To BOY THOMAS RAKER
I'm going to address your thread because there are numerous valid things proffered in a reasonable way. Some QZ-erswill say that that's patronising (I can't win), but I hope you see the real intention BTB...
Hi Greg, for what's it worth, I'm not for or against you, I find the whole thread fascinating,
THAT IS AN ENCOURAGING START BTR.
but I believe you err when you say that "I DID A GOOD JOB IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT TIME." The fact that the internet wasn't a resource for you isn't an excuse for sloppy research and fact checking.
I DO NOT EXCEPT IT WAS SLOPPY RESEARCH.
I GATHERED TOGETHER ALL THE LETTERS AND LISTS I HAD FROM FANS. HUNDREDS OF THEM FROM FANS WHO SAID THEY HAD THOSE RECORDINGS AND "THESE LISTS ARE DEFINITELY ACCURATE GREG".
I WENT THROUGH ALL THE SETLISTS THAT EXISTED ANYWHERE AT THAT TIME. I MEAN EVERYWHERE.
WHEREVER THERE WAS A QUEEN SETLIST OR FACT OR FIGURE, I USED IT.
BUT... EVERYTHING CONFLICTED WITH SOMETHING ELSE. VERY RARELY DID TWO LISTS APPEAR EXACTLY THE SAME.
I THINK ONLY 10 % WERE NOT IN CONFLICT. I TRIED CROSS REFERENCE EVERYTHING AT LEAST ONCE BEFORE IT MADE IT TO THE BOOK.
BTR, I SIMPLY COULD NOT DO MORE THAN I DID. I SAT DOWN WITH JIM JENKINS, AND OTHERS, AND WE CHECKED EVERYTHING THAT WAS DOCUMENTED AT THAT TIME... 15 YEARS AGO.
I DO NOT ACCEPT IT WAS SLOPPY RESEARCH. IT WASN'T.
As a writer, if I submitted something to a client that was as sloppily presented as the Queen Live book I'd be fired.
FAIR ENOUGH.
WHEN THE BOOK EMERGED IN 1996, I HAD 18 LETTERS IN THE FIRST 2 YEARS.
ONLY 18 LETTERS TO POINT OUT ERRORS, IN 2 YEARS.
I WOULD ACCEPT THAT THE MULL OF KINTYRE THING WAS A VERY BAD AND OBVIOUS ERROR, BUT IN A BOOK OF 45,000 WORDS, THAT'S NOT A BAD VOLUME.... IS IT BTR? WHAT DO YOU THINK?
I OFFERED INFO AT THE BACK OF THE BOOK NEVER TO BE COMPILED BEFORE. QZ NEVER POINTS THAT OUT.
NO-ONE HAD EVER AMASSED ALL THAT INFO ON QUEEN LIVE INTO ONE PLACE AND OFFERED IT. QZ NEVER POINTS THAT OUT.
MANY GOOD PEOPLE HAVE DONE SIMILAR THINGS SINCE - SINCE THE INFO'S BEEN EASILY ACCESSIBLE ON THE WEB. BUT NP-ONE HAD DONE IT UP TIL THEN. QZ NEVER POINTS THAT OUT.
OMNIBUS PRESS HA OVER 700 COMPLIMENTARY LETTERS IN THE FIRST 5 YEARS THE BOOK WAS AVAILABLE. SOME SAID THAT IT HAD ERRORS BUT THAT THAT 99 PERCENT WAS USEFUL AND INTERESTING.
And while you are correct that "NO-ONE EVER DID AN ALTERNATIVE - BETTER OR WORSE. IT'S EASY TO CRITICISE AND HARD TO GET OFF THE BUM AND WRITE A BOOK AND GET IT PUBLISHED. HOW MANY QZ-ERS HAVE DONE THAT???? 1 PERCENT, IS IT? OR LESS THAN THAT?", that's a weak rationalization for your errors.
IT'S NOT WEAK. BOY THOMAS, I THINK I WOULD FEEL SHITTY TO KNOCK AND BETTER YOUR BOOK OR WORK, IF I WAS TOO LAZY TO HAVE OFFERRED ANYTHING MYSELF.
I'D FEEL A HYPOCRIT. I WOULD. IT'S NOT A WEAK ARGUMENT.
If Lester or Sir GH or Zebonka or one of your perceived enemies write a book and it's filled with errors, you can be damned sure that the QZ board will be all over them.
QZ-ERS WILL KNOCK MOST THINGS. SERIOUSLY, IT IS THE NATURE OF QZ TO FIND FAULT FIRST, TO LOOK FOR THE ERRORS FIRST, PICK AND MOAN FIRST, AND THEN GRUDGINGLY COMMENT ON THE GOOD AFTERWARDS, IF AT ALL.
YOU KNOW THIS IS TRUE.
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THE HATE-GREGSTERS SAY ANYTHING GOOD ABOUT MY BOOK? NO. BUT WE BOTH KNOW THAT AMONG THE ERRORS THERE ARE GOOD THINGS TOO... BUT THEY IGNORE THAT.
THEY ARE NOT FAIR OR BALANCED. SURELY YOU SEE THIS.
And as far as getting help, you're being paid to do your work, the members of this board aren't.
I DID NOT WORK FOR QUEEN THEN. I WAS NOT PAID TO DO THE BOOK.
