To throw my two pennies in here... I would say that I personally feel Greg's suggestion to effectively stay away from each others threads seems the most sensible solution, so long as you both do that.
It is obvious that the two of them are not going to get along so why bother trying?
I realise that I may get a choice selection of mud thrown at me for this as I too have on many occasions attacked Greg for his comments, however, over the past few days he and I seem to have reached a point where we can communicate well, and I think Queenzone would benefit from him being around so long as he communicates in the way he has been recently (to me at least)
Both have a lot to offer in different ways, but the bickering needs to stop, we all love Queen here so there is common ground, can we not try to make it happen.
I have enjoyed speaking to Greg recently and have been interested in his recent threads, I realise that I have been the one to attack him on several occasions but not without cause (I my view at least)
If we can put that behind us I would hope others can too, we can all benefit from communication between Greg/John and Queenzone so it seems sensible to try.
It may not last but it's worth a go, I have been guilty of prejudging him too often over recent months so for that I am sorry, I have also seen some stupid comments from both sides, but at the end of the day it would be of benefit to all of us if we can all communicate in a more positive adult way.
Greg annoys the hell out of me from time to time, but I am sure I do the same to others so what the hell does it matter.
Queenzone is a great place to come and discuss the band we love, what a shame it is that the only official QP member on here cannot communicate effectively here, for whatever reason whomever's fault, lets MOVE ON.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
You can switch the truth as long as you want but we all have seen that John has tried everything to avoid fights but you keep insulting him. You say it's not my business but that is wrong. I am a regular poster here and I care about the board. No, I never saw John Stuart and he is not my friend. He is a person who happens to share the same hobby and I enjoy what he has to contribute which is a lot. He has always been polite and friendly to me and that is all I need to know on the internet. If you do not want me to meddle into what is your private issue with John - then PLEASE DO NOT take it to this message board.
I cannot believe that a grown up person is totally unable to distinguish between personal and factual issues. Maybe you think it's all that funny and sometimes it is but mostly it's just annoying. It's cool when you answer some questions as you did lately but that is tainted by your incredibly immature attitude.
A message board is an open forum and all members post where they want. You do not tell people to stay out of certain threads - a thread is open for everybody to join the dicussion. Also, the website is the property of Richard and we are all guests here. You would not carry your personal fights into the living room of someone else, would you? So, if you have an issue with John I recommend you solve it in a private email.
I cannot believe that a grown up person is totally unable to distinguish between personal and factual issues. Maybe you think it's all that funny and sometimes it is but mostly it's just annoying. It's cool when you answer some questions as you did lately but that is tainted by your incredibly immature attitude.
A message board is an open forum and all members post where they want. You do not tell people to stay out of certain threads - a thread is open for everybody to join the dicussion. Also, the website is the property of Richard and we are all guests here. You would not carry your personal fights into the living room of someone else, would you? So, if you have an issue with John I recommend you solve it in a private email.
YV. You ignored the main and sensible point I made.
JSS and I don't along, so I suggest we avoid each other. It's very simple. Everyone on QZ would then be spared our bring exchanges.
It's not deep or profound, just sensible.
you will never ever ever ever agree with me anything to do with John because, as you say, he's always been polite to you, and an informative with Queen info - which Iwould not doubt. But it's totally irrelevant to the main point.
You are an intelligent person but with an incredible reluctance to widen your thinking to see my perspective. It's just not in you. You are unable to simply be 100% impartial, and until you can be that your replies to me will lack that element of common sense.
You make good valid points, but always there is that conspicuous absence of total impartiality which would give your comments a fair balance. I see other QZ-ers willing to say things that might not be conducive to supporting their respected fellows or friends, but they say it because it's the whole rounded truth.
You never approach my comments, Barbara, in exactly the same unbiassed way, and attitude, that you approach other peoples' comments. If you did we would make much better progress.
I think that you genuinely believe you are impartial; that you treat me like everyone else, but the evidence does not support this.
Just look at your review of the Freddie book. you did not approach that as you would approach a book compiled by John Stuart. You would never ever in this world say that John's work is utterly useless. Come on now, admit it.
