one's soapbox and complain that the gift wrap wasn't the correct colour

So much has happened at this place before you posted here regularly, but those days are long gone. It hasn't seen any real action in years.

The fact that my post generated only one reply says all that needs to be said about the state of affairs here. People aren't being quiet because of some sort of conflict of interest. People aren't posting because this website is pretty much dead.

As for the Queen vaults - let's just let the actual players involved hash this one out.

Not that Brooks will be back any time soon. His annual fact finding mission is clearly long over, so off to the wings he goes again.

As long as someone I don't know can vouch for the honesty of someone else I don't know which is being challenged by another someone else I don't know I'll ask no questions. But then again I don't know.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

This thread is a complete joke, because a studio run of Hangman exists in the vaults.

And if Greg doesn't know this, then either he's incompetent or hasn't been given access to it. Or he's going through this entire process for kicks.
[/QUOTE]

First, if you know something that can clarify this issue for all Queen fans just speak up. It´s more respectful than to just call this thread a joke. And if you know something, why are you letting people waste their energies discussing something you know to be a lie?

What do you mean by what you said?
And how do you know this to be true?

And secondly, instead of just calling this whole thread a joke, i would love to hear your input about "scullyuk" claims (previous page) of John S Stuart joining the Hub to share fake demos and renamed files. Can you do it, or are you going to pretend is ok, like the rest of hypocrits in Queenzone?
Because last time i checked, on the Announce section you and others are the first ones to condemn such behaviour, but on this thread everybody is confortably silent about this. I wonder why?[/QUOTE]

I can't control what people talk about, nor do I know what's in whose private collections.
But I can definitely attest to the character of JSS, and that he would never willingly spread something that's a fake or somehow otherwise deficient. .[/QUOTE]
Scallyuk told that when John S Stuart was confronted with this, is answer was - and i quote - "it's a laugh." That tells me that he was aware of what he was doing. Of course he can always come here and tell that it´s a lie - he has all the right to defend himself.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
He is responsible for leaking countless excellent, at the time uncirculated Queen goods. His versions of some of the BBC tracks are still the best available. Let's not vilify the people who have provided the community with music that has been enjoyed by thousands, and vilified generally by people who either stole his property or condoned said theft. .[/QUOTE]

I don´t see anyone vilifying JSS. I see people - me included - searching for some answers about contradicting stories. This acetate matter is the only thing that is being questioned at the moment, and people have the right to know who´s bullshiting who.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
So much has happened at this place before you posted here regularly, but those days are long gone. It hasn't seen any real action in years. .[/QUOTE]

I read this site since around 1999, and i started to post with another nickname around the early 2000´s. Around 2010 i had to change my username because i lost the old password due to the fact that i was a couple of years without logging here. I know what has been going on.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
The fact that my post generated only one reply says all that needs to be said about the state of affairs here. People aren't being quiet because of some sort of conflict of interest. People aren't posting because this website is pretty much dead. .[/QUOTE]

That´s not 100% true, because i see other thread started by Greg Brooks that has already nine pages of insults to him. So of course there´s a conflist of interests. You giuys are so scared of John S Stuart that you don´t even dare to question anything about him.

Only me and a couple of other people are being honest with what is happening. If we are being lied to, then it´s not our fault!

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
As for the Queen vaults - let's just let the actual players involved hash this one out. .[/QUOTE]
Why make a claim if you´re going to leave everything as it was before? This is a very weak reply.

edit

[QUOTE] [b]dudeofqueen wrote:[/b]

mr.QueenFan, re:

>> I didn´t asked for your opinion. I decide what i do!

Well done you. Really thrilled you felt you could share that with us. I'm sure you'll have lots to tell your support group at your next meeting.


>>You make too much noise!

Really? You can hear me all the way up there in Portugal can you? That's some fucking pair of ears you've got old son!

>>You are replying to sarcasm here. Just to let you know.

Are you sure you understand the concept; sarcasm as a form of wit (incorrectly and, unfairly labelled sometimes as its lowest form) is *generally* lost on those outside of the British Isles. Nothing in that sentence indicated sarcasm - perhaps it was a private gag.

But you've taken us away from the heart of the discussion which are the two questions I put to you and you haven't answered:

What evidence is there of ANY collector that chooses to contribute to these forum pages being threatened by your so-called "public scrutiny"?

Why on EARTH would they feel so given that, in virtually each and every case, those same collectors are the people that have so freely provided elements of their collections for REAL public scrutiny?
[/QUOTE]

Don´t expect me to take you seriously with this kind of tone.

Mr.QueenFan, re:

>>Don´t expect me to take you seriously with this kind of tone.

And you bothered to actually type this response and post it? Surely a person of your calibre has *FAR* better things to do.......

Still, no answer to the questions - not surprising really. Your reasoning with regard to the central issue of this thread has more holes than a kitchen sieve........

[QUOTE] [b]dudeofqueen wrote:[/b]

Mr.QueenFan, re:

>>Don´t expect me to take you seriously with this kind of tone.

And you bothered to actually type this response and post it? Surely a person of your calibre has *FAR* better things to do.......

Still, no answer to the questions - not surprising really. Your reasoning with regard to the central issue of this thread has more holes than a kitchen sieve........[/QUOTE]

Indeed. I'm still waiting for Mr.QueenFan's response to a several months-old thread...

Sebastian, re:

>>I'm still waiting for Mr.QueenFan's response to a several months-old thread...

No chance - you more than likely put him in a position where he had exposed his utter lack of knowledge and understanding so, rather than admit his shortcomings, he took the conscious decision to ignore you.

[QUOTE] [b]dudeofqueen wrote:[/b]

he took the conscious decision to ignore you.[/QUOTE]

I think both of us are happier that way.

[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]dudeofqueen wrote:[/b]

Mr.QueenFan, re:

>>Don´t expect me to take you seriously with this kind of tone.

And you bothered to actually type this response and post it? Surely a person of your calibre has *FAR* better things to do.......

Still, no answer to the questions - not surprising really. Your reasoning with regard to the central issue of this thread has more holes than a kitchen sieve........[/QUOTE]

Indeed. I'm still waiting for Mr.QueenFan's response to a several months-old thread...[/QUOTE]

Here:

http://www.queenzone.com/forums/1442242/who-wrote-which-of-the-songs-attributed-to-queen.aspx?page=1

I welcome public scrutinity to my texts. People can read and reach their own conclusions about the behaviour of posters in that particular thread.


Edit to correct link.

Mr.QueenFan, re:

>>I welcome public scrutinity to my texts

You love this "public scrutiny" thing, don't you; why is that? (So much so that you can't be bothered to spell check prior to posting.)

How about replying to this?

[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
And i´m not counting the fact that when the Queen multitracks were leaked you were proved wrong in so many assumptions that it´s not even fun!
[/QUOTE]
Really? Which ones?[/QUOTE]

Talk about making a claim and then not being able to back it up...

For what it's worth here is my take on the JSS vs QPL saga:

I think John was not so angry about the loss of the IBEX tape and subsequent appearance on ebay and download pages, apparently he was angry about the lack of responsibility taken by QPL. They could have paid for the lost tapes and everything would have been buried there and then. I wonder who can blame him for this.

The story about the hub is different in my memory: John did join the hub in around 2004 but it was certainly the wrong place for him at the time. We shared mostly audience recorded live concerts etc in which he was not interested and he was actually not able to encode his studio recordings into a shareable digital format. He tried to make up for this by sharing stuff like teaser pleasers and demos that were already circulating in the the collector community but he did not stay long when he realised that hatred was the only response he received from the hub community (not from scallyuk!). He left after only a few visits and nobody was hurt in the process.

The Hangman acetate - one might think Hangman is the only studio recording Queen never released. It's funny how people who never collected anything and never made an effort but downloaded everything from QZ (and were always more than welcome to do so!) get all wound up by the idea that there might be a single recording they cannot get their hands upon. Please think about that. What did all these people ever do for the Queen community and what did John in contrast contribute with all his knowledge he shared and his huge collection that was effectively stolen from him and spread in the community (some even paid money for the stolen items). I won't comment about the reasons why John does not post here anymore but it's rather pathetic that the Queen Archivist appears here on the forum and drags this old story up - what does he expect to gain? If he is so sure that the Hangman acetate does not exist he should just say it and maybe people can relax about the issue.

I do not care what people think about John - he is a lovely, honest and serious guy and I feel lucky I met him through my Queen interest. If people feel better throwing dirt at a person they know nothing about, they can feel free to do so, we have freedom of speech on this forum. It says more about the people who do it than about JSS

Very interesting, thank you.

Most people, when given a choice between two versions of the same story, will almost universally pick the one that sounds more spectacular or dramatic.

And, obviously, 'there was a bit of a misunderstanding and he left with no harm having been done' is far less soapy than 'he smeared the Hub with fakes.' Guess which one people will believe the most!