Jump to content

MSNBC: "Axl Rose pulls plug on Guns 'N' Roses tour" UPDATED


sphere79

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So you've gone from defending them to "ooh but why are you so upset by it" and "ooh they're respected,"

Comprehension isn't your strong point, is it? No, that's not what I'm saying at all - and frankly, attempting to both childishly undermine and distort someone's opinion in the manner you have repeatedly done so in this thread speaks quite poorly of you.

Admit it - they fucked up. Or don't - I think I've made my point.

Please take the time to understand posts before you respond to them. Case in point:

Also, you replied to your own quote, not sure what the point of that was. "MSNBC just happened to be posting theirs as others realized what was going on -- and who knows, maybe they waited so long to post it because they had tried to contact GN'R for comment and they never got back to them" - I didn't type that. You might want to pay attention to who you're replying to.

You might want to pay attention, period. Here is a screencap of that reply:

11twuc7.png

I was deliberately quoting my previous post to you to show that you had either overlooked a crucial point or skimmed right past it, and even acknowledged that I was doing so because you were reiterating something I had already stated and, oddly, offering it as some kind of refutation. If you had been following more closely there's no way you could have thought I was "replying to myself."

Nice try, but sorry - I'd already given ample evidence that the article was posted AFTER, not at the same time, as correct articles. Therefore, your quote from your previous post really didn't make much sense. If you're going to deliberately quote something, you might want to try adding a little context instead of just throwing a quote out there with a brief comment above or under it. I was following just fine - you simply didn't make yourself clear. You quoted yourself and then said "Again -- you're way over-analyzing and overreacting to this." Your comment beforehand could have referred to the previous quote just as easily, and given MSNBC did NOT "just happen(ed) to be posting theirs as others realized what was going on" - they posted, in fact, HOURS after. Your liberal editing of my post and throwing in your own quote muddled your reply. Go ahead and make all the excuses you want however. You did a crap job explaining yourself. Threads like this are linear. Say what you mean, post quotes in order as they happen. Anyone with an iota of experience on forums is aware of that.

I guess you graduated from the same school of thinking as our MSNBC friends however ;)

Now... I'm being childish? Really? It speaks poorly of me?

Two points. One, I've been far from childish, instead, you were unable to really back up your point with anything of merit, and when facts - timestamps on articles easily found by a search on Google - buried your counterpoint, you stopped responding to any actual criticism and said "I'd hate to see how you react to other things." and started claiming I'm over-analyzing things. Well guess what - the media runs on a tight deadline and accuracy trumps all. PollStar. Billboard. BBC. All of these outlets ran the correct story before MSNBC tanked in their attempt. You can argue til you're green in the face but the timeframe speaks for itself. So no, I'm not over-analyzing, when you consider the trade we're talking about.

And so I'm being childish - yet it's ok for you to attack the author rather than the argument, which is exactly what you did - albeit with some polite wording - at the end of your last post? Pot, meet Kettle, you share a similar shade.

Second, your opinion of me means less than you could possibly imagine.

If you'd like to continue to defend an example of shoddy, lazy journalism at its finest, go right ahead. Frankly, I can't believe you're in here defending an inaccurate article. One that, I might add, STILL has inaccuracies in the so-called correction.

To me, it seems like you're one of the so-called "fans" on this board who simply want to take any possible incident as a way to criticize the band.

The first paragraph alone indicates that you never did and still don't get the point I was making, and I love how you try to connect a defense of the article from what I perceived to be an over-reactionary response to taking "any possible incident as a way to criticize the band." We weren't talking about the band, and you even got on SunnyDRE's case a page ago when he pulled the same thing. I'm pretty fine with the band right now and enjoying the videos I've seen from concerts, but your overzealous defense of them in a thread that's not even about them indicates that perhaps you aren't.

The little lesson in forum conventions is nice but since it was just you and I responding to each other, and I pointed out directly before the quote box that it was something I had written, and it was indeed within the context of our discussion, your logic doesn't really fly.

And it's the inane, juvenile stuff like this...

Second, your opinion of me means less than you could possibly imagine.