WITH RESPECT... THIS HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW. NO-ONE ON QZ EVER ASKED ME THAT. THEY JUST ASSUME - THE WRONG THINGS MOSTLY.
YOU MAYBE BEGIN TO SEE WHAT I AM UP AGAINST ON THIS SITE.
BTR, AFTER THIS REPLY TO YOU GOES 'OUT THERE' ON QZ, YOU WILL SEE FEW BALANCED REPLIES. 98 % WILL B
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Greg, any chance of you responding to my email?
"BTW... I WRITE IN CAPITALS SIMPLY SO IT'S EASIER TO READ AMONG THE LITTLE LOWER-CASE TO WHICH I'M REPLYING. NO OTHER REASON. OTHERWISE IT'S HARD TO SEE WHAT I AM SAYING AS AGAINST WHAT THE OTHER PERSON SAID. JUST PRACTICALITIES, THAT'S ALL."
Right on. I usually put ""'s over other people's writing because I don't like the 'quote' button. But whatever suits you best.
"SO, TO ANSWER MR ZEBONKA....
MR BROOKS, GREG, I DON'T MIND."
Fair enough.
"OK. FAIR ENOUGH. BUT YOU HAVE CRITICISED ME IN VARIOUS OTHER WAYS SO I THINK YOU ARE SPLITTING HAIRS."
True - I have lampooned the way in which you handle yourself. Quite frankly it just gets a bit confusing sometimes, and I think you could probably do things better (or at least, just ignore people).
If we are to talk about the book, then - I won't heap shit on it because research (while fun and meditative to me) can be a bitch of a thing to do.
"OK. I WILL TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT RATHER THAN REVIEW EVERY COMMENT YOU'VE EVER MADE RELATED TO ME OR MY WORK."
Haha well - I meant solely in this thread. Truth is, I can't help but write jabs and stuff. It's not meant to be taken seriously. If you *were* to look at every other thing I've said, chances are you'd probably just come across sarcasm or hamfisted social commentary.
"THAT IS QUITE CORRECT. ABSOLUTELY.
I HONESTLY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. BUT SEE, MOST QZ-ERS THAT REPLY TO ME ARE ALREADY PRE-PROGRAMMED TO GO THE NEGATIVE, INSULTING ROUTE. YOU KNOW THIS ZEB, AND SO DO THEY. THEY CAN'T HELP IT."
I understand this point... I actually think it's more indicative of people in general as opposed to QZ on it's own. I suppose it's different on other sites because they're moderated differently.
"THEY DON'T THINK,"INTERESTING POINT GREG MAKES HERE, OR BAD POINT HE MAKES THERE, BUT THIS IS WHAT I THINK..."
NO, INSTEAD THEIR PRE-CONDITIONING STEPS IN.. "I HATE THIS PRICK, WHAT CAN I PICK OUT OF HIS THREAD TO HONE IN ON. WHAT CAN I SAY TO MAKE MY QZ FRIENDS LAUGH, AND LIKE ME EVEN MORE?"
There's a lot of that here. I'll readily admit I'm guilty of that. Can I point out though, if I write something like "that's 'property of Queen productions'", it really shouldn't be taken too seriously. I'm just commenting that it sounded funny.
"IF IT WERE CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENT - LIKE THAT WHICH SCULLY OFFERED - THEN I'D HOLD MY HANDS UP. BUT WHEN THESE PEOPLE JUST INSULT FOR UNSULT SAKE, I GIVE BACK AS GOOD AS I GET."
Fair enough.
"REMEMBER ZEB, THAT QZ STARTED ON ME FIRST. THEY INSULTED ME FROM THE VERY EARLIEST DAYS ON THIS SITE. LONG LONG BEFORE I OFFERED A SINGLE WORD."
This I can't offer an opinion on because I only joined the site in 2004 so I could watch "Story of Bohemian Rhapsody".
"QZ SET THE SCENE, I DID NOT. I JUST FOLLOWED IN VERY NEGATIVE AND OFTEN NASTY FOOTSTEPS.
YOU CANNOT DISPUTE THAT ZEB."
Noted.
"I DID A GOOD JOB IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT TIME."
Agreed. Out of curiosity, would you consider amending such works; or would you approve of someone doing so in the far off future?
"SERIOUSLY... YOU OR OTHERS ON QZ 'COULD' HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB, APPARENTLY, BUT ACTUALLY YOU NEVER DID."
I WAS 5 YEARS OLD!!
Haha, but really... when I claim to be a neat writer, I talk purely of literary quality. I don't know a tenth about Queen live that other people know - I just point out that I could make the writings interesting.
"DO YOU CONCEDE THIS POINT?"
I don't have to - it's simply how things are.
"I JUST GIVE OUT SIMILAR TO WHAT I GET - AND YES THAT CAN BE CHILDISH TOO. I FEEL 'ABOVE' CERTAIN TWATS ON THIS SITE, YES, FOR SURE. ABSOLUTELY. DON'T YOU THEN?"
I admire your sentiment, but - 'twats' are such beautiful things. If I were you I'd find a more appropriate curse-word because I honestly think vag
Right on. I usually put ""'s over other people's writing because I don't like the 'quote' button. But whatever suits you best.
