Mysteron

Mysteron, where did I say the rest of the document was relevant? Its not. I said it was simply a point of interest. I'm not even sure it's been established which of our two docs were filed with the court. I don't know where mine came from, it may have come directly from management or in boxes of files sent to me by others, or it may be from the court, I don't know. Doesn't really matter. Curious, though

Thie point is, MSL is questioning Duff and Slash's integrity.

If they signed two documents, that makes it even worse, because it then becomes a considered decision over a period of time

I've been an unflagging supporter of MSL, for him to take my questioning of his conclusions as an attack brings up the question of what else he's misinterpreting.

My position is simply that we don't know how many versions are out there and what they say, thus we can't peg the date, period. Because the date was never an issue in the court case, you can't say this is a final contract or any date is confirmed, only that all parties accept the terms stated in the document for purposes of the court. I suspect there's a crisp clean copy in the Geffen system somewhere, although getting this band together to sign things was always quite the process, so maybe they ended up relying on the draft, too, who knows.

I'm not agreeing with Duff's Barcelona story, either, it may well have been '92 in Germany, which was his first version, or maybe he's transposing other events or similar partnership clauses. (I'd like to see everybody here reach back 20 years and remember all the details from a specific day that was just one part of an ongoing process). Point is, you guys are the only people who care about the date, no real sources have questioned it in court or anywhere else, and this includes SPIN, Rolling Stone and the New York Times, who all had the same document and the same story from the players. Its a bit of a stretch to think MSL has some inside knowledge or revelations when these sources did their research via DIRECT contact with the players and managers. Whether the details were right or wrong, they came to the conclusion the general gist is correct.

It's possible Duff and Slash jumped the gun re: Axl threatening to cancel, because it was an established pattern, or maybe it was Reese saying, 'if you want Axl to go on stage, better sign off on this.' The point is that was how GNR business was being conducted at that time. They knew he WOULD NOT play the show. You're mistaking a specific hostage hour with an ongoing hostage climate. Its also just as likely that Axl would have been distracted and obsessing over the unsigned document and wouldn't have been in the head space to perform and still wouldn't have gone on stage. To Slash/Duff, it was still duress.

When these nuances get boiled down to single sentences and even paragraphs, the shading is lost. Axl is correct when HE says he it didn't happen the way Duff and Slash said it did, and Duff and Slash are correct when THEY way they were under duress to sign off on the additional clause.

But nobody is lying. That's my point.

And this is an insane waste of time.

I will add that I was there -- not when the contract was signed, but pretty close re: the aftermath. My involvement was peripheral, but it was dealing pretty equally with the Slash, Duff and Axl camps. I was hearing these developments in real time for 10 years or more. I still don't take sides. I see everybody's point, I see how they interpret each other.

Trust me, this is a red herring.

MSL, I'll ask again as a point of interest for us to compare the two docs. What does your have for a date on page 1 (mind has October crossed out and November added) and for amendments on the bottom of page 2 and did Slash initial that one on yours?

Snooze, you are posting a big bag of daftee fluff.

The rest of the document is irrelevant, and also publically available if you know where to look

Is Axl being honest

This comes about from the other thread.

We question the integrity of band members and also Axl's integrity and intent , but this cannot be questioned.

Is there some reason why it's being passed around in PMs and not just posted? Honest question

Hi Russ, It is not getting passed about. MSL was just being courteous to me because of what I posted, that is all.

People get offered a circle with a line through it with the line being the subject of conversation. However, everyone wants to talk about and see the circle because they have no interest in the line.

It is one of those kind of scenarios

Well, since everyone here looks to be grandstanding and concerned with one-upping the other side, I'm gonna peace out of this piece of shit thread and discussion, so someone please PM me if any of these attention whores decides that we can evaluate the full document ourselves and posts it.

I can't believe we're going on like this. This band is so fucking lame.

What is the full document going to prove to you?

Ron's has had an extra-ordinarily tough couple of years. I would never wish that on anyone.

If he can stay strong and move GN'R forward next year, that would be amazing.

