Freedom Of Speech DOES NOT EXIST on QZ for some people

What were the names of the threads?

I deleted them. I wished and I wished and I wished, and they were gone. Just like in Harry Potter.

Nah look - I don't see the fuss. It's not as though you wrote anything revolutionary - we KNOW how you feel already. It'd be like me posting another thread begging for Face it Alone. It's an old, old joke.

I think Freedom of Speech is fine, this thread is testament to you having it.
I wish more people would exercise a Freedom of Thought before opening their big yaps.

Hehehe, I don't think I've ever seen my lastname (which is also my nickname) written that many times in the same post :).

To tell you the truth, Greg, I don't know who has the capability to delete posts apart from Richard... but in about 7 years that I've been visiting this forum this never was an issue - at all. Spammers came and spammers went away, they posted inanities and vulgarities for weeks before being banned. I just don't remember ONE SINGLE CASE of someone feeling outraged because their posts were deleted. So this is not, by any means, normal in this forum.

I really don't know what kind of personal issue you might have with YV. I know you started it, that's for sure. You were very rude to her, joking or not, as a silly experiment or whatever. She has never publicly slagged you and she hasn't talked about you as much as you have talked about her without aparent reason. You kept on pushing her buttons, almost like if you wanted something like this to happen. IF she had anything to do with this (which I HIGHLY DOUBT), well, maybe you had it coming. Not for your recent behaviour or what you posted on those particular two threads, but for your past actions.

I invite you to please re-post your thoughts in the forum (if you still think they are worth the space) and we'll read them. It's just that you can't keep on bringing up the same "he/she started it" arguments to the table. You are free to do so, but I know that I expected a lot more from you.

I have to confess I was very excited when I knew that the Official Queen Archivist posted on Queenzone. Then I read your posts and I was very disappointed. Come on, man... I know you have A LOT to offer to the discussions regarding Queen's material, their recordings, their gigs, without actually having to reveal confidential information. Please do so and stop bitching around, hehe :).

Wiley

Oh me, oh my...

Are you contracted by Queen in some shape or form to work on their material? If so, I would assume that their contract or letter of offer might have some achievable targets or outputs attached to them?

If I have assumed incorrectly and you have an open-ended contract to recommend product for release on an as-and-when basis, then I commend you, Sir.

If on the other hand, such a contract exists, can I suggest that you get back to work and get the material that the fans and general public want to see out BEFORE my retirement in 2038?

If you put as much effort into working on the material as you do into these posts, we might actually have had a greater Queen presence on the shelves this Christmas...and last Christmas...and the Christmas before that, etc ad nauseum.

Just a thought...

Paul

Wiley... you are an ok chap. You make sense to me. I wonder what you are doing here, quite frankly, putting up with what is apparently regarded as normal on QZ? That's not a dig.

You are correct that I 'started it' with YV. I had a meaningless jibe at her expence one day (it could have been anyone, it was random) and she had a sense of humour bypass and it esculated from there. So yes I suppose I brought that one on myself - whatever 'that' is. I'm afraid i'm way passed caring. I cannot imagine YV is still smarting over that minor thing.

But... having ones threads deleted just pisses me off out of principal, Wiley. You are an intelligent person, and logical, so I can't understand why you and others aen't outraged at being treated that way. My threads were for YOU and others to read, like everyone else's. YV making decisions that YOU cannot ever see them, should annoy you.

Anyway... I like the way you approach things. I wish others on QZ were likeminded.

It is not possible for me to do the things you outline - sensible as it seems, because too many Qz-ers have other plans and agendas, and I don't have much time these days anyway.

Anyway... good talking with you Wiley.

Regards

Hi Everyone,

Just to clarify the posts haven't been deleted by any moderator (YV or me) on Queenzone.com.

I am trying to track down if there is an issue. The board operates as per normal.

Richard

Hello Paul,

Paul is much more human and 'NORMAL' than ok.computer.

You over estimate my influence on Queen product.

For example, Justin Shirley-Smith, Richard Gray, Josh M, Kris F, Simon L, and I all worked on Queen Singles. We all do our respective bits, thinking it's gonna emerge for such and such a date. Then the band members tell us, and EMI, not the other way around, when THEY want the product to emerge. This can differ to what we think, and it usually does. RT, BM and JD are not short of experience on how this industry works.

