Slash calls Axl "fucking great"

[ColdHeartBreaker]

i honestly always wondered why he came on like that and said what he did.. what was his motivation? he said some heavy shit that night. coming out and saying your BFF lied is quite a thing to do...enspecially in this whole fucked up situation.

i dont know, i dont want to twist his words or fit them into contexts where they dont belong, that was never my intention. it still seems pretty basic to me.

1.marc says he lied about axl.

2.then why would you believe slash about axl?

thats it.

Didn't it take some time and encouragement for Slash to finally admit he did pay a visit to Axls house a few years back?

Makes you wonder..

[gunsguy]

[AngelZ]

i honestly always wondered why he came on like that and said what he did.. what was his motivation?

$

He was trying to sell his book.

i dont know, i dont want to twist his words or fit them into contexts where they dont belong, that was never my intention. it still seems pretty basic to me.

1.marc says he lied about axl.

2.then why would you believe slash about axl?

thats it.

so we should believe Marc why? Hes friends with both Axl and Slash, invited both to his sons barmitvah. Fans have assciated him to be closer with Slash in the past but that doesnt mean thats where his loyalty actually lies. People don't normally talk smack about their best friend without cause. Maybe it was a businnes decision? Stir some controversy, get people interested in his book. Maybe he and Slash had some sort of falling out at the time? Maybe to set the record straight for the fine folks on mygnr? Would be very nice of him, but also seems doubtful.

"reckless road" is signed on here everyday yet offers no further insight on anything, other than when he was doing promo for his book.

[Anahzul]

Fergie, Paulina Rubio, Marta Sanchez.... Why??

[Arkham17]

AXL + SLASH= REAL GUNS N ROSES

THE WORLD NEEDS THE REAL GNR

Edited March 22, 2010 by Arkham17

[Anahzul]

AXL + SLASH= REAL GUNS N ROSES

THE WORLD NEEDS THE REAL GNR

Original GN'R dissolved. Don't refuse to accept it.

[FuddMckagan]

Slash has lied about Axl, but let's not forget that Axl has lied about Slash. They're both liars, they're both phenomenal musicians. They're also a lot more similar than anyone likes to say.

[Jackie Moon]

So you base your opinion that Slash is lying about being blackmailed by Axl on a vague statement from Marc Kanter? You don't know what Marc was refering to but all you know is Slash is a liar? so you ignore that Duff also claims the same thing as Slash so does that make Duff a liar?

Slash and Duff willingly signed over their rights.......so if you have evidence to the contrary prove me wrong..........

marc was referring to things slash has said in the media regarding axl and the break up, did not say what specifically. its also clear the sign the name over scenario never happened. axl denied it and i believe him on that one.

duff and slash were in velvet revolver. what do you expect. they are clearly aligned in this whole thing.

your taking lying too far. im saying i think slash lied about the break up to make axl look bad and save face, thats it. there has been plenty other criticism from all ex members that has been totally reasonable. is axl tough to work with? yeah i think its pretty frigging obvious. your implying us "axl supporters" support everything. thats not true. its clear the band is a pretty fucked up institution and axls operating methods have driven out a ton of talent. there are some major problems there and its got nothing to do with slash. not all of the criticism from ex members is unfounded, IMO the 5 of them all fucked up to some degree no one is innocent. but thats not how its seen. axl was mean and tricked slash then made him quit

$

He was trying to sell his book.

this was well after the book came out, and who was he trying to sell it to? hardcore gnr fans, most of us who want it, have it, and we all know what it is anyways, pictures of the first 50 gigs with some random notes, marc stirring up controversy amongst us isnt going to sell more pictures of 86' gnr.

you act like it was a tell all. that i would agree with.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Jackie Moon

[AxlRose14]

AXL + SLASH= REAL GUNS N ROSES

THE WORLD NEEDS THE REAL GNR

Original GN'R dissolved. Don't refuse to accept it.

