Brain interview (Feb 2015) on the I'd Hit That podcast

[mortismurphy]

I think you are reading far to much into this!

[pilferk]

I think you are reading far to much into this!

I think we're all reading exactly what you put on the page, and we're doing exactly what you expected to be done, when choosing that word.

And we pretty much all know it.

You, yourself, pointed out why it's a poor choice of words....looking back on past ACTUAL riots....demonstrating that "riotous", in relation to GnR, would give imagery of ACTUAL riots (which, in point of fact, did not take place in relation to Brain's story). It's inflammatory. It was meant to incite anger and angry response from other posters.

And yet you still defend it.

You can argue til you're blue in the face that's not the case. Nobody's going to buy it.

I'd have a lot more respect for you if you'd just own it.

[mortismurphy]

I stand corrected. I think you are reading far far too much into this!

[pilferk]

I stand corrected. I think you are reading far far too much into this!

Well, either you had a purpose or you made a blunder in prose so boneheaded as to paint everything else you post as being from questionable intellect.

I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt.

But either way....

[mortismurphy]

I stand corrected. I think you are reading far far too much into this!

Well, either you had a purpose or you made a blunder in prose so boneheaded as to paint everything else you post as being from questionable intellect.

I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt.

But either way....

I think I ehh, wrote the adjective 'riotous'!!

[pilferk]

I think I ehh, wrote the adjective 'riotous'!!

So, what you're saying is, you're so tone deaf to GnR history that you wouldn't see how that word might harken back to ACTUAL riots, and give the impression/implication that there was an ACTUAL riot going on while Axl was getting that massage.  That using that word would obfuscate any actual point you're making by being inflammatory?

Really?

Sorry, