Killer Queen book delivered

Guy

I have to say I totally agree with you on that one, it can be a) very difficult to judge someone's true self from text alone, and b) I also think that it is all too easy to blast stuff off into cyber space without the same care and respect you would give to someone if you were talking to them to their face, it's easy to hide behind a computer screen, email is great for this, and in a company it can cause all sorts of problems because you can't judge the real tone of voice.

I chose also for a dvd-recorder, about the same price as the book, but to
me much more value since I now can digitize all my dozens of queentapes and save them for when the time comes that VCR's are not sold anymore.
Also saves a lot of space if you keep
the dvd's in a box instead of having
them in jewel or dvd cases :-)
Ofcourse I'm curious what the book lookes like and it will be a great item
to have as a Queenfan. But the price
is absurd and I find it scandalous that
they let fans pay so much for a book,
even if it is more luxery as other books.
That does not justify the price...

Bob: Do birds boast when they fly? Do fish boast when they swim? Do I really boast if I own a better car than you do? Do I REALLY?

I agree that I am in a fortunate position, but so to are others like Prince Charles and Bill Gates. It is because that I am in this position, that I can share unique information with this board - and I thought, that was what people wanted to read about (rather than another Bo Rhap v. Bites The Dust poll). Seems that I was wrong.

First, my reply was directly pointed to Rein, and secondly at the board in general - that is we should be happy for Rein. I felt no arrogance or boasting in his statements whatsoever.

Likewise, I have NEVER boasted on this board - that is only your interpretation.

If I recall correctly, you wished to argue that "Silver Salmon" was recorded during the mid '80's - and I corrected this error by saying that it came from the early '70's - to demonstrate this point I stated that my early generation version was superior to the inferior later degenerations.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten that this had nothing to do with "my dick is bigger than your dick", but that it was an honest answer to an honest question - and that you were talking about the wrong song in anycase!

Anyway, I digress, if you look at the thread entitled "How Come Your So Dumb", you may eventually see the point of my replies... NOT to say "look at me - I have this record", but to HELP those who required information (or assistance).

You on the otherhand are like those delinquent kids who throw stones at firemen - and although you may feel that you serve some altruistic purpose - you really can't complain when the same service refuse to turn up when your house is on fire.

Likewise, I could have answered many postings in the last few weeks. For example, Queen DID record all their live concerts. That is 100% fact. However, I did not reply to that question because I knew you, (or someone else) would charge me with "Bragging/blagging or hijacking the forum", and then expect more.

I feel that life is too short for such shit. Get drunk, get laid, get a big TV, but whatever you do - do it with pleasure.

I have not been chased from this board by you - or others (I would not give anyone the satisfaction) - but I do not enjoying posting anymore, the pleasure has disappeared - because of the grief each reply brings with it - therefore, Like John I have retired to enjoy life in the shadows.

May I wish you, (and all that read this) a very happy christmas, and a prosperous New Year, and that the future may bring us all some nice Queen surprises.

Dear Mr. Bob,

I really can't see why I couldn't agree. I don't know both side of the story? What do you mean? I clearly remember what you said in the "Silver Salomon" thread and I couldn't disagree more with you. In my opinion John Stuart wasn't arrogant in his posts. In my opinion Rien wasn't arrogant in his post.

John Stuart gave us a lot of informations about Queen, not only about rare tracks. I don't have those tracks, I will never hear them, but now I know that they exist and what they are. Knowledge is always a good thing.

Rien talked about the Killer Queen book. I don't have the money to buy it. He wanted to put pics on his site. If there are not copyright problems with doing this, I'll be happy to see something from this book. But I'm not going to attack him if he doesn't do it.

Now, what's wrong with doing this?

I love Ferrari cars. I think they are wonderful, but I will never drive one. If I person comes up and says, "The new Ferrari reaches 352,3 km/h" to answer my question but is not going to let me drive his Ferrari, I would not say he is arrogant. This is not bragging. At least in my opinion.

So, Guitar_Hero, let me say something. Your problem is that you're jealous, in my opinion. Anyone who agrees with the idea of attacking a person because of jealousy, is a truly inconsiderate person.

Oh, do you know another thing?

I agree with John S Stuart.

John Stuart

I can't help thinking this board will be a poorer place without you, although I have only recently started posting I have been reading for about two years, so I am aware how much you know about Queen and have enjoyed hearing about it.

One question, I never did understand how you know so much as 'fact' have you just researched a lot or are you in the business?

I agree with John that you can't just give everything. For example I write all the info I get in my website, and share all of it, but I can't mention to the world what's David Richard's email or something like that

In a similar way Martin has collected a lot of valuable info from people like Dave Dilloway and Peter Freestone, and he spreads all of it without asking for something in exchange, but he "can't" say Dave's and Phoebe's mail adresses, for instance, because it's part of their privacy.

John S. Stuart has done the same, he has shared many useful comments about unreleased material, and even though I don't agree with many of his attitudes (pointless to name them here anyway) I accept and I'm pretty sure he has never rubbed in our faces that he has those tracks. He's doing the right thing, what do you want him to do? say he doesn't have anything? that'd be a huge loss of valuable info for many people in this forum (not me, because I don't care about rarities, but for many many people who does).

In a way I'm too in a lucky position, and so is for example PD, and of course Martin. Our positions are in different fields of course, but are equally valuable, and I don't see it as a bad thing.

