Blackstar

The fact that the video has been made with AI is indeed off-putting,. But other than that, yeah, many of the comments are as exaggerated and over-dramatic as usual, considering it's only a teaser they're reacting to. And I'm not even sure I get what the overly negative reaction has been about (besides the AI). That they don't make music videos that are on par with the trilogy videos? That they don't spend enough money on it? And the problem with the kid's changing hat is the concept itself or that it's poorly made?

I think Slash didn't like Great White. Axl didn't have a problem with the Great White guys, but didn't like the fact that Niven managed them and the way that interfered with his managing GN'R. At one point in the video Axl and Jack Russell make a toast to Niven and wish him merry Christmas. Someone should send it to him

09. AUGUST-DECEMBER 1988: LIES AND THE SPOTLIGHT - SEPTEMBER 17, 1988: TEXAS STADIUM (a-4-d.com)

Recently shared on fb. I don't think it has been shared before. Apparently from a Christmas party at Gazzarri's. Axl improvises Santa Claus Is Coming To Town with Jack Russell of Great White, Bill Gazzarri (owner of the club), a band called Belgium (I think) and a bunch of others. From 15 min. mark: https://www.facebook.com/1042294180/videos/1024843291918061/ For those who don't have facebook

I'll wait to see the full thing before I pass judgement.

I didn't know about past tension between Beta and Sasha either. It seems they're on good terms now though. I remember Sasha posting on Beta's IG at the time of the release of Absurd and arguing with fans who were saying that it wasn't a new song.

Doug Goldstein was talking about Alan Niven casting black magic spells. He wasn't around for what happened with the Brazilian girl (that was in 2012).

That Izzy jammed on stage with Candy (the band Gilby was in) in late 1986 (it looks like it was at the Cathouse on New Year's Eve). Gilby has mentioned that he knew everyone in GN'R (and Izzy in particular) from the scene before he joined the band, but I don't think I knew that.

Here is a transcription of the BBC documentary: https://www.a-4-d.com/t8169-2016-02-05-bbc-four-the-most-dangerous-band-in-the-world-the-story-of-guns-n-roses

Tom Zutaut said that Axl talked to him about it during the recording of the vocals for the Illusions. That would make it somewhere between October 1990 and early 1991. I would guess it was more likely in the fall of 1990, because after that Axl would have a falling out with Tom Zutaut.

1992 RIP Magazine interview https://www.a-4-d.com/t545-1992-09-10-11-dd-rip-i-axl It's a strangely worded quote.

This is also based on the NY Civil Procedure Code (my link is about the mailing part) just providing step-by-step guidance. Here are all the related articles of the Civil Code: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/cvp/article-3/ The article that lists the methods of service: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/cvp/article-3/308/ The article about service by mail (the link I had posted): https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/cvp/article-3/312-a/

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. But not only does it mention it, but it says "must". I'm not sure about the case of leaving it at the door (if the affidavit is enough as proof).

Here is, for example, Axl's and GN'R's answer to the mic injury lawsuit: https://jumpshare.com/v/iQ8bp9ncBYZ8gilkJhX4 I expect something similar in this one, too. According to this, it is: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/cvp/article-3/312-a/

Yes, but also although there was someone there to receive the lawsuit, they refused to give their name, so it was delivered to "John Does". Axl obviously can't say that he has moved (and I don't think he would be interested in having an "excuse" like that), but since there was no one at the door he can be considered absent for a while. 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.

I don't think anything significant is going to happen for a while. Even when Axl's answer is filed in about two months from now, at this stage it will be just typical (a typical answer is addressing the lawsuit paragraph by paragraph and denying everything without further explanation). Unless he files a counter-suit (e.g. for defamation) along with the answer, but I doubt it. No.

In TB's/Fernando's case it isn't considered service (see the document I posted: https://jumpshare.com/s/8mdVcUdO8L29KYBphNUw) I suppose Axl can delay it and gain more time, but not ignore it (and I don't think he intends or wants to, since his attorney responded to the press right away). I can look for the ads (notices)

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. 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): https://jumpshare.com/s/8mdVcUdO8L29KYBphNUw If a defendant hasn't been served and can prove that the plaintiff didn't do everything necessary to make sure that it would be served, they can either have the lawsuit dismissed or they can litigate it even after more than a year has passed.

According to this https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/cvp/article-3/312-a/ the time that starts is for Axl/his attorneys to acknowledge the service and send the acknowledgement papers back, which is 30 days. And then, after that, it's 20 days for answering to the complaint: § 312-a. Personal service by mail. (a) Service. As an alternative to the methods of personal service authorized by section 307, 308, 310, 311 or 312 of this article, a summons and complaint, or summons and notice, or notice of petition and petition may be served by the plaintiff or any other person by mailing to the person or entity to be served, by first class mail, postage prepaid, a copy of the summons and complaint, or summons and notice or notice of petition and petition, together with two copies of a statement of service by mail and acknowledgement of receipt in the form set forth in subdivision (d) of this section, with a return envelope, postage prepaid, addressed to the sender. (b) Completion of service and time to answer. 1. The defendant, an authorized employee of the defendant, defendant's attorney or an employee of the attorney must complete the acknowledgement of receipt and mail or deliver one copy of it within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt. Service is complete on the date the signed acknowledgement of receipt is mailed or delivered to the sender. The signed acknowledgement of receipt shall constitute proof of service. 2. Where a complaint or petition is served with the summons or notice of petition, the defendant shall serve an answer within twenty (20) days after the date the signed acknowledgement of receipt is mailed or delivered to the sender.

It says they just left it out on the door at Axl's house (no one answered the door) and also mailed it to his address, after three unanswered phone calls. I'm not sure whether the time for answering has started after this or an actual proof of service (signed by Axl or someone on his behalf) is needed.

Yeah... Thanks for the link. I found some more (and the actual video, but I don't think I want to watch it).

I came across this article in The Times that draws a bizarre parallel between the current state of the Labour party and Chinese Democracy: https://archive.ph/aIk85

Let's not forget that this was in 1997. Things were still fluid about GN'R; Duff was still in the band and Slash, in interviews, didn't rule out the possibility of returning. So it would have been kind of logical for management and the label to think that it was just a temporary power play and stubbornness driven phase on Axl's part which would go nowhere, and since Axl couldn't be talked out of it, they would just let him try to do his thing and then Slash would be back - Duff probably expected/hoped for the same thing, too and that's why he stuck around for a while after Slash left. That doesn't mean that there was an elaborate "plan" for Axl to fail (it would have been too early for that anyway). It was probably just a very likely outcome in their minds. Also Geffen had not been absorbed by Interscope yet (that would happen next year and lead to Slash and Duff being dropped from the label as solo artists), so the label personnel was different.

I'd take at least some of the things Dave says with a grain of salt, for example the stuff about Axl wanting to put him in charge of the band. Plus some stuff he said matter-of-factly in the above interview about how the original GN'R was supposedly formed which just isn't true.