You forgot the silly goose part.
How old are you, dear?
I hope not above eleven or twelve or something - otherwise... good lord, you ARE stupid!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Jony, you say "I don't care about those minor flaws. I don't give a flying fuck about what the fifth track was that they played at their first hammersmith concert. I want to know the anecdotes, I want to read something about the general atmosphere of those years." Good for you, that's your right. And I'm glad that because you feel that way, you've decided that you're more important than the people who think minor flaws are major mistakes. You're more important than the people who DO give a flying fuck about the fifth track at their first Hammersmith concert. If I pay for a book, I want as much correct info as possible. You don't, that's fine, but for the people who do, what you care is meaningless.
I never thought I would get in such a position - being the presumed enemy of the Queen Archvist. In fact, I am not your enemy and I do not dislike you, either. Actually, last Saturday in Maassluis I was tempted to walk up to you and ask you why in all the world you came to Queenzone, started this abuse and now you keep coming back telling people that it's me who dislikes you.
In fact I think you are quite funny. I often have to laugh about your comments here.
The review of your book was my honest opinion and still is. I did not call it crap, I think I called it useless. I did not get personal (while you always get personal). This book would be so great if you had put the quotes into context, preferably chronologically, detailed the sources of each quote, if you had not edited anything apart from the "ahems", "let me tell you" and other obvious fillers and if you had not switched the tenses (past tense instead of the original present tense, for example). I do not see how this is not constructive criticism and how this a personal attack. I am pretty sure you are not so hypersensitive as you try to make us believe - so why does my opinion mean so much to you. I don't get it.
To say something positive: I really enjoyed the demos you played to us in Maassluis, it was very interesting and enjoyable. Something to remember, indeed ;)
In fact I think you are quite funny. I often have to laugh about your comments here.
The review of your book was my honest opinion and still is. I did not call it crap, I think I called it useless. I did not get personal (while you always get personal). This book would be so great if you had put the quotes into context, preferably chronologically, detailed the sources of each quote, if you had not edited anything apart from the "ahems", "let me tell you" and other obvious fillers and if you had not switched the tenses (past tense instead of the original present tense, for example). I do not see how this is not constructive criticism and how this a personal attack. I am pretty sure you are not so hypersensitive as you try to make us believe - so why does my opinion mean so much to you. I don't get it.
To say something positive: I really enjoyed the demos you played to us in Maassluis, it was very interesting and enjoyable. Something to remember, indeed ;)
To YourValentine, who wrote...
The review of your book was my honest opinion and still is. I did not call it crap, I think I called it useless. I did not get personal (while you always get personal).
Calling my book useless is personal. Of course it is. Don't be so bloody ridiculous.
If I say that your dress sense is useless, or that your work is useless (rather than something more subtle or polite or couteous), how is that NOT personal?
You say silly things like that and wonder why you get up my nose.
And the fact that you were in the same room as me in Holland last weekend, but did not come and say hello, or attempt any conversation at all, says more about you than me.
Calling sdomeone's work USELESS (whether they care or not) IS personal. An idiot would recognise that plain fact.
The review of your book was my honest opinion and still is. I did not call it crap, I think I called it useless. I did not get personal (while you always get personal).
Calling my book useless is personal. Of course it is. Don't be so bloody ridiculous.
If I say that your dress sense is useless, or that your work is useless (rather than something more subtle or polite or couteous), how is that NOT personal?
You say silly things like that and wonder why you get up my nose.
And the fact that you were in the same room as me in Holland last weekend, but did not come and say hello, or attempt any conversation at all, says more about you than me.
Calling sdomeone's work USELESS (whether they care or not) IS personal. An idiot would recognise that plain fact.
I have yet to come across this Freddie book. If I see it I will surely buy it because I think it will be very nicely packaged, with some nice quotes and all. I will not expect it to be 100% accurate but I think this is a bad thing. I should expect more. I have to confess I've always enjoyed Queen's liner notes for their compilations. It's like there is no other band in the world when I read them, hehe :).
And about having your book (or the book of someone else's quotes that you compiled) called useless, well, I'd be bothered. But it's not like it's the first time something like that happens. I don't really think it is personal, per se, because I've seen similar comments about other Queen related products. The difference is that their authors do not post in this forum. :S
Now I wonder if Greg would be as angry about those comments if someone else apart from Barbara had done it. He probably wouldn't have commented at all.
