Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • downzy

      Reminder: No Graphic Content Allowed at MYGNRFORUM   08/13/2019

      Just a reminder, posting graphic and pornographic materials will result in being banned from the forum. We haven't had a problem with this content for awhile but lately some posters have disregarded the forum's policy relating to posting pornographic or graphic materials. We take this matter very seriously. This forum must adhere to the content guidelines as stipulated in the advertising platform that supports and finances this forum. We ask everyone to kindly refrain from posting any material that would be considered pornographic or graphic in nature.   Thank you for your cooperation. Downzy

DeadSlash

Members
  • Content count

    2,402
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by DeadSlash

  1. Instead of a separate thread for "Your thoughts on..." every song, magazine article, show, radio interview, fan art, reference to GnR in popular culture that originally aired after 7PM on a Thursday, marriage, divorce, guitar chord, Paul Tobias shirt, Pittman sound effect, individual members favorite state bird(all 50 states AND Territories) and ANYTHING I'm ignorantly leaving out. It might be easier then making a "Your thought on" every gd thing in the world? Maybe a sub-forum "Think About You?" I could, like these threads, go on for days... Pretty sure we're getting trolled.
  2. Guns N' Roses: The Band From Hell

    It's kind of funny how things change over time. When they came out, they were the bane of stuffy conservatives, fast forward 30 years and liberals are offended by GnR's misogyny. We'll never get a proper Corn Chucker because #metoo.
  3. Mygnr Fantasy Football League

    Do you have room left? If yes, can I get an invite, and can we do it on Yahoo? Soooooooooo much better than ESPN nocards@hotmail.com
  4. I'm playing a game called Neon Chrome, it's another "Rogue-Like" game. I'm really into that format these days.
  5. I doubt it, I think he's just grown out of it as opposed to it being linked to new material in any way.
  6. A political lie about health insurance.