/THREAD

[Ali]

Not desperate to make Axl a villian just showing the pattern of deceit he had with multiple people who he was close to or worked with......Also not deflecting the issue I am trying to show that Axl has a pattern of fucking over past associates for his personal gain...The Slash and Duff's claim is not an isolated incident as Axl seems to have no problem taking what he wants and throwing past associates under the bus...I think the other examples are very pertinent to the Slash/Duff "alledged" incident. Also Axl claims Slash was trying to take over the band but Alan Niven seems to indicate otherwise. Again I am trying to show Axl's spin on events may not be accurate...........

I also found it interesting that you keep claiming it never could have happend legally...Are you lawyer? It happened to Steven where he signed his rights away under duress only to recover them in court later but it could not happen to Slash/ Duff..please explain this logic....

I also find your conclusion that since Slash did not mention this in his book that this proves he is lying..how do you know why he did not put this in his book?? He may have gotten legal advice not to do this or he may have not wanted to stir the pot any more. Rather than spew venom like Axl has at him I thought Slash went out of his way in the book to portray some of the more negative incidents with Axl in a less confrontational manner by giving Axl the benefit of the doubt. Slash has said lots of stuff in interviews which he did not put in the book so what does this prove?? nothing. You are really reaching here.

It is true we will most likely never know the true story on how Axl ended up with the rights to the name but personally I find the evidence more on the side of Slash/ Duff then with Axl's denials. You have muitiple people claiming it happened vs only Axl denying it did. So who is more believable the many or the one?? I put my money on the many.............You can continue to believe Axl based on his raving "chats" if it gives you comfort.............

If what Slash originally said happened was true, he would not be setting himself up for a libel lawsuit. The fact that he didn't include the story about the blackmail, and in fact told a completely different story is very telling. You just seem to be in complete denial of this. He told a completely different story about what happened. There's a difference between not rehashing something because you don't want to stir the pot and telling a different story. If you really want to bring up history to show a pattern of behavior, I could easily say that Slash lied about visiting Axl's house in 2005 and later recanted and admitted he lied to show that Slash has a history of lying about incidents involving Axl.

What Steven recovered was not any rights to the band name, he recovered his royalty rights. Not the same thing and hardly comparable because his suit was against GN'R as a whole, not just Axl and the circumstances were not comparable to those surrounding the transfer of the name. I've never heard any indication he was put under duress to sign away his royalty rights either. See the following: In October 1991, he filed a lawsuit against his former Guns N' Roses bandmates, claiming that they were responsible for his drug addiction and that the contracts he had signed actually took away his financial interest in the band.[14] In a 2005 interview he stated, "Doug Goldstein called me into the office about two weeks later. He wanted me to sign some contracts. I was told that every time I did heroin, the band would fine me $2,000. There was a whole stack of papers, with colored paper clips everywhere for my signatures. What these contracts actually said was that the band were paying me $2,000 to leave. They were taking my royalties, all my writing credits. They didn't like me anymore and just wanted me gone. That's why I filed the lawsuit - to get all those things back."

You bring up Alan Niven, but you seem to fail to realize that he was dismissed prior to the release of the GN'R record so he has no idea what happened after he left.

Ali

Again you state the law like you are a lawyer are you a lawyer or just giving your opinion? And you don't know why Slash did not include this event in his book do you? You keep on bringing up this conspiracy theory that Slash left this out of his book because it was a lie but you have no proof other than your opinion that this is a fact. If you are going to argue your point show me some facts not baseless opinions. You are basing your whole defense of Axl by trying to paint Slash as a liar based on him not putting the event in his book? You obvioulsy are not a lawyer if that is your defense. With all due respect If you are a lawyer I don't want you defending me thats for sure.......Please elaborate on what Slash's "other" story is regarding the event that you claim shows he is perjuring himself?

So were you there when Slash supposedly visited Axl's house? or are you basing it on what Axl claims? where is your proof? If Slash later admitted this was true please tell me where I can find this interview as I am curious what he said......

