moreblack Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Life's not a waiting room, it's all we've got and you seriously need to chill out, enjoy it a bit more and stop taking everything so seriously. You can't be friends with sombody because he disagrees with you over the lead singer and former guitarist in a fucking band????? I can't grasp that concept either, I'd love to go for a beer with volcano or bacardi. I'm sure there's lots of other shit we DO agree on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Ali, just like Axl, you skipped over the important parts here and avoided the main evidence. Your biased arguments are not in good faith at all.Nice post there, but I don't see the contradiction at all between what Axl said and what Alan Niven said. Omission was the lie. I laid it out clearly. Everyone can go re-read my original post. It's clear is day.Alan Niven doesn't claim that Axl forced the band under duress to sign over the rights to the band's name to him should they break up. Alan Niven wasn't in the band at the time. That was the main point. How would he know if they signed under duress if he wasn't managing the band at the time? When did I even say that Alan had claimed that they did sign under duress? Maybe you're confusing me with a different poster.There's no indication from Axl that the contract renegotiation was not completed after Alan Niven was fired, which in turn would not contradict Niven's statement about the name transfer occurring after he stopped managing the group. Contract renegotiation? Are you speaking about the Geffen contract? Alan Niven got "a 17% commission in perpetuity" from the contract renegotiation with Geffen which he later sold back because he didn't want to deal with Axl. This is from his own words in his interview with Classic Rock. The Geffen contract would have been completed if he was getting a percentage.When Slash and Duff signed away the name he wasn't in the band anymore. This was a different contract, I believe you are confused.We don't know when the contract renegotiation occurred (started and completed). Why would we, it's not our business.AliIt's not our business? What a cop out. You should use that more often for anything Axl does. Seriously I thought you were praised for a greater caliber in presenting surgical arguments. Axl told us here on the forum when the contract renegotiation occurred, its in Dexter's post. We know when Alan Niven was fired. This was years between.No, not really clear as day. You are taking Alan Niven's word as gold, while discounting what Axl says. Axl told us when the contract renegotiations began, and he also told us that he stopped speaking to Alan Niven as this was happening and he was on his way out.Perhaps you should re-read the Classic Rock interview with Alan Niven. This is what he says: "“What I find interesting is that after I was fired, by his own admission, Axl took the band name as part of the Geffen renegotiation. I believe he got rid of me to do that, amongst other things. I think that he always intended to take total control. And he knew I would not stand for such a move. I could be wrong, but I rather think there you have it."There you have it. Niven admits and backs the claim that Axl had the rights to the band name transferred to him in the event of Slash and Duff leaving the band as part of the Geffen contract renegotiation. So, again, how is what Axl said contradicted? Axl said the bit about the band name was added as part of the Geffen renegotiation, Niven backs that. Axl never said the contracts were finally signed while Niven was still working with the band. The commission in perpetuity doesn't contradict anything as all it means is that Niven would have gotten commission indefinitely for anything released during his term as manager.Ali Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBrownstone Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/4384/mv5bodczotk1mtezml5bml5.jpgWhy are these guys looking at Axl's ass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintari Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 So indigo child is a miser and BBA is 12 headed mygnr dragon?Indigo child has been exposed. Responding to him/her is like talking to yourself.HAHAHA! I agree. I suggested he kill himself and he went thermo nuclear in a PM. As if I was the first person to tell him that before, or the last who will say it.At least I'm not named for the arguably suckiest character in South Park.And naming yourself after people who "claim to possess special, unusual and/or supernatural traits or abilities" is much better? That's just fuckin' creepy dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintari Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 This whole thread is fucking creepy! Indeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 No, not really clear as day. You are taking Alan Niven's word as gold, while discounting what Axl says. Axl told us when the contract renegotiations began, and he also told us that he stopped speaking to Alan Niven as this was happening and he was on his way out.Perhaps you should re-read the Classic Rock interview with Alan Niven. This is what he says: "“What I find interesting is that after I was fired, by his own admission, Axl took the band name as part of the Geffen renegotiation. I believe he got rid of me to do that, amongst other things. I think that he always intended to take total control. And he knew I would not stand for such a move. I could be wrong, but I rather think there you have it."There you have it. Niven admits and backs the claim that Axl had the rights to the band name transferred to him in the event of Slash and Duff leaving the band as part of the Geffen contract renegotiation. So, again, how is what Axl said contradicted? Axl said the bit about the band name was added as part of the Geffen renegotiation, Niven backs that. Axl never said the contracts were finally signed while Niven was still working with the band. The commission in perpetuity doesn't contradict anything as all it means is that Niven would have gotten commission indefinitely for anything released during his term as manager.AliAli, in all your obfuscation of the matter you still have gleaned over the fact that Axl made up an excuse for taking the name that made no logical sense. You asks tangent questions about the "contract renogiation" which was never even in my original argument. You keep repeating "So, again, how is what Axl said contradicted?" which wasn't even my original argument--in fact, I was taking Axl's word verbatim 100% from his post. It's what he didn't say that makes him willfully deceitful. And yes, I'll take Alan Niven's word, and Axl's!, and Rolling Stone, and HarperCollins). Alan Niven wasn't in the band after May 1991. Steven Adler first filed suit against the band in October 1991. Ergo, the management that Axl was protecting himself against wasn't in the band. I'll just repost my original post.You didn't even acknowledge my main argument other than maybe to say "nice post". And yes it was a nice post but I'm seriously done arguing with you since it was never in good faith. You exercise pure rhetoric instead providing a fair argument. I should have just let my original post stand since I was wasting time talking in circles with you. I am not here to convince you. Everyone else can read Axl's words.So, let me get this straight, you don't dispute that Axl acquired the rights to the band name as part of the contract renegotiation with Geffen, you just don't think his reasoning that he came up with the name and should own it is a valid reason? That's it? Simply, at the time the contract renegotiation started, Axl wanted to protect himself from Alan Niven, whom I believe was involved initially with the contract renegotiation, AND he believed as a matter of principle he felt he should own the name as the partial namesake and co-founder of the band. Whether or not you believe that is a good enough reason for wanting the band name is entirely up to you. Like you said, everyone else can read Axl's words. He clearly says that he felt he deserved the band name because he came up with it and co-founded the band. You can believe it or not. There's your argument.Ali Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janis Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Had to bump this thread! I don't understand why the media with their neg reviews and other rock stars llike Scott Weiland can criticise Axl today. Axl can out perform everyone on the rock scene. I mean who has his charisma and who goes for it physically on stage like he does?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintari Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Had to bump this thread! I don't understand why the media with their neg reviews and other rock stars llike Scott Weiland can criticise Axl today. Axl can out perform everyone on the rock scene. I mean who has his charisma and who goes for it physically on stage like he does??Please don't bump this fucking thread again.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Miller Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 This whole thread is fucking creepy! This whole forum, most days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts