That's an excellent point Serry about the use of the Queen name. Brian's position is that he gave 20 years of his life to Queen, who is anyone to tell him otherwise. I'd state that a lot of people feel that Brian May and Roger Taylor are 1/2 of Queen, and while the use of the name has lead to much heated debate on this board, people respect Brian's right to use it. Yet John gave 20 years of his life also, and we can't allow him to make his choices? It's what WE want him to do, not what he wants to do that gets people riled up. As for comments about him being a jek and a douchebag, childishness and unintelligent debate will continue on this board and others forever.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry... wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
(When I wrote that Brian changes song credits to Queen songs someone called Bobby_Brown asked to ban me from QZ even!)[/QUOTE]
Now and then you`re bringuing this subject to the board. I know you`ve got offended by what i`ve written and i apologised to you. But it seems that they weren`t accepted!
The thing is, if you go and read all that topic again, would you write tha same thing again about Brian, with the exact words?- Wouldn`t you change the way you expressed yourself in that situation?
I admit my mistake, because i know i was a little rough with you and Brenski, but i think that you and Brenski were too rough with Brian and the credits issue.
If you look at the "Return of the Champions" CD you`ll notice that IWIA is credit to Queen, so maybe on "Greatest Hits 2" there was a mistake. Or maybe Brian reads Queenzone and couldn`t handle the pressure!!
I try not to be desrespectfull to anybody, and i admit that in that topic i just lost it completely but that`s not going to happen again!
Now with John Deacon i try not to be desrespectull to him, because he must have a very good reason, but retirement isn`t a good reason at all.
If Brian says that he`s suportive with the things they´re doing then it can`t be that too.
My point is, it`s better be a very good reason other than "i´ve retired", because we have other people that don`t have nothing to do with Queen and accepted to do the interviews to this release. If John has a problem dealing with people, or being too reclusive then i think he should get some professional help, because that can turn into a very bad desease (like depression, fears, etc). But while Roger says he has become reclusive, he appears to be having a great time in the Strip-Clubs (and it`s not my business at all).
As i said before, it`s not like he`s being interviewd for Tabloids.
But i guess i just going to wait for the DVD and see (maybe i can be wrong. If that`s the case, then "hail to John.."
Take care
(When I wrote that Brian changes song credits to Queen songs someone called Bobby_Brown asked to ban me from QZ even!)[/QUOTE]
Now and then you`re bringuing this subject to the board. I know you`ve got offended by what i`ve written and i apologised to you. But it seems that they weren`t accepted!
The thing is, if you go and read all that topic again, would you write tha same thing again about Brian, with the exact words?- Wouldn`t you change the way you expressed yourself in that situation?
I admit my mistake, because i know i was a little rough with you and Brenski, but i think that you and Brenski were too rough with Brian and the credits issue.
If you look at the "Return of the Champions" CD you`ll notice that IWIA is credit to Queen, so maybe on "Greatest Hits 2" there was a mistake. Or maybe Brian reads Queenzone and couldn`t handle the pressure!!
I try not to be desrespectfull to anybody, and i admit that in that topic i just lost it completely but that`s not going to happen again!
Now with John Deacon i try not to be desrespectull to him, because he must have a very good reason, but retirement isn`t a good reason at all.
If Brian says that he`s suportive with the things they´re doing then it can`t be that too.
My point is, it`s better be a very good reason other than "i´ve retired", because we have other people that don`t have nothing to do with Queen and accepted to do the interviews to this release. If John has a problem dealing with people, or being too reclusive then i think he should get some professional help, because that can turn into a very bad desease (like depression, fears, etc). But while Roger says he has become reclusive, he appears to be having a great time in the Strip-Clubs (and it`s not my business at all).
As i said before, it`s not like he`s being interviewd for Tabloids.
But i guess i just going to wait for the DVD and see (maybe i can be wrong. If that`s the case, then "hail to John.."
Take care
I didn't name Brian a total douche/jerk/money grabber or something like that, I didn't say that he needs in professional help of doctor, I didn't insult him at all. I didn't say that you offended me - I just wrote that we can't say something bad about PR, about the recent tour - otherwise people will ask to ban me, or advice "get a life!", "fuck yourself!", "get over it!", but to name Queen's bassist as a jerk, because he doesn't want to give interview - hey, man, it's so easy and funny!