"SO, TO ANSWER MR ZEBONKA....
MR BROOKS, GREG, I DON'T MIND."
Fair enough.
"OK. FAIR ENOUGH. BUT YOU HAVE CRITICISED ME IN VARIOUS OTHER WAYS SO I THINK YOU ARE SPLITTING HAIRS."
True - I have lampooned the way in which you handle yourself. Quite frankly it just gets a bit confusing sometimes, and I think you could probably do things better (or at least, just ignore people).
If we are to talk about the book, then - I won't heap shit on it because research (while fun and meditative to me) can be a bitch of a thing to do.
"OK. I WILL TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT RATHER THAN REVIEW EVERY COMMENT YOU'VE EVER MADE RELATED TO ME OR MY WORK."
Haha well - I meant solely in this thread. Truth is, I can't help but write jabs and stuff. It's not meant to be taken seriously. If you *were* to look at every other thing I've said, chances are you'd probably just come across sarcasm or hamfisted social commentary.
"THAT IS QUITE CORRECT. ABSOLUTELY.
I HONESTLY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. BUT SEE, MOST QZ-ERS THAT REPLY TO ME ARE ALREADY PRE-PROGRAMMED TO GO THE NEGATIVE, INSULTING ROUTE. YOU KNOW THIS ZEB, AND SO DO THEY. THEY CAN'T HELP IT."
I understand this point... I actually think it's more indicative of people in general as opposed to QZ on it's own. I suppose it's different on other sites because they're moderated differently.
"THEY DON'T THINK,"INTERESTING POINT GREG MAKES HERE, OR BAD POINT HE MAKES THERE, BUT THIS IS WHAT I THINK..."
NO, INSTEAD THEIR PRE-CONDITIONING STEPS IN.. "I HATE THIS PRICK, WHAT CAN I PICK OUT OF HIS THREAD TO HONE IN ON. WHAT CAN I SAY TO MAKE MY QZ FRIENDS LAUGH, AND LIKE ME EVEN MORE?"
There's a lot of that here. I'll readily admit I'm guilty of that. Can I point out though, if I write something like "that's 'property of Queen productions'", it really shouldn't be taken too seriously. I'm just commenting that it sounded funny.
"IF IT WERE CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENT - LIKE THAT WHICH SCULLY OFFERED - THEN I'D HOLD MY HANDS UP. BUT WHEN THESE PEOPLE JUST INSULT FOR UNSULT SAKE, I GIVE BACK AS GOOD AS I GET."
Fair enough.
"REMEMBER ZEB, THAT QZ STARTED ON ME FIRST. THEY INSULTED ME FROM THE VERY EARLIEST DAYS ON THIS SITE. LONG LONG BEFORE I OFFERED A SINGLE WORD."
This I can't offer an opinion on because I only joined the site in 2004 so I could watch "Story of Bohemian Rhapsody".
"QZ SET THE SCENE, I DID NOT. I JUST FOLLOWED IN VERY NEGATIVE AND OFTEN NASTY FOOTSTEPS.
YOU CANNOT DISPUTE THAT ZEB."
Noted.
"I DID A GOOD JOB IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT TIME."
Agreed. Out of curiosity, would you consider amending such works; or would you approve of someone doing so in the far off future?
"SERIOUSLY... YOU OR OTHERS ON QZ 'COULD' HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB, APPARENTLY, BUT ACTUALLY YOU NEVER DID."
I WAS 5 YEARS OLD!!
Haha, but really... when I claim to be a neat writer, I talk purely of literary quality. I don't know a tenth about Queen live that other people know - I just point out that I could make the writings interesting.
"DO YOU CONCEDE THIS POINT?"
I don't have to - it's simply how things are.
"I JUST GIVE OUT SIMILAR TO WHAT I GET - AND YES THAT CAN BE CHILDISH TOO. I FEEL 'ABOVE' CERTAIN TWATS ON THIS SITE, YES, FOR SURE. ABSOLUTELY. DON'T YOU THEN?"
I admire your sentiment, but - 'twats' are such beautiful things. If I were you I'd find a more appropriate curse-word because I honestly think vag
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
*edit*
Queen the brand wants to make money hand over fist by spewing out shit and thinking we should be grateful.
DO YOU THINK GREATEST HITS DVD 1 AND 2, LIVE AT MILTON KEYNES, THE GAME & NATO 5.1 MIXES ARE SHIT?
I DON'T.
OKAY IT'S NOT LIVE AT HAMMY ODEON 75, OT HYDE PARK, BUT THERE ARE PLANS FOR THOE THINGS.
THEY ARE GOOD PRODUCTS.
*edit*
[/QUOTE]
Greg,
this is some nice information. Could you tell us something more about this "plans"
maybe an '70s DVD box ;)
*edit*
Queen the brand wants to make money hand over fist by spewing out shit and thinking we should be grateful.
DO YOU THINK GREATEST HITS DVD 1 AND 2, LIVE AT MILTON KEYNES, THE GAME & NATO 5.1 MIXES ARE SHIT?
I DON'T.
OKAY IT'S NOT LIVE AT HAMMY ODEON 75, OT HYDE PARK, BUT THERE ARE PLANS FOR THOE THINGS.
THEY ARE GOOD PRODUCTS.
*edit*
[/QUOTE]
Greg,
this is some nice information. Could you tell us something more about this "plans"
maybe an '70s DVD box ;)
Hi again, Greg. since you seem to be a busy man here these days :D I won't reply to everything. As I said, I'm not hear to slam you, and since you were kind enough to reply, here are a few thoughts:
Re: The setlist errors where you say "BTR, I SIMPLY COULD NOT DO MORE THAN I DID. I DO NOT ACCEPT IT WAS SLOPPY RESEARCH. IT WASN'T." Fair enough.
Re: HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THE HATE-GREGSTERS SAY ANYTHING GOOD ABOUT MY BOOK? NO. BUT WE BOTH KNOW THAT AMONG THE ERRORS THERE ARE GOOD THINGS TOO... BUT THEY IGNORE THAT. Again, true enough, but if a release is purported to be definitive, people will jump on the errors.
RE: Getting help and being paid, I meant you got paid to do the book by your publisher, the members of this board didn't.
Re: The responses to you and that "98% WILL BE SARCASTIC PISS TAKES." That's QZ. Personally, I think there are 15-20 serious posters here, give or take another 15-20. The rest are a joke and best ignored.
Re: The joke that QP have become. "THEY SEEM TO INSTEAD VIEW IT AS "QUEEN PRODUCTIONS OWES QZ AND OTHER FANS ALL KINDS OF THINGS." Agreed. "THEY GET VERY OFFENDED BY QPL, BUT NOT BY MACDONALDS AND SAINSBURY'S AND TESCO, WHO RUN A VERY SIMILAR BUSINESS, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT." No they don't run similar business at all. QPL are the guardians of one of the finest catalogues in music history. People here are passionate about Queen's music, and I regard the first 5 albums as art, with ANATO equivalent to a Picasso painting or Shakespeare play. The 30th anniversary release of ANATO was a joke with embarassing video, the Hollywood CD releases were butchered, with the intro to my favourite ever Queen song (It's Late) was snipped at the beginning, Roger Taylor said that the cover for 'Rocks' looked like someone threw up on it, and I could go on for another hour about the importance of having the lead song on every shitty compilation known to mankind while awaiting a decent retrospective. If QPL put more than a few days effort into the ANATO DVD release I'd be shocked. If you think that's good quality control, we'll agree to disagree.
Re: If you have a track record of errors and misstatement, "OH DEAR! I DON'T HAVE THAT TRACK RECORD." I'm a big man and will admit when I'm wrong. I've seen a pretty comprehensive list of errors from numerous posters whom I respect (Lester, PG, Sir GH, YV, JSS, Sebastian, Mr. Scully etc.), if they were making stuff up because they have an axe to grind with you I apologize.
RE: YOU MIGHT THINK I'M A DICKHEAD. I don't know you so I can't think that, I might meet you in person and that could convince me you are a dickhead, or you could be my new best friend.
However, with a writing style when you say "NO. YOU ARE WRONG. THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU JUST SAID", and "WITH RESPECT... THIS HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW", people may think you're a dickhead. I don't pretend to know everything, and IF the errors attributed to you are indeed true, that would make two of us who have a little to learn.
Thanks Greg.
Re: The setlist errors where you say "BTR, I SIMPLY COULD NOT DO MORE THAN I DID. I DO NOT ACCEPT IT WAS SLOPPY RESEARCH. IT WASN'T." Fair enough.
Re: HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THE HATE-GREGSTERS SAY ANYTHING GOOD ABOUT MY BOOK? NO. BUT WE BOTH KNOW THAT AMONG THE ERRORS THERE ARE GOOD THINGS TOO... BUT THEY IGNORE THAT. Again, true enough, but if a release is purported to be definitive, people will jump on the errors.
RE: Getting help and being paid, I meant you got paid to do the book by your publisher, the members of this board didn't.
Re: The responses to you and that "98% WILL BE SARCASTIC PISS TAKES." That's QZ. Personally, I think there are 15-20 serious posters here, give or take another 15-20. The rest are a joke and best ignored.
Re: The joke that QP have become. "THEY SEEM TO INSTEAD VIEW IT AS "QUEEN PRODUCTIONS OWES QZ AND OTHER FANS ALL KINDS OF THINGS." Agreed. "THEY GET VERY OFFENDED BY QPL, BUT NOT BY MACDONALDS AND SAINSBURY'S AND TESCO, WHO RUN A VERY SIMILAR BUSINESS, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT." No they don't run similar business at all. QPL are the guardians of one of the finest catalogues in music history. People here are passionate about Queen's music, and I regard the first 5 albums as art, with ANATO equivalent to a Picasso painting or Shakespeare play. The 30th anniversary release of ANATO was a joke with embarassing video, the Hollywood CD releases were butchered, with the intro to my favourite ever Queen song (It's Late) was snipped at the beginning, Roger Taylor said that the cover for 'Rocks' looked like someone threw up on it, and I could go on for another hour about the importance of having the lead song on every shitty compilation known to mankind while awaiting a decent retrospective. If QPL put more than a few days effort into the ANATO DVD release I'd be shocked. If you think that's good quality control, we'll agree to disagree.
