MSL discusses Guns n Roses

[Mysteron]

Snooze, for the benefit of those reading, would you clarify your role in that aspect of GNR history?

NGOG

Go to bed, really. You are spoiling the thread.

See, unlike you career insiders, I'd actually like to provide clarity for those not "in the loop".

While you and your cohorts may be aware of Snooze's role, most will not.

Snooze, for the benefit of those reading, would you clarify your role in that aspect of GNR history?

NGOG

Go to bed, really. You are spoiling the thread.

See, unlike you career insiders, I'd actually like to provide clarity for those not "in the loop".

While you and your cohorts may be aware of Snooze's role, most will not.

I was not an insider, I just figured out asking the band was a good way to get information on things. I did what I did, many people benefitted and I have moved on and most people know this

That is all. Like I said, no need to be nasty.

[Guest NGOG]

Snooze, for the benefit of those reading, would you clarify your role in that aspect of GNR history?

In a word? No. And to make it more clear, I do not want to see anything I post go outside this thread. I'm posting it because not a lot of the sane people out there are going to read through 60+ pages of this ridiculous topic.

There's no need to get touchy, I respect your reluctance to divulge certain things. I have to warn you though, this is a public forum, so don't be surprised if certain agendas pick up your points.

Edited December 7, 2013 by NGOG

[Mysteron]

Edit: nevermind.

It was fun for a while

The NGOG elephant running loose now, so time to go to bed. Enjoyed posting though there for a while

Night

Why would anybody be remotely bothered by you going to bed? Are you Axl or somebody of significance?

I said Goodnight, because I was being nice and extending courtesy to those who I have chatted to tonight. It is 12.45am here, and I have been up chatting to people in this thread

For whatever reason, you have come along and just been nasty and vile towards me which means I am logging off and going to bed.

I hope that is ok with you

[Guest NGOG]

Snooze, for the benefit of those reading, would you clarify your role in that aspect of GNR history?

NGOG

Go to bed, really. You are spoiling the thread.

See, unlike you career insiders, I'd actually like to provide clarity for those not "in the loop".

While you and your cohorts may be aware of Snooze's role, most will not.

Snooze, for the benefit of those reading, would you clarify your role in that aspect of GNR history?

NGOG

Go to bed, really. You are spoiling the thread.

See, unlike you career insiders, I'd actually like to provide clarity for those not "in the loop".

While you and your cohorts may be aware of Snooze's role, most will not.

I was not an insider, I just figured out asking the band was a good way to get information on things. I did what I did, many people benefitted and I have moved on and most people know this

That is all. Like I said, no need to be nasty.

The only person being provocative is yourself.

[alfierose]

Snooze, for the benefit of those reading, would you clarify your role in that aspect of GNR history?

In a word? No. And to make it more clear, I do not want to see anything I post go outside this thread. I'm posting it because not a lot of the sane people out there are going to read through 60+ pages of this ridiculous topic.

A lot of people read these forums probably more than actually post here. It's quite high risk to assume no one will quote you elsewhere. If you have concerns about what you are posting it would be better not to post it.

[Guest NGOG]

Snooze, for the benefit of those reading, would you clarify your role in that aspect of GNR history?

In a word? No. And to make it more clear, I do not want to see anything I post go outside this thread. I'm posting it because not a lot of the sane people out there are going to read through 60+ pages of this ridiculous topic.

A lot of people read these forums probably more than actually post here. It's quite high risk to assume no one will quote you elsewhere. If you have concerns about what you are posting it would be better not to post it.

Exactly. Axl himself has taken exception to certain things. It would be impossible to ensure that nobody relays posts made on a public forum.

[Mysteron]

Snooze, for the benefit of those reading, would you clarify your role in that aspect of GNR history?

NGOG

Go to bed, really. You are spoiling the thread.

See, unlike you career insiders, I'd actually like to provide clarity for those not "in the loop".

While you and your cohorts may be aware of Snooze's role, most will not.

Snooze, for the benefit of those reading, would you clarify your role in that aspect of GNR history?

NGOG

Go to bed, really. You are spoiling the thread.

See, unlike you career insiders, I'd actually like to provide clarity for those not "in the loop".

While you and your cohorts may be aware of Snooze's role, most will not.

I was not an insider, I just figured out asking the band was a good way to get information on things. I did what I did, many people benefitted and I have moved on and most people know this

That is all. Like I said, no need to be nasty.

The only person being provocative is yourself.

I have not been nasty or provocative all evening. I was happy chatting

I am too old and too tired for your baiting tonight that is all

I will just chat another time

[Guest NGOG]

Snooze, for the benefit of those reading, would you clarify your role in that aspect of GNR history?

NGOG

Go to bed, really. You are spoiling the thread.

See, unlike you career insiders, I'd actually like to provide clarity for those not "in the loop".

While you and your cohorts may be aware of Snooze's role, most will not.

Snooze, for the benefit of those reading, would you clarify your role in that aspect of GNR history?

NGOG

Go to bed, really. You are spoiling the thread.

See, unlike you career insiders, I'd actually like to provide clarity for those not "in the loop".

While you and your cohorts may be aware of Snooze's role, most will not.

I was not an insider, I just figured out asking the band was a good way to get information on things. I did what I did, many people benefitted and I have moved on and most people know this

That is all. Like I said, no need to be nasty.

The only person being provocative is yourself.

I have not been nasty or provocative all evening. I was happy chatting

I am too old and too tired for your baiting tonight that is all

I will just chat another time

"Newsboy", "elephant"?

I hope you will come back and cultivate your mystical image further. Maybe if I contact Bumblefoot or Richard Fortus they will tell me about the new record?

[hellobeatle]

Are people insiders bc they have these docs?

Any member of the general public can stroll into LA County Superior Court, search the comp for the cases docket #, pull the file from the clerk and then pay a shitload of quarters to copy the entire file. All of this shit would've been attached as exhibits to the various complaints, answers and motions filed. This isn't a case re: a minor and there's no reason at all a judge would order a civil contract matter of this type sealed.

Hell, if it was filed in Federal District Ct, I'll sign onto my PACER acct and pull the whole thing via PDF tomorrow at the office..

[HubbaBubba]

This threads needs a spring clean.

Snooze, there's no hope it'll stay confined to here. Well worth posting though.

It's difficult to claim on one hand that the sig dates are crucial, and on the other that the date the memorandum was drawn up should be ignored. Especially if you're saying the name clause wasn't added later.

[Mysteron]

Snooze, for the benefit of those reading, would you clarify your role in that aspect of GNR history?

NGOG

Go to bed, really. You are spoiling the thread.

See, unlike you career insiders, I'd actually like to provide clarity for those not "in the loop".

While you and your cohorts may be aware of Snooze's role, most will not.

Snooze, for the benefit of those reading, would you clarify your role in that aspect of GNR history?

NGOG

Go to bed, really. You are spoiling the thread.

See, unlike you career insiders, I'd actually like to provide clarity for those not "in the loop".

While you and your cohorts may be aware of Snooze's role, most will not.

I was not an insider, I just figured out asking the band was a good way to get information on things. I did what I did, many people benefitted and I have moved on and most people know this

That is all. Like I said, no need to be nasty.

The only person being provocative is yourself.

I have not been nasty or provocative all evening. I was happy chatting

I am too old and too tired for your baiting tonight that is all

I will just chat another time

"Newsboy", "elephant"?

I hope you will come back and cultivate your mystical image further. Maybe if I contact Bumblefoot or Richard Fortus they will tell me about the new record?

Hi

A newsboy is a paperboy, a young bringer of news. You joined in 2011, so it is a fair comment. An elephant in the room is a saying.

I have no mystical image, most older people on forums know me quite well. I was a spokesperson for a while, that is all. Before your time

And, I do not have any documents, nor do I want any documents. Like I said, read my mail, there is nothing special happening

I have no idea why you have attitude, but I am in no way wanting to add to anything, I enjoy chatting here, and want to do so without being attacked

Edited December 7, 2013 by Mysteron

[GUNNER PT]

This:

there's nothing that changes the fact that the agreement was signed between legs of the tour and clearly slash and duff invented the "backstage under duress" nonsense.

And this:

This is the mother of all the points in this discussion:

"Slash and Duff state they signed a single contract under duress during touring. The dates show they were not touring. There is no mention by anyone anywhere of a second contract. And why would Slash and Duff sign one anyway"

They lied about signing a contract under duress... that's it. You only need that to at least be suspicious of the rest...

And this:

when are you guys gonna realize that the only reason that made them accept the contract was that since DAY 1, since they joined the band they had agreed that axl was the creator of the name and that it would always be his! They were fine with it and so they signed it.

Only after a few years had passed that they realized they were stupid and started spreading shit hoping they could do something to reverse the situation. They were stupid and Axl was did nothing wrong besides protecting him and the band in they case they died or decided to vote him out of the band!

