Scream of the Butterfly

Remember Axl's comment on stage a few years back about how Stephanie once said to him, "Thank you for the gift of your soul"? Maybe that's where the title Soul Monster originally came from. At any rate, I think Monsters is mainly about his relationship/breakup with Stephanie and not a message to his mother or stepfather. Sure enough, some of the same feelings that you felt as a child might re-emerge in a breakup situation, but other than that I don't think it's about child abuse.

I think the lyrics convey the experience of a child who is being punished/beaten. According to Axl, his stepdad was very strict and beat him constantly, so I'm guessing that was the inspiration. I don't think there's anything about the lyrics to suggest it's about child molestation specifically. Lemmy already wrote that song: "Don't Let Daddy Kiss Me".

Probably superstition, e.g. he fears that a mirror might steal his soul or that a demon might enter his body through a mirror. Axl's infamous for his spiritual beliefs.

On 2/26/2023 at 4:08 PM, PatrickS77 said:

Well, 4 couples, mostly physicians, so one would think, not stupid people, thought differently. Not for me to judge, just what it is.

Maybe the fact that the parents were not stupid (if that's the case) is exactly what contributed to what happened. Being intelligent, they understood just how small the risk was that someone was going to snatch the child, so they were relatively careless about preventing it. A stupid or average person would have been more prone to overestimating the risk, which in this specific instance would have paid off.

Then again, the stupid person probably would have underestimated some of the more typical everyday risks, so their child could have ended up dead, too, just from a different cause.

I don't think she's Madeleine, but her parents should agree to get tested to hopefully put her mind at peace about it. Why make your child live in such doubt and despair if you could fairly easily do something to help her out? Of course it's possible that she's mentally ill and that no amount of proof would convince her, but as it is we don't know that.

Slash is a narcissist?

I don't think Matt's wildlife activism has been mentioned yet. Some people hate him for it but I for one appreciate it. I'm not naive enough to believe that celebrities are always 100% sincere with their advocacy for good causes, but at least he supports some good organizations, such as Animals Asia, and doesn't seem completely clueless on the issues.

10 hours ago, vloors said:

Its not everywhere. Australia is not like this. You pay child support and thats it. Each adult has their own work and own responsibilities after a divorce and they split the assets and thats closure. 

https://www.beaconfamilylaw.com.au/services/spousal-maintenance/

"Spousal maintenance is the weekly maintenance payable by one spouse from their income to support the other spouse.  Spousal support is the recognition in a marriage or de facto relationship of the mutual obligations of both parties to maintain each other.  

Many people do not realize that they may have to pay or be entitled to receive payments of spousal support from their former partner.

Spouse maintenance is completely separate from child support or child maintenance.  Child support and child maintenance are paid for the support of the children.  Spousal maintenance is paid for the support of the former partner.

Importantly, spousal maintenance, and the concept of maintenance of the spouse, applies throughout Australia."

1 hour ago, Ratam said:

I not means she souldn't having nothing, just seem a bit exaggerate. I think if we women's ask for equal rights like men's isn't appropiate have more rights, just same right about the money. She isn't a poor women. In a point enough is enough.

It's not about women having more rights. If the situation was reversed, and she was the career person in the family, she would be the one paying alimony.

53 minutes ago, vloors said:

Yes so why not just split everything and thats that.

Why would you be forced to pay for some other adult for the rest of your life. Thats stupid.

She can go get a new job too right as well as living with the items she also already got from the divorce. Its a crackpot state rule.

Because that's what marriage is about (if there's no prenup). If you don't like it and don't want to make the commitment, don't get married.

It's not easy to invent a succesful career from scratch if you have spent years or decades working for somebody else's career and caring for children, years that could have been spent building your own career.

On 12/13/2022 at 11:03 PM, vloors said:

Cali law you need to pay spousal support for your ex if you were the main provider. 

But agree she should be paying her own way once the relationships over.

22 hours ago, Ratam said:

Yeah, is a bit unfair. Should has an type of limitation.

18 hours ago, Karice said:

I've always hated the idea of Alimony. Why should you have to financially support another ADULT that you are no longer legally binded to? Especially if the reason for the divorce in the first place was because the ex spouse cheated on you? Why should you have to pay someone who cheated on you when you were married and that's the reason for the Divorce? 😒🤦‍♂️😣🧐🤨

 

She spent her best working years working for his career and caring for their children. It's only right that he has to pay her. You could say that it was her own fault for putting herself in that position in the first place. A smart woman would have stayed single and childfree. But then again, Slash could have stayed single and childfree if he didn't want to end up having to support Perla and the children.

