Confirmation from Simpsons writer that Duff Beer is not based on Duff McKagan

[Billy Cundy]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yeah, that's the guys. They say one thing, Duff says another thing. I don't think this will be solved, unless one of them admits to lie/misremember or some actual evidence emerges. 

Look mate, I’ll be honest with you, and I’m not trying to offend you or make you look silly.. but I’ve been recounting this little saga anecdotally to a few friends, a coworker with an interest in music, and some family over the past few weeks. Mostly because I was happy to have had a response from a simpsons writer. Of the 5 or 6 or so people I’ve mentioned it to, none of them have really known who Duff McKagan is, and they all think it’s pretty inane when I say he claimed the beer is based on him. So when they hear that the bloke who invented duff from the simpsons TOLD ME IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that it isn’t based on the bass player of the band that do ‘sweet child o’ mine’, they don’t feel the need to question it. It is an open and shut case. Not to mention the Time article. I show them the message and they say ‘haha fair enough’, then they tell me to get a life and move on with their day. 

You on the other hand, run and curate a GUNS N’ ROSES archival website/fan forum. I admire that, it’s a great site, and I can tell you’re a dedicated fan with a lot of passion for these 5 rockin’ dudes and their music. But you’re probably one of the least impartial people on earth. The fact is, I don’t believe it is word against word. I can’t play diplomatic ‘aw shucks well maybe?’ anymore, if you take duff’s word over the writers’, you’re on a different astral plane, one that I’m not willing to humour, or join you on anymore. It’s insane to think the show staff are lying, and the dribbling pisshead who spent the 90s in a stupor is a credible counter. 

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, Billy Cundy said:

Look mate, I’ll be honest with you, and I’m not trying to offend you or make you look silly.. but I’ve been recounting this little saga anecdotally to a few friends, a coworker with an interest in music, and some family over the past few weeks. Mostly because I was happy to have had a response from a simpsons writer. Of the 5 or 6 or so people I’ve mentioned it to, none of them have really known who Duff McKagan is, and they all think it’s pretty inane when I say he claimed the beer is based on him. So when they hear that the bloke who invented duff from the simpsons TOLD ME IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that it isn’t based on the bass player of the band that do ‘sweet child o’ mine’, they don’t feel the need to question it. It is an open and shut case. Not to mention the Time article. I show them the message and they say ‘haha fair enough’, then they tell me to get a life and move on with their day. 

You on the other hand, run and curate a GUNS N’ ROSES archival website/fan forum. I admire that, it’s a great site, and I can tell you’re a dedicated fan with a lot of passion for these 5 rockin’ dudes and their music. But you’re probably one of the least impartial people on earth. The fact is, I don’t believe it is word against word. I can’t play diplomatic ‘aw shucks well maybe?’ anymore, if you take duff’s word over the writers’, you’re on a different astral plane, one that I’m not willing to humour, or join you on anymore. It’s insane to think the show staff are lying, and the dribbling pisshead who spent the 90s in a stupor is a credible counter. 

Why do you argue with me as if I trust Duff over the cartoon guys? As I have stated a couple of times in my last posts here, I lean towards trusting them over Duff. I believe it is more likely they tell the truth than Duff. But what I won't agree to is any statements claiming this has been "solved" or that it is "shut", suggesting there is 0% likelihood Duff is correct. Okay?

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

"The Simpsons writers might have reasons to lie" Jesus Christ.

You might be late to the party but this has been discussed before. When you have situations of word against word you have to factor in why any of the parties might lie or be wrong. Because one of them are. With Duff it is clearly a possibility that the fog of booze plays into this and he hasn't got the story right 100%, maybe there was a phone call but not from the Simpson team, maybe it was from them but about something else, maybe it didn't happen at all. I mean there is lots of possibilities for why Duff is wrong. Maybe he flat out lies to have a fun little anecdote to use in social settings. With the cartoon guys it is the possibility that they feel better served by not admitting this, maybe to avoid any litigation, or maybe they have simply forgotten that one of them had a quick little informal chat with Duff or someone representing him. 

And although I find it more likely the cartoon guys are correct and Duff is wrong, it simply isn't a situation that has been "solved" as long as it remains a case of "he said, they said". What needs to actually shut this down is either party shifting their position or some actual hard evidence being presented, and since either of that is unlikely we will just have to live with accepting we will never know for sure what happened.  

[Billy Cundy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Why do you argue with me as if I trust Duff over the cartoon guys? As I have stated a couple of times in my last posts here, I lean towards trusting them over Duff. I believe it is more likely they tell the truth than Duff. But what I won't agree to is any statements claiming this has been "solved" or that it is "shut", suggesting there is 0% likelihood Duff is correct. Okay?