Re: If you have a track record of errors and misstatement, "OH DEAR! I DON'T HAVE THAT TRACK RECORD." I'm a big man and will admit when I'm wrong. I've seen a pretty comprehensive list of errors from numerous posters whom I respect (Lester, PG, Sir GH, YV, JSS, Sebastian, Mr. Scully etc.), if they were making stuff up because they have an axe to grind with you I apologize.
RE: YOU MIGHT THINK I'M A DICKHEAD. I don't know you so I can't think that, I might meet you in person and that could convince me you are a dickhead, or you could be my new best friend.
However, with a writing style when you say "NO. YOU ARE WRONG. THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU JUST SAID", and "WITH RESPECT... THIS HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW", people may think you're a dickhead. I don't pretend to know everything, and IF the errors attributed to you are indeed true, that would make two of us who have a little to learn.
Thanks Greg.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]...and you come here spoiling for a fight, I DON'T ACTUALLY. I REALLY DON'T. I JUST STICK UP FOR MYSELF WHEN I READ UNFOUNDED COMMENTS.[/QUOTE]
Isn't irony delicious?
Has John S. Stuart moved into the Queen Archive room and nobody told me?
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=821653
Sorry if there are children on Moanzone tonight, but I'm gonna spew again..
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=824988
GENUINE 'QUEEN LIVE' SERIOUS CHALLENGE FOR QZ-ers.
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=827854
NEW BOOK ON QUEEN IN THE STUDIO
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=827884
Greg, for better or worse you are the Official face of the Queen archive, and to write the above under the guise of your authorized title, is both an insult and a slap in the face to us all, and is a blatant misuse of the authority and trust placed in you by the band and fans alike.
Any one else would (correctly) be hammered as a spammer.
Isn't irony delicious?
Has John S. Stuart moved into the Queen Archive room and nobody told me?
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=821653
Sorry if there are children on Moanzone tonight, but I'm gonna spew again..
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=824988
GENUINE 'QUEEN LIVE' SERIOUS CHALLENGE FOR QZ-ers.
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=827854
NEW BOOK ON QUEEN IN THE STUDIO
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=827884
Greg, for better or worse you are the Official face of the Queen archive, and to write the above under the guise of your authorized title, is both an insult and a slap in the face to us all, and is a blatant misuse of the authority and trust placed in you by the band and fans alike.
Any one else would (correctly) be hammered as a spammer.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]the_hero wrote:
You forgot:
What about MoanZone instead of Queenzone?
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=826066 [/QUOTE]
I did indeed. In fact there has been so much spam in here of late, I think I am about to be all overcome by Monty Pythonism...
You forgot:
What about MoanZone instead of Queenzone?
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=826066 [/QUOTE]
I did indeed. In fact there has been so much spam in here of late, I think I am about to be all overcome by Monty Pythonism...
Forgive me for repeating myself, but, I am posting this everywhere the Official Queen Archivist can read it, to remind him of the promise he made to me on 11th July 2006 .
Now there is no excuse to say that he did not see it, or that he overlooked my mail.
Therefore, if you a man of your word, and can you please reply to the request below?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Therefore, I accept your very kind offer;http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=821653
Queen Archivist: "If John S. Stuart would like to make the extent of his knowledge known to us all, including the things he 'thinks' exist, and he puts it on the table, I will confirm or not that they exist or not. NO confusion, no guessing, no misleading misinformation. John, what do you REALLY know. What do you REALLY have to offer as fact?"
As I have been so free with my version of events re: Queen II recording sessions, and I have placed all my knowledge "...on the table", I hope you can oblige and let me know EXACTLY where I have gone wrong.
I really look forward to reading your informative reply,
John S. Stuart[/QUOTE]
Now there is no excuse to say that he did not see it, or that he overlooked my mail.
Therefore, if you a man of your word, and can you please reply to the request below?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Therefore, I accept your very kind offer;http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=821653
Queen Archivist: "If John S. Stuart would like to make the extent of his knowledge known to us all, including the things he 'thinks' exist, and he puts it on the table, I will confirm or not that they exist or not. NO confusion, no guessing, no misleading misinformation. John, what do you REALLY know. What do you REALLY have to offer as fact?"
As I have been so free with my version of events re: Queen II recording sessions, and I have placed all my knowledge "...on the table", I hope you can oblige and let me know EXACTLY where I have gone wrong.
I really look forward to reading your informative reply,
John S. Stuart[/QUOTE]
It really isn't funny when someone is suffering so maybe someone can guide GB to the help he needs,
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]QZ-ERS WILL KNOCK MOST THINGS. SERIOUSLY, IT IS THE NATURE OF QZ TO FIND FAULT FIRST, TO LOOK FOR THE ERRORS FIRST, PICK AND MOAN FIRST, AND THEN GRUDGINGLY COMMENT ON THE GOOD AFTERWARDS, IF AT ALL.[/QUOTE]
Greg,
If an engineer built a spacecraft that crashed, would the news anchor comment on how well the spacecraft flew for the eighteen hours before it crashed? Or would they focus on the crash? The flaw in the spacecraft meant it was built 99% well. The 1% caused the crash.
Bottom line: If you are the archivist, then you should be completely certain that you are putting out accurate information for people to read. While about 95% of your book was correct, a 5% error rate is certainly not good, especially considering the things you have access to that none of us here do.