19 hours ago, Powderfinger said:

https://www.amazon.ca/Last-Living-Slut-Born-Backstage/dp/0061931365
 

Take it for what it is. 

19 hours ago, Gunner Gilby said:

So without buying and reading the book what's he meant to have done? All you've shown is a link to a book. No mention of Dizzy in the book description or in the comments.

All I know from that is she was a groupie for a few bands. One of whom was Guns.

Besides the book, she appeared on the AFD podcast.

2 hours ago, invisible_rose said:

With Slash's divorce payments to Perla, there's no way he's leaving this money train again.

20 minutes ago, Billy Cundy said:

What about child maintenance/alimony? Do we know if Perla also negotiated a monthly payment? I bet she absolutely rinsed him for everything 😂 

He could have whatever arrangement he has with Perla renegotiated if he was having difficulty paying her.

Some people claim the kitty litter story was included in Stephanie's lawsuit, but I don't know how they would know that.

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

Of course it is of significance if we can reduce the spread of a pandemic by 20%. It might not be significant to you, but it surely is to our health care response, especially early in a pandemic, when many vulnerable still hasn't received full protection from vaccines, when hospitals are getting overburdened with people in isolation, when the logistics of manufacturing and delivering vaccines is still being scaled, etc etc. Together with other measures like social distancing and face masks, it provides a vital countermeasure to a very virulent disease.

The same benefit could easily be achieved by temporarily reducing the number of social contacts 20% below the number of social contacts of the vaccinated person (if it's not already there) and then we'd be even. But no doubt you and some others would still hold on to your holier than thou mindset without any rational basis whatsoever.

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

How on earth would you even know? 

How on earth would I even know what? Are you implying that at some point in time I was an asymptomatic carrier and infected some people who were also entirely asymptomatic so that nobody knows about it? That doesn't seem very likely and at any rate an outbreak that doesn't involve any symptoms for anybody involved doesn't sound like anything to be too concerned about.

35 minutes ago, Karice said:

Wait, were those guys dancing crazy in the back really Dizzy and Teddy? 🤔

Yes!

10 hours ago, EvanG said:

Ok, so, even if the vaccines reduce transmission by 20% (hypothetically speaking, I don't know what the real number is), it's still not enough for you to get vaccinated?

If the probability that I will catch covid and infect other people (much less vulnerable people) within a certain time frame is let's say 0.0001 and getting vaccinated reduces it by 20% to 0.00008, then, no, it's still not enough for me to get vaccinated. I don't know what the actual probability is (which varies from person to person) but I do know that it is so small that reducing it by 20% or even 40% isn't of much significance. It's been almost three years and I haven't infected one single person (although I have myself been infected by a vaccinated person). I get the feeling that you operate under the false premise that the probability of any unvaccinated person spreading the disease at any given time is 100% and that vaccines reduce it to 80% but that of course isn't the case.

If you really think this is about protecting other people, shouldn't you be getting a booster shot every two months or even more frequently considering the protection against transmission apparently wanes in a matter of weeks?

15 minutes ago, Janabis said:

I was at this "show" as well. I seem to recall the story at the time was that Buckethead was ill, but I can't remember where that came from. Axl seems to have changed the story over the years (perhaps out of embarrassment over the whole debacle).

Buckethead's illness was the reason given for the cancelled European tour. I don't think it was reused for the Philly riot.

I thought the argument that we should get vaccinated to protect other people was quietly buried when it turned out the vaccines did little to nothing to prevent transmission.  Surprised to see that people still hold on to it so strongly. Official sources such as this https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/vaccine-benefits.html no longer list protection against infection or transmission as a benefit of getting vaccinated. I suppose they must have realized that to continue to do so would cause them to lose any credibility when anybody who looks around can see that it isn't true.

Regardless of vaccination status, people should stay at home when they have symptoms or at least stay away from vulnerable people. Unfortunately it seems to me that the majority of people have thrown all caution to the wind and are coughing and sneezing uninhibitedly around other people almost as if they have been holding back for the past 2-3 years and are now making up for it. Even prior to covid I was always careful not to infect other people when I was sick with the flu. I'll continue to be careful (to the extent that I find reasonable) even now that it's once again out of fashion.

