Maylor are not money hungry???

runner_70 wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

snifflese wrote:

You are no Queen fan to say what you do about them. I don't quite know what you are, but it is not a Queen fan.

. . . . . One is a legendary BAND with an immortal frontman. The other one is a sad COVER COMBO with a twat on vocals. . . . .

Not really, the "immortal frontman" has been dead since 1991 and your so called cover band is a slightly different line up of the original band (suited to live performance) plus a guest vocalist with the range needed to perform what they perform.

If you want to call them a cover band, then you'll have to accept them as the most successful cover band ever.

"SLightly different"????? Just the most iconic frontman is missing and you are saying "slightly different"???? And John Deacon? What about him???? Slightly different as well??? YOu sad lil twat can join your buddy sniff in fantasy land

Yes slightly different because they still have the very recognisable guitarist sharing the stage with the equally recognisable drummer and the same keyboard player they've had since 84. Like it or not John Deacon ( great Bass player and song writer) spent a lot of gigs almost in Brian's and Freddies's shadows. So a replacement Bass player who stands in Deacons place and plays what is required is not a huge difference when watching a gig. . . a new vocalist is major, but they are not the only band to do this and, although not by you, he has been accepted by the audiences.

So a slightly different line up, not the original lineup but half the original band and three fifths of the 84/86 touring line up, slightly different and if you believe in immortality you're the sad lil twat.

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

snifflese wrote:

You are no Queen fan to say what you do about them. I don't quite know what you are, but it is not a Queen fan.

. . . . . One is a legendary BAND with an immortal frontman. The other one is a sad COVER COMBO with a twat on vocals. . . . .

Not really, the "immortal frontman" has been dead since 1991 and your so called cover band is a slightly different line up of the original band (suited to live performance) plus a guest vocalist with the range needed to perform what they perform.

If you want to call them a cover band, then you'll have to accept them as the most successful cover band ever.

"SLightly different"????? Just the most iconic frontman is missing and you are saying "slightly different"???? And John Deacon? What about him???? Slightly different as well??? YOu sad lil twat can join your buddy sniff in fantasy land

Yes slightly different because they still have the very recognisable guitarist sharing the stage with the equally recognisable drummer and the same keyboard player they've had since 84. Like it or not John Deacon ( great Bass player and song writer) spent a lot of gigs almost in Brian's and Freddies's shadows. So a replacement Bass player who stands in Deacons place and plays what is required is not a huge difference when watching a gig. . . a new vocalist is major, but they are not the only band to do this and, although not by you, he has been accepted by the audiences.

So a slightly different line up, not the original lineup but half the original band and three fifths of the 84/86 touring line up, slightly different and if you believe in immortality you're the sad lil twat.

Still unbelievable how delusional Glam-Fucktarts like you can get. guy without any input and what was that original singer's name again?

Enough of this crap and grow the fuck up you assclown

runner_70 wrote:

. . . The whole movie had a homophobic undertone. . . . . .

What, just like everything you post about Adam Lambert.

runner_70 wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

snifflese wrote:

You are no Queen fan to say what you do about them. I don't quite know what you are, but it is not a Queen fan.

. . . . . One is a legendary BAND with an immortal frontman. The other one is a sad COVER COMBO with a twat on vocals. . . . .

Not really, the "immortal frontman" has been dead since 1991 and your so called cover band is a slightly different line up of the original band (suited to live performance) plus a guest vocalist with the range needed to perform what they perform.

If you want to call them a cover band, then you'll have to accept them as the most successful cover band ever.

"SLightly different"????? Just the most iconic frontman is missing and you are saying "slightly different"???? And John Deacon? What about him???? Slightly different as well??? YOu sad lil twat can join your buddy sniff in fantasy land

Yes slightly different because they still have the very recognisable guitarist sharing the stage with the equally recognisable drummer and the same keyboard player they've had since 84. Like it or not John Deacon ( great Bass player and song writer) spent a lot of gigs almost in Brian's and Freddies's shadows. So a replacement Bass player who stands in Deacons place and plays what is required is not a huge difference when watching a gig. . . a new vocalist is major, but they are not the only band to do this and, although not by you, he has been accepted by the audiences.

So a slightly different line up, not the original lineup but half the original band and three fifths of the 84/86 touring line up, slightly different and if you believe in immortality you're the sad lil twat.

Still unbelievable how delusional Glam-Fucktarts like you can get. guy without any input and what was that original singer's name again?