Greg,
If an engineer built a spacecraft that crashed, would the news anchor comment on how well the spacecraft flew for the eighteen hours before it crashed? Or would they focus on the crash? The flaw in the spacecraft meant it was built 99% well. The 1% caused the crash.
Bottom line: If you are the archivist, then you should be completely certain that you are putting out accurate information for people to read. While about 95% of your book was correct, a 5% error rate is certainly not good, especially considering the things you have access to that none of us here do.
To JOHN S. STUART.
John... what i wrote to you today (or last night) privately, instead of coming on here and letting my views of you be publicly scrutized, still stands. I would have prefered it to stay private, but your choice to bring it here is ok too. Typically you!
I'm not going to repeat all that stuff, no need to, but since you clearly want reaction from me here, in front of your QZ chums, who matter so much to you (for dubious worrying reasons I've already outlined, yesterday), I will say some of those things for your audience... so we're all clear.
I repeat myself now so that you will understand and know why I will not be corresponding with you further, after this - as I thought i'd already made clear, but obviously didn't.
as i explained (politely and as nicely as I could, and without swearing... which is good for me)... i honestly and 100% genuinely DO find you to be one of the most TWO-FACED people I have ever encountered in 31 years of following Queen. In fact THE most two-faced person. You could get a part as a Dr Who monster, with those two heads.
For our overseas QZ-ers, for whom the phrase 'two-faced' might not translate... I mean that John has told me one thing, privately, but expressed a different view on QZ, because you guys are watching. He says one thing to me, another to you. You can call it a crisis of popularity, or insecurity on his part, but I call it two-faced.
John, you deny stuff on here, on QZ, that you KNOW we talked about, and you twist things deliberately. But you do so with a very cunning 'feel sorry for me' edge, which is both sickly sweet and loathesome. However, it works beautifully for you, because many QZ-ers (not all thankfully) cannot see further than the end of their nose, and they actually buy it - they believe you.
I know others on QZ have said the same... I saw it last time I was here last year.
This is no surprise, not least because they are already pre-programmed NOT to believe me, so that's half the battle won for you before you even begin to manipulate them and tell them subtle innaccuracies which we both know to be untrue. If QZ-ers were not so ANTI me, more of them would see thru you - but you are currently in their blind spot, and you know it.
You ARE two-faced. You PLAY people John. You bend and twist and manipulate words and people, and I suspect I'm not the first in your life to tell you this.
I further suspect that's partly why you spend SO MUCH time and words on this site.
CAN ANYONE ON QUEENZONE TELL ME HOW MANY THREADS JOHN STUART HAS BEGUN, AND CONTRIBUTED TO OVER THE YEARS? I THINK THE ANSWER TO THIS WOULD STAGGER US BOTH JOHN. I BET IT IS SEVERAL HUNDRED, IF NOT MORE.
RICHARD, IS THIS INFO GENERALLY ACCESSIBLE? NO NEED TO HIDE IT, RIGHT?
WHY DOES A MAN LIKE YOU, JOHN, SPEND SO MANY HOURS PER WEEK ON A SITE, ATTEMPTING TO WIN FRIENDS AND IMPRESS AND DO ANYTHING IT TAKES NOT TO BE UNPOPULAR?
I honestly do not want to continue dialogue with you John, so please stop trying to provoke a reaction with your various invitations to answer this or that tedious point here on QZ, or at my old email address.
Respectfully i point out that you and I are unable to communicate without my blood pressure soaring to the giddying and dizzy heights that only your insecurities know.
I have tried so many times, and exercised EXTREME patience in trying to get thru to you, but it is, honestly, impossible. You are inpenetrable. I'm not the first to say this either, but I feel that I want to grab you by the throat and squeeze a good deal harder than would be safe, each and every time I speak with you. That can't be good, can it?
I cannot do it any more. Let's call it quits. That old thing about "It's too much like hard work", well, with you, it is agonisingly painful, excruciatingly nausiating, futile and pointless, trying to get sense out of you. It's not 'hard' work, it's RE-ENFORCED CONCRETE INPENETRABLE work... like drilling
John... what i wrote to you today (or last night) privately, instead of coming on here and letting my views of you be publicly scrutized, still stands. I would have prefered it to stay private, but your choice to bring it here is ok too. Typically you!
I'm not going to repeat all that stuff, no need to, but since you clearly want reaction from me here, in front of your QZ chums, who matter so much to you (for dubious worrying reasons I've already outlined, yesterday), I will say some of those things for your audience... so we're all clear.
I repeat myself now so that you will understand and know why I will not be corresponding with you further, after this - as I thought i'd already made clear, but obviously didn't.
as i explained (politely and as nicely as I could, and without swearing... which is good for me)... i honestly and 100% genuinely DO find you to be one of the most TWO-FACED people I have ever encountered in 31 years of following Queen. In fact THE most two-faced person. You could get a part as a Dr Who monster, with those two heads.
For our overseas QZ-ers, for whom the phrase 'two-faced' might not translate... I mean that John has told me one thing, privately, but expressed a different view on QZ, because you guys are watching. He says one thing to me, another to you. You can call it a crisis of popularity, or insecurity on his part, but I call it two-faced.