And you obviously are not reading my posts as I never said Steven sued over the band name but he was painted into a corner to sign the agreements which eventually took away his rights without the benefit of a lawyer...The quotes you gave clearly show this....he feared geting kicked out of the band and was strong armed into signing an agreement which took his rights away if he did not clean up his act......He eventually got a settlement didn't he so his case must have had merit or Axl would never have settled. BTW Axl = GnR right? so if you sue GnR you are sueing Axl yes?

Alan Nevin was with the band up to 1991 and knows all the players and was involved in much of the contract negotiations so I would say he is a reliable judge of what went on prior to his firing. If he says he could see Axl scheming to take over the band and that Slash had no desire or the ability to take over the band I kind of believe he knows what he is talking about. I doubt Slash suddenly grew a set of stones and was challenging Axl for band control. He has never shown that type of agressiveness the whole time he was in GnR did he? Seems to me this is another of Axl's dellusions to try to paint Slash as the bad guy.

I know the following are facts or can be deduced from events:

1. Many people who were either in or associated with the band have sued GnR and Axl over money

2. Multiple people seem to be telling similar stories of their dealings with Axl.

3. Steven sued to regain his rights which were signed away under duress

4. Slash and Duff claim that they signed away rights under duress

The only person I see defending Axl's version of the story is Axl...so if what he is saying is true don't you think it is strange that not one exband member or someone who was there is calling Slash/ Duff and the other liars and that Axl's version is the truth?

So since you seem to like to speculate on what actually happened please tell me how you think Slash and Duff gave up their rights to the GnR name? Do you think Axl asked them when they were sober and they basically said they did not give a shit about the band name or said they agreed it belonged to Axl and just signed the papers? What was their incentive or reason for signing away their rights without some compensation or Axl blackmailing them?......I am curious to hear your theory on that one............

I'm sorry, man, but you seem to have a serious issue with reading comprehension. Nowhere in the passage I put in bold does Steven say he was put under duress to sign away his royalty rights. Putting someone under duress does not constitute saying "here are some contracts we need you to sign". Putting someone under duress would constitute something to the effect of "sign the contract or I'll kill you". Obviously that is the most dramatic example, but that is the basic idea.

If you want to hear Slash's other version of events, read his fucking book. I'm not going to do it for you and then quote it verbatim for your lazy ass. But to summarize, he said that once Steven was kicked out of the band, Axl kept saying they needed to litigate ownership of the name. Eventually, Axl, Slash and Duff all got lawyers to work through the paperwork (pgs. 390-391). That constitutes the exact opposite of being under duress, which constitutes a change in his story. The fact that Slash changed his story when described the situation surrounding the transfer of the name means that he was lying in one instance or the other. That and the fact that he admitted he lied initially about going to Axl's house in 2005, also in the book, show a propensity to being less than truthful. Slash admitted he was naive in the book, that he thought the name would be nothing without the players, that Axl wouldn't do anything with it. That's naivete, not being forced against your will to do something.

Ali

P.S. Read this for further proof that Slash changed his story on visiting Axl's house in 2005.

http://www.metalunderground.com/news/details.cfm?newsid=26475

Edited March 22, 2010 by Ali

[jmapelian]

Not desperate to make Axl a villian just showing the pattern of deceit he had with multiple people who he was close to or worked with......Also not deflecting the issue I am trying to show that Axl has a pattern of fucking over past associates for his personal gain...The Slash and Duff's claim is not an isolated incident as Axl seems to have no problem taking what he wants and throwing past associates under the bus...I think the other examples are very pertinent to the Slash/Duff "alledged" incident. Also Axl claims Slash was trying to take over the band but Alan Niven seems to indicate otherwise. Again I am trying to show Axl's spin on events may not be accurate...........

I also found it interesting that you keep claiming it never could have happend legally...Are you lawyer? It happened to Steven where he signed his rights away under duress only to recover them in court later but it could not happen to Slash/ Duff..please explain this logic....