Enough of this crap and grow the fuck up you assclown

Your question about the original singers name, why are you asking me, your the one dimensional idiot fan boy here. The original singer in your post that you called the immortal front man, even though he's dead, that singer.

Your the fucktart son, why don't you grow up!

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

. . . The whole movie had a homophobic undertone. . . . . .

What, just like everything you post about Adam Lambert.

I do not care if he fucks guys or sheep . According to his voice maybe latter

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

snifflese wrote:

You are no Queen fan to say what you do about them. I don't quite know what you are, but it is not a Queen fan.

. . . . . One is a legendary BAND with an immortal frontman. The other one is a sad COVER COMBO with a twat on vocals. . . . .

Not really, the "immortal frontman" has been dead since 1991 and your so called cover band is a slightly different line up of the original band (suited to live performance) plus a guest vocalist with the range needed to perform what they perform.

If you want to call them a cover band, then you'll have to accept them as the most successful cover band ever.

"SLightly different"????? Just the most iconic frontman is missing and you are saying "slightly different"???? And John Deacon? What about him???? Slightly different as well??? YOu sad lil twat can join your buddy sniff in fantasy land

Yes slightly different because they still have the very recognisable guitarist sharing the stage with the equally recognisable drummer and the same keyboard player they've had since 84. Like it or not John Deacon ( great Bass player and song writer) spent a lot of gigs almost in Brian's and Freddies's shadows. So a replacement Bass player who stands in Deacons place and plays what is required is not a huge difference when watching a gig. . . a new vocalist is major, but they are not the only band to do this and, although not by you, he has been accepted by the audiences.

So a slightly different line up, not the original lineup but half the original band and three fifths of the 84/86 touring line up, slightly different and if you believe in immortality you're the sad lil twat.

Still unbelievable how delusional Glam-Fucktarts like you can get. guy without any input and what was that original singer's name again?

Enough of this crap and grow the fuck up you assclown

Your question about the original singers name, why are you asking me, your the one dimensional idiot fan boy here. The original singer in your post that you called the immortal front man, even though he's dead, that singer.

Your the fucktart son, why don't you grow up!

Yeha and this Deacon John guy had no input at all right you fuckhead?

runner_70 wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

snifflese wrote:

You are no Queen fan to say what you do about them. I don't quite know what you are, but it is not a Queen fan.

. . . . . One is a legendary BAND with an immortal frontman. The other one is a sad COVER COMBO with a twat on vocals. . . . .

Not really, the "immortal frontman" has been dead since 1991 and your so called cover band is a slightly different line up of the original band (suited to live performance) plus a guest vocalist with the range needed to perform what they perform.

If you want to call them a cover band, then you'll have to accept them as the most successful cover band ever.

"SLightly different"????? Just the most iconic frontman is missing and you are saying "slightly different"???? And John Deacon? What about him???? Slightly different as well??? YOu sad lil twat can join your buddy sniff in fantasy land

Yes slightly different because they still have the very recognisable guitarist sharing the stage with the equally recognisable drummer and the same keyboard player they've had since 84. Like it or not John Deacon ( great Bass player and song writer) spent a lot of gigs almost in Brian's and Freddies's shadows. So a replacement Bass player who stands in Deacons place and plays what is required is not a huge difference when watching a gig. . . a new vocalist is major, but they are not the only band to do this and, although not by you, he has been accepted by the audiences.

So a slightly different line up, not the original lineup but half the original band and three fifths of the 84/86 touring line up, slightly different and if you believe in immortality you're the sad lil twat.

Still unbelievable how delusional Glam-Fucktarts like you can get. guy without any input and what was that original singer's name again?

Enough of this crap and grow the fuck up you assclown

Your question about the original singers name, why are you asking me, your the one dimensional idiot fan boy here. The original singer in your post that you called the immortal front man, even though he's dead, that singer.

Your the fucktart son, why don't you grow up!

Yeha and this Deacon John guy had no input at all right you fuckhead?

You've got no argument so you just carry on with you insults, which as you started this I'll just reply in the same manner.

First of all, show me where I said that the original bass player and original singer had no input. Stop inventing stuff fuckhead.

runner_70 wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

. . . The whole movie had a homophobic undertone. . . . . .

What, just like everything you post about Adam Lambert.

I do not care if he fucks guys or sheep . According to his voice maybe latter

You're the pea head with the abnormal fixation.