Queen is THEIR band, not ours, not EMI's. Queen is RT, JD, BM. Anyone who thinks that an Archivist has any say over precisely what gets issued and when, is living in a dream world.

I only put stuff in the proposal. We only offer up the ingredients. It is the band who discard or keep stuff.

You guys should direct your pops at the upper part of the ladder, not at those of us who are not in the Queen band.

Picture the scene: Band meetings with band Manager.

THEY make the decisions. NO ONE else.

Hi Richard,

They WERE there lunchtime friday, yesterday. One QZ-er had time to reply, and then they were gone.

I have emailed you RO. Will you keep me updated on this please? I would appreciate it.

Do you regard the removal of content (large or small, significant or trivial) from your site, as signficant?

Does this alarm you?

Hey man.. Well, I like to read this forum (I don't post a lot but I read it on a daily basis) because this is the place were the actual discussions takes place and where people can learn a LOT about Queen.

I also read Queenonline's forum but I prefer Queenzone. It's just a matter of taste, really. It has become like a tradition for me. In the last couple of years maybe there hasn't been that much of good discussion and more bitching and all that but I still like it. I just skip the crappy topics and concentrate on the good, which usually turns out to be VERY good.

I sincerely hope that you can find the time to start a really interesting and cool discussion that is Queen related. Maybe you could be the first one to give us a scoop at new material or products when the powers that be allow you to do so? You could call it a Greg Brooks exclusive or something, hehe :).

When you do, I'll be more than happy to participate. Until then, chill out, it's about having a good time.

It was also nice to talk to you, btw. I didn't expect a direct response at all, haha :).

Over and out.
JCW

Quosque tandem abutere, Mr. Brooks, patientia nostra?

Look, Greg, I generally appreciate your work and I really wish you luck and happiness in your life, but it seems to me that 99% of your input HERE (and I want to make that last word count) is indeed PURE CRAP. You have been keeping a very SAD behaviour here - not to mention that you are supposed to be the QUEEN Archivist. Why do not you just leave QUEENZone alone and forget about it? You have indeed proven several times that you just do not fit here. Of course, that does not make you a bad or useless person, not at all. Perhaps it is just that you cannot understand this community (with all its highs and lows) and/or what it is expected from a person in your position. This is supposed to be fun, remember? Sometimes, it seems that you have lost the joy of being a fan/collector. If that is the case, I pity you, Greg, I really do. If not, well, I suppose there is still a lot of frustration in you anyway. I would LOVE to see that you have a pleasant visit everytime you are in this site, but I think that that is not going to happen - at least not anytime soon. So why do not you show some of self-respect and just let this place be? You do not need this place, don't you?

Greg quit coming here and crying everytime someone says something about you! Grow up man.
I have never said anything out of the way towards you, but damn dude, this shit is getting very boring and retarded! You talk about Freedom of Speech? HAHAHAHAHA right, everytime someone expresses their views on you or something else, you come on QZ and MOAN and Cry like a little baby! Try taking your own advise, and drop the 'Queen Archivist' shit.

HAIL TO THE KING, KING MOANZONER!

I can't believe that our relationships with a guy that works directly with the guys from the band we respect love and admire reached this level. I don't know why, Mr. Brooks, but it seems that all think that the things we believe that aren't right with Queen (like releasing some shit compilations) are your fault. And your attitude is not 100% friendly with some of the great members of Queenzone (or moanzone like you call this great place). Seriously, this paranoia isn't good also.

The thing is, we will never be completely satisfied with all the Queen releases, cause we always want some more, and you never will be satisfied with us, as fans.

Try to understand us, and don't easily blame us.

From Chile, South America
Victor, a Queen fan

"YourValentine,

Can you categorically confirm you said nothing and did nothing that resulted in my threads being removed?

Come on YV it is perfectly simple and reasonable for you to tell the whole truth. I accepy you did not actually delete them, but you have not said you were not at all involved in them being deleted.

Did you say anything to anyone about my threads that was contributary to them being removed? Be honest."


The truth is I did not even see any threads you posted and which are gone now. Nobody else seems to have seen them. And I do not have any issues with you. I am an adult, I work, I have a family and I post here as a hobby, so I do not get wound up over a couple of threads on a notice board. For Queenzone I would hope that the official archivist would contribute something more than just rants and I thought we had a start last time. But if it does not happen, my blood pressure won't raise.