That's the difference.
P.S. "but retirement isn`t a good reason at all" - for whom? For you? I don't think that 55 years old man need in someone's advices about what he should and must to do and about his reasons to do so or not.
That's the difference.
P.S. "but retirement isn`t a good reason at all" - for whom? For you? I don't think that 55 years old man need in someone's advices about what he should and must to do and about his reasons to do so or not.
"As for comments about him being a jek and a douchebag, childishness and unintelligent debate will continue on this board and others forever."
Oh blah blah, look - when someone shuts out the rest of the world, it can look plain silly and they (perhaps unknowingly) open themselves up to a world of bullshit. IT HAPPENS - for someone bemoaning childish behaviour, you're exhibiting a truckload of it (with a spoonful of naivety to boot).
You are defending his right to a private life. Therefore you are also defending our right to say "WHAT THE HELL? Just one interview every ten years wouldn't hurt?". It's that simple.
I mean it really doesn't bother me. Most of his interviews were just him going "I've got no plans" or "I wasn't there, I was on holiday". But all the same. I think he's just one of those people who can't handle affection or something - it's the only reason one would possibly turn their back on their audience.
Either that or he's ashamed of his hair loss?
Anyway. Take it easy John Deacon, and all ye in this thread. You may take it all very personally but I won't. :D
Oh blah blah, look - when someone shuts out the rest of the world, it can look plain silly and they (perhaps unknowingly) open themselves up to a world of bullshit. IT HAPPENS - for someone bemoaning childish behaviour, you're exhibiting a truckload of it (with a spoonful of naivety to boot).
You are defending his right to a private life. Therefore you are also defending our right to say "WHAT THE HELL? Just one interview every ten years wouldn't hurt?". It's that simple.
I mean it really doesn't bother me. Most of his interviews were just him going "I've got no plans" or "I wasn't there, I was on holiday". But all the same. I think he's just one of those people who can't handle affection or something - it's the only reason one would possibly turn their back on their audience.
Either that or he's ashamed of his hair loss?
Anyway. Take it easy John Deacon, and all ye in this thread. You may take it all very personally but I won't. :D
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry... wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I didn't name Brian a total douche/jerk/money grabber or something like that, I didn't say that he needs in professional help of doctor, I didn't insult him at all. I didn't say that you offended me - I just wrote that we can't say something bad about PR, about the recent tour - otherwise people will ask to ban me, or advice "get a life!", "fuck yourself!", "get over it!", but to name Queen's bassist as a jerk, because he doesn't want to give interview - hey, man, it's so easy and funny!
That's the difference.
P.S. "but retirement isn`t a good reason at all" - for whom? For you? I don't think that 55 years old man need in someone's advices about what he should and must to do and about his reasons to do so or not. [/QUOTE]
We`re just talking, and i agree that we shouldn`t be disrespectfull to John either, and certainly sometimes we just say certain things because of the frustation!- The thing is -"We wan`t to see John"- and that`s it.
Of course we have to respect, and of course a 55 year old man doesn`t need aproval for his behaviour, but 55yo it`s not old at all (by the way he`s been retired since 44 years old).
I just hope that he`s fine and healthy, because the last time that one Queen member got reclusive we all know what happened.
Now,he writes Brian and Roger saying he suports them and that he "doesn`t want to be involved". Based on this and supposing that everything is alright with him, i say that this feels very bad in the picture.
And when i say that he must seek medical help, i`m not kidding at all. Both Brian and Roger stated the he doesn`t like people around him, and this can really turn into a bad desease like depression and fears of all kinds.
Even for the fans he doesn`t talk, and now we have E-Mail, he doesn`t have to leave home. He can write it down for the fanclub mag. It wouldn`t hurt!!
He doesn`t owe the fans nothing, but sometimes a gesture of apreciation feels very nice. That´s what life is all about!
He just can`t turn his back to Brian and Roger like that, because he really owes something to them- RESPECT. Respect for the musicians they are, respect for the name QUEEN, and respect for them to have accepted him in the band in 1971.
So, in my opinion, he has all the right not to be in the tour and to turn his back to everything Queen do, but in doing so (just my opinion), i really think he`s being desrespectfull for everything he helped to create!
If you sometimes don`t do what it`s right, instead just do what you want , you may loose very precious moments and friendships in your live.