And about having your book (or the book of someone else's quotes that you compiled) called useless, well, I'd be bothered. But it's not like it's the first time something like that happens. I don't really think it is personal, per se, because I've seen similar comments about other Queen related products. The difference is that their authors do not post in this forum. :S
Now I wonder if Greg would be as angry about those comments if someone else apart from Barbara had done it. He probably wouldn't have commented at all.
Sir GH.. I am assuming that your statement about being a hardcore fan not liking this book applys to ALL hardcore fans? if so then I must point out that your statement was in fact false.. until recently I was VERY hardcore.. spending rent money, food money and whatever else I could just to buy the latest rare item, at it's peak my collection was valued at over $25,000 US.. and that was just 5 years of collecting.. I think YV can vouch that I was very hardcore, and LOVED the Greg Brooks book.. yes it had mistakes.. but you know what I did.. I IGNORED them.. he is HUMAN. I believe that he tried to correct it, being a wanna be author I know that publishers can be very touchy..
Greg, Thank you for the time you have put into doing this book.. Don't let all these people piss you off because they have nothing else better to do.. If I could have gotten a signed copy of your book I would have.. but that is life. I hope that one day you can get that updated book published..
Greg, Thank you for the time you have put into doing this book.. Don't let all these people piss you off because they have nothing else better to do.. If I could have gotten a signed copy of your book I would have.. but that is life. I hope that one day you can get that updated book published..
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]To YourValentine, who wrote...
The review of your book was my honest opinion and still is. I did not call it crap, I think I called it useless. I did not get personal (while you always get personal).
Calling my book useless is personal. Of course it is. Don't be so bloody ridiculous.
If I say that your dress sense is useless, or that your work is useless (rather than something more subtle or polite or couteous), how is that NOT personal?
You say silly things like that and wonder why you get up my nose.
And the fact that you were in the same room as me in Holland last weekend, but did not come and say hello, or attempt any conversation at all, says more about you than me.
Calling sdomeone's work USELESS (whether they care or not) IS personal. An idiot would recognise that plain fact.[/QUOTE]
Or she could be using the word by its true definition - that is "lacking any use" which I think it does by not providing any context or dates for quotes. As a historian, that's important to me and, thus, the book is useless. I'm sure she has a much more descriptive word she could give the book in her native German. (Shisse comes to mind, don't know why)
And I would think that having the opportunity to talk to you face to face, yet not, says that she does not work to make this a series of confrontations between the two of you. It says more that she walked away from a fight than your capital letters do.
The review of your book was my honest opinion and still is. I did not call it crap, I think I called it useless. I did not get personal (while you always get personal).
Calling my book useless is personal. Of course it is. Don't be so bloody ridiculous.
If I say that your dress sense is useless, or that your work is useless (rather than something more subtle or polite or couteous), how is that NOT personal?
You say silly things like that and wonder why you get up my nose.
And the fact that you were in the same room as me in Holland last weekend, but did not come and say hello, or attempt any conversation at all, says more about you than me.
Calling sdomeone's work USELESS (whether they care or not) IS personal. An idiot would recognise that plain fact.[/QUOTE]
Or she could be using the word by its true definition - that is "lacking any use" which I think it does by not providing any context or dates for quotes. As a historian, that's important to me and, thus, the book is useless. I'm sure she has a much more descriptive word she could give the book in her native German. (Shisse comes to mind, don't know why)
And I would think that having the opportunity to talk to you face to face, yet not, says that she does not work to make this a series of confrontations between the two of you. It says more that she walked away from a fight than your capital letters do.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I noticed for example that YourValentine - a respected QZ-er, I know that, but even so you must be open to the possibility that she too dislikes me and therefore that clearly governs and dominates her 'review' of anything I do - YV reviewd my Freddie book with such blatant dislike of me dictating every word, that it was impossible to see behond anything else.
That should not be the case. She should have offered a detached review regardless of disliking me.
She concluded with 'This book is crap'. Now, would she have said that about ANY ONE ELSE at all on QZ? No. Of course not.
If she were 'reviewing' another book, she would be constructive. She would cite the bad AND the good within it, as any impartial person would. You can all see that as clear as day, but why can't any of you openly challenge her on this? So, she's a great friend of yours!!! So what. You can still be in opposition with her from time to time. Your friendship will endure even if you dare to go public with an opposing pinion in preference to a fair and honest approach.