12 hours ago, megaguns1982 said:

Next thing they’ll sue the pressure washing guy near my house called “guns n hoses” he even has thorny roses around his logo too lol

im not kidding either

 

 

Don't give them any ideas!

Going by Erin's testimony and the Don't Cry video scene (which was apparently based on a real fight over a gun between Axl and Erin), Axl's past behavior with guns was actually highly irresponsible to say the least.  If he now wants more gun control (and I'm still not convinced that he does), I suppose his own past actions would make a great case for why it's needed.

14 hours ago, Powderfinger said:

He likely did feel bad, and as dumb as it sounds it wasn’t his fault. He’s been tossing the mic for 30 years without incident (as much as I remember). It was just Wrong place wrong time for the lady who got hit. 

It's actually quite amazing that reportedly only two people have ever been injured from Axl throwing the mic. It's such an obviously bad idea to throw it and perfectly foreseeable that people could get hurt, so you'd almost expect there to be more cases. Then again, some people routinely drive under the influence and nothing ever happens. Risks don't always materialize, but that doesn't necessarily exempt you from responsibility when they do. Imagine a drunk driver defending himself in court, "It's not my fault I hit somebody! I've been drinking and driving for 30 years!"

2 hours ago, Gnrcane said:

Hopefully a reporter will uncover the incident being faked and Axl will start doing it again.  As I said earlier in the thread there is no way that a single microphone could have caused all of the injuries to that woman's face.  It would have had to have been the magic microphone replacing the JFK magic bullet in the minds of conspiracy theorists.  

I was a little bit sceptical at first, but since then I've seen a number of people confirm that an injury to the bridge of the nose can indeed produce two black eyes. Besides, if this didn't really happen, you'd think by now somebody who was there would have emerged to discredit her story. After all, there were quite a lot of people there, so it wouldn't be easy to go on lying about something like this.

59 minutes ago, Powderfinger said:

This is likely the reason for him deciding not to throw the Mike anymore. $$$$$ if someone is injured. 

Or maybe he simply feels bad about injuring someone and doesn't want it to happen again (assuming he's not a total psychopath).

3 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said:

 

Obviously the woman shouldn't have been expecting to get smashed in the face, but how do you not know Axl threw the mic unless you're not watching the show? Even if you don't see him throw it, the crowd moves in anticipation. I get that it can be hard to see the mic coming but he's thrown it at almost every show for decades and there's only been a few incidents like this, accidents happen but it's stupid to stop doing it because this incident got news coverage. Like others have said, toss it to people in the first few rows and the problem is solved.

She said she saw him throw it but didn't see it coming because she was blindsided with all the lights and stuff.

7 hours ago, Swedish said:

I know that they have to sue every one of infringes on the trademark in order to keep it, so that is definitely the main reason for this lawsuit and the lawsuit against the brewery. However, I was specifically talking about the “GNR, quite reasonably, does not want to be associated with defendant, a firearms and weapons retailer” part of the lawsuit. 
 

This is separated from the complaint about the political views of the business owner, since that isn’t mentioned until after the “furthermore”, indicating that it is the nature of the business that the band mainly doesn’t want to associate it self with. Is it really a stretch to think that a lawsuit against a firearms dealer, from a band with members that have outright said that they are for further regulations of guns, is further proof of their thoughts on the matter.

I think there are more things in the past that point to the band (or at least Axl) being pro-guns than there is anything pointing the other way. Even Duff used to pose with guns. But that's not really my point and maybe things have changed.

If your interpretation of the quote from the lawsuit is correct, then it's quite a contradictory statement to make. After all, taking a stand against guns is no less polarizing than the opposite views of the gun retailer.

3 hours ago, Blackstar said:

That's how media read it, too:

News|Gun Violence

Guns N’ Roses sues online gun shop for appropriating name

One of the most successful rock bands of all time said in a lawsuit it does not want to be ‘associated with a firearms and weapons retailer’.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/12/3/guns-n-roses-sues-online-gun-shop-for-appropriating-name

And the reason they don't want to be associated with a firearms and weapons retailer could very well be the polarizing nature of the gun issue and not because they are taking a stand against guns or in favor of regulation.