...that is the reason behind me referring to your approach as childish. It has nothing to do with my opinion of you; I merely said your continued hot-headed behaviour here, including this latest long-winded rant, speaks poorly of you. Now you're trying to spin it and make me seem like I'm attacking you, but I've tried to remain quite level-headed and respectful of you from the start - even while you were going on that little rant condemning people who disagreed with you, referring to people as nitwits and retards, distorting remarks I had made with petty sarcasm and CAPSLOCKing to death. If you can't have a healthy, articulate debate without getting this worked up then don't bother. Since we're further than ever from the actual topic and you don't seem to really be comprehending anything I've said, let's just agree to disagree and move on.

Edited by Estranged Reality
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the people who try to point out that GNR existed with Traci Gunns,Ole etc - before Slash etc. are the most retarded people on this forum.

I mean shit.....is the Traci Gunns, Ole whatever the fuck his name is, version of Guns', the one you got on board with?

ha, couldn't agree more

and the ones hanging on to their puberty illusion are?

I didn't got on board with a band, I got into GNR sound, for me it's all about the music.

but since, there are some of you, who are "believers" who got to adore one form of "gods", and you seem to try to convince others that your "gods" are the ones which are to be "adored", then I'll say no to you! because every one is entitled to "adored their own gods". and so, I'll stressed the formation, the way "your religion" created, and that no gods are real, they are illusion we create to help us to go through life.

don't you see your self? at every single topic, you wait to have the opportunity to beg for your "gods" to come back together. and not only that, which would be fine by everyone's else own account, but you stick into their face that they are not right on their "religion", that their's is fake and your is real!

so, it's not about only you, the forum users, but it's about the readers. because I was a reader for 2 years before I decided to come in here, to have my say on this matter. as one poster said, "why don't we discuss the music?" and go through all this "band" talk? I guess I found out the reason, see up.

dude, you care way too much about this

I'm just a Guns N' Roses fan, I can like whatever the fuck I want to like about Guns N' Roses, just like you. Seriously, we discuss the music here every day, but you wouldn't know that because you're too busy on your little religious crusade against... whatever the fuck you're so riled up about. Lol, you on your high horse, telling me I don't talk about the music. Fucking hypocrite, what about you? Every one of your posts I've seen has been the same old cliche argumentative rhetoric thats been beaten to death on this forum for years

can't wait till you're banned :thumbsup:

:D me too! but you do realize that you don't really know how to read? I was quoting other poster, and I didn't exclude myself from the ones who do the "band talk".

that was and is my point, that we should all "like whatever the fuck" we "want to like about Guns N' Roses" and stop convincing the rest of the people to like what we like. but I guess I have to accept, as I see day by day, that you americans are really as the rest of the world sees you, as poorly educated. well... :shrugs: that's a wrap. but not before I answer some one here....

Because thats what fans on a fan forum do... "band talk"... do we really need that in quotations? You read into it like its some aggressive heated debate, when its just fans being fans on a fan forum. I know, its a wild concept to grasp, but fans of the band are actually talking about the band on the forum, crazy huh? :rolleyes:

what were we arguing about again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you've gone from defending them to "ooh but why are you so upset by it" and "ooh they're respected,"

Comprehension isn't your strong point, is it? No, that's not what I'm saying at all - and frankly, attempting to both childishly undermine and distort someone's opinion in the manner you have repeatedly done so in this thread speaks quite poorly of you.

Admit it - they fucked up. Or don't - I think I've made my point.

Please take the time to understand posts before you respond to them. Case in point:

Also, you replied to your own quote, not sure what the point of that was. "MSNBC just happened to be posting theirs as others realized what was going on -- and who knows, maybe they waited so long to post it because they had tried to contact GN'R for comment and they never got back to them" - I didn't type that. You might want to pay attention to who you're replying to.

You might want to pay attention, period. Here is a screencap of that reply:

11twuc7.png

I was deliberately quoting my previous post to you to show that you had either overlooked a crucial point or skimmed right past it, and even acknowledged that I was doing so because you were reiterating something I had already stated and, oddly, offering it as some kind of refutation. If you had been following more closely there's no way you could have thought I was "replying to myself."