If you will be big enough to admit this, then that is a clear illustration of you NOT being impartial, but weighted against me. Think about it. You just don't like me, or dislike me, but you approach me with an attitude that effects your comments.
JSS and I don't along, so I suggest we avoid each other. It's very simple. Everyone on QZ would then be spared our bring exchanges.
It's not deep or profound, just sensible.
you will never ever ever ever agree with me anything to do with John because, as you say, he's always been polite to you, and an informative with Queen info - which Iwould not doubt. But it's totally irrelevant to the main point.
You are an intelligent person but with an incredible reluctance to widen your thinking to see my perspective. It's just not in you. You are unable to simply be 100% impartial, and until you can be that your replies to me will lack that element of common sense.
You make good valid points, but always there is that conspicuous absence of total impartiality which would give your comments a fair balance. I see other QZ-ers willing to say things that might not be conducive to supporting their respected fellows or friends, but they say it because it's the whole rounded truth.
You never approach my comments, Barbara, in exactly the same unbiassed way, and attitude, that you approach other peoples' comments. If you did we would make much better progress.
I think that you genuinely believe you are impartial; that you treat me like everyone else, but the evidence does not support this.
Just look at your review of the Freddie book. you did not approach that as you would approach a book compiled by John Stuart. You would never ever in this world say that John's work is utterly useless. Come on now, admit it.
If you will be big enough to admit this, then that is a clear illustration of you NOT being impartial, but weighted against me. Think about it. You just don't like me, or dislike me, but you approach me with an attitude that effects your comments.
Just my oppinion,
but total imparciality as you define it is impossible in my oppinion.
And I do agree with YV for that matter.
but total imparciality as you define it is impossible in my oppinion.
And I do agree with YV for that matter.
Well, here's my view:
I think the bickering should continue. It can be, at times, quite funny. I'm still laughing at the "John SS" comment.
I have come to enjoy both John's and Greg's posts. I think I "get" their humor. It would be pretty boring if they were a couple of Queen nerds talking about B-sides from the basement of the science building.
Keep slogging away, boys!!!
I really don't think they hate each other. It's more like Felix and Oscar.
Hello Fatty???? The Odd Couple in the Queen Archive room???? I don't know if you take requests...
I think the bickering should continue. It can be, at times, quite funny. I'm still laughing at the "John SS" comment.
I have come to enjoy both John's and Greg's posts. I think I "get" their humor. It would be pretty boring if they were a couple of Queen nerds talking about B-sides from the basement of the science building.
Keep slogging away, boys!!!
I really don't think they hate each other. It's more like Felix and Oscar.
Hello Fatty???? The Odd Couple in the Queen Archive room???? I don't know if you take requests...
MDNA...
"And I do agree with YV for that matter."
A MASSIVE SURPRISE THERE.
"And I do agree with YV for that matter."
A MASSIVE SURPRISE THERE.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]MDNA...
"And I do agree with YV for that matter."
A MASSIVE SURPRISE THERE.[/QUOTE]
This reply only came to confirm something I already bellieved to be true, you totaly disregard any apinions that are contrary to yours, regardless of the subject. And furthermore are completely unable to take bad criticism for your work (and I'm not refering to the pseudo critics that are not more than a list of insults, but rather honest and constructive critics)
There is one question I would like to se answered though, was your Queen live book published in Portugal? I have heard so much about it (both good and bad) that I am curious to actualy read it.
"And I do agree with YV for that matter."
A MASSIVE SURPRISE THERE.[/QUOTE]
This reply only came to confirm something I already bellieved to be true, you totaly disregard any apinions that are contrary to yours, regardless of the subject. And furthermore are completely unable to take bad criticism for your work (and I'm not refering to the pseudo critics that are not more than a list of insults, but rather honest and constructive critics)
There is one question I would like to se answered though, was your Queen live book published in Portugal? I have heard so much about it (both good and bad) that I am curious to actualy read it.
There is absulotely no way to let it all rest is there... John posts something, greg posts a firing post towards John, all the people take sides again..
Pathetic.
Pathetic.
Just a few interesting notes...