    An often overlooked and 100% correct. You won't be turned away, and the main engine behind the ACA lowering government overspending was if people have insurance, then that bill doesn't fall on the government, it falls on the their private insurance company. A common misconception is that in America, people without insurance die in the street outside the hospital. This was true in the past actually, but it hasn't been for a long while. I don't actually know when care became mandated (it was before my time) but I know that in NJ, it was still legal to turn people away as recently as 1987. My grandfather died from a heart attack, and (if this made the difference, we'll never know) spent an extra 25 minutes in route because the closest hospital didn't accept his insurance, and wouldn't let them take him there. (The ACA federally ended this, but all states had addressed it at different times on a state level well before the Federal mandate.) That part about competition raising the bar on care, you would be shocked at how many people do not see the logical tie between competition and quality. I've been teaching for over a decade, and it's a frequent question/topic in the 24h-40h prep class. One of the ways I used to explain it was by asking "Do you think that there would be brand new phones with major improvement every year if the government mandated that Phones be priced no more than $100 and made Apple or Samsung the official producer of the government phone?" around 2016, the reaction started moving from "Oh, ok, yeah that makes sense." to "Of course they would, why wouldn't they?" from the 20 something crowd, I've even had people argue in the past year that phone tech would actually be further along if it was mandated and competition removed. It's a different logic, and I don't know where it comes from, but it's prevalent. Trueish. A large part of the ACA was funding for the creation of Urgent care centers in depressed areas, and a lot of public education on utilizing them. Since the ACA, some may have been built and closed their doors, although, to my understanding, this is not an epidemic as said Urgent Care facilities are Federally subsidized in depressed areas. The bigger issue was getting people to go there. People just got to the ER anyway/ In a way, the fact that these are impoverished areas is actually a big factor, they had never seen an Urgent care, and don't think to go to them for anything. Had Urgent Care been something they grew up with, they would probably use them more readily. The other part, and I feel like you will yell at me for saying this (but it's a factual statement) people on 100% subsidy have no costs, and therefore no incentive to go to a more cost efficient option of Urgent Care. So the ACA brought Urgent Care to impoverished areas, but the challenge is making people actually use them. This is not a social commentary, or a slam on poor people. It's just what is happening. Not understanding what an Urgent Care facility can do is not a result of poor people being stupid, it's a result of them not having access to one for far too long. It's a slam on society, not poor people. The part about doctors not taking new Medicare patients is 100% true, and a major issue.
  7. Both liberal and conservative candidates keep saying this, and I wanted to clarify something in the off chance anyone gives even 1/3 of one shit about it. I am getting really irritated hearing all of these politicians saying "I will make insurance companies lower their rates!" <------- or something similar. It doesn't work like that. Nobody can "decide" to lower rates. Rates are determined by math. The way the process work, in every single state and territory of the United Stated is as follows: The insurance companies show what they paid out, and using current, agreed upon mortality(death rate) and morbidity (sickness rate) tables determine how much they have to collect to stay solvent (have enough money to pay their claims and stay in business.) In an over simplified example, if they had 10 customers, and their prior year they paid out $30 in claims, they have to charge each customer at least $3 each. If they tried to charge $2, the state would reject those rates because the math doesn't work. They would reject a rate of $10 per person, because the math wouldn't justify those rates. The insurance department of each individual state looks at the math and either approves the rates, or denies the rates as too high or TOO LOW. Whatever your health insurance premium is, your state has APPROVED this rate as a fair and necessary rate that must be charged in order to prevent the insurance company from becoming insolvent and creating a massive state (or potentially country wide) crisis. Insurance is unlike other products. Take something like sneakers, for example: Nike has a fixed (or reasonably static cost) for creating the product and they are free to charge whatever they want for said products. The final cost is dictated by the market. Nike finds out how much people will pay, and they charge it. Insurance companies don't have that option. A combination of what they paid out last year, and what statistics say they will pay this year decide the number for them. My example above is over simplified because it's more complex than you have 10 people, you paid $30, so that works out to $3 each. Morbidity tables are sickness rates, and that is factored in... so statistically, if you have 10 people, 2 will develop diabetes, 2 will get cancer, 1 will get HIV etc. and these things have to be factored in. People don't really talk about, or think about the other side of it, but states have a very valid concern about rates being too low, and that is actually just as important as rates being too high. If a carrier goes out of business with claims on the table, it would create a state wide financial crisis from all of the customer left holding the bag on outstanding medical bills. It could cripple an economy. The bottom line is that it is very disingenuous for a politician to imply that insurance companies are doing their own thing, and that they are the politician that will finally make them "accountable." Every rate that you have ever paid has been examined, studied and deemed appropriate by the head of your individual states department of insurance. In other words, let's say you pay $1,400/m for your insurance currently with Humana. There is no politician that can make them just arbitrarily "lower" that rate. If you pay $1,400/m for your insurance, and Humana had initially put in a rate for $1,300/m it would have been rejected by your state as insufficient. That $1,400/m isn't random, or out of the blue. It's cold hard math. So to clarify my credentials, I am certified as an insurance expert in 40 states currently, and I don't mean as an agent, I am literally certified as an expert in insurance and permitted to teach it. In states that have PLE requirement, I am on the short list of people who can sign your certificate that you need to even take the exam. As a consultant, in the past 2 years, I've been in the headquarters of 3 of the 5 top carriers in the United States, and I fly all around the country educating people on Life and Health insurance including the majority of direct hire agents for said companies. This post was actually inspired by a class I just did in Dallas. Not one person had any idea that rates came from anywhere. They all thought it was a case of "They charge whatever they can get." It's one of the more common "surprises" for people looking to get licensed. Maybe someone will find this interesting, maybe it should have just been scribbled down in my journal. Something to think about other than "When can I head all of Hard School!?!?"
  8. A political lie about health insurance.

    I was hung up on the word "decide" because that was the point of my original post I thought you were directly saying "Yes and no" to my assertion they could just choose to lower rates. sounds like I just misread your reply. All of your comments about how it's managed we agree on, it's just a semantical difference. You're saying other countries do a better job with it I'm saying the US does a terrible job with it. We're basically in agreement here. Your comment on Obama and the ACA is something I don't disagree with. The ACA lowered costs in theory, it was sound logic, but in practice, it panned out differently and now rates are higher. That doesn't endorse or condemn the ACA, it's just how it worked out. I can tell you from when it rolled out, the sheer number of people getting insurance for the first time in their entire life at the age of 30 or 40+ clearly demonstrated we needed something to change. There are many awesome changes brought on by the ACA, but lower prices wasn't one of them. The part about the US government buying power not being utilized, I'm might not understand what you are saying, but in general, Medicare is actually really heavy handed. One of the major challenges to Medicare recipients right now is that Medicare actually pays so little that more and more doctors are opting to simply not treat Medicare recipients. There certainly isn't a situation where Medicare is paying more than it has to. Except in a handful of states where it is illegal to do so, most Doctors that accept Medicare charge and additional "Medicare excess fee" of 15% (that the patient is responsible for) to make Medicare patients worth while. Personally, I'd leave the republican vs. Democrat out of this discussion. Politicians fuck this up, from both sides, and while most people are probably thinking of Donald Trump talking about magically making insurance cheaper so are all of the candidates on the democratic side. When Obama was president, all of the republican hopefuls were dangling the same bullshit. No party is exempt from lying about insurance in order to secure votes. This really isn't a democrat or republican thing.
  9. A political lie about health insurance.