Integrity is so important to alot of people on forums

Guns do not release music very often, but there are thousands of fans interested in the day to day politics of GN'R, and what is said about their history. Multiple GN'R forums, more than most bands who are current, remained active and popular prior to the release of CD.

So something like this strikes at the heart of old discussion, because if Slash and Duff have allegedly misinterpreted this aspect of Guns history, what else have they allegedly misinterpreted.

We do not live Axl's life day to day, but if this is the kind of shannanigans he has had to deal with, then it is no wonder he was delayed in releasing new music

It appears to be a bitter divorce, and the merry business wives of Axl, Slash and Duff, took a long time to move on.

ABC 123, for the children

MSL posted something that questioned the integrity of Slash and Duff. Each band member has given a story of signing one document which hands over the GN'R name to Axl.

A piece of paper which is signed and witnessed, is a contract. There is fluff, but it is a contract.

We are presented with a signed and presumed witnessed document with dates. We have three stories, Axl's one from the three stories appears to be the correct one

Slash and Duff state they signed a single contract under duress during touring. The dates show they were not touring. There is no mention by anyone anywhere of a second contract. And why would Slash and Duff sign one anyway

The arguments of looking at the whole contract are fine, but what you are arguing here is whether the contract is illegal, and that is a fine and valid argument. If it is not, then Axl has no right to the name. However, this has nothing to do with MSL's argument which is merely questioning the integrity of Slash and Duff as human beings, as truthsayers or liars during the 90s

Given the links here to Slash and Duff, if they were appalled by what is assumed by this, they would have spoken out by now.

This....this is getting fun...

It is

The post from GN'R Evo is interesting, and we have had our first deflective, defensive email from MSL (which was banned)

And the GN'R world is allowing discussion as well.

I am happy to be swayed either way to be fair.

And further blah, before I go to bed, older members here will know by now that all members old and new will be at least 'aware' of this story by now given the links of certain members, old and new, here.

And, given there has been no reaction officially, and also Jarmo is allowing ongoing conversation about it, I think this says more than anything written here.

It is what it is

Ali, what MSL posted is a Memo, i.e. it is not legally binding and therefore cannot be the document that gaves Axl legal power over Guns N' Roses. We both accept that Axl has absolute power over GNR, right? Well then there must be another document unless you believe Slash/Duff allowed Axl to takeover Guns N' Roses armed with a mere document that could have been nullified at any moment by a mere phone - this is the same Slash and Duff that sued Axl numerous times in the mid 00s!!

Why is everyone ignoring this point?

Signatures

I can write a cheque on a blank piece of paper if I sign it. If something is signed by a consenting adult who is not daft or drunk, it is a legal document. Even America's blessed Judge Judy says this.

If there is something official happening, solicitors will make money from parties signing pre agreements to agreements, and then addendums to agreements. Famous people in LA get fleeced with this all the time. Standard practice, it shares the wealth.

Consideration is actually very important because without it in the contract from both sides, it is just a piece of paper. There must have been something there but until someone posts the rest no one will know. No one really cares at this point. Any journalist could have done the same thing here but it is old news. It would be funny though if Axl's contract turned out to be just a piece of paper though.

Consideration adds dimension, and further discussion and information.

But MSL's point was to discredit Slash and Duff with the dates they signed the contract and the story they told to go with it.

In theory, if I said, 'I owe UK Subs 50 Monopoly Pounds' and signed it, that is a legally binding document

If I did not pay it, UK Subs could sue me, and I would be liable for the 50 Monopoly Pounds, interest as set by the court, loss of earnings and UK Subs expenses (court and travel expenses,, not hairdresser fees or his gem encrusted onesies from Regent Street)

Lol. It's pointed out in one of the pics posted before that there are fundamental requirements to a lawsuit which includes "consideration" from both sides. Warren Buffett could promise to give all his money to his kids when he dies and then decides not to on his deathbed. He could even make that agreement in writing. It still wouldn't be a contract unless the agreement involved his kids giving up consideration too. That's one of the mysteries about all this, and until MSL posts the whole thing or someone walks to the courthouse it won't be known. What did Axl give up in exchange for the name? Originally the rumored "consideration" that Axl gave was to continue the tour. You'd have to look at the whole document or documents to see what went down.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consideration