Nice try, but sorry - I'd already given ample evidence that the article was posted AFTER, not at the same time, as correct articles. Therefore, your quote from your previous post really didn't make much sense. If you're going to deliberately quote something, you might want to try adding a little context instead of just throwing a quote out there with a brief comment above or under it. I was following just fine - you simply didn't make yourself clear. You quoted yourself and then said "Again -- you're way over-analyzing and overreacting to this." Your comment beforehand could have referred to the previous quote just as easily, and given MSNBC did NOT "just happen(ed) to be posting theirs as others realized what was going on" - they posted, in fact, HOURS after. Your liberal editing of my post and throwing in your own quote muddled your reply. Go ahead and make all the excuses you want however. You did a crap job explaining yourself. Threads like this are linear. Say what you mean, post quotes in order as they happen. Anyone with an iota of experience on forums is aware of that.

I guess you graduated from the same school of thinking as our MSNBC friends however ;)

Now... I'm being childish? Really? It speaks poorly of me?

Two points. One, I've been far from childish, instead, you were unable to really back up your point with anything of merit, and when facts - timestamps on articles easily found by a search on Google - buried your counterpoint, you stopped responding to any actual criticism and said "I'd hate to see how you react to other things." and started claiming I'm over-analyzing things. Well guess what - the media runs on a tight deadline and accuracy trumps all. PollStar. Billboard. BBC. All of these outlets ran the correct story before MSNBC tanked in their attempt. You can argue til you're green in the face but the timeframe speaks for itself. So no, I'm not over-analyzing, when you consider the trade we're talking about.

And so I'm being childish - yet it's ok for you to attack the author rather than the argument, which is exactly what you did - albeit with some polite wording - at the end of your last post? Pot, meet Kettle, you share a similar shade.

Second, your opinion of me means less than you could possibly imagine.

If you'd like to continue to defend an example of shoddy, lazy journalism at its finest, go right ahead. Frankly, I can't believe you're in here defending an inaccurate article. One that, I might add, STILL has inaccuracies in the so-called correction.

To me, it seems like you're one of the so-called "fans" on this board who simply want to take any possible incident as a way to criticize the band.

The first paragraph alone indicates that you never did and still don't get the point I was making, and I love how you try to connect a defense of the article from what I perceived to be an over-reactionary response to taking "any possible incident as a way to criticize the band." We weren't talking about the band, and you even got on SunnyDRE's case a page ago when he pulled the same thing. I'm pretty fine with the band right now and enjoying the videos I've seen from concerts, but your overzealous defense of them in a thread that's not even about them indicates that perhaps you aren't.

The little lesson in forum conventions is nice but since it was just you and I responding to each other, and I pointed out directly before the quote box that it was something I had written, and it was indeed within the context of our discussion, your logic doesn't really fly.

And it's the inane, juvenile stuff like this...

Second, your opinion of me means less than you could possibly imagine.

...that is the reason behind me referring to your approach as childish. It has nothing to do with my opinion of you; I merely said your continued hot-headed behaviour here, including this latest long-winded rant, speaks poorly of you. Now you're trying to spin it and make me seem like I'm attacking you, but I've tried to remain quite level-headed and respectful of you from the start - even while you were going on that little rant condemning people who disagreed with you, referring to people as nitwits and retards, distorting remarks I had made with petty sarcasm and CAPSLOCKing to death. If you can't have a healthy, articulate debate without getting this worked up then don't bother. Since we're further than ever from the actual topic and you don't seem to really be comprehending anything I've said, let's just agree to disagree and move on.

Petty sarcasm and "CAPSLOCKing" to death? I've barely touched the capslock key other than for emphasis, and if you think that's sarcasm, you haven't encountered much in your lifetime. If you'd like I could use the bold key though, at least as far as all that capslocking I'm supposedly doing.

I'm not spinning anything here; you're simply crying about every minor detail of the posts I've made while, for three straight posts now, avoiding the core issue. You continue to attack the individual instead of the argument. Back to first year Critical Thinking with you!

Got on SunnyDRE's case? Why yes, but what does that have to do with our particular discussion? Nice red herring. And I got on her case only after she chose to label people posting certain comments "retards" but I guess that's ok with you, right? But MY words here are vastly offensive. Not that said subject has anything to do with the argument at hand.

It's pretty clear at this point you're unable to actually respond to the points I've made and actually, I comprehend what you're saying just fine - you've just failed to prove anything close to a point. Attack the author, run off subject, and avoid the issue in general.