Greg: I have tried, I have really tried to avoid confrontation, but I am fed up with your constant lies, innuendos and childish name calling.
You do NOT know me. So please do not say that you do. I know my Doctor better than I do you - and I really do not know him at all - as I only see him once every few years!
We met very briefly c6 years ago, and most of that time was spent watching a movie. Now, you wish to create the impression that I am all about hate, Jealousy and a bitter individual.
This is so untrue, and ironic, because all you charge against me - is what you project about yourself.
[QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote:
You begin numerous anti-threads in my name, you tried to belittle the FREQUENCY of my postings - before it was pointed out that you too had posted just as often. Finally, you even (incorrectly) had a pop at my literacy skills.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote:
If I take the number of my posts (3024),
and divide that by the number of days I have been registered (1922),
you will see that this works out at an average of 1.573 postings ...per day...
YOU registered on Thursday, May 25, 2006, and have posted 215 mails during a 156 day period.
This means that you too post on average 1.4 mails per day also.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
FREQUENCY has NOTHING to do with VOLUME. I may have posted more mails, but at present we both post around 1.5 mails per day.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote:
4000 v 190 is very clearly NOT equal. What a ridiculous comment. It shows how emberrassed you must be by that vast difference. It further shows the mammoth time you spend here rather than with the wonderful family you tell us you enjoy.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote:
GB: You are correct that the spelling is 'holier', but you are wrong about the question mark.
I referred to YOU as 'John holier than thou Stuart'. This is clearly NOT a question. Only questions end with a question mark.
If you're going to correct me, which is fine, get it right matey.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: So to correct YOU once MORE, what YOU SHOULD have CORRECTLY written was:
[QUOTE]I say there, John HOLIER than thou S. Stuart....
YOU KNOW WHEN you wrote... "As long as I have my loving wife, family and a fantastic job to surround me, this Queen malarkey is nothing but a passing interest."?[/QUOTE]
This is because the phrase "You know when...?" is rhetorical and suggests (but may not expect) an answer. As such, the correct punctuation is indeed a question mark - even if that question mark is outside my original quotation - as it demonstrates how you have modified to suit your own needs.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote:
Also... my commenting about your punctuation was tongue in cheek, you silly man. Where is your sense of humour? My spelling is abysmal. I know that. I'm in no poition to seriously criticise - but only to do so in fun. I was joking with you, you miserable git...[/QUOTE]
Oh yes very funny - ha, ha!! That was supposed to be a joke was it? Oh yes. I must have forgot to laugh. Nothing but more lies designed to make you look good at the expense of someone else.
You then give advice to some young man because he disagrees with you.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote: WilliamFraser, you are a mean spirited sod... How about raising your game, you nasty sod?[/QUOTE]
Greg, how about you raising your game?
How about you saying something positive for a change?
I really do not understand why you need to be so negative.
You do know that if you would just let go of all that negative energy, you will live longer?
You do NOT know me. So please do not say that you do. I know my Doctor better than I do you - and I really do not know him at all - as I only see him once every few years!
We met very briefly c6 years ago, and most of that time was spent watching a movie. Now, you wish to create the impression that I am all about hate, Jealousy and a bitter individual.
This is so untrue, and ironic, because all you charge against me - is what you project about yourself.
[QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote:
You begin numerous anti-threads in my name, you tried to belittle the FREQUENCY of my postings - before it was pointed out that you too had posted just as often. Finally, you even (incorrectly) had a pop at my literacy skills.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote:
If I take the number of my posts (3024),
and divide that by the number of days I have been registered (1922),
you will see that this works out at an average of 1.573 postings ...per day...
YOU registered on Thursday, May 25, 2006, and have posted 215 mails during a 156 day period.
This means that you too post on average 1.4 mails per day also.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
FREQUENCY has NOTHING to do with VOLUME. I may have posted more mails, but at present we both post around 1.5 mails per day.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote:
4000 v 190 is very clearly NOT equal. What a ridiculous comment. It shows how emberrassed you must be by that vast difference. It further shows the mammoth time you spend here rather than with the wonderful family you tell us you enjoy.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote:
GB: You are correct that the spelling is 'holier', but you are wrong about the question mark.
