Scream of the Butterfly

27 minutes ago, Underhardy said:

Obviously she has no clue about the song ‘Monsters.’ What an asinine thing to ponder.

How is that so obvious? If I was suing somebody, I'd probably do some research on the person. But as I said it's probably (not obviously) a coincidence.

Probably a coincidence but I wonder if Sheila is aware of Monsters (the song) and chose her words intentionally:

"Kennedy, who was a former Penthouse model, has not backed down from her claims and has continued to allege that the assault has left her traumatized. “I have a voice and I don’t want to be called a victim. I want other women to hear this about Axl Rose, he’s a monster and he needs to be held accountable,” she said on Thursday. “And I’m here today to make sure that happens.”

Kennedy noted that it was “difficult” to talk about the assault but she wanted to get her story out there. “I think it’s really important that we need to make this industry safe for women,” she explained. “There are so many victims that feel shame, that feel guilty. Feel like they when they go to sleep at night, they have nightmares and it needs to stop this monster needs to be stopped: Axl Rose.”"

On 1/28/2024 at 12:47 PM, El Guapo said:

Well, when they released the Perhaps video there was only good vibes around here, I can't recall much complaining.

Because it was a good, solid release. 

Surprised to hear the Perhaps video was received so well around here. I watched it around the time it came out and about two seconds in I immediately thought people were going to hate it!

Any band by the name of Poodle Perm?

I'd rather see part V of the trilogy than AI animation.

But I'm going to watch this and see if I like it regardless.

22 minutes ago, BluegrassBlues said:

I just got flashbacks of when home computers were still new and my mom screened every email or message I had  I didn't know there was tension with Sasha before, or the Betsy story. Was she told to stop speaking to him or what happened there?

From what I recall, Betsy said that after she had been exchanging emails with Axl, one time the reply didn't come from Axl, but from Beta, and that was the end of it. Apparently Beta had been the gatekeeper all along and refused to forward any more messages, because Betsy had said something Beta didn't want Axl to see.

There was also a female fan called Betsy, who visited Axl and exchanged emails with him in the late 90s or early 00s - until Beta interfered and put an end to it. I wouldn't be surprised if there have been other cases. Sasha posted a picture of Beta and Axl with a caption "Hijacked". There were other clues as well that things weren't all warm and fuzzy between Sasha and Beta. I suspect the picture Sasha posted of herself and Beta in swimwear wasn't posted entirely in good faith. She deleted it, but it was already too late, and the picture is still making the rounds.

I don't think Beta forbids Axl from seeing other women, but if you fall out of Beta's good graces, good luck maintaining a relationship with Axl! Women may come and go, but so far Beta has survived as the winner.

20 hours ago, meadsoap said:

The second source is the BBC documentary on GN'R called *The Most Dangerous Band In The World*. In the doc, Tom Zutaut reads back a message Axl privately sent him in 1990, which details (pretty graphically) what Axl's stepfather was doing to him and his sister.

I just went back to check and he's not reading any message Axl sent him and there's no mention of 1990.

This is of some relevance, because if it was a message Axl sent him, and not just Zutaut going by memory of something Axl said to him decades ago, we could be more confident that those were Axl's actual words. And if it happened in 1990, before Axl started regression therapy, I suppose that would add credibility to the accusations.

I think it's fairly clear that Beta is Axl's partner in life whether they are married or not and whether they are having sex - kinky or otherwise - or not. If Beta is his mother then mother is his partner in life. He can be with other women but has Beta to fall back on for stability and that's probably how he likes it.

9 minutes ago, Stay.Of.Execution said:

That was a joke. He had Sasha and I think she's been on the tours in recent years as well. No idea what their relationship status is

I didn't get the impression he was joking.

I'm not 100% Axl is single. There's that video clip where he's heard referring to Beta as his wife.

Either way, it's not far-fetched to speculate that his sexual (mis)conduct and preferences contributed to some of his past relationships failing and that he could be single in part because of that.

33 minutes ago, Avillart said:

 

Yes, otherwise I wouldn't have said what I said. 

Care to share it? I assumed you were referring to the same quote because you said it happened while he was driving.

1 hour ago, Avillart said:

 

That may be the version you know. 

There's a different version?

On 1/7/2024 at 5:45 PM, Avillart said:

No, he actually started the therapy after having memory flashes and the feeling that it happened, resulting in overwhelming psychological stress and what others would observe as irrational behaviour. It's the deprogramming starting which is dangerous when it happens without professional guidance. It can happen when you're driving (like in his case) and other "routine" activities and it can put your life in danger. And this is how it usually starts and the reason why people decide to do regression and/or hypnotherapy. 