    To each their own, I guess. I see someone telling me that if I vote for them I get a magic unicorn, and I say "There are no unicorns, and there is no magic." and you conclude that I'm the asshole in that interaction.
  10. A political lie about health insurance.

    So to clarify on this, I think it's a combination of me explaining maximum out of pocket poorly, and some of that bad information from politicians that inspired this thread. 1. The $7k Maximum out of pocket is not a deductible, it's not paid before the insurance kicks in, and the vast majority of people will never ever pay the full $7k. The maximum out of pocket of $7k is just a lid, a worse case scenario. A good way to illustrate it would be a hospital stay: On Original, government run Medicare, you pay $1,316 if you are admitted to the hospital. This lasts for 60 days. So if A Medicare recipient is in for 1 day, or 60, it's $1,316. This is the part A deductible. (Side note, after 60 days, if you go back, you pay it again.) If you are in for more than 60 days in a row, the government charges about $250 from day 61 - 90, you are then out of coverage. The government gives you 60 lifetime reserve days, at double, or $500 a day and if you exhaust those lifetime reserve days you are not covered at all, and 100% responsible for all costs. There is no cap or protection for seniors, if they run up $500k in bills, they owe $500k On a Medicare Advantage plan, you'll have a daily deductible for your first 5 days of approximately $250 a day(it varies from plan to plan, some closer to $500) Let's say it is $500 a day and take the above scenario^^ If you are in the hospital for 5 days, you owe $2,500 to the insurance company. At day 60, nothing changes no additional money is owed, same with day 90, or even if you are in a coma and in the hospital for 365 days, you finished paying on day 5, and owe nothing additional. Where the 7k limit would come into play, it let's say Mom or Dad has 10 separate 5 days stays in the hospital, they would reach their 7k out of pocket limit on the 3rd stay, and the remaining 7 stays would be 100% the insurance companies responsibility. With a Medicare Advantage plan you are not guaranteed to PAY $7k in a calendar year, you are guaranteed to never pay MORE than $7k per year. Does that make more sense? 2. I'm not sure where you heard not deductibles and no out of pocket at all, but that isn't how Medicare works. Medicare has a Hospital and a medical deductible, and thereafter has an 80/20 split on all part B charges(medical.) Part A (Hospital) works differently and is explained above. Medicare does NOT cover RX's. Rx coverage is only available through private insurance. Medicare does not have a maximum out of pocket. IF you are talking about a promise from some politician that there will be no cost involved under "Medicare for all" we can objectively and with 100% certainty call that a disingenuous lie. How? How can we so positively make a bold claim that it's a lie "Medicare for all" would have no cost to the patient? Because Congress LITERALLY just passed a law to eliminate Plan F Medicare supplement policies. Plan F was/is the most comprehensive plan a senior can get, and it leaves them with little to NO out of pocket costs. The government has concluded that when you have no risk, you use the plan more and drive up costs for the government. To be very clear, the United Stated Congress has made it illegal for Medicare recipients to have a plan with "no costs" starting in 2020. The United States Congress passed a law making it MANDATORY that you have costs associated with going to the doctor or hospital. Whatever politician promises no costs associated with your health care is they are elected is straight up lying to your face and has literally contributed to eliminating that possibility for people currently on Medicare. You're not wrong, but drug prices are a little different. It's a different dynamic on their pricing etc. IMO, the only kind of reform that makes sense is pretty hard to achieve, but determining actual costs of medical procedures. It's problematic, and difficult to say "The price for an MRI should be XYZ, so the Dr. must charge XYZ and the insurance company must pay XYZ." <----- that opens it's whole unique can of worms, but SOMETHING has to be done. As it is, prices are like Monopoly money, with made up values. The way it works is let's say the actual cost to a hospital for an MRI is $250, counting everything, money toward the machines purchase, paying the tech, the supplies and electricity etc... When they bill $250, the insurance company is like "Ok, for a bill of $250 we will pay you $32." This launches a stupid game of "What do we have to charge in order to get paid what we actually need?" and the next thing you know, an MRI bill is $4,374 because that is the magic number they need to charge to get the insurance to pay $250. If the rest of the world did business like Doctors, hospitals and insurance companies, when we bought the new Avengers DVD, it would have a price tag of $768 but we'd offer the cashier $29.99 and they would accept it. We pretty much agree on a lot, a couple of points 1. It's correct for me to say they can't "decide" rates. They can't, it has to be justified with the numbers. You are correct that if everyone was insured, rates would go down. That's still not an insurance company arbitrarily "deciding" to lower rates, more if more healthy people were insured and paying into the system that provides the money to pay out for the sick people, and we all pay a little bit less. It's 100% correct, and one of the biggest challenges for the ACA. We didn't get enough of those people who could have had insurance prior to the ACA (because they have no preexisting conditions) to get into the system. All I'm saying by "decide" rates is that the legal process behind the system prevents an insurance company from charging rates that are higher or lower than the math says they need to charge. 2. I agree there is a massive different between single payer with private insurance, and single payer without it. Medicare advantage plans actually show us that a single payer system can work out fine with private insurance backing, BUT most (if not all, I'm not sure) of the plans being floated eliminate private insurance. That's why the Medicare example is so perfect, we can actually see how terrible Original Medicare (100% government run) is vs. Medicare Advantage (Private insurance working in conjunction with a single payer system.) 3. I agree about your point that the Affordable Care Act is neither the devil, nor is it prefect. I could do a whole thread on that thing but it's not the disaster or the savior that it is made out to be by whatever candidate it is politically expedient to in that moment. I do strongly disagree with your point about sacrificing the good for the perfect, BUT I think the involvement of private insurance really steers that conversation. A single payer, government only health care system is not a good vs. perfect scenario, it's a disaster vs. good scenario. If private insurance remains involved, that helps a great deal, although I still think it would NOT be a great thing, we are closer to the "good vs. perfect." POV. So here is what happened with that. They tried to make coasts go down, but they needed something to happen, counted on it happening, but it didn't. That "something" was young and healthy people buying insurance. When you eliminate the ability for the insurance company to turn anyone away, sick people all sign up, and costs go up. Everyone knew this, including Washington, but the goal/plan was to offset this by getting people who would normally not buy their own insurance to buy it and essentially not use it, offsetting the increased costs of all of the sick people. They did it with a lot of education, PSAs, and (most importantly) the penalty. This was supposed to motivate the 18-30 year olds to see the need/value in insurance where they previously hadn't. It just didn't pan out like that, they didn't get a big influx of healthy people, and as a result, rates are where they are. In a nutshell, on January 1, 2014 when insurance companies could no longer turn people away for pre-existing conditions, nothing changed in the world of the average 25 year old who is 100% healthy. It's not like they wanted insurance and just couldn't get it... they made a conscious decision to not get insurance because it's expensive as fuck and they never go to the doctor. The penalty was tiny. Take the average 25 year old that never goes to the doctor and doesn't WANT insurance and tell them "You can buy this insurance that you don't want and pay $900 a month, or if you elect not to do this, you will be punished with a penalty of $250. Nobody is paying $11k to avoid a $250 fine.
  11. A political lie about health insurance.