I referred to YOU as 'John holier than thou Stuart'. This is clearly NOT a question. Only questions end with a question mark.
If you're going to correct me, which is fine, get it right matey.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: So to correct YOU once MORE, what YOU SHOULD have CORRECTLY written was:
[QUOTE]I say there, John HOLIER than thou S. Stuart....
YOU KNOW WHEN you wrote... "As long as I have my loving wife, family and a fantastic job to surround me, this Queen malarkey is nothing but a passing interest."?[/QUOTE]
This is because the phrase "You know when...?" is rhetorical and suggests (but may not expect) an answer. As such, the correct punctuation is indeed a question mark - even if that question mark is outside my original quotation - as it demonstrates how you have modified to suit your own needs.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote:
Also... my commenting about your punctuation was tongue in cheek, you silly man. Where is your sense of humour? My spelling is abysmal. I know that. I'm in no poition to seriously criticise - but only to do so in fun. I was joking with you, you miserable git...[/QUOTE]
Oh yes very funny - ha, ha!! That was supposed to be a joke was it? Oh yes. I must have forgot to laugh. Nothing but more lies designed to make you look good at the expense of someone else.
You then give advice to some young man because he disagrees with you.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote: WilliamFraser, you are a mean spirited sod... How about raising your game, you nasty sod?[/QUOTE]
Greg, how about you raising your game?
How about you saying something positive for a change?
I really do not understand why you need to be so negative.
You do know that if you would just let go of all that negative energy, you will live longer?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote:
I really do not understand why you are so negative. You do know that if you would just let go of all that negative energy, you will live longer?[/QUOTE]
Did you HAVE to share that with him?
I really do not understand why you are so negative. You do know that if you would just let go of all that negative energy, you will live longer?[/QUOTE]
Did you HAVE to share that with him?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]MDNA wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
There is one question I would like to se answered though, was your Queen live book published in Portugal? I have heard so much about it (both good and bad) that I am curious to actualy read it.[/QUOTE]
Yes it was.
I bought that book around 1995/96 and it still is my favourite of all Queen books.
Apart from the set lists, for me the Bootleg reviews at the end of the book were priceless! It made me want to buy "the Creme de la Creme" of all bootlegs (as Greg names it!) "Opera Omnia" wich unfortunelly i never did (I have the mp3 now), and most important - it made me avoid some bootlegs, because now i could compare the dates of the shows with the dates and venues on the bootlegs.
So, i´ve found - and still find- the book very interesting and informative.
It made me realize that i wasn´t alone in my obsession for Queen (this was before the internet- at least for me!).
Take care
There is one question I would like to se answered though, was your Queen live book published in Portugal? I have heard so much about it (both good and bad) that I am curious to actualy read it.[/QUOTE]
Yes it was.
I bought that book around 1995/96 and it still is my favourite of all Queen books.
Apart from the set lists, for me the Bootleg reviews at the end of the book were priceless! It made me want to buy "the Creme de la Creme" of all bootlegs (as Greg names it!) "Opera Omnia" wich unfortunelly i never did (I have the mp3 now), and most important - it made me avoid some bootlegs, because now i could compare the dates of the shows with the dates and venues on the bootlegs.
So, i´ve found - and still find- the book very interesting and informative.
It made me realize that i wasn´t alone in my obsession for Queen (this was before the internet- at least for me!).
Take care
Thanks Bobby for your kind answer.
As for Opera Omnia being the Creme de la Creme of Queen Bootlegs I must disagree.
It is only a 4 (?) disc compilation of songs played live bu Queen. I'm not even sure it includes date and venue for all those performances.
I much prefer to have complete concerts (Japanese bootlegs being the best in my oppinion).
And to make things clear, I absolutely believe that his book when first published was no doubt the best that could be done at the time, and credit has to be given to him for undertaking that mamoth task.
What people don't accept so easaly is that he allowed a "revised edition" to be issued without making sure that at least correcting all the information that was proved to be incorrect.
As for Opera Omnia being the Creme de la Creme of Queen Bootlegs I must disagree.