In theory, if I said, 'I owe UK Subs 50 Monopoly Pounds' and signed it, that is a legally binding document

If I did not pay it, UK Subs could sue me, and I would be liable for the 50 Monopoly Pounds, interest as set by the court, loss of earnings and UK Subs expenses (court and travel expenses,, not hairdresser fees or his gem encrusted onesies from Regent Street)

Lol. It's pointed out in one of the pics posted before that there are fundamental requirements to a lawsuit which includes "consideration" from both sides. Warren Buffett could promise to give all his money to his kids when he dies and then decides not to on his deathbed. He could even make that agreement in writing. It still wouldn't be a contract unless the agreement involved his kids giving up consideration too. That's one of the mysteries about all this, and until MSL posts the whole thing or someone walks to the courthouse it won't be known. What did Axl give up in exchange for the name? Originally the rumored "consideration" that Axl gave was to continue the tour. You'd have to look at the whole document or documents to see what went down.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consideration

The point I picked up is that Slash and Duff both signed a single document, they both gave accounts as to when and why they did it.

This document appears in line with what was said, and all we are looking for here are the dates of the signatures, nothing else. Consideration and all other fluffy elements of the law are not relevant

In theory, if I said, 'I owe UK Subs 50 Monopoly Pounds' and signed it, that is a legally binding document

If I did not pay it, UK Subs could sue me, and I would be liable for the 50 Monopoly Pounds, interest as set by the court, loss of earnings and UK Subs expenses (court and travel expenses,, not hairdresser fees or his gem encrusted onesies from Regent Street)

Signatures are signatures. On plain paper, that is enough in the UK

It is great investigative journalism, let's see the story pushed out there to the wider media. Let them have their take, and MSL have another moment in the sun.

Family Guy is more King of the Hill than the Simpsons. It is more adult, but it is not quite as good.

So, they have to keep it fresh

Yes, the 3D is 80 percent of the movie

The rest is ok, not enough character development realty

Sandra Bullock carries the film big time.

It is not an Oscar film. Life of Pi last year, better story, same 3D, better overall performances.

I have not read the whole thread, just the first post

Would it not be better to collate the songs, and also take into account how long clips have been on youtube. You could work out views per day for each song, and rank them

I think that would be a fairer reflection

Seen it

It was sad but tastefully done

It is an adult cartoon, Vinny seems cool, it adds another dimension for a few more years, and it gets some attention.

If DJ changed his style and look, would you be more accepting of him? Just curious.

In life, you have to do what you do to make Johnny Cash. We all have families to feed and oldies to look after.

DJ is proactive with his career. More power to him to be fair

The car behind is mid-late 50s into early 60s. The fashion is James Dean which is also mid 50's into the 60s for middle America

The photo is colour which represents that the person has not had a bad upbringing. The family probably own land, or the father is well educating and a high earner.

I noticed the song Chinese Democracy was playing during warmups for the Hartford Wolf pack of the AHL during the 08-09 season. However, notice that the version being played was the DEMO. Also, at the time of this being video taped, the album had already been put out.

Serious question...isn't that illegal? Could Axl have sued the Hartford Wolf Pack for playing a version of the song that he didn't want distributed? Funny enough that they didn't play the final version of Chinese..

Something's odd about the whole thing if ya ask me...

It will just be a mistake by the organisers. No great shakes

Go and look up the Borat comedy version of the Kazakh national anthem being played at the last Olympics

The aftermath of the assassination of President Kennedy offers a huge insight into American society, and how they live and think

To the outsider he was a daft celebrity President, knew very little about war or anything else, but he was popular.

1960's America, who killed the President, did man land on the moon, record ghost and UFO sightings per capita for any country.

It was a time of fun, but also of drugs and paranoia, and the 50-60-70 year olds today from that era and their children still appear on documentaries even today telling their stories

Two words, Canter Banter

Allegedly, I would rather be married to the evil forces of Skeletor

Are these auditions the same as, "Producers are looking to cast two lead roles for Star Wars: Episode VII - a "street smart" girl in her late teens and a "smart, capable" man in his early 20s.

Those particular auditions were done in the UK recently