Slash lies and spreads shit because he's pissed at himself for not thinking about that plan first. What do you guys keep debating ? Axl created the name and the band...what would you do if you created something and then realized someone could get they're hands on you're hard work ?

fuck all you're judgement. And im not defending Axl here, this is not about taking sides. When the guy does something wrong, then i'm there criticizing him with all of you...but he didn't!

it's crystal clear that they changed they're minds about the name after leaving the band and that they lied. Duff has probably apologized to Axl and that is why he has played with guns. But slash is a pride sellout who needs to keep his image so he can't be caught lying and blames it on the hermit strange wacko dude who hides in his mansion.

No matter if they signed their nicknames or their real names. No matter if that paper is a contract, an agreement or something else .... the truth is that they shown their intentions in that paper ... not in the backstage, under pressure, as they told for years and years. In sume ... they lied.

This shit makes all the difference. This shit conditioned the course of history. This shit conditioned the way Axl and GN'R came to be judged by the world. This shit conditioned what GN'R came to be nowadays.

Their main goal has always been to destroy the possibility of Axl continue with GNR.

It was helpful MSL having compiled this information to make it clearer for those who do not want to be blind. But nothing of this is new. The 2004's lawsuit has been published for a long time ... that lawsuit states the agreement "on, or around September 1, 1992" (on, or around? WTF?! LOL). That lawsuit makes also clear the intention to put the fans against the band. Read the page nr.2 lines nr. 7 and 8 "(...)His capricious actions are motivated by a conflict of interest and not only deprives the fans of Guns N' Roses music (...)" ... this is disgusting and manipulative ... they were trying to speaking for the fans, or what?

Unfortunately, over the years, they have managed to achieve part of their attempts ... Axl got depressed and now he is half of the artist he used to be, the band was ostracized by the world and fans constantly struggle against each other.

Over the years, some fans belived in one version, other fans belived in another version. None of us were there to see what happened. Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle, but the only facts are in these papers .... now, take your own conclusions, if you dare.

Edited December 7, 2013 by GUNNER PT

[Mysteron]

This threads needs a spring clean.

Snooze, there's no hope it'll stay confined to here. Well worth posting though.

It's difficult to claim on one hand that the sig dates are crucial, and on the other that the date the memorandum was drawn up should be ignored. Especially if you're saying the name clause wasn't added later.

My fault, sorry

No idea what happened

[snooze72]

I repeat, not a lot of SANE people are going to read through this thread, LOL! And certainly not closely, its torture. I'm regretting every post. Hell, I'm regretting it every time I open this damn thread. I'm the one who should go to bed. Far cry from my handle appearing in a news story, though.

[Mysteron]

I repeat, not a lot of SANE people are going to read through this thread, LOL! And certainly not closely, its torture. I'm regretting every post. Hell, I'm regretting it every time I open this damn thread. I'm the one who should go to bed. Far cry from my handle appearing in a news story, though.

It's an interesting story if looked at from the right angle. When you have been on these forums for so many years, stories like this mean something to a lot of people.

Like I said in the beginning though, it has to be thrown out there to a wider audience for a proper newspaper to look at and investigate.

[Ali]

So all the MOA posted proves is that it was amended on 10/15/92, not that it was first presented to Slash and Duff on 10/15/92.

K, thanks.

No, it doesn't prove it was amended then. That's false. Every page has the 10/15/92 date.

Ali

[magisme]

I have the full thing. Like I said, if folks want it, just let me know an easy way to upload a pdf. I'm tech stupid in a number of ways.

[ITG]

[HubbaBubba]

Gunner are you blaming the fans for Axl's lack of output? Every time I hear a fan say this it leaves me amazed at how far the termites have spread in the guns world.

The culture of blame, along with the need to tell Axl only what he wants to hear, is exactly the reason why we are where we finds ourselves today.

[ITG]

Pebber Brown?

[Ali]

the 2004 lawsuit was over song rights, not the name rights. Why would they introduce documents pertaining to name rights when that's not even their case?

It's like you're arguing over something completely irrelevant.

Because it was in the partnership agreement. It was one aspect of the agreement. What Slash and Duff presented into evidence in 2004 was the standing, binding partnership agreement from 1992.

Ali

[Ali]

I've been an unflagging supporter of MSL, for him to take my questioning of his conclusions as an attack brings up the question of what else he's misinterpreting.

My position is simply that we don't know how many versions are out there and what they say, thus we can't peg the date, period. Because the date was never an issue in the court case, you can't say this is a final contract or any date is confirmed, only that all parties accept the terms stated in the document for purposes of the court. I suspect there's a crisp clean copy in the Geffen system somewhere, although getting this band together to sign things was always quite the process, so maybe they ended up relying on the draft, too, who knows.