And I’m just saying, those who have no allegiance to the ‘rock music guys’ are 100% convinced when presented with the evidence. The variable tends to be ‘how much does do you love GNR’. The ones who do seem incapable of objectively accepting the writers’ confirmation are (shock horror) absolute fanatics. Funny that? 

It’s solved, writer confirms not based on duff. Don’t care who may or may not have called duff in the 80s, a totally irrelevant factor. Though I’d bet money it didn’t happen. 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Oldest Goat said:

In your mind what percentage of liklihood is it that Duff's correct?

My mind hasn't calculated any percentages. But if I was to try to conjure a number out of my thoughts on the matter, I would probably say less than 20%.

Just now, Billy Cundy said:

And I’m just saying, those who have no allegiance to the ‘rock music guys’ are 100% convinced when presented with the evidence. The variable tends to be ‘how much does do you love GNR’. The ones who do seem incapable of objectively accepting the writers’ confirmation are (shock horror) absolute fanatics. Funny that? 

No, there is nothing surprising that Duff fans are more likely to trust him 

But if you read my latest post you would see I had no comments to your little "survey", but to the fact that you argued as if I trusted Duff over the cartoon guys. 

[allwaystired]

36 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

I prefer a flan. 

28 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Is that a quote or do you just like flan?

 

Haha! It's a quote from The Office, when David Brent interrupts a conversation with that line. I didn't know if anyone would get it or not! 

[Billy Cundy]

7 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

Haha! It's a quote from The Office, when David Brent interrupts a conversation with that line. I didn't know if anyone would get it or not! 

I met Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant once. They both repeatedly screamed in my face that Wernham Hogg isn’t a subtle nod to Scottish Rugby Union player Stuart Hogg. They were very emphatic. 

but neither Ricky Gervais nor co-writer Stephen can really prove that Stuart Hogg didn’t receive a call consulting and notifying him in 2000s. So we’ll never really know, will we? 
 

🫠

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

It's solved and that's all there is to it. I know and for whatever utterly insane reason; you don't know.

Maybe I simply am a little bit more careful about claiming to "know" things than you? What I know is that Duff says one thing and the cartoon guys says something else. That's fact, that's knowledge. What I believe is that Duff is wrong and the cartoon guys are right. And then you can believe things with various degree of confidence. But knowing is for when things are actually proven and there is no way you are wrong.

[Billy Cundy]

19 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Maybe I simply am a little bit more careful about claiming to "know" things than you? What I know is that Duff says one thing and the cartoon guys says something else. That's fact, that's knowledge. What I believe is that Duff is wrong and the cartoon guys are right. And then you can believe things with various degree of confidence. But knowing is for when things are actually proven and there is no way you are wrong.

This sounds all very reasonable until you remember ‘the cartoon guys’ created Duff beer. They invented it. They are the authority on what happened, what it’s based on. 
 

let’s flip the script. A fizzy drink company called ‘Rocket’ comes out and says ‘oh, Guns N’ Roses wrote rocket queen as a nod to us, because some toothless stripper they stole from used to drink nothing but our drink’.

Slash comes out in Rolling Stone and says this is horseshit.

Years later, Dexter (Axl) on this forum says it’s pure fantasy, a weird little urban myth that’s sprung out of nowhere. he actually wrote it about some other toothless stripper who was gonna call her band ‘Rocket Queen’. 
 

are you defending the drinks brand? Or are you accepting GNR’s far more probable and logical first hand account? Yknow, an account from the guy who wrote the song? 
 

there’s no proving Alan Niven didn’t ring Rocket HQ in the 80s and say ‘hey guys, we aren’t gonna give you any cash, but the boys are going give you a little nod in one of the tracks’. What’s your percentages in that scenario?

 

Edited April 26, 2023 by Billy Cundy

[Billy Cundy]

Right let’s cut the drivel and keep it civil ⛔️ let’s not bring outside baggage into this extremely important and academic thread. 

Edited April 26, 2023 by Billy Cundy

[Billy Cundy]

Just now, Oldest Goat said:

That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough! - I'm - going to clown college.

I don’t think any of us expected him to say that

[SoulMonster]

11 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Every time I've personally tried reasoning with you(or witnessed someone else attempting the same thing), whether in calm good faith or frustrated anger, it has been a futile waste of time and energy. Even when you are proven wrong you simply don't accept that. You don't apologise when you should either.