    I have a strong opinion about that too, but it's not quite as cut and dry (imo) as the original topic of this thread. I will kinda bottom line it though: In the US, we already have definitive evidence that the government can't run insurance nearly as efficiently as private insurance companies. We see it with original Medicare vs. Medicare advantage plans. Original Medicare is strictly government coverage for people 65 and over. No drug coverage, no vision, no dental, no out of pocket limit for grandmom and grandpop. It's pretty not great. Years back, while the government was lamenting how Medicare was running out of money and how the average senior cost (these are made up approximate numbers) 12k a year, private insurance companies were like "we can do it for $8k." and the government said "OK, we'll give you 8k and you are responsible for their health care for a calendar year, you must offer them at a minimum what Original Medicare offers." It was win/win. The government was saving like 35% on every senior electing to take private insurance, the insurance company was getting business, and the seniors, for $0 - $59/m were getting plans that covered everything they already had, plus RX coverage, dental, vision and an out of pocket max of like $4,500 (that was back in the day, it is currently around 7k max.) So a single payer might not be a bad concept, but we need like a whole new government first, because we are terrible at it. We don't have to guess it will be bad, or assume it will be bad we can literally look at Medicare and VA and see how awful (US) government run insurance would be, because it already is.
  12. Did anyone see this? EA was outed for using an algorithm in Madden and FIFA mobile. In a nutshell, your actual team ratings are irrelevant, all that matters is how frequently you buy. The way I understand it to work is as follows: Let's say that the system sees that I bought a wide receiver the last time they released one, when the next one is released, my current wide receiver will start dropping passes, or having trouble getting open theoretically inspiring me to buy the newest one. This becomes a lot more telling/obvious when you have a team that is rated 106 getting it's ass kicked by a team that is rated 90 because they system knows the 106 will buy more players if they lose. This renders the ratings actually meaningless. It blows my mind this is a thing. I quite Madden mobile completely because of this.
  13. I've been looking at this Stadia thing just recently. I think streaming is 100% the future of gaming, but I don't think this is going to be the game changer just yet. The concept is perfect, never have to buy hardware again. I agree with you that it isn't a cut and dry ownership thing, and the fact that everyone has or is about to roll out streaming services will get people on board with the concept in the next few years. I think the only thing holding it back ATM is internet capability. I was reading that the majority of the US doesn't have the bandwidth required to play at 4k (apparently the UK has way better internet... bastards) and that will be a roadblock with a large part of the gaming community that is hung up on visual fidelity. For me, the final nail in the coffin is the inherent lag. By all accounts, it's enough to make any competitive games a tad too frustrating. It's greatest boon, not having to buy new hardware is not an issue for me personally, but I can see a lot of kids jumping on board with this, hardcore gamers though? Not with the next consoles right around the corner.
  14. Did Slash get that thing going...?

