To John Stuart
To the Queen Archivist:
Thank you for your reply, and for answering my questions like you promised you would.
*********
I did not PROMISE you anything.
GB
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]To John Stuart
To the Queen Archivist:
Thank you for your reply, and for answering my questions like you promised you would.
*********
I did not PROMISE you anything.
GB[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I edited my original reply while you were writing this. I would not like you to think that I was being deliberately misleading.
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.
To the Queen Archivist:
Thank you for your reply, and for answering my questions like you promised you would.
*********
I did not PROMISE you anything.
GB[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I edited my original reply while you were writing this. I would not like you to think that I was being deliberately misleading.
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.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><FONT SIZE=4>Inu-Liger</b> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][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.[/QUOTE]
Who's sucking who's titties here now? Come on quit defending him. Let him defend himself.
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]
Who's sucking who's titties here now? Come on quit defending him. Let him defend himself.
Mr JFARNHAM...
My point also, Greg you act like we WANT to hate you!
I DONT'. THIS IS NOT TRUE. A LOT OF YOU SIMPLY DO DISLIKE ME (BORN OUT OF ENVY IN MOST CASES, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION). IT'S THAT SIMPLE.
I RECOGNISE THIS OBVIOUS THING AND I ACCEPT IT. I DON'T CARE OR WORRY ABOUT IT, BUT I RECOGNISE IT AND I ACCEPT IT. LET'S NOT ARGUE OVER WHAT IS SO PLAIN AND EVIDENT.
I don't want to hate anyone, but you make it so damn easy you know.
I JUST GIVE AS GOOD AS I GET. NO MORE, NO LESS. THAT MAKES ME EASY TO HATE. JESUS, IS IT 'THAT' SHALLOW HERE!
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!
WELL YOU MUST KNOW WHY JF, YOU ARE NOT STUPID.
WOULD YOU ROLL OVER AND ANSWER QUESTIONS LIKE NOTHING HAD EVER HAPPENED?
COME ON. GET REAL. YOU'RE SAYING SILLY THINGS NOW. PUT YOURSELF IN MY POSITION, WITH MY HISTORY WITH ALL THE QZ-ERS WHO LOATH ME, AND WILL YOU ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS JF?
JESUS! IT IS NOT NUCLEAR PHYSICS, MY SITUATION.
So why not answer some questions and chill?
AS ABOVE
Maybe then you might be liked,
FOR THE 10TH AND LAST TIME, I DO NOT HAVE ANY NEED OR DESIRE OR DEEP-ROOTED INSECURITY THAT COMPELLS ME TO WANT TO BE LIKED OR RESPECTED BY THE KINDS OF INDIVIDUALS I HAVE ENCOUNTERED ON QZ (NOT ALL, BUT A LOT)
WHY DO YOU ASSUME THAT TO BE IMPORTANT TO ME?
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.
YOU SHOULD READ SOME OF THE STUFF I HAVE WRITTEN ON HERE RECENTLY... MY THOUGHTS ARE MY OWN, NOT THOSE OF QPL.
I REPRESENT MYSELF, NOT QUEEN OR QPL.
WHAT I SAY IS FROM MY MOUTH, NOT THEIRS, AND I STAND BY IT.
My point also, Greg you act like we WANT to hate you!
I DONT'. THIS IS NOT TRUE. A LOT OF YOU SIMPLY DO DISLIKE ME (BORN OUT OF ENVY IN MOST CASES, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION). IT'S THAT SIMPLE.
I RECOGNISE THIS OBVIOUS THING AND I ACCEPT IT. I DON'T CARE OR WORRY ABOUT IT, BUT I RECOGNISE IT AND I ACCEPT IT. LET'S NOT ARGUE OVER WHAT IS SO PLAIN AND EVIDENT.
I don't want to hate anyone, but you make it so damn easy you know.
I JUST GIVE AS GOOD AS I GET. NO MORE, NO LESS. THAT MAKES ME EASY TO HATE. JESUS, IS IT 'THAT' SHALLOW HERE!
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!
WELL YOU MUST KNOW WHY JF, YOU ARE NOT STUPID.
WOULD YOU ROLL OVER AND ANSWER QUESTIONS LIKE NOTHING HAD EVER HAPPENED?