Vocal harmony wrote:



First of all, show me where I said that the original bass player and original singer had no input. Stop inventing stuff fuckhead.

Vocal harmony wrote:
So a replacement Bass player who stands in Deacons place and plays what is required is not a huge difference

There you go dickhead. No need to thank me it is one of those days I pity retarded clowns like you

Vocal harmony wrote:



. . . Like it or not John Deacon ( great Bass player and song writer) spent a lot of gigs almost in Brian's and Freddies's shadows. So a replacement Bass player who stands in Deacons place and plays what is required is not a huge difference when watching a gig. . . . . .

What I actually posted regarding John Deacon. When you read the whole thing it reads very differently to your cherry picked line quoted out of context.

The thing is you're that stupid you think miss quoting something is going to prove you right when the original post is there for anyone to read anyway.

So Martin Weckwerth ( you miss quoted me and tried to claim that what you quoted was all I said) you're a liar. You're a gutter crawling scum that doesn't belong in a public forum.

Vocal harmony wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote:



. . . Like it or not John Deacon ( great Bass player and song writer) spent a lot of gigs almost in Brian's and Freddies's shadows. So a replacement Bass player who stands in Deacons place and plays what is required is not a huge difference when watching a gig. . . . . .

What I actually posted regarding John Deacon. When you read the whole thing it reads very differently to your cherry picked line quoted out of context.

The thing is you're that stupid you think miss quoting something is going to prove you right when the original post is there for anyone to read anyway.

So Martin Weckwerth ( you miss quoted me and tried to claim that what you quoted was all I said) you're a liar. You're a gutter crawling scum that doesn't belong in a public forum.

It says the same thing you fuckwhit. Each bassplayer could play live instead of Deacon and it makes no big difference. Your words not mine. Idiot

runner_70 wrote:It says the same thing you fuckwhit. Each bassplayer could play live instead of Deacon and it makes no big difference. Your words not mine. Idiot

Every city has hundreds of souls like yourself. Creatures who - due to lack of education, upbringing and loving parents spent their adolescence and beyond throwing shit at the world.

You blame the world for you living 100 feet above the ground in social squalor, where the daily vista is a stark choice of burning tyres, or burning cars or burning skip. Where carrying your shopping home is a "grand national" of "jumps" over rotting mattresses, piss-stained stairwells or collapsed junkies.

Yes, of course it's NEVER your fault. You ended up where you are and never once tried to better yourself. So, for that reason alone - the rest of the world takes the daily blame for your piss-poor situation.

You win, you get the award for "hardest done by". Time to move on.

runner_70 wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote:



. . . Like it or not John Deacon ( great Bass player and song writer) spent a lot of gigs almost in Brian's and Freddies's shadows. So a replacement Bass player who stands in Deacons place and plays what is required is not a huge difference when watching a gig. . . . . .

What I actually posted regarding John Deacon. When you read the whole thing it reads very differently to your cherry picked line quoted out of context.

The thing is you're that stupid you think miss quoting something is going to prove you right when the original post is there for anyone to read anyway.

So Martin Weckwerth ( you miss quoted me and tried to claim that what you quoted was all I said) you're a liar. You're a gutter crawling scum that doesn't belong in a public forum.

It says the same thing you fuckwhit. Each bassplayer could play live instead of Deacon and it makes no big difference. Your words not mine. Idiot

You're the fuckwit son, you're the doughnut head who either doesn't understand what I've said or chooses not too in order to claw lost ground back.

Let me go into more detail, just in case you really do have a problem.

John Deacon was a talented Bass player and song writer. When Queen played live he was usually the least visible, because his shy nature usually meant he stood further back than Freddie and Brian and he didn't have to put the energy and movement into his playing that Roger did.

Brian and Freddie were very visual, so, many times John Deacon played in their collective shadow.

Because of this in the current line up as long as there is someone standing stage right playing Bass, playing the right notes and for the most part not being visual, to the casual fan and most of the people two thirds back in a large arena John won't be missed.

Now just take you're dumb arguments and go away rocker boy Weckwerth.

You should post when you are sober. Or are these all typos like those from your sidekick Bronski Beat?

runner_70 wrote:

You should post when you are sober. Or are these all typos like those from your sidekick Bronski Beat?

<a href="https://imgur.com/gmj6eJd"><img src="https://i.imgur.com/gmj6eJdl.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>