To end this subject, when Pink Floyd reunited for Live8, Roger Waters agreed to join them to do the gig. Now, he did what was right for that situation because more people watched and more money was guiven to Gueldof. David Guilmour said that if they couldn`t reconciliate for a situation like that, then...
If in this same situation(a live8 reunion), john refuses to reunite, what would you think about him?- Would you respect his decision (based just on his will- not health problems), or would you think that sometimes we shouldn`t just think about ourselves. This is a very strong example, just to say that sometimes it`s not just about us, we can soft a little bit and not be too hard with some situations! There is a strong economy around Queen, and if he accepted be involved in the products (not the tour), then people would be more than happy to buy them, and it would be good for everybody.
Take care
That's the difference.
P.S. "but retirement isn`t a good reason at all" - for whom? For you? I don't think that 55 years old man need in someone's advices about what he should and must to do and about his reasons to do so or not. [/QUOTE]
We`re just talking, and i agree that we shouldn`t be disrespectfull to John either, and certainly sometimes we just say certain things because of the frustation!- The thing is -"We wan`t to see John"- and that`s it.
Of course we have to respect, and of course a 55 year old man doesn`t need aproval for his behaviour, but 55yo it`s not old at all (by the way he`s been retired since 44 years old).
I just hope that he`s fine and healthy, because the last time that one Queen member got reclusive we all know what happened.
Now,he writes Brian and Roger saying he suports them and that he "doesn`t want to be involved". Based on this and supposing that everything is alright with him, i say that this feels very bad in the picture.
And when i say that he must seek medical help, i`m not kidding at all. Both Brian and Roger stated the he doesn`t like people around him, and this can really turn into a bad desease like depression and fears of all kinds.
Even for the fans he doesn`t talk, and now we have E-Mail, he doesn`t have to leave home. He can write it down for the fanclub mag. It wouldn`t hurt!!
He doesn`t owe the fans nothing, but sometimes a gesture of apreciation feels very nice. That´s what life is all about!
He just can`t turn his back to Brian and Roger like that, because he really owes something to them- RESPECT. Respect for the musicians they are, respect for the name QUEEN, and respect for them to have accepted him in the band in 1971.
So, in my opinion, he has all the right not to be in the tour and to turn his back to everything Queen do, but in doing so (just my opinion), i really think he`s being desrespectfull for everything he helped to create!
If you sometimes don`t do what it`s right, instead just do what you want , you may loose very precious moments and friendships in your live.
To end this subject, when Pink Floyd reunited for Live8, Roger Waters agreed to join them to do the gig. Now, he did what was right for that situation because more people watched and more money was guiven to Gueldof. David Guilmour said that if they couldn`t reconciliate for a situation like that, then...
If in this same situation(a live8 reunion), john refuses to reunite, what would you think about him?- Would you respect his decision (based just on his will- not health problems), or would you think that sometimes we shouldn`t just think about ourselves. This is a very strong example, just to say that sometimes it`s not just about us, we can soft a little bit and not be too hard with some situations! There is a strong economy around Queen, and if he accepted be involved in the products (not the tour), then people would be more than happy to buy them, and it would be good for everybody.
Take care
I think Roger said it best:
"John is John..and will remain so"
Bless em', wherever he is!
"John is John..and will remain so"
Bless em', wherever he is!
So by stating that I think that it's wrong for people calling John a "jerk" and a "douchebag", I'm guilty of childish behavior? Dude, your argument is full of so many holes I don't where to begin.
"So by stating that I think that it's wrong for people calling John a "jerk" and a "douchebag", I'm guilty of childish behavior? Dude, your argument is full of so many holes I don't where to begin."
Actually it was more a statement on your skills of comprehension.
And as for 'holes'... dude, you're a walking a-hole.
Actually it was more a statement on your skills of comprehension.
And as for 'holes'... dude, you're a walking a-hole.
I usually don't reply to shit like this, but given your level of maturity, zebonka12, if you stand by your comments that John's a "TOTAL douche" for not doing interviews, then I really feel sorry for you. As you grow older, you'll realize that insults and abusive language are the calling cards of the uneducated. You are entitled to believe John owes more to the fans, no questions asked. I'm entitled to believe he's given what he has to. But leave the schoolyard name calling to people who deserve it, this forum has enough wingnuts offering ridiculous posts, at least you're trying to contribute, just don't believe that calling a man a jerk and a douche because he isn't living life how you want him to is constructive.