COME ON. GET REAL. YOU'RE SAYING SILLY THINGS NOW. PUT YOURSELF IN MY POSITION, WITH MY HISTORY WITH ALL THE QZ-ERS WHO LOATH ME, AND WILL YOU ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS JF?
JESUS! IT IS NOT NUCLEAR PHYSICS, MY SITUATION.
So why not answer some questions and chill?
AS ABOVE
Maybe then you might be liked,
FOR THE 10TH AND LAST TIME, I DO NOT HAVE ANY NEED OR DESIRE OR DEEP-ROOTED INSECURITY THAT COMPELLS ME TO WANT TO BE LIKED OR RESPECTED BY THE KINDS OF INDIVIDUALS I HAVE ENCOUNTERED ON QZ (NOT ALL, BUT A LOT)
WHY DO YOU ASSUME THAT TO BE IMPORTANT TO ME?
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.
YOU SHOULD READ SOME OF THE STUFF I HAVE WRITTEN ON HERE RECENTLY... MY THOUGHTS ARE MY OWN, NOT THOSE OF QPL.
I REPRESENT MYSELF, NOT QUEEN OR QPL.
WHAT I SAY IS FROM MY MOUTH, NOT THEIRS, AND I STAND BY IT.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Mr JFARNHAM...
My point also, Greg you act like we WANT to hate you!
I DONT'. THIS IS NOT TRUE. A LOT OF YOU SIMPLY DO DISLIKE ME (BORN OUT OF ENVY IN MOST CASES, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION). IT'S THAT SIMPLE.
I RECOGNISE THIS OBVIOUS THING AND I ACCEPT IT. I DON'T CARE OR WORRY ABOUT IT, BUT I RECOGNISE IT AND I ACCEPT IT. LET'S NOT ARGUE OVER WHAT IS SO PLAIN AND EVIDENT.
I don't want to hate anyone, but you make it so damn easy you know.
I JUST GIVE AS GOOD AS I GET. NO MORE, NO LESS. THAT MAKES ME EASY TO HATE. JESUS, IS IT 'THAT' SHALLOW HERE!
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!
WELL YOU MUST KNOW WHY JF, YOU ARE NOT STUPID.
WOULD YOU ROLL OVER AND ANSWER QUESTIONS LIKE NOTHING HAD EVER HAPPENED?
COME ON. GET REAL. YOU'RE SAYING SILLY THINGS NOW. PUT YOURSELF IN MY POSITION, WITH MY HISTORY WITH ALL THE QZ-ERS WHO LOATH ME, AND WILL YOU ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS JF?
JESUS! IT IS NOT NUCLEAR PHYSICS, MY SITUATION.
So why not answer some questions and chill?
AS ABOVE
Maybe then you might be liked,
FOR THE 10TH AND LAST TIME, I DO NOT HAVE ANY NEED OR DESIRE OR DEEP-ROOTED INSECURITY THAT COMPELLS ME TO WANT TO BE LIKED OR RESPECTED BY THE KINDS OF INDIVIDUALS I HAVE ENCOUNTERED ON QZ (NOT ALL, BUT A LOT)
WHY DO YOU ASSUME THAT TO BE IMPORTANT TO ME?
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.
YOU SHOULD READ SOME OF THE STUFF I HAVE WRITTEN ON HERE RECENTLY... MY THOUGHTS ARE MY OWN, NOT THOSE OF QPL.
I REPRESENT MYSELF, NOT QUEEN OR QPL.
WHAT I SAY IS FROM MY MOUTH, NOT THEIRS, AND I STAND BY IT.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe i should read ALL of your posts then, i appreciate you not using your QZ attitude towards me, i am just curious about a few things but get no answers. I understand you have nothing to do with QPL, but your name here is QUEEN ARCHIVIST, with that said, if were the Pres. of the USA i wouldn't come here and present myself as that if wanted to be taken seriously and know that i would be wanted to answer simple questions. Why are you here (and that's not a bad question) and why (in english) wont you answer simple questions without dragging JSS into it and making it a 20 page post?
My point also, Greg you act like we WANT to hate you!
I DONT'. THIS IS NOT TRUE. A LOT OF YOU SIMPLY DO DISLIKE ME (BORN OUT OF ENVY IN MOST CASES, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION). IT'S THAT SIMPLE.
I RECOGNISE THIS OBVIOUS THING AND I ACCEPT IT. I DON'T CARE OR WORRY ABOUT IT, BUT I RECOGNISE IT AND I ACCEPT IT. LET'S NOT ARGUE OVER WHAT IS SO PLAIN AND EVIDENT.
I don't want to hate anyone, but you make it so damn easy you know.
I JUST GIVE AS GOOD AS I GET. NO MORE, NO LESS. THAT MAKES ME EASY TO HATE. JESUS, IS IT 'THAT' SHALLOW HERE!
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!
WELL YOU MUST KNOW WHY JF, YOU ARE NOT STUPID.
WOULD YOU ROLL OVER AND ANSWER QUESTIONS LIKE NOTHING HAD EVER HAPPENED?
COME ON. GET REAL. YOU'RE SAYING SILLY THINGS NOW. PUT YOURSELF IN MY POSITION, WITH MY HISTORY WITH ALL THE QZ-ERS WHO LOATH ME, AND WILL YOU ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS JF?
JESUS! IT IS NOT NUCLEAR PHYSICS, MY SITUATION.
So why not answer some questions and chill?
AS ABOVE
Maybe then you might be liked,
FOR THE 10TH AND LAST TIME, I DO NOT HAVE ANY NEED OR DESIRE OR DEEP-ROOTED INSECURITY THAT COMPELLS ME TO WANT TO BE LIKED OR RESPECTED BY THE KINDS OF INDIVIDUALS I HAVE ENCOUNTERED ON QZ (NOT ALL, BUT A LOT)
WHY DO YOU ASSUME THAT TO BE IMPORTANT TO ME?
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.
YOU SHOULD READ SOME OF THE STUFF I HAVE WRITTEN ON HERE RECENTLY... MY THOUGHTS ARE MY OWN, NOT THOSE OF QPL.
I REPRESENT MYSELF, NOT QUEEN OR QPL.
WHAT I SAY IS FROM MY MOUTH, NOT THEIRS, AND I STAND BY IT.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe i should read ALL of your posts then, i appreciate you not using your QZ attitude towards me, i am just curious about a few things but get no answers. I understand you have nothing to do with QPL, but your name here is QUEEN ARCHIVIST, with that said, if were the Pres. of the USA i wouldn't come here and present myself as that if wanted to be taken seriously and know that i would be wanted to answer simple questions. Why are you here (and that's not a bad question) and why (in english) wont you answer simple questions without dragging JSS into it and making it a 20 page post?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Mr JFARNHAM... 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.
YOU SHOULD READ SOME OF THE STUFF I HAVE WRITTEN ON HERE RECENTLY... MY THOUGHTS ARE MY OWN, NOT THOSE OF QPL.
I REPRESENT MYSELF, NOT QUEEN OR QPL.
WHAT I SAY IS FROM MY MOUTH, NOT THEIRS, AND I STAND BY IT.
[/QUOTE]
No - Not when you write under the authorative title: 'Queen Archivist'. Can you not see that is part of the problem? For example, as a person, in private, Tony Blair or George Bush can say what they like. They are people just like the rest of us.
But, as soon as they adopt that mantle of 'Prime Minister', or 'President', then ofcourse, they are not as free to say what they like as individuals - as correctly so - anything they say in 'uniform' is accepted policy.
It is the same in here. I write as an individual. If you wrote as Greg Brooks, you would have that right too. But as soon as you write under the banner of 'Queen Archivist' - like it or not - you do indeed become the public face and voice of QPL.
Edit: I did not steal Mr Farnham's ideas, I wrote this as he was writing his!
YOU SHOULD READ SOME OF THE STUFF I HAVE WRITTEN ON HERE RECENTLY... MY THOUGHTS ARE MY OWN, NOT THOSE OF QPL.
I REPRESENT MYSELF, NOT QUEEN OR QPL.
WHAT I SAY IS FROM MY MOUTH, NOT THEIRS, AND I STAND BY IT.