You definitely have some kind of issue with hyper pedantic stubbornness. Maybe you're OCD or something. If you actually do have some self-awareness but think your behaviour is too imbedded for you to change, that's a copout imo.

And here you go again with the ad hominems  I actually think you only started to post in this thread because you wanted to have a go at me. How is this going to end, with you throwing a tantrum and vowing to not post on this forum again, again?

Anyway, kind or ironic that you would accuse me of not changing positions in a very thread where I went from believing Duff to believing the Simpson guys (thanks to the good work of @Billy Cundy)  But I won't apologize for changing my mind on something

[jamillos]

This reminds me of certain Mr. Pele. 

[SoulMonster]

17 minutes ago, Billy Cundy said:

This sounds all very reasonable until you remember ‘the cartoon guys’ created Duff beer. They invented it. They are the authority on what happened, what it’s based on. 

Of course we assume they should know what happened, to a larger extent than we would except Duff to know what happened. But again, the argument is that they could be lying about what happened, or at least one of them, and that is actually more likely than Duff lying, in my opinion. So my conclusion is that Duff is most likely not remembering the story as it was, and that the Simpsons guys didn't actually ask for his approval.

 

19 minutes ago, Billy Cundy said:

let’s flip the script. A fizzy drink company called ‘Rocket’ comes out and says ‘oh, Guns N’ Roses wrote rocket queen as a nod to us, because some toothless stripper they stole from used to drink nothing but our drink’.

Slash comes out in Rolling Stone and says this is horseshit.

Years later, Dexter (Axl) on this forum says it’s pure fantasy, a weird little urban myth that’s sprung out of nowhere. he actually wrote it about some other toothless stripper who was gonna call her band ‘Rocket Queen’. 

are you defending the drinks brand? Or are you accepting GNR’s far more probable and logical first hand account? Yknow, an account from the guy who wrote the song? 

And again you argue as if I believe Duff over the Simpson guys 

To answer your question: I will always believe what I consider to be more probable. In the Duff vs the Simpsons case, I believe Simpsons to most likely be correct. In your hypothetical scenario GN'R vs the Fizzy Drinks, Inc, I would believe GN'R to most likely be correct. Not so much because they wrote the song (or Simpsons created Duff beer, as you seem to think is a good argument), but more based on considerations of who are more likely to remember, who are more likely to lie, etc. But we have gone through this many times now. Hey, did you catch that I actually trust the Simpsons guys over Duff?

[SoulMonster]

8 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Here you go again with the deflections and mental gymnastics lol. "Waaah I feel entitled to go on and on and on and criticize anyone and everyone but if my own faults are pointed out and it's suggested that I need to better myself it's just mean ad hominems waaah."

Nope, no tantrum. You're fantasizing again about me being in a rage. In your warped mind you just think I'm literally flip-flopping between quoting Simpsons jokes and beside myself with bitter rage - mental asf.

I actually didn't accuse you of throwing a tantrum right now. If you ready my post properly you would have seen that that sentence started with "How is this going to end". 

Anyway, on topic: Is there really more to say about this? No one here actually knows what happened. We believe. I happen to believe that most likely Duff is wrong, others happen to believe he most certainly is wrong, other happen to believe he is right. It doesn't really matter, does it? 

[Billy Cundy]

24 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Of course we assume they should know what happened, to a larger extent than we would except Duff to know what happened. But again, the argument is that they could be lying about what happened, or at least one of them, and that is actually more likely than Duff lying, in my opinion. So my conclusion is that Duff is most likely not remembering the story as it was, and that the Simpsons guys didn't actually ask for his approval.

 

And again you argue as if I believe Duff over the Simpson guys 

To answer your question: I will always believe what I consider to be more probable. In the Duff vs the Simpsons case, I believe Simpsons to most likely be correct. In your hypothetical scenario GN'R vs the Fizzy Drinks, Inc, I would believe GN'R to most likely be correct. Not so much because they wrote the song (or Simpsons created Duff beer, as you seem to think is a good argument), but more based on considerations of who are more likely to remember, who are more likely to lie, etc. But we have gone through this many times now. Hey, did you catch that I actually trust the Simpsons guys over Duff?

Ok fair enough but would you concede that you, as a fan, are perhaps less likely to objectively assess what’s been presented - because I do appreciate you’re more on the side of logic and the simpsons, but the fact is, those without a bias towards either are treating the confirmation from the creator as a smoking gun: totally unequivocal evidence of duff being wrong. Without shadow of a doubt. I appreciate you are leaning towards the simpsons, but you did resume your involvement with this thread with ‘I am not convinced’. 