I also find your conclusion that since Slash did not mention this in his book that this proves he is lying..how do you know why he did not put this in his book?? He may have gotten legal advice not to do this or he may have not wanted to stir the pot any more. Rather than spew venom like Axl has at him I thought Slash went out of his way in the book to portray some of the more negative incidents with Axl in a less confrontational manner by giving Axl the benefit of the doubt. Slash has said lots of stuff in interviews which he did not put in the book so what does this prove?? nothing. You are really reaching here.

It is true we will most likely never know the true story on how Axl ended up with the rights to the name but personally I find the evidence more on the side of Slash/ Duff then with Axl's denials. You have muitiple people claiming it happened vs only Axl denying it did. So who is more believable the many or the one?? I put my money on the many.............You can continue to believe Axl based on his raving "chats" if it gives you comfort.............

If what Slash originally said happened was true, he would not be setting himself up for a libel lawsuit. The fact that he didn't include the story about the blackmail, and in fact told a completely different story is very telling. You just seem to be in complete denial of this. He told a completely different story about what happened. There's a difference between not rehashing something because you don't want to stir the pot and telling a different story. If you really want to bring up history to show a pattern of behavior, I could easily say that Slash lied about visiting Axl's house in 2005 and later recanted and admitted he lied to show that Slash has a history of lying about incidents involving Axl.

What Steven recovered was not any rights to the band name, he recovered his royalty rights. Not the same thing and hardly comparable because his suit was against GN'R as a whole, not just Axl and the circumstances were not comparable to those surrounding the transfer of the name. I've never heard any indication he was put under duress to sign away his royalty rights either. See the following: In October 1991, he filed a lawsuit against his former Guns N' Roses bandmates, claiming that they were responsible for his drug addiction and that the contracts he had signed actually took away his financial interest in the band.[14] In a 2005 interview he stated, "Doug Goldstein called me into the office about two weeks later. He wanted me to sign some contracts. I was told that every time I did heroin, the band would fine me $2,000. There was a whole stack of papers, with colored paper clips everywhere for my signatures. What these contracts actually said was that the band were paying me $2,000 to leave. They were taking my royalties, all my writing credits. They didn't like me anymore and just wanted me gone. That's why I filed the lawsuit - to get all those things back."

You bring up Alan Niven, but you seem to fail to realize that he was dismissed prior to the release of the GN'R record so he has no idea what happened after he left.

Ali

Again you state the law like you are a lawyer are you a lawyer or just giving your opinion? And you don't know why Slash did not include this event in his book do you? You keep on bringing up this conspiracy theory that Slash left this out of his book because it was a lie but you have no proof other than your opinion that this is a fact. If you are going to argue your point show me some facts not baseless opinions. You are basing your whole defense of Axl by trying to paint Slash as a liar based on him not putting the event in his book? You obvioulsy are not a lawyer if that is your defense. With all due respect If you are a lawyer I don't want you defending me thats for sure.......Please elaborate on what Slash's "other" story is regarding the event that you claim shows he is perjuring himself?

So were you there when Slash supposedly visited Axl's house? or are you basing it on what Axl claims? where is your proof? If Slash later admitted this was true please tell me where I can find this interview as I am curious what he said......

And you obviously are not reading my posts as I never said Steven sued over the band name but he was painted into a corner to sign the agreements which eventually took away his rights without the benefit of a lawyer...The quotes you gave clearly show this....he feared geting kicked out of the band and was strong armed into signing an agreement which took his rights away if he did not clean up his act......He eventually got a settlement didn't he so his case must have had merit or Axl would never have settled. BTW Axl = GnR right? so if you sue GnR you are sueing Axl yes?

Alan Nevin was with the band up to 1991 and knows all the players and was involved in much of the contract negotiations so I would say he is a reliable judge of what went on prior to his firing. If he says he could see Axl scheming to take over the band and that Slash had no desire or the ability to take over the band I kind of believe he knows what he is talking about. I doubt Slash suddenly grew a set of stones and was challenging Axl for band control. He has never shown that type of agressiveness the whole time he was in GnR did he? Seems to me this is another of Axl's dellusions to try to paint Slash as the bad guy.