[/QUOTE]
No - Not when you write under the authorative title: 'Queen Archivist'. Can you not see that is part of the problem? For example, as a person, in private, Tony Blair or George Bush can say what they like. They are people just like the rest of us.
But, as soon as they adopt that mantle of 'Prime Minister', or 'President', then ofcourse, they are not as free to say what they like as individuals - as correctly so - anything they say in 'uniform' is accepted policy.
It is the same in here. I write as an individual. If you wrote as Greg Brooks, you would have that right too. But as soon as you write under the banner of 'Queen Archivist' - like it or not - you do indeed become the public face and voice of QPL.
Edit: I did not steal Mr Farnham's ideas, I wrote this as he was writing his!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Mr JFARNHAM... 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.
YOU SHOULD READ SOME OF THE STUFF I HAVE WRITTEN ON HERE RECENTLY... MY THOUGHTS ARE MY OWN, NOT THOSE OF QPL.
I REPRESENT MYSELF, NOT QUEEN OR QPL.
WHAT I SAY IS FROM MY MOUTH, NOT THEIRS, AND I STAND BY IT.
[/QUOTE]
No - Not when you write under the authorative title: 'Queen Archivist'. Can you not see that is part of the problem? For example, as a person, in private, Tony Blair or George Bush can say what they like. They are people just like the rest of us.
But, as soon as they adopt that mantle of 'Prime Minister', or 'President', then ofcourse, they are not as free to say what they like as individuals - as correctly so - anything they say in 'uniform' is accepted policy.
It is the same in here. I write as an individual. If you wrote as Greg Brooks, you would have that right too. But as soon as you write under the banner of 'Queen Archivist' - like it or not - you do indeed become the public face and voice of QPL.
Edit: I did not steal Mr Farnham's ideas, I wrote this as he was writing his![/QUOTE]
lol My point exactly, don't worry JSS i wont make it part of Farnham Productions!
YOU SHOULD READ SOME OF THE STUFF I HAVE WRITTEN ON HERE RECENTLY... MY THOUGHTS ARE MY OWN, NOT THOSE OF QPL.
I REPRESENT MYSELF, NOT QUEEN OR QPL.
WHAT I SAY IS FROM MY MOUTH, NOT THEIRS, AND I STAND BY IT.
[/QUOTE]
No - Not when you write under the authorative title: 'Queen Archivist'. Can you not see that is part of the problem? For example, as a person, in private, Tony Blair or George Bush can say what they like. They are people just like the rest of us.
But, as soon as they adopt that mantle of 'Prime Minister', or 'President', then ofcourse, they are not as free to say what they like as individuals - as correctly so - anything they say in 'uniform' is accepted policy.
It is the same in here. I write as an individual. If you wrote as Greg Brooks, you would have that right too. But as soon as you write under the banner of 'Queen Archivist' - like it or not - you do indeed become the public face and voice of QPL.
Edit: I did not steal Mr Farnham's ideas, I wrote this as he was writing his![/QUOTE]
lol My point exactly, don't worry JSS i wont make it part of Farnham Productions!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]JFarnham wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Mr JFARNHAM... 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.
YOU SHOULD READ SOME OF THE STUFF I HAVE WRITTEN ON HERE RECENTLY... MY THOUGHTS ARE MY OWN, NOT THOSE OF QPL.
I REPRESENT MYSELF, NOT QUEEN OR QPL.
WHAT I SAY IS FROM MY MOUTH, NOT THEIRS, AND I STAND BY IT.
[/QUOTE]
No - Not when you write under the authorative title: 'Queen Archivist'. Can you not see that is part of the problem? For example, as a person, in private, Tony Blair or George Bush can say what they like. They are people just like the rest of us.
But, as soon as they adopt that mantle of 'Prime Minister', or 'President', then ofcourse, they are not as free to say what they like as individuals - as correctly so - anything they say in 'uniform' is accepted policy.
It is the same in here. I write as an individual. If you wrote as Greg Brooks, you would have that right too. But as soon as you write under the banner of 'Queen Archivist' - like it or not - you do indeed become the public face and voice of QPL.
Edit: I did not steal Mr Farnham's ideas, I wrote this as he was writing his![/QUOTE]
lol My point exactly, don't worry JSS i wont make it part of Farnham Productions! [/QUOTE]
Just put it in the Queen Archives John, nobody will eveer find it again then! :) Hi Greg.