"If in this same situation(a live8 reunion), john refuses to reunite, what would you think about him?- Would you respect his decision (based just on his will- not health problems), or would you think that sometimes we shouldn`t just think about ourselves."
John was in the same situation (though cases are different - PF members are alive, Queen's members - not all of them, and I don't think that people on PF forums were complaining "Shit, where's Syd?! Why he refused to play with them? Just one brief appearance!"). John played on Freddie's tribute, John played on MIH and John played on No-One But You - song which was dedicated to Freddie, Versace, Diana etc. He blessed musical, tour etc., he doesn't say his opinions about what Roger and Brian are doing otherwise there could be some troubles for them...
And yes - I will respect any of his decisions as well as I respect Freddie's decision not to give interviews in his last years (c'mon, he could talk over the phone with press, couldn't he? For the fans' sake! What a money grabber, right?). And as well as I respect Brian's and Roger's decision to play live under "Queen" name - I don't like it, I don't accept it, but it's their band, not mine.
John was in the same situation (though cases are different - PF members are alive, Queen's members - not all of them, and I don't think that people on PF forums were complaining "Shit, where's Syd?! Why he refused to play with them? Just one brief appearance!"). John played on Freddie's tribute, John played on MIH and John played on No-One But You - song which was dedicated to Freddie, Versace, Diana etc. He blessed musical, tour etc., he doesn't say his opinions about what Roger and Brian are doing otherwise there could be some troubles for them...
And yes - I will respect any of his decisions as well as I respect Freddie's decision not to give interviews in his last years (c'mon, he could talk over the phone with press, couldn't he? For the fans' sake! What a money grabber, right?). And as well as I respect Brian's and Roger's decision to play live under "Queen" name - I don't like it, I don't accept it, but it's their band, not mine.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry... wrote: [/QUOTENAME]he doesn't say his opinions about what Roger and Brian are doing otherwise there could be some troubles for them...
[/QUOTE]
Trouble? What trouble? That's an assumption. Leave those at the door, please.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry... wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
And yes - I will respect any of his decisions as well as I respect Freddie's decision not to give interviews in his last years (c'mon, he could talk over the phone with press, couldn't he? [/QUOTE]
Rubbish! Freddie disliked the press as he'd been burned a few times. That's why he didn't like giving interviews after a certain time. So, if there's something in the press pointing to a rumour on him being ill, he has even more reason to say no to an interview.
Stop comparing these things that have nothing to do with John.
Peace,
Adam.
[/QUOTE]
Trouble? What trouble? That's an assumption. Leave those at the door, please.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry... wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
And yes - I will respect any of his decisions as well as I respect Freddie's decision not to give interviews in his last years (c'mon, he could talk over the phone with press, couldn't he? [/QUOTE]
Rubbish! Freddie disliked the press as he'd been burned a few times. That's why he didn't like giving interviews after a certain time. So, if there's something in the press pointing to a rumour on him being ill, he has even more reason to say no to an interview.
Stop comparing these things that have nothing to do with John.
Peace,
Adam.
"I usually don't reply to shit like this, but given your level of maturity, zebonka12"
Hahaha.
Exactly what have you got to go on when formulating a statement like that? You've got maybe 3 pages worth of accumulated posts that I've littered on here in my *spare time*. What the heck would you know?
"if you stand by your comments that John's a "TOTAL douche" for not doing interviews, then I really feel sorry for you."
Well... I feel sorry for you. Many apologies, but the guy has the world on a freaking platter and he's sleeping in a tent somewhere where no one will find him. It is absolutely not *my* fault that he can't cope with anything.
"As you grow older, you'll realize that insults and abusive language are the calling cards of the uneducated."
No. They're high quality entertainment when you're not too stuck up to try them out once in a while. Who's the one having trouble here? Live a little, get out of the house, appreciate society for what it can be - and look up a certain wav file called "fuck.wav" on the internet, it runs about two minutes and it's a good laugh, and a solid indictment on the idea that swearwords and insults can't be fun.
"You are entitled to believe John owes more to the fans, no questions asked."
.. then whats the problem?
And you've misunderstood. I never said he owed anyone anything. I said if I was in his place, I'd do the odd appearance or whatever - just because retirement (to me, a young person) does not appeal at all. Maybe when I've reached the lofty 50's like him, I'll understand it all a little better and want to retire and pick grapes in my spare time.