Even though John's field of expertise has very little or nothing to do with the part I'm interested for I'm sure he's done a lot for the queen world, and many times all he's got in exchange is people angry because he doesn't give more.

It's like you lend a hand to someone, and he/she immediatly takes the whole arm. Totally unfair

Like I said before, a tone can't be captured in a text.

I believe that some of your posts, John, could be read as arrogant as well as informative. That's the problem with the internet - you can't know what someone really means.

I don't think Bob is jealous. Nothing in his behaviour indicates that, even if you think it does. As a matter of fact, he has a few things I'm sure others would be jealous of. And I'll tell you another thing, if I didn't know him very well I'd consider his Hyde Park post as boasting too.

Bob obviously read some of John's comments as "boasting". To tell you the truth, so have I, but since this is the internet and I couldn't really tell what he meant I kept my mouth shut, to avoid problems. Like I mentioned before, Bob isn't afraid of criticism, so he said what's on his mind. You can't blame him for that.

Obviously people who don't understand what I'm talking about with the "tone" issue won't agree. I can safely say these people probably didn't have many real-time chats with others. Speaking of that, the whole internet would be in war if it wasn't for smileys.

The net is tricky.

"It is because that I am in this position, that I can share unique information with this board - and I thought, that was what people wanted to read about (rather than another Bo Rhap v. Bites The Dust poll). Seems that I was wrong."

No, you're right. I've always appreciate the information you've brought to Queen fans about unreleased recordings, but I just wish you could see it from the perspective of a collector who has been trying for years to get the little that he gets:

When someone gives specifics about a recording they know the other person will never have, it does spark a feeling of slight jealousy, because naturally, that person wishes they could hear first hand what they're being told about. It's called human nature! Any hardcore Queen collector who didn't wish they had the demo of It's Late would be a complete liar. The point of collecting music is to get as much as you can, not to stop at a certain point.

"you wished to argue that "Silver Salmon" was recorded during the mid '80's"

I said mid-70s, not 80s. I was judging by the sound, and only the sound. I don't think I said I was 100% sure it was from the mid 70s, case closed, did I? I was just going by what I was hearing, not the date that was slapped on it by someone in the hub. Given dates have been known to be wrong in there.

"You on the otherhand are like those delinquent kids who throw stones at firemen - and although you may feel that you serve some altruistic purpose - you really can't complain when the same service refuse to turn up when your house is on fire."

Gee, there's a slight generalization. Shame on you putting me in the same league as delinquent kids. Who do you think you are, anyway? Just because your house is full of rare Queen records and you can name dates and lengths of recordings doesn't make you an expert; it certainly does not make you a master of judging others, either. Man, did I ever expect more from you than that.

"For example, Queen DID record all their live concerts. That is 100% fact. However, I did not reply to that question because I knew you, (or someone else) would charge me with "Bragging/blagging or hijacking the forum", and then expect more."

No, there's nothing wrong with that! But if you went ahead to give specific details about the Christmas 77 show in LA, or some other show not commonly on bootleg, then your comments would be interpreted as bragging, because you're just boasting about something you have and are not willing to share. Look, I understand and respect people who have done a hell of a lot of work to get to a certain point with their collection. But there has to be a point where you just don't tell any more, because collectors who don't have the same material will feel like it's being rubbed into their faces, even if that isn't the intention of the person giving the information.

"Rien talked about the Killer Queen book. I don't have the money to buy it. He wanted to put pics on his site. If there are not copyright problems with doing this, I'll be happy to see something from this book. But I'm not going to attack him if he doesn't do it.

Now, what's wrong with doing this?"

Nothing is wrong with that. The difference between that book and the hypothetical demo of It's Late is that the demo is absolutely impossible to get, unless you have incredible connections with people. Whether or not you have interest in this book is not the issue. Even with $10,000, I could not find this demo of It's Late on Ebay. It's got nothing to do with the money.

"I love Ferrari cars. I think they are wonderful, but I will never drive one. If I person comes up and says, "The new Ferrari reaches 352,3 km/h" to answer my question but is not going to let me drive his Ferrari, I would not say he is arrogant. This is not bragging. At least in my opinion."

Again, this is a completely different situation. If you have the money, you can buy the car. But no amount of money will get you th

Like you said, it is a different situation.

So if you understand that it's a completely different situation, then will you take back your personal attacks on me?

I believe John was the one who loaned his Wreckage concert tracks to the FM box set ... and someone pulled an inside job and walked off with the original recordings. These were ORIGINAL recordings that he LEGALLY purchased ... and now are lost.

John has stated in the past that he will not trade, but is willing to entertain reasonable monetary offers (was it the Hectics?) that reflect what he originally paid.

GH, if you had purchased the "mythical" NZ concert, I do not think it would be fair of me to expect you to forsake your MONETARY investment, so that I could have a free copy.

On the other hand, if you had obtained it without monetary cost and given it to others, but then decided to blacklist one of the tradees because he also gave it to others ...

Bob:

Freddie - doodling "Amazing Grace" on the piano.

Better you know - or - better you don't?

No, I will not take it back for now because it still is what I think.

What I wanted to say, is that you were talking about different situation on your posts, so there's no use in replying.

Merry Christmas.

hey John, that was something I wanted to ask you a long time ago, but always forgot to. is there any outtake of Freddie doing some technically virtuoso piano things? can you tell me something about it?

thanks