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I actually didn't accuse you of throwing a tantrum right now. If you ready my post properly you would have seen that that sentence started with "How is this going to end". 

Anyway, on topic: Is there really more to say about this? No one here actually knows what happened. We believe. I happen to believe that most likely Duff is wrong, others happen to believe he most certainly is wrong, other happen to believe he is right. It doesn't really matter, does it? 

I asked for it to be closed pages and pages ago 😂

Edited April 26, 2023 by Billy Cundy

[SoulMonster]

9 minutes ago, Billy Cundy said:

Ok fair enough but would you concede that you, as a fan, are perhaps less likely to objectively assess what’s been presented - because I do appreciate you’re more on the side of logic and the simpsons, but the fact is, those without a bias towards either are treating the confirmation from the creator as a smoking gun: totally unequivocal evidence of duff being wrong. Without shadow of a doubt. I appreciate you are leaning towards the simpsons, but you did resume your involvement with this thread with ‘I am not convinced’. 

I asked for it to be closed pages and pages ago 😂

I definitely think fandom can make people less objective on topics like this, but I will vehemently object to being a fan of Duff. Not that I have anything against him, I don't know the guy, just that I am not a fan of him. I am a fan of the music of GN'R (or most of it) and that's how far it goes. As I see it, this is a case of he said, they said, and nothing is conclusively proven. Anyone who argues that this is solved and that they know Duff is right, or know he is wrong, will likely find me objecting. 

What I am though, is interested in epistemology and I will fiercely argue that again and again 

[Gordon Comstock]

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

My mind hasn't calculated any percentages. But if I was to try to conjure a number out of my thoughts on the matter, I would probably say less than 20%.

 

Less than 20%... is that a joke? 

It's ok to be wrong. Aren't you some kind of scientist? You've been presented with new evidence which is basically a smoking gun, not just a writer from the show but the guy who named the beer has said Duff's claim is ridiculous. Any reasonable person would say this is settled.

[Billy Cundy]

What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can’t reach. 

 

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

I definitely think fandom can make people less objective on topics like this, but I will vehemently object to being a fan of Duff. Not that I have anything against him, I don't know the guy, just that I am not a fan of him. I am a fan of the music of GN'R (or most of it) and that's how far it goes. As I see it, this is a case of he said, they said, and nothing is conclusively proven. Anyone who argues that this is solved and that they know Duff is right, or know he is wrong, will likely find me objecting. 

What I am though, is interested in epistemology and I will fiercely argue that again and again 

I get it man. You’re an absolutist in your rejection of absolutes. 

[Spoon87]

What the fuck 

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, Oldest Goat said:

The Simpsons writers know and Duff doesn't. Duff beer has nothing to do with Duff McKagan and there's no good reason to believe otherwise. That's it. If it doesn't really matter then accept that lol.

Whether it is "good" or not can be discussed, but the fact that Duff adamantly states he was contacted at the very least is a reason to not flat out buy a contracting statement. 

Edited April 26, 2023 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

30 minutes ago, Gordon Comstock said:

 

Less than 20%... is that a joke? 

It's ok to be wrong. Aren't you some kind of scientist? You've been presented with new evidence which is basically a smoking gun, not just a writer from the show but the guy who named the beer has said Duff's claim is ridiculous. Any reasonable person would say this is settled.

You would be a poor scientist if you flat out denied anything with a >20% likelihood  And that's what this is about. We all agree that Duff most likely is wrong. No wait, I insist on the qualifier "most likely" whereas others here believe it has somehow been proven.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Oldest Goat said:

Marge? Get my gun...

"Oldest Goat believes in aliens even though he actually literally said that he doesn't!"

"The Russians are showing restraint in Ukraine because they could nuke them but haven't!"

"The Simpsons writers are lying to me because uh that's possible!"

You really are quite mad, eh? Lmao.

Good luck everybody and may God have mercy on you because the merry-go-round won't or can't stop.

And back to the ad hominems 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Oldest Goat said:

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." - Thomas Jefferson

I don't necessarily believe the moderators would agree with that . But considering how many times you have thrown a tantrum and cried about leaving the forum I suppose it doesn't matter to you much anymore if you get thrown out of here. 

[Billy Cundy]

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You would be a poor scientist if you flat out denied anything with a >20% likelihood  And that's what this is about. We all agree that Duff most likely is wrong. No wait, I insist on the qualifier "most likely" whereas others here believe it has somehow been proven.

Occams Razor. Hear the clip clop of hooves? Sure… It MIGHT be a zebra. But let’s be honest and realistic … it’s probably just a horse.

jury feels in on this one.