That's not exactly what he said. He didn't say anything about memory flashes. It was merely a thought that crossed his mind. This is the exact quote: "I suspected it about two years ago, because all of a sudden the thought crossed my mind. When it crossed my mind I had to stop the car and I just broke down crying. Such an outpouring had never come out of me."

In one of the interviews, Axl said, "With the help of regression therapy I uncovered that my real dad, not my stepdad, sexually abused me."

I wonder if what he meant was that he had previously thought that it was his stepdad who sexually abused him (before uncovering that it was actually his real dad). Or did he just emphasize that it wasn't his stepdad because he didn't want the reader to be confused about which dad he was talking about?

proof of such service shall be filed with the clerk of the court designated in the summons within twenty days of either such affixing or mailing, whichever is effected later; service shall be complete ten days after such filing,

To be clear, "proof of such service" in this context refers to the affidavit of service with the server's signature. Axl doesn't need to sign anything to prove that he's been served.

This is the method of service that was used in Axl's case: https://nycourts.gov/Courthelp/goingtocourt/serviceConspicuous.shtml

Service by mail and acknowledgement of receipt (Blackstar's link) is a different method and not the one that was used in Axl's case.

5 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

I suppose it wouldn't say it if it wasn't needed, at least in the case of sending the lawsuit by mail, or it would mention alternatives for proof of service. I'm not sure about the case of leaving it at the door (if the affidavit is enough as proof).

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/dont-bother-avoiding-process-servers/

28 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

According to this, it is:

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/cvp/article-3/312-a/

It says that a signed acknowledgement "shall constitute proof of service" but I don't see where it says that it's the only possible proof of service or that a person who refuses to sign is considered not to have been served.  If that were the case, then anybody who doesn't want to deal with a lawsuit could easily avoid it by just refusing to sign the documents, which would be absurd.

4 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

But regardless, it is necessary for Axl or someone on his behalf (e.g. his lawyer) to acknowledge the service by signing the papers they received in order for the lawsuit to be considered served.

To my knowledge, it isn't necessary.

6 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

In TB's/Fernando's case it isn't considered service (see the document I posted: https://jumpshare.com/s/8mdVcUdO8L29KYBphNUw)

If I understood correctly, there was uncertainty about Fernando's whereabouts and address because supposedly he had moved.

4 hours ago, History2010 said:

Default judgement could be worse financially. Courts really don't appreciate being ignored so the penalties could be a lot more severe than if he just participates and is found liable.

That might be true, but I imagine Axl is wealthy enough to not have to worry about it as much.

3 hours ago, Blackstar said:

From what I understand, it's the plaintiff's responsibility to serve the lawsuit properly. If they fail or are not able to do it in the ways provided for in the civil law codes, they can request the court to allow them to serve it in another way.

Three visits to his door and a mailed letter would normally be considered sufficient even if there was no answer at the door.

3 hours ago, Blackstar said:

In the lawsuit of the woman who claims she was injured by Axl's mic, her lawyers haven't been able to serve the lawsuit to Team Brazil (who is one of the defendants) yet, and the court gave them permission to publish ads in the LA Times and other newspapers and also try to send it by email (the lawsuit hasn't been served yet even after that):

Has anybody seen these ads?

3 hours ago, Avillart said:

He doesn't have the option to ignore it. Once he/his lawyers got the 30 days (or whatever the time frame in this case is, in the Russell Brand case it was 30 days) he/they have to respond. Also, it doesn't look good to the outside to "ignore" it, especially when it's a person in the spotlight.

If he ignores it and fails to respond, there could be a default judgement, but I think there would be less publicity than if he chooses to actively participate.

I suppose one option for Axl is to just ignore the lawsuit and not even acknowledge that he's been served. The judge would then probably eventually rule in Sheila's favor, but Axl might prefer that outcome to having to show up in court.

On 12/16/2023 at 5:23 AM, oneway23 said:

Hardly.  I feel like it was better received when it was still assumed to be a piece of a larger whole with Monsters as a single, epic song.  

It doesn't stand on its own nearly as well, imo.

 

Can't you just listen to the two songs back to back as a single song if that's how you prefer it? I don't understand the disappointment that it's a separate song when there is such an obvious solution to it.