It is only a 4 (?) disc compilation of songs played live bu Queen. I'm not even sure it includes date and venue for all those performances.
I much prefer to have complete concerts (Japanese bootlegs being the best in my oppinion).
And to make things clear, I absolutely believe that his book when first published was no doubt the best that could be done at the time, and credit has to be given to him for undertaking that mamoth task.
What people don't accept so easaly is that he allowed a "revised edition" to be issued without making sure that at least correcting all the information that was proved to be incorrect.
John (Stuart)...
I'm not going to read all that stuff you pasted. Sorry, but I really honestly have no interest for the reasons I carefully outlined yesterday. I started to read it, got to the third sentence then lost interest. I thought, "Why am I reading this? It's repetitive. John has said ALL this before. Nothing new. Same old tone and direction. just skip this and read something else." I felt immediately that it was right for me.
I don't think you are all about hate and bitterness. I never said that. I just said PART of you is envious, jealous, bitter (call it whatever you will)... and that definitely is the case. You also are economical with the truth... that is one million percent true, and I don't care who thinks otherwise. I have had 10 years-odd email with you, telephone calls, and I met you in person. I base my opinion on a VERY FAIR ten year overview and history.
You are a very knowledgeable chap. A good Queen fan. But I cannot get along with you for the reasons I also carefully outlined.
You can write a reply if you like, but with respect I will not be reading it. You may think that childish, and perhaps it is, but it will be best for me personally, because you so frequently get up my nose. You have a rare knack. I think it's best all round. I further suggest you'd do much better not reading my stuff either. Less stress and annoyance for you too. You will only take bits of it wrongly, as always, and it's all so tedious for everyone - you too, and especially me.
I just can't ever get through to you, penetrate your inpenetratable thick and closed to my perspective skin. I know that I never will. I no longer feel the vaguest inclination to try. I just want a peaceful-ish existence on the rare times I come to QZ, and that means not trying to get thru to you.
I'm back to work this week, listening to the Queen live tapes - which need thorough logging. This will occupy me for several weeks, and I find it HUGELY theraputic, as well as fascinating. This is a better way for me to spend my time, I think you will agree, than instead bickering with you and getting nowhere fast. I'm sure QZ-ers would prefer this too.
I wish you well. Genuinely.
I'm not going to read all that stuff you pasted. Sorry, but I really honestly have no interest for the reasons I carefully outlined yesterday. I started to read it, got to the third sentence then lost interest. I thought, "Why am I reading this? It's repetitive. John has said ALL this before. Nothing new. Same old tone and direction. just skip this and read something else." I felt immediately that it was right for me.
I don't think you are all about hate and bitterness. I never said that. I just said PART of you is envious, jealous, bitter (call it whatever you will)... and that definitely is the case. You also are economical with the truth... that is one million percent true, and I don't care who thinks otherwise. I have had 10 years-odd email with you, telephone calls, and I met you in person. I base my opinion on a VERY FAIR ten year overview and history.
You are a very knowledgeable chap. A good Queen fan. But I cannot get along with you for the reasons I also carefully outlined.
You can write a reply if you like, but with respect I will not be reading it. You may think that childish, and perhaps it is, but it will be best for me personally, because you so frequently get up my nose. You have a rare knack. I think it's best all round. I further suggest you'd do much better not reading my stuff either. Less stress and annoyance for you too. You will only take bits of it wrongly, as always, and it's all so tedious for everyone - you too, and especially me.
I just can't ever get through to you, penetrate your inpenetratable thick and closed to my perspective skin. I know that I never will. I no longer feel the vaguest inclination to try. I just want a peaceful-ish existence on the rare times I come to QZ, and that means not trying to get thru to you.
I'm back to work this week, listening to the Queen live tapes - which need thorough logging. This will occupy me for several weeks, and I find it HUGELY theraputic, as well as fascinating. This is a better way for me to spend my time, I think you will agree, than instead bickering with you and getting nowhere fast. I'm sure QZ-ers would prefer this too.
I wish you well. Genuinely.
I spelt inpenetrable wrong, I know...