I know the following are facts or can be deduced from events:

1. Many people who were either in or associated with the band have sued GnR and Axl over money

2. Multiple people seem to be telling similar stories of their dealings with Axl.

3. Steven sued to regain his rights which were signed away under duress

4. Slash and Duff claim that they signed away rights under duress

The only person I see defending Axl's version of the story is Axl...so if what he is saying is true don't you think it is strange that not one exband member or someone who was there is calling Slash/ Duff and the other liars and that Axl's version is the truth?

So since you seem to like to speculate on what actually happened please tell me how you think Slash and Duff gave up their rights to the GnR name? Do you think Axl asked them when they were sober and they basically said they did not give a shit about the band name or said they agreed it belonged to Axl and just signed the papers? What was their incentive or reason for signing away their rights without some compensation or Axl blackmailing them?......I am curious to hear your theory on that one............

I'm sorry, man, but you seem to have a serious issue with reading comprehension. Nowhere in the passage I put in bold does Steven say he was put under duress to sign away his royalty rights. Putting someone under duress does not constitute saying "here are some contracts we need you to sign". Putting someone under duress would constitute something to the effect of "sign the contract or I'll kill you". Obviously that is the most dramatic example, but that is the basic idea.

If you want to hear Slash's other version of events, read his fucking book. I'm not going to do it for you and then quote it verbatim for your lazy ass. But to summarize, he said that once Steven was kicked out of the band, Axl kept saying they needed to litigate ownership of the name. Eventually, Axl, Slash and Duff all got lawyers to work through the paperwork (pgs. 390-391). That constitutes the exact opposite of being under duress, which constitutes a change in his story. The fact that Slash changed his story when described the situation surrounding the transfer of the name means that he was lying in one instance or the other. That and the fact that he admitted he lied initially about going to Axl's house in 2005, also in the book, show a propensity to being less than truthful. Slash admitted he was naive in the book, that he thought the name would be nothing without the players, that Axl wouldn't do anything with it. That's naivete, not being forced against your will to do something.

Ali

P.S. Read this for further proof that Slash changed his story on visiting Axl's house in 2005.

who really gives a fuck? steve got fired, izzy quit, slash quit, duff quit, matt got fired (who really cares about matt) --- for me, all the other shit doesn't matter since I'm not in their circle, it has no bearing on my life other than the fact that I won't be hearing any new music from them in the forseeable future. Regretable but it is what it is

[WARCAT]

And here we are in 2010, slash says a lot of things like "only wanting to work with female vocalists" then turns that statement into erroneous territory by putting out the glorious "slash + friends" and, apparantly making plans to tour with myles Kennedy, He has been caught in too many lies and half-truths to be believable and has basically run his career into a ditch with his post-Guns lineups, even Weiland had less than complimentary things to say regarding the VR break, citing "egos"

as one of the reasons for the demise of VR.

As for Steven Adler it was a band decision to replace him,not just one member due to his inability to play because of drug addiction.

I don't think it matters at this point in the game who believes who and I think sides have definantly been chosen,so no matter how long this drags on there will be disagreements and petty arguments and some people will still insist that "It's not GNR" because slash isn't in the band and hasn't been for 13 years..

Get over it, personally I don't believe what slash says, has said, or will say, I don't care what he does or whom he does it with-the apprearances on American Idol, talk shows,reality show(the project) and his appearances with any and everybody has damaged his Image irreparably.

I'm truly glad that Axl owns the name and think that this lineup surpasses any former one, The gigs are great, the chemistry is there, and ChiDem did pretty damn well in todays market, with virtually no publicity and nobody selling out. I'm also glad it is the current GNR album and pushed the envelope and wasn't stuck in 1990 like VR, using the formulated riffs and lame songs.,Chidem surpasses anything the alumni have done (also can't deny Bucket's input was a welcome addition to ChiDem,) the current lineup is in the midst of a great tour

That must be seen. This IS GNR 2010 -who in their right mind would want a reunion between people who don't want to work with each other for their own selfish amusement? I was a Gunner in 1989 and I'm a Gunner in 2010 , for the same reason- The Music, the complete unpredictability and the Real Rock attitude!

[plonker88]

I'm not going to read through all of this, can you blame me? But if people are trying to argue that Slash and company were forced to sign over the name then you are wrong, without question. Axl would be backrupt and would not be the owner of the Guns name because they would have signed under duress which makes any contract void.

[iftheworld]

Read the 24 pages of this and you'll understand why there will NEVER be a REUNION.

[John Bonham]

I've read every book out there on GN'R, and I am convinced that the "sign the name over scenario" went down like this:

The band had done several legs of the Use Your Illusion tour, and had barely broke even (I won't go into why).

Slash and Duff, etc. wanted to add another leg onto the tour, as they had now broke about even, and adding another leg would actually earn them some money.

It was at this point that Axl refused to continue with the tour unless the others signed the name over.

It did not happen backstage as Slash has insinuated. Slash was disingenuous about this.

IMO, Axl was also disingenuous about the scenario when he referred to it in the chats.

So let’s start here… the whole Axl wouldn’t go on stage yada yada… is complete and utter crap.

Never happened, all made up, fallacy and fantasy. Not one single solitary thread of truth to it. Had that been the case I would’ve have been cremated years ago legally, could’ve cleaned me out for the name and damages. It's called under duress with extenuating circumstances. In fact the time that was mentioned the attorneys were all in Europe with us dealing with Adler depositions.

Edited March 22, 2010 by John Bonham

[WARCAT]

"reading books" equals your guesstimation and supposition gleaned from someone else's guesstimation and supposition. I'm sure each had a viewpoint , but it all depends on where you're looking from and what your predjudices/perspectives are.

[Granny]

"reading books" equals your guesstimation and supposition gleaned from someone else's guesstimation and supposition. I'm sure each had a viewpoint , but it all depends on where you're looking from and what your predjudices/perspectives are.

100%

[plonker88]

I'm not going to read through all of this, can you blame me? But if people are trying to argue that Slash and company were forced to sign over the name then you are wrong, without question. Axl would be backrupt and would not be the owner of the Guns name because they would have signed under duress which makes any contract void.

With all due respect Plonker are you a lawyer? Steven signed over his rights, (not the rights to the name), and had to go to court to get them back....so why is it inconceivable that Slash and Duff signed over their rights either under duress or did not know what they were giving up? Thats all I am saying...........

The fact that there is currently a tour happening with Axl at the helm is proof enough.

[Jackie Moon]

"its also clear the sign the name over scenario never happened"

What is a clear sign??????......You, Ali and others keep saying this Jackie yet when I ask you to provide proof you come up with nothing......Where is your proof that it never happened? Stop sidestepping the question,

sorry but ive given my reasons numerous times, i think your sidestepping my answers. these are my reasons for not believing the hijacking story.

1.if axl had pulled that as slash states, they would have sued him and recovered their rights. since they havent, i would conclude it didnt happen.

2.marc said slash lied re:axl / the break up, i believe marc, so why would i believe slashs story? marc hasnt specified what slash lied about, true, but the fact he lied puts doubt on his entire story.

3.axl said it didnt happen

3 b. when someone asked marc if 96 gnr really worked on fall to pieces, marc replied 'if axl said it happened, it happened. axl wouldnt lie about something like that", which leads me to believe #3 over slash's version.

those are my reasons for doubting slashs story. do i know what happened, no , theres no way i can sit here and tell you exactly what happened. all im saying is i dont believe slash.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Jackie Moon

[saulhudson88]

"its also clear the sign the name over scenario never happened"

What is a clear sign??????......You, Ali and others keep saying this Jackie yet when I ask you to provide proof you come up with nothing......Where is your proof that it never happened? Stop sidestepping the question,

sorry but ive given my reasons numerous times, i think your sidestepping my answers. these are my reasons for not believing the hijacking story.

1.if axl had pulled that as slash states, they would have sued him and recovered their rights. since they havent, i would conclude it didnt happen.

2.marc said slash lied re:axl / the break up, i believe marc, so why would i believe slashs story? marc hasnt specified what slash lied about, true, but the fact he lied puts doubt on his entire story.

3.axl said it didnt happen

3 b. when someone asked marc if 96 gnr really worked on fall to pieces, marc replied 'if axl said it happened, it happened. axl wouldnt lie about something like that", which leads me to believe #3 over slash's version.

those are my reasons for doubting slashs story. do i know what happened, no , theres no way i can sit here and tell you exactly what happened. all im saying is i dont believe slash.

Funny that Izzy and Duff says the exact same thing as Slash says...

Edited March 22, 2010 by saulhudson88

[Rock_And_Roll_Over]

I'm going to steal a GIF posted in another thread cause it's just perfect.

[Jackie Moon]

Funny that Izzy and Duff says the exact same thing as Slash says...

what does izzy say? i would consider his account over duff / slash.

[UK SUBS]

"its also clear the sign the name over scenario never happened"What is a clear sign??????......You, Ali and others keep saying this Jackie yet when I ask you to provide proof you come up with nothing......Where is your proof that it never happened? Stop sidestepping the question,

sorry but ive given my reasons numerous times, i think your sidestepping my answers. these are my reasons for not believing the hijacking story.1.if axl had pulled that as slash states, they would have sued him and recovered their rights. since they havent, i would conclude it didnt happen.2.marc said slash lied re:axl / the break up, i believe marc, so why would i believe slashs story? marc hasnt specified what slash lied about, true, but the fact he lied puts doubt on his entire story.3.axl said it didnt happen3 b. when someone asked marc if 96 gnr really worked on fall to pieces, marc replied 'if axl said it happened, it happened. axl wouldnt lie about something like that", which leads me to believe #3 over slash's version. those are my reasons for doubting slashs story. do i know what happened, no , theres no way i can sit here and tell you exactly what happened. all im saying is i dont believe slash.

"its also clear the sign the name over scenario never happened"

What is a clear sign??????......You, Ali and others keep saying this Jackie yet when I ask you to provide proof you come up with nothing......Where is your proof that it never happened? Stop sidestepping the question,

sorry but ive given my reasons numerous times, i think your sidestepping my answers. these are my reasons for not believing the hijacking story.

1.if axl had pulled that as slash states, they would have sued him and recovered their rights. since they havent, i would conclude it didnt happen.

2.marc said slash lied re:axl / the break up, i believe marc, so why would i believe slashs story? marc hasnt specified what slash lied about, true, but the fact he lied puts doubt on his entire story.

3.axl said it didnt happen

3 b. when someone asked marc if 96 gnr really worked on fall to pieces, marc replied 'if axl said it happened, it happened. axl wouldnt lie about something like that", which leads me to believe #3 over slash's version.

those are my reasons for doubting slashs story. do i know what happened, no , theres no way i can sit here and tell you exactly what happened. all im saying is i dont believe slash.

You say you believe Marc, but the truth is if Marc came up to you and bit you in the ass, you wouldn't know who he was.

.........and what's that got to do with the price of apples?

Slash said Axl's "fucking great" He is. The end.

[plonker88]

Now he does.

[Jackie Moon]

You say you believe Marc, but the truth is if Marc came up to you and bit you in the ass, you wouldn't know who he was.

uh im pretty sure ive seen him countless times and know what he looks like. i own the guys book.. beyond that, even if i didnt recongize him on the street, it has nothing to do with the validity of his claims.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Jackie Moon