That she was so totally biassed only show that the review cannot be remotely fair or balanced.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, Mr. Martyr, but I have to disagree with your inflamatory post. Clearly, you are the one biased.
But why not have the general public decide for themselves.
http://tinyurl.com/yhvy95
(shrunk to not screw up the page - YV's review follows)
She offered a clear assesment of the book. The physical property is classy, the intellectual property is not. To those of us interested in accuracy rather than a purty product, it is, dare I say, "useless."
I noticed for example that YourValentine - a respected QZ-er, I know that, but even so you must be open to the possibility that she too dislikes me and therefore that clearly governs and dominates her 'review' of anything I do - YV reviewd my Freddie book with such blatant dislike of me dictating every word, that it was impossible to see behond anything else.
That should not be the case. She should have offered a detached review regardless of disliking me.
She concluded with 'This book is crap'. Now, would she have said that about ANY ONE ELSE at all on QZ? No. Of course not.
If she were 'reviewing' another book, she would be constructive. She would cite the bad AND the good within it, as any impartial person would. You can all see that as clear as day, but why can't any of you openly challenge her on this? So, she's a great friend of yours!!! So what. You can still be in opposition with her from time to time. Your friendship will endure even if you dare to go public with an opposing pinion in preference to a fair and honest approach.
That she was so totally biassed only show that the review cannot be remotely fair or balanced.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, Mr. Martyr, but I have to disagree with your inflamatory post. Clearly, you are the one biased.
But why not have the general public decide for themselves.
http://tinyurl.com/yhvy95
(shrunk to not screw up the page - YV's review follows)
She offered a clear assesment of the book. The physical property is classy, the intellectual property is not. To those of us interested in accuracy rather than a purty product, it is, dare I say, "useless."
*sees a point*
*Deliberately misses it*
*Deliberately misses it*
What does Brian have to do with this? He wasn't the one writing the book. As for the setlists, if Greg wasn't completely sure of one, then he should have left the concert blank. The only thing that can prove what a setlist was is a recording; since most recordings are bootlegs made from the audience, one needs to listen carefully to see if there are any cuts in the recording. For the US ADATR tour, in an effort to make it appear as if he knows more setlists than anyone else, Greg copied and pasted the setlist from an incomplete bootleg (missing Now I'm Here) to almost every other show of the tour, and shifted around the encores of a few shows, just to make them look a bit different from night to night. This is NOT research. It is called 100% pure grade A bullshit. If he is an archivist, then this post was written by a great comedian.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]To YourValentine, who wrote...
The review of your book was my honest opinion and still is. I did not call it crap, I think I called it useless. I did not get personal (while you always get personal).
Calling my book useless is personal. Of course it is. Don't be so bloody ridiculous.
If I say that your dress sense is useless, or that your work is useless (rather than something more subtle or polite or couteous), how is that NOT personal?
You say silly things like that and wonder why you get up my nose.
And the fact that you were in the same room as me in Holland last weekend, but did not come and say hello, or attempt any conversation at all, says more about you than me.
Calling sdomeone's work USELESS (whether they care or not) IS personal. An idiot would recognise that plain fact.[/QUOTE]
I am always polite. I never call people twat, idiots and other names. I did not say "your book is useless", period. I detailed my criticism in two posts in the thread about the book. Apparently, your communication skills are very underdeveloped. A discussion with you does not lead anywhere because you do not address the issues in a civilised way. Either your attention span is too small to read a message properly or you are just too dismissive of other peoples' opinion. That was the reason why I did not talk to you in Maassluis. I am used to have tough discussions about books, articles and essays with my students and colleagues - but I am not used to talk to rude people who have no manners and I don't want to start. I'll go back to ignoring you. It's only a waste of time to try and communicate with you.
And before you say it again: no - I do not dislike you, why should I? I simply do not care enough.
The review of your book was my honest opinion and still is. I did not call it crap, I think I called it useless. I did not get personal (while you always get personal).
Calling my book useless is personal. Of course it is. Don't be so bloody ridiculous.
If I say that your dress sense is useless, or that your work is useless (rather than something more subtle or polite or couteous), how is that NOT personal?
You say silly things like that and wonder why you get up my nose.
And the fact that you were in the same room as me in Holland last weekend, but did not come and say hello, or attempt any conversation at all, says more about you than me.