For now, it just looks like bunk.
"I'm entitled to believe he's given what he has to."
Well that's the thing... as a bass player, I'd say he's pretty fucking special, he doesn't have to pissfart around with playing bass anymore.
I said it'd be nice if he did the odd interview. The fact that you don't like the word 'douche', means nothing in this debate.
"But leave the schoolyard name calling to people who deserve it"
Done and done.
"this forum has enough wingnuts offering ridiculous posts"
Well... I'd appreciate the wingnuts more if they offered a bit of originality for a chance. 11 topics posted by BPP and his aliases just gets on my nuts like nothing else.
"at least you're trying to contribute, just don't believe that calling a man a jerk and a douche because he isn't living life how you want him to is constructive."
Hang on a sec, I'm gonna read this much-maligned 'douche' thing of mine...
Hmmm. I've found a post where I called him a blob. And to me, there's no problem with that. It's a fair description of someone who sits around a lot - by my own standards, I'd call myself a blob (when I'm not doing other shit. If I took issue with everyone I met in public who walked up to me and called me Jesus upon seeing my hair, I'd be grey by now).
You misunderstand. A lot of people throw insults around for fun. I only use words like 'blob' or 'douche' when I think someone's earned it, or an as exaggeration; and PRIMARILY with the understanding that the target of said 'insult' is FREE to return the favour.
I don't do it just because John isn't here and can't fight back. I do so under the full assumption that he (or anyone else) may say whatever they see fit in response - as I am doing so to your post.
I merely comment on the situation *as I see it* - looks like someone's being lazy.
You merely comment on my posts *as you see them* - you've taken them to a level beyond Seriousness - heck, beyond REASON if you ask me. It's the goddamned internet, anything goes.
We are, in essence, only doing the same thing.
"I'm saying he's being a TOTAL douche because turning up for the odd interview is not hard work."
Ok - suppose you were to delve into my private life for a minute - I'm a full
Hahaha.
Exactly what have you got to go on when formulating a statement like that? You've got maybe 3 pages worth of accumulated posts that I've littered on here in my *spare time*. What the heck would you know?
"if you stand by your comments that John's a "TOTAL douche" for not doing interviews, then I really feel sorry for you."
Well... I feel sorry for you. Many apologies, but the guy has the world on a freaking platter and he's sleeping in a tent somewhere where no one will find him. It is absolutely not *my* fault that he can't cope with anything.
"As you grow older, you'll realize that insults and abusive language are the calling cards of the uneducated."
No. They're high quality entertainment when you're not too stuck up to try them out once in a while. Who's the one having trouble here? Live a little, get out of the house, appreciate society for what it can be - and look up a certain wav file called "fuck.wav" on the internet, it runs about two minutes and it's a good laugh, and a solid indictment on the idea that swearwords and insults can't be fun.
"You are entitled to believe John owes more to the fans, no questions asked."
.. then whats the problem?
And you've misunderstood. I never said he owed anyone anything. I said if I was in his place, I'd do the odd appearance or whatever - just because retirement (to me, a young person) does not appeal at all. Maybe when I've reached the lofty 50's like him, I'll understand it all a little better and want to retire and pick grapes in my spare time.
For now, it just looks like bunk.
"I'm entitled to believe he's given what he has to."
Well that's the thing... as a bass player, I'd say he's pretty fucking special, he doesn't have to pissfart around with playing bass anymore.
I said it'd be nice if he did the odd interview. The fact that you don't like the word 'douche', means nothing in this debate.
"But leave the schoolyard name calling to people who deserve it"
Done and done.
"this forum has enough wingnuts offering ridiculous posts"
Well... I'd appreciate the wingnuts more if they offered a bit of originality for a chance. 11 topics posted by BPP and his aliases just gets on my nuts like nothing else.
"at least you're trying to contribute, just don't believe that calling a man a jerk and a douche because he isn't living life how you want him to is constructive."
Hang on a sec, I'm gonna read this much-maligned 'douche' thing of mine...
Hmmm. I've found a post where I called him a blob. And to me, there's no problem with that. It's a fair description of someone who sits around a lot - by my own standards, I'd call myself a blob (when I'm not doing other shit. If I took issue with everyone I met in public who walked up to me and called me Jesus upon seeing my hair, I'd be grey by now).