Mr. Brooks,
You are going on about how EVERYONE else is spending WAY TOO MUCH time posting here, but may I ask, How much time have YOU spent here, let alone on this thread? I really don't think that those posts were deleted, but why don't you tell us what they were, or recreate them? If they were so important that you took action to attempt to start a fight, maybe you should repost them. I'm all for free speech, but I really don't think that that policy (or whatever you'd like to call it) was abused here.

To Singing Forever.... who said:

Mr. Brooks,
I really don't think that those posts were deleted,

BOTH THE THREADS WERE DELETED, HONESTLY SING-FORV, THEY WERE. I THINK THIS MUST BE SIMPLE TO PROVE AND PROBABLY CAN BE. RICHARD ORCHARD HAS KINDLY WRITTEN TO ME SAYING THAT HE HAS FOUND THE ROUTE OF ONE OF THEM, BUT HE CANNOT ESTABLISH, YET, HOW IT GOT DELETED.

I DID AS YOU SUGGESTED, I RE-WROTE ONE OF THEM... ABOUT THE SUGGESTION I WRITE UNDER A SECOND IDENTITY (WHICH I DON'T), AND I MIGHT RE DO THE SECOND ONE IF I HAVE TIME.

but why don't you tell us what they were, or recreate them?

ONE IS RE-CREATED, AS JUST MENTIONED, THE OTHER RICHARD MAY WELL FIND AND RE-PASTE UP. WE'LL SEE.

If they were so important that you took action to attempt to start a fight, maybe you should repost them.

THEY WEREN'T THAT IMPORTANT SING-FORV, IT WAS JUST THE PRINCIPAL OF A FACELESS QZ-ER NOT LIKING WHAT I SAID, SO DELETING IT. DON'T YOU THINK THAT SUCH CENSORSHIP REALLY STINKS????

YOU ARE A FAN OF EVA CASSIDY AND NICK DRAKE, I SEE. YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY EXTREMELY BRIGHT. GREAT TASTE. SO I'M SURE YOU TOO WILL BE OUTRAGED WHEN MY, OR YOURS, OR ANYONE'S FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS DENIED. RIGHT? BE IT IN ENGLAND OR UGANDA OR CHINA OR ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WHERE PEOPLE CANNOT SAY OPENLY WHAT THEY BELIEVE.

I'm all for free speech, but I really don't think that that policy (or whatever you'd like to call it) was abused here.

IT WAS. RICHARD IS LOOKING INTO IT.

THE OTHER PIECE THAT I WROTE MADE MENTION OF YV. I CAME BACK AT HER IN THE SAME WAY THAT SHE CAME AFTER ME IN ANOTHER THREAD... IN AN UNBALANCED AND CLEARLY IMPARTITIAL AND BIASSED WAY. RICHARD TELLS ME THAT HE AND YV ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE ABLE TO DELETE THREADS. I PERSONALLY THINK IT A BIT OF A COINCODENCE THAT A THREAD HAVING A POP AT YV, WHICH WAS RATHER NEAR THE TRUTH, WAS SUDDENLY DELETED BY SOMEONE WHO HAS ACCESS TO DELETE. BUT RICHARD SAYS HE FEELS SURE IT WASN'T YV, AND YV HAS SAID IT WASN'T HER.

IT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN MAGICALLY DELETED BY PERSONS WHO DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO DELETE QZ THREADS.

MOREOVER, THE COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND MAIN SYSTEM BEHIND QZ APPARENTLY IS UNABLE TO ASCERTAIN WHO WAS USING THE SYSTEM AT THAT TIME, WHO WAS EDITING OR WRITING OR DELETING. NONE OF THE HIDDEN PROGRAMMING OR OPERATING SYSTEN CAN INFORM AS TO THE 'USER' WHO DELETED THOSE TWO THREADS.

THE DATABASES WE USE TO LOG QUEEN ITEMS WILL IMPART PRECISELY WHO USES THE SYSTEM, AT WHAT TIME THEY USED IT, WHETHER THEY EDITED OR CREATED OR DELETED, OR JUST VIEWED, AND IT WILL PROVIDE A PRINT OUT OF THE TAPES OR FILES 'EFFECTED' ON ANY DATE OR AT ANY TIME. BUT, IT SEEMS TO BE THE CASE THAT QZ DOES NONE OF THESE THINGS, SO THE 'DELETER' WILL REMAIN HIDDEN AND FACELESS.

NEVER MIND THOUGH, AYE.