Calling sdomeone's work USELESS (whether they care or not) IS personal. An idiot would recognise that plain fact.[/QUOTE]
I am always polite. I never call people twat, idiots and other names. I did not say "your book is useless", period. I detailed my criticism in two posts in the thread about the book. Apparently, your communication skills are very underdeveloped. A discussion with you does not lead anywhere because you do not address the issues in a civilised way. Either your attention span is too small to read a message properly or you are just too dismissive of other peoples' opinion. That was the reason why I did not talk to you in Maassluis. I am used to have tough discussions about books, articles and essays with my students and colleagues - but I am not used to talk to rude people who have no manners and I don't want to start. I'll go back to ignoring you. It's only a waste of time to try and communicate with you.
And before you say it again: no - I do not dislike you, why should I? I simply do not care enough.
If he takes the criticism that has been kindly given to him for free (from people who I'm sure otherwise could charge a consultancy fee), he can use it to his advantage and make his book much better for the next printing.
Can't anybody ban this tart?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
What does Brian have to do with this? He wasn't the one writing the book. As for the setlists, if Greg wasn't completely sure of one, then he should have left the concert blank. The only thing that can prove what a setlist was is a recording; since most recordings are bootlegs made from the audience, one needs to listen carefully to see if there are any cuts in the recording. For the US ADATR tour, in an effort to make it appear as if he knows more setlists than anyone else, Greg copied and pasted the setlist from an incomplete bootleg (missing Now I'm Here) to almost every other show of the tour, and shifted around the encores of a few shows, just to make them look a bit different from night to night. This is NOT research. It is called 100% pure grade A bullshit. If he is an archivist, then this post was written by a great comedian.
[/QUOTE]
don't rely on the bootlegs all the time
if you would, than you would have to take as a fact that freddie mercury is alive, cos it's written on some bootleg
ok, you get my drift
there are other issues. sometimes a whole concert has been given the wrong name, simply because the bootlegger was an idiot or just a fraud
it's not rocket science, I can't explain it more simple, sorry
What does Brian have to do with this? He wasn't the one writing the book. As for the setlists, if Greg wasn't completely sure of one, then he should have left the concert blank. The only thing that can prove what a setlist was is a recording; since most recordings are bootlegs made from the audience, one needs to listen carefully to see if there are any cuts in the recording. For the US ADATR tour, in an effort to make it appear as if he knows more setlists than anyone else, Greg copied and pasted the setlist from an incomplete bootleg (missing Now I'm Here) to almost every other show of the tour, and shifted around the encores of a few shows, just to make them look a bit different from night to night. This is NOT research. It is called 100% pure grade A bullshit. If he is an archivist, then this post was written by a great comedian.
[/QUOTE]
don't rely on the bootlegs all the time
if you would, than you would have to take as a fact that freddie mercury is alive, cos it's written on some bootleg
ok, you get my drift
there are other issues. sometimes a whole concert has been given the wrong name, simply because the bootlegger was an idiot or just a fraud
it's not rocket science, I can't explain it more simple, sorry
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I am always polite. I never call people twat, idiots and other names. [/QUOTE]
I've noticed a worrying pattern (Okay, I don't read most of these drivel-filled topics word-to-word anyway). The pattern is simple. The only one who begins the childish name calling is either GB or some mysterious newbie username defending GB.
The "you've never written a book so shut up about mine!"-argument frankly sounds like something from a playground fight.
I could tell a ton of things I've done that a whole lot of you have never done or things that I am that a lot of you will never be and so could a lot of us. Infact I could take it as a job of mine (if someone paid me) to tell everyone to shut or put up, whenever a subject occurs where I've exceeded the person mentioning it. Wouldn't that just make me into a loveable jolly fellow? Indeed.
I am always polite. I never call people twat, idiots and other names. [/QUOTE]
I've noticed a worrying pattern (Okay, I don't read most of these drivel-filled topics word-to-word anyway). The pattern is simple. The only one who begins the childish name calling is either GB or some mysterious newbie username defending GB.
The "you've never written a book so shut up about mine!"-argument frankly sounds like something from a playground fight.
I could tell a ton of things I've done that a whole lot of you have never done or things that I am that a lot of you will never be and so could a lot of us. Infact I could take it as a job of mine (if someone paid me) to tell everyone to shut or put up, whenever a subject occurs where I've exceeded the person mentioning it. Wouldn't that just make me into a loveable jolly fellow? Indeed.