John, you deny stuff on here, on QZ, that you KNOW we talked about, and you twist things deliberately. But you do so with a very cunning 'feel sorry for me' edge, which is both sickly sweet and loathesome. However, it works beautifully for you, because many QZ-ers (not all thankfully) cannot see further than the end of their nose, and they actually buy it - they believe you.
I know others on QZ have said the same... I saw it last time I was here last year.
This is no surprise, not least because they are already pre-programmed NOT to believe me, so that's half the battle won for you before you even begin to manipulate them and tell them subtle innaccuracies which we both know to be untrue. If QZ-ers were not so ANTI me, more of them would see thru you - but you are currently in their blind spot, and you know it.
You ARE two-faced. You PLAY people John. You bend and twist and manipulate words and people, and I suspect I'm not the first in your life to tell you this.
I further suspect that's partly why you spend SO MUCH time and words on this site.
CAN ANYONE ON QUEENZONE TELL ME HOW MANY THREADS JOHN STUART HAS BEGUN, AND CONTRIBUTED TO OVER THE YEARS? I THINK THE ANSWER TO THIS WOULD STAGGER US BOTH JOHN. I BET IT IS SEVERAL HUNDRED, IF NOT MORE.
RICHARD, IS THIS INFO GENERALLY ACCESSIBLE? NO NEED TO HIDE IT, RIGHT?
WHY DOES A MAN LIKE YOU, JOHN, SPEND SO MANY HOURS PER WEEK ON A SITE, ATTEMPTING TO WIN FRIENDS AND IMPRESS AND DO ANYTHING IT TAKES NOT TO BE UNPOPULAR?
I honestly do not want to continue dialogue with you John, so please stop trying to provoke a reaction with your various invitations to answer this or that tedious point here on QZ, or at my old email address.
Respectfully i point out that you and I are unable to communicate without my blood pressure soaring to the giddying and dizzy heights that only your insecurities know.
I have tried so many times, and exercised EXTREME patience in trying to get thru to you, but it is, honestly, impossible. You are inpenetrable. I'm not the first to say this either, but I feel that I want to grab you by the throat and squeeze a good deal harder than would be safe, each and every time I speak with you. That can't be good, can it?
I cannot do it any more. Let's call it quits. That old thing about "It's too much like hard work", well, with you, it is agonisingly painful, excruciatingly nausiating, futile and pointless, trying to get sense out of you. It's not 'hard' work, it's RE-ENFORCED CONCRETE INPENETRABLE work... like drilling
To the-hero, who wrote....
Sorry for not going on with this seriously... but the attempt you've tried to make a point just shows how genius you are... as how hard it is to communicate with Greg if you have to go that far.
THIS MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL MAN.
WHAT THE BUGGERING HELL ARE YOU ON ABOUT?
Sorry for not going on with this seriously... but the attempt you've tried to make a point just shows how genius you are... as how hard it is to communicate with Greg if you have to go that far.
THIS MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL MAN.
WHAT THE BUGGERING HELL ARE YOU ON ABOUT?
To the Queen Archivist:
Thank you for your reply, and for answering my questions like you promised you would, as you know, I am always open to friendly dialogue, if discussion is indeed open.
But you still fail to address my one and only question, in fact, the only question I have ever 'really asked'. I think that may say much about both of us. Like a Cruise missile I keep focused, and keep asking... and I condede it is one of my more negative traits.
Perhaps I am infuriating, and 'play my cards close to my chest', but surely that is the nature of the game? I am not a good poker player, but I do know from playground 'swapsies' that I do not just give you all my cards for no return. That makes no sense - does it? (Well it doesn't for me).
But no-one can expect something for nothing, and as we both know since the Ibex fiasco, for me, goodwill and Queen no longer exist in the same sentence.
Edit: This mail was edited after I wrote the first sentence. I did not expect a reply so soon.
Thank you for your reply, and for answering my questions like you promised you would, as you know, I am always open to friendly dialogue, if discussion is indeed open.
But you still fail to address my one and only question, in fact, the only question I have ever 'really asked'. I think that may say much about both of us. Like a Cruise missile I keep focused, and keep asking... and I condede it is one of my more negative traits.
Perhaps I am infuriating, and 'play my cards close to my chest', but surely that is the nature of the game? I am not a good poker player, but I do know from playground 'swapsies' that I do not just give you all my cards for no return. That makes no sense - does it? (Well it doesn't for me).
But no-one can expect something for nothing, and as we both know since the Ibex fiasco, for me, goodwill and Queen no longer exist in the same sentence.
Edit: This mail was edited after I wrote the first sentence. I did not expect a reply so soon.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]QZ-ERS WILL KNOCK MOST THINGS. SERIOUSLY, IT IS THE NATURE OF QZ TO FIND FAULT FIRST, TO LOOK FOR THE ERRORS FIRST, PICK AND MOAN FIRST, AND THEN GRUDGINGLY COMMENT ON THE GOOD AFTERWARDS, IF AT ALL.[/QUOTE]
Greg,
If an engineer built a spacecraft that crashed, would the news anchor comment on how well the spacecraft flew for the eighteen hours before it crashed? Or would they focus on the crash? The flaw in the spacecraft meant it was built 99% well. The 1% caused the crash.