    I'm not sure if I'm understanding your point, but it certainly reads like Slash's popularity was key to GnR's (or specifically, Axl's) popularity in the 90's? If so, that is not correct. Axl and Slash were on pretty equal footing pre-breakup. If anyone was "more" of a draw, it was probably Axl, but really GnR was unlike most bands because if you asked the average fan "Who is GnR?" People would say "Axl and Slash." Slash's talent might (did imo) have helped Axl and GnR make amazing songs in the 90's, but there was never a time during the original run of the band that Slash's "draw and popularity" were turning people onto Axl. That simply wasn't a thing back then. They came into the national consciousness at the same time, as a team. "Axl vs. Slash" was not even a realdiscussion prior to the break up, outside of maybe arguing in the lunchroom at school about who was cooler, usually resolved after concluding that it didn't matter who was cooler, because they were both really fucking cool. I guess the short answer is: Yes, you are giving Slash way too much credit. I was in 7th grade in 87, and in high school in the 90's, it's not before my time or anything. As an admitted superfreak of a fan, I was into all things GnR. The only thing even remotely close to what you're talking about were people who were not fans of the band saying Axl was a fag, or a bitch because he sang with a high voice, however, there was not a polarized fan base like there is today.
  15. It's clearly a partnership, there had to be some interest from Slash and Duff to play the CD songs, or the tour wouldn't have lasted this long. People love to make up a whole dynamic that doesn't make sense. At this point, honestly, anyone who doesn't think Slash would be open to taking finished/nearly finished songs from the vault and putting his spin on it are simply not familiar with Slash's career. He does that shit all the time, he's been on countless albums throwing down riffs and solos. Anybody who thinks he would be open to laying down a solo for Daughtry(SP?) but not an unreleased Axl song that could end up making him some actual money is a fucking fool. At this point, honestly, anyone who doesn't think Slash would be open to taking finished/nearly finished songs from the vault and putting his spin on it are simply not familiar with Guns N Roses, as this was how many songs from the past catalogue worked. Axl wrote them, and when he was thought the song was ready he turned it over to Slash to make it fucking magic. People need to stop pre-loading their bitchfest and wait for the fucking album before they hate it.
  16. It's funny, because people talk about "How could they do this to us, their loyal fans?" in a thread that has about 50% of its post either bashing the band, amateur psychological evaluations, fictional ramblings and speculations about the hierarchy of the band these days, and generally butthurt, tear filled rants about what we are "owed." I can't imagine why millionaires aren't bending over backward to please the self-important forum members making demands. Surely, every single person bashing the band loves to be called a cunt in their real lives, and bends over backwards for people who call them a cunt and make demands. Surely.
  17. If it was done to F with the record company, it failed in a major way. Scraped was used on Sunday(or Monday?) night football a week or 2 after the album released. Not sure if they still do, but at the time they were bumpering one commercial break per week with newly released music, as highlights played in the background. Point being, it was a paid advertisement, it was pushed by someone at the record company. So if it was an Axl "troll" on the record company, it was lost on them.
  18. Maybe I misread the post I was responding to, I read it as them hinting that it was on it's way and certain forum members already had it. Maybe semantics.
  19. There is not "15 CD's" that leaked. That's 150 tracks if each CD had only ten songs.
  20. Is it really that easy to start a rumor? Just type up some bullshit and watch people react? Maybe I'll try that one day. Just type up some stupid shit and see how many PM's I get. At ay rate, I don't believe you, and I call bullshit. There is not 15 discs of GnR material floating out there. 15 songs, yes... but it is on one CD, on said bootleg Checkmate is called Checkmate not "hard school", there is no song named "Billionaire" and only WTTJ and SCOM from the AFD redux, not the whole album. The "3rd Brian May song" listed as "Noticia Falsa" has been thoroughly debunked by those in the know, and was simply mislabeled (or purposely misattributed to May) by whoever made the master bootleg It is obviously DJ. Zodiac, Atlas Shrugged Oklahoma etc. are on it, yes, but that isn't news, they've been out for over 2 months. This is nothing new, stop seeking attention.
  21. Impending US/UK war with Iran