YOU SHOULD READ SOME OF THE STUFF I HAVE WRITTEN ON HERE RECENTLY... MY THOUGHTS ARE MY OWN, NOT THOSE OF QPL.
I REPRESENT MYSELF, NOT QUEEN OR QPL.
WHAT I SAY IS FROM MY MOUTH, NOT THEIRS, AND I STAND BY IT.
[/QUOTE]
No - Not when you write under the authorative title: 'Queen Archivist'. Can you not see that is part of the problem? For example, as a person, in private, Tony Blair or George Bush can say what they like. They are people just like the rest of us.
But, as soon as they adopt that mantle of 'Prime Minister', or 'President', then ofcourse, they are not as free to say what they like as individuals - as correctly so - anything they say in 'uniform' is accepted policy.
It is the same in here. I write as an individual. If you wrote as Greg Brooks, you would have that right too. But as soon as you write under the banner of 'Queen Archivist' - like it or not - you do indeed become the public face and voice of QPL.
Edit: I did not steal Mr Farnham's ideas, I wrote this as he was writing his![/QUOTE]
lol My point exactly, don't worry JSS i wont make it part of Farnham Productions! [/QUOTE]
Just put it in the Queen Archives John, nobody will eveer find it again then! :) Hi Greg.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><FONT SIZE=4>Inu-Liger</b> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, I'm dripping with sympathy for the fact that he'd have to spend months listening to soundboard tapes that I'd kill to hear. Give me a break! If he couldn't do the job correctly in the first place, then he shouldn't have done it at all. Period.
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
If you haven't read the book, then you shouldn't be sticking up for him blindly.
Oh yeah, I'm dripping with sympathy for the fact that he'd have to spend months listening to soundboard tapes that I'd kill to hear. Give me a break! If he couldn't do the job correctly in the first place, then he shouldn't have done it at all. Period.
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
If you haven't read the book, then you shouldn't be sticking up for him blindly.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]JFarnham wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><FONT SIZE=4>Inu-Liger</b> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][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.[/QUOTE]
Who's sucking who's titties here now? Come on quit defending him. Let him defend himself.[/QUOTE]
I can very well defend him if I please. This isn't the fucking United States of America *cough*
PS. I'm defending him on MY own accord, before anyone potentially accuses me of following "instructions" from Greg, etc.
PPS. I also noticed GH's signature:
"Love your enemies; even the worst of us can love our neighbour."
Perhaps we could follow that lead?
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]
Who's sucking who's titties here now? Come on quit defending him. Let him defend himself.[/QUOTE]
I can very well defend him if I please. This isn't the fucking United States of America *cough*
PS. I'm defending him on MY own accord, before anyone potentially accuses me of following "instructions" from Greg, etc.
PPS. I also noticed GH's signature:
"Love your enemies; even the worst of us can love our neighbour."
Perhaps we could follow that lead?
Well... now that the "smoke has settled"...
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=831667
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=831667
Shall we all shut up for 24 hours in protest at what is going on in the Lebanon? Consideing that the people that are getting hurt are civillians?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]clear wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Shall we all shut up for 24 hours in protest at what is going on in the Lebanon? Consideing that the people that are getting hurt are civillians?[/QUOTE]
I don't mean to sound insensitive, but perhaps the civilians should've done a better job electing their politicians.
V.
I don't mean to sound insensitive, but perhaps the civilians should've done a better job electing their politicians.
V.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]bigV wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]clear wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Shall we all shut up for 24 hours in protest at what is going on in the Lebanon? Consideing that the people that are getting hurt are civillians?[/QUOTE]
I don't mean to sound insensitive, but perhaps the civilians should've done a better job electing their politicians.
V.
[/QUOTE]
Although that's a fair observation, it isn't exactly the most compassionate way to treat the situation now that it has escalated to this point.
I don't mean to sound insensitive, but perhaps the civilians should've done a better job electing their politicians.
V.
[/QUOTE]
Although that's a fair observation, it isn't exactly the most compassionate way to treat the situation now that it has escalated to this point.
It takes two to tango...