You misunderstand. A lot of people throw insults around for fun. I only use words like 'blob' or 'douche' when I think someone's earned it, or an as exaggeration; and PRIMARILY with the understanding that the target of said 'insult' is FREE to return the favour.
I don't do it just because John isn't here and can't fight back. I do so under the full assumption that he (or anyone else) may say whatever they see fit in response - as I am doing so to your post.
I merely comment on the situation *as I see it* - looks like someone's being lazy.
You merely comment on my posts *as you see them* - you've taken them to a level beyond Seriousness - heck, beyond REASON if you ask me. It's the goddamned internet, anything goes.
We are, in essence, only doing the same thing.
"I'm saying he's being a TOTAL douche because turning up for the odd interview is not hard work."
Ok - suppose you were to delve into my private life for a minute - I'm a full
"Rubbish! Freddie disliked the press as he'd been burned a few times. That's why he didn't like giving interviews after a certain time."
Rubbish! Freddie gave interviews in the 70s - though he hated the press in 70s - and if you listen to the bootlegs you'll hear what he said about press - Freddie gave interviews in the 80s, so you're totally wrong. And as I wrote - who cares about HIS reasons? Do you care? So why you don't care about John's?
"So, if there's something in the press pointing to a rumour on him being ill, he has even more reason to say no to an interview."
What do you know about John's reasons?
"What trouble?"
Have you read John's remark about WATC by Brian, Roger and Robbie?
P.S. Calm down, Adam, calm down!
Rubbish! Freddie gave interviews in the 70s - though he hated the press in 70s - and if you listen to the bootlegs you'll hear what he said about press - Freddie gave interviews in the 80s, so you're totally wrong. And as I wrote - who cares about HIS reasons? Do you care? So why you don't care about John's?
"So, if there's something in the press pointing to a rumour on him being ill, he has even more reason to say no to an interview."
What do you know about John's reasons?
"What trouble?"
Have you read John's remark about WATC by Brian, Roger and Robbie?
P.S. Calm down, Adam, calm down!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry... wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"Rubbish! Freddie disliked the press as he'd been burned a few times. That's why he didn't like giving interviews after a certain time."
Rubbish! Freddie gave interviews in the 70s - though he hated the press in 70s - and if you listen to the bootlegs you'll hear what he said about press - Freddie gave interviews in the 80s, so you're totally wrong. And as I wrote - who cares about HIS reasons? Do you care? So why you don't care about John's?
"So, if there's something in the press pointing to a rumour on him being ill, he has even more reason to say no to an interview."
What do you know about John's reasons?
"What trouble?"
Have you read John's remark about WATC by Brian, Roger and Robbie?
P.S. Calm down, Adam, calm down![/QUOTE]
You've totally reinterpreted what I wrote. Go back and read over again.
Peace,
Adam.
P.S. Yes, John didn't like the WATC cover. But then, who did it hurt to know that? Brian and Roger didn't bat an eyelid at this.
Rubbish! Freddie gave interviews in the 70s - though he hated the press in 70s - and if you listen to the bootlegs you'll hear what he said about press - Freddie gave interviews in the 80s, so you're totally wrong. And as I wrote - who cares about HIS reasons? Do you care? So why you don't care about John's?
"So, if there's something in the press pointing to a rumour on him being ill, he has even more reason to say no to an interview."
What do you know about John's reasons?
"What trouble?"
Have you read John's remark about WATC by Brian, Roger and Robbie?
P.S. Calm down, Adam, calm down![/QUOTE]
You've totally reinterpreted what I wrote. Go back and read over again.
Peace,
Adam.
P.S. Yes, John didn't like the WATC cover. But then, who did it hurt to know that? Brian and Roger didn't bat an eyelid at this.
Go back and read again what I wrote: "And as I wrote - who cares about HIS [Freddie's] reasons? Do you care? So why you don't care about John's?"
"who did it hurt to know that? Brian and Roger didn't bat an eyelid at this."
I don't know if they were pleased with that John's remark about their work. Brian seems as a guy who cares about such things, if you read his soapbox...
"who did it hurt to know that? Brian and Roger didn't bat an eyelid at this."
I don't know if they were pleased with that John's remark about their work. Brian seems as a guy who cares about such things, if you read his soapbox...