    I think the big difference between now and recent history is that Trump will give Israel the nod to do as they wish. This stuff isn't public knowledge, so we can't know for sure, but I'd be shocked if Obama didn't tell Israel the US would be openly critical of any moves of aggression made by Israel. I think Trump would tell them he doesn't give a fuck. IDK, gut feeling. I remember years ago (pretty sure Bush was in office) there was a press conference in Israel about Iran nukes. They question was asked of an Israeli general "How far would Israel go to stop Iran from getting nukes?" and he answered (instantly, with zero hesitation) with the exact number of miles from the closest Israeli air strip to Tehran. People might be able to argue about Israel's chances with a straight up war with Iran, but I don't think anyone could argue their willingness to try. Personally, I'd never bet against Israel.
  22. In the grand scheme of things it really is a tiny part of his career. He's done like what, a dozen albums without Izzy? A couple of books? Is coming off of one of the most successful tours of all time, without Izzy... I just think Izzy means a lot more to us fans than it does to Duff. GnR might have come to full stop after Izzy's departure, but Duff certainly didn't. Again, I personally LOVE Izzy, but from Duff's point of view, it has to be tiresome for him to field question ignoring the last 30 years (and majority) of his career. It's like coming back to your high school reunion as a millionaire CEO, but your classmates can't get past the fact that you didn't marry the prom queen. How many times can you humor them with "I don't know." before you just can't be arsed with anymore fucking questions about what happened 30 years ago. I'm not even trying to say this in a combative way, I'm just saying. Duff has "Fuck You" money and he's been able to do pretty much what-ever-the-fuck he wants. I don't think he pines on about "Where did we go wrong Izzy? Where did we go wrong?" I have no idea how old you are, but I personally can't imagine being asked incessantly why me and my best friend from high school drifted apart. Ironically that was about 30 years ago for me too, it's long over and done. My life has moved forward, quite well.
  23. It happened 30 years ago though, Imagine for a second, having a whole life, and accomplishments, but constantly being asked about why you broke up with your high school sweet heart, Isabella. I mean sure, it was 30 years ago, and sure you have kids and grandkids with your current wife who is the love of your life, BUT you and Isabella were prom king and queen! I don't mean to take away from Izzy, I'm actually an Izzy mark. I own all of his albums and I love his music. I also am hoping beyond hope he somehow is involved with the writing of a new album. At the same time, from Duff's perspective, WTF? Izzy really is a tiny blip in Duff's history. Duff has an entire, and sizable career sans Izzy. WTF can he possible say at this point? It might have been a big deal to him like when it happened, but honestly, even then, the band just moved right to Gilby. It's not like Izzy leaving was at the core of the breakup. I don't think there is more that Duff can say because there isn't anything left for him TO say.
  24. Rumors of Izzy & Steven returning?

    Pointing out that Izzy flaked or that Adler has demons is not a compliment or endorsement to Fortus, Melissa or Frank. That is a nonsensical connection that you are making and projecting onto a pretty reasonable point, because you can't argue that point.
×