Bottom line: If you are the archivist, then you should be completely certain that you are putting out accurate information for people to read. While about 95% of your book was correct, a 5% error rate is certainly not good, especially considering the things you have access to that none of us here do.[/QUOTE]
You have to keep in mind that, even if Greg NOW has access to the archive(d) tapes and such where he COULD potentially now use data from the tapes to have more correct info for current and future editions of the book, he would have to sit and (re-)listen to all the available soundboard/multitrack tapes from concerts that HAVE been recorded, in complete sittings each, and log what songs and bits were played in each concert.
Now, I don't think he was given access to the archive just for the sole purpose of having a book out there about what's been done live and such...
I believe he is there to review, listen to and log the tapes for future use in projects like the long promised and delayed rarities box set, DVD-Audio 5.1 surround sound discs (or now, potentially HD DVD-A or BR-A high def. DVD's), etc. etc..
...all for QP and related people, who he again does NOT work for, but does as a freelance position (although potentially involving clauses or NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreements) that might and could very well be limiting what he CAN tell us about what songs and such are in the archive))
If he had been able to have archive access when he first wrote the book, that book would never have been as error-riddled as it was.
Now, I admit I've never read the book myself, so I don't know what's listed as being incorrect, but from what I've been gathering from Greg's posts, he does the best he can with available information that IS given to him.
I myself would hope that someday Greg would be able to provide us with a 2nd revision of the book (or a 3rd edition) with more info to fill in or replace the unavailable or questionable data/bits, by being able to use info from available tapes.
But I can only dream about that, for now.
PS. I've intentionally been holding out until now on expressing my views about these matters involving Greg, for fear of being flamed due to my supporting Greg for certain reasons.
I myself respect Greg a lot, and am in constant contact with him. He really is a nice chap to talk to, when you give him a chance. We've actually had some interesting conversations, and he's not as stupid as you guys seem to make him out to be.
Greg,
If an engineer built a spacecraft that crashed, would the news anchor comment on how well the spacecraft flew for the eighteen hours before it crashed? Or would they focus on the crash? The flaw in the spacecraft meant it was built 99% well. The 1% caused the crash.
Bottom line: If you are the archivist, then you should be completely certain that you are putting out accurate information for people to read. While about 95% of your book was correct, a 5% error rate is certainly not good, especially considering the things you have access to that none of us here do.[/QUOTE]
You have to keep in mind that, even if Greg NOW has access to the archive(d) tapes and such where he COULD potentially now use data from the tapes to have more correct info for current and future editions of the book, he would have to sit and (re-)listen to all the available soundboard/multitrack tapes from concerts that HAVE been recorded, in complete sittings each, and log what songs and bits were played in each concert.
Now, I don't think he was given access to the archive just for the sole purpose of having a book out there about what's been done live and such...
I believe he is there to review, listen to and log the tapes for future use in projects like the long promised and delayed rarities box set, DVD-Audio 5.1 surround sound discs (or now, potentially HD DVD-A or BR-A high def. DVD's), etc. etc..
...all for QP and related people, who he again does NOT work for, but does as a freelance position (although potentially involving clauses or NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreements) that might and could very well be limiting what he CAN tell us about what songs and such are in the archive))
If he had been able to have archive access when he first wrote the book, that book would never have been as error-riddled as it was.
Now, I admit I've never read the book myself, so I don't know what's listed as being incorrect, but from what I've been gathering from Greg's posts, he does the best he can with available information that IS given to him.
I myself would hope that someday Greg would be able to provide us with a 2nd revision of the book (or a 3rd edition) with more info to fill in or replace the unavailable or questionable data/bits, by being able to use info from available tapes.
But I can only dream about that, for now.
PS. I've intentionally been holding out until now on expressing my views about these matters involving Greg, for fear of being flamed due to my supporting Greg for certain reasons.
I myself respect Greg a lot, and am in constant contact with him. He really is a nice chap to talk to, when you give him a chance. We've actually had some interesting conversations, and he's not as stupid as you guys seem to make him out to be.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]the_hero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
THIS MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL MAN.
WHAT THE BUGGERING HELL ARE YOU ON ABOUT?[/QUOTE]
We've been asking you the same thing for days now, and you expect me to answer?[/QUOTE]
My point also, Greg you act like we WANT to hate you! I don't want to hate anyone, but you make it so damn easy you know. I have asked genuine questions and so have other zoners, but you just sit on your fat fucking ass and eat pork chops and avoid it every time! So why not answer some questions and chill? Maybe then you might be liked, and i agree with you on the whole 'i don't care if noone likes me' cause i don't, but you present yourself as QUEEN ARCHIVIST, not Greg Brooks, so then you get what you get.
THIS MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL MAN.
WHAT THE BUGGERING HELL ARE YOU ON ABOUT?[/QUOTE]
We've been asking you the same thing for days now, and you expect me to answer?[/QUOTE]
My point also, Greg you act like we WANT to hate you! I don't want to hate anyone, but you make it so damn easy you know. I have asked genuine questions and so have other zoners, but you just sit on your fat fucking ass and eat pork chops and avoid it every time! So why not answer some questions and chill? Maybe then you might be liked, and i agree with you on the whole 'i don't care if noone likes me' cause i don't, but you present yourself as QUEEN ARCHIVIST, not Greg Brooks, so then you get what you get.