I'm not agreeing with Duff's Barcelona story, either, it may well have been '92 in Germany, which was his first version, or maybe he's transposing other events or similar partnership clauses. (I'd like to see everybody here reach back 20 years and remember all the details from a specific day that was just one part of an ongoing process). Point is, you guys are the only people who care about the date, no real sources have questioned it in court or anywhere else, and this includes SPIN, Rolling Stone and the New York Times, who all had the same document and the same story from the players. Its a bit of a stretch to think MSL has some inside knowledge or revelations when these sources did their research via DIRECT contact with the players and managers. Whether the details were right or wrong, they came to the conclusion the general gist is correct.

It's possible Duff and Slash jumped the gun re: Axl threatening to cancel, because it was an established pattern, or maybe it was Reese saying, 'if you want Axl to go on stage, better sign off on this.' The point is that was how GNR business was being conducted at that time. They knew he WOULD NOT play the show. You're mistaking a specific hostage hour with an ongoing hostage climate. Its also just as likely that Axl would have been distracted and obsessing over the unsigned document and wouldn't have been in the head space to perform and still wouldn't have gone on stage. To Slash/Duff, it was still duress.

When these nuances get boiled down to single sentences and even paragraphs, the shading is lost. Axl is correct when HE says he it didn't happen the way Duff and Slash said it did, and Duff and Slash are correct when THEY way they were under duress to sign off on the additional clause.

But nobody is lying. That's my point.

And this is an insane waste of time.

I will add that I was there -- not when the contract was signed, but pretty close re: the aftermath. My involvement was peripheral, but it was dealing pretty equally with the Slash, Duff and Axl camps. I was hearing these developments in real time for 10 years or more. I still don't take sides. I see everybody's point, I see how they interpret each other.

Trust me, this is a red herring.

MSL, I'll ask again as a point of interest for us to compare the two docs. What does your have for a date on page 1 (mind has October crossed out and November added) and for amendments on the bottom of page 2 and did Slash initial that one on yours?

Yes, we can say this is the standing, binding partnership agreement as of 2004 because Slash and Duff presented it into evidence. If there was a later version of the partnership agreement, it would render the 1992 agreement null and void. It would not be used as evidence because it would be worthless as a null and void document.

While Slash and Duff may have felt some form of constant stress or "duress" working with Axl, that's not the kind of duress they described in relation to the partnership agreement. The described a specific instance involving a threat, or implication, and therefore being coerced to sign away the rights to the band name under duress.

This is not a red herring. But, at the same time, that doesn't necessarily mean that Slash and Duff are lying. They just could be grossly mistaken in their recollections.

Ali

[saber_]

I have the full thing. Like I said, if folks want it, just let me know an easy way to upload a pdf. I'm tech stupid in a number of ways.

Here's an idea: Convert it to a picture format. You using Windows 7? Have you heard of the snipping tool? Type "snipping tool" in the start-menu search box. From there, it should be easy to figure out. Don't have windows 7 but are using another version of windows? Hit the alt key plus the "print screen" key on your keyboard. That will capture the active window and save it to the clipboard. Then paste the contents of the clipboard somewhere and save it. You can save time by opening the PDFs in a two-page-at-a-time view and screencapping those. And then, after you have all the screen captures, you can upload to photobucket, imgur, instagram, your choice.

[Rustycage]

I have the full thing. Like I said, if folks want it, just let me know an easy way to upload a pdf. I'm tech stupid in a number of ways.

Try this

the 2004 lawsuit was over song rights, not the name rights. Why would they introduce documents pertaining to name rights when that's not even their case?

It's like you're arguing over something completely irrelevant.

Because it was in the partnership agreement. It was one aspect of the agreement. What Slash and Duff presented into evidence in 2004 was the standing, binding partnership agreement from 1992.

Ali

Link to where it's stated that there's only 1 document?

Weren't you already told the difference the types of documents?

Rusty

[Caught in a Coma]

So they lied about how this came about. It's obvious and no big deal anyway. Axl still made them sign a contract, which he shouldn't have. They signed it and shouldn't have done that either.

What is exactly the problem, cause I don't get it?

That's not correct. Axl didn't make anybody sign anything. They accepted to sign it!

so say he didn't make them sign it. Does that change the accounts of axl's behavior during that time period? There are still multiple accounts of axl treatimg his bandmates poorly and acting out told by former band members and people around the band during that period.