Agree to disagree? Actually, if you'd like you're more than welcome to PM me. I'm rather amused with your intense defense of a poorly constructed hack job and I'd love to hear just why you're so vehement about defending it, if it's not simply to antagonize actual fans here - so feel free to message me there, but I'll save the thread any more drama.

^couldn't this have been a PM?

Fair enough. I'm done with this thread unless our friends at MSNBC want to put out an actual, proper correction (given there's still inaccuracies... and the comments page is just pathetic. And people wonder why the band isn't all that press-friendly outside of Ron).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll go ahead with my previous suggestion that we agree to disagree. I have to say, though: I find it ironic that you accuse me of sidestepping the topic when I've been directly quoting and responding to excerpts of your posts all along and yet you continue to just post these long-winded rants that don't actually address what I've said at all. For someone so inclined to teach others the standards of message board protocol, you should probably learn how to use quote boxes so that you're responding to specific portions of text instead of posting long-winded bulk replies.

BTW: italics for emphasis; CAPSLOCK for screaming.

Got on SunnyDRE's case? Why yes, but what does that have to do with our particular discussion?

Wasn't it you who wrote this?

To me, it seems like you're one of the so-called "fans" on this board who simply want to take any possible incident as a way to criticize the band.

If you don't get the significance of this comment, or how it puts you in the same position as Sunny in terms of your intent...well...that says it all. Anyway, we've both wasted too much time on such a trivial topic. I'm considering this conversation to be finished since we've both had our final word. If you've got a problem then yes, feel free to PM me. But obviously your mind is made up so I don't really see how it's going to make much of a difference. Have a good one.

Edited by Estranged Reality
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the people who try to point out that GNR existed with Traci Gunns,Ole etc - before Slash etc. are the most retarded people on this forum.

I mean shit.....is the Traci Gunns, Ole whatever the fuck his name is, version of Guns', the one you got on board with?

ha, couldn't agree more

and the ones hanging on to their puberty illusion are?

I didn't got on board with a band, I got into GNR sound, for me it's all about the music.

but since, there are some of you, who are "believers" who got to adore one form of "gods", and you seem to try to convince others that your "gods" are the ones which are to be "adored", then I'll say no to you! because every one is entitled to "adored their own gods". and so, I'll stressed the formation, the way "your religion" created, and that no gods are real, they are illusion we create to help us to go through life.

don't you see your self? at every single topic, you wait to have the opportunity to beg for your "gods" to come back together. and not only that, which would be fine by everyone's else own account, but you stick into their face that they are not right on their "religion", that their's is fake and your is real!

so, it's not about only you, the forum users, but it's about the readers. because I was a reader for 2 years before I decided to come in here, to have my say on this matter. as one poster said, "why don't we discuss the music?" and go through all this "band" talk? I guess I found out the reason, see up.

dude, you care way too much about this

I'm just a Guns N' Roses fan, I can like whatever the fuck I want to like about Guns N' Roses, just like you. Seriously, we discuss the music here every day, but you wouldn't know that because you're too busy on your little religious crusade against... whatever the fuck you're so riled up about. Lol, you on your high horse, telling me I don't talk about the music. Fucking hypocrite, what about you? Every one of your posts I've seen has been the same old cliche argumentative rhetoric thats been beaten to death on this forum for years

can't wait till you're banned :thumbsup:

:D me too! but you do realize that you don't really know how to read? I was quoting other poster, and I didn't exclude myself from the ones who do the "band talk".

that was and is my point, that we should all "like whatever the fuck" we "want to like about Guns N' Roses" and stop convincing the rest of the people to like what we like. but I guess I have to accept, as I see day by day, that you americans are really as the rest of the world sees you, as poorly educated. well... :shrugs: that's a wrap. but not before I answer some one here....

Because thats what fans on a fan forum do... "band talk"... do we really need that in quotations? You read into it like its some aggressive heated debate, when its just fans being fans on a fan forum. I know, its a wild concept to grasp, but fans of the band are actually talking about the band on the forum, crazy huh? :rolleyes:

what were we arguing about again?

thanks for the time. peace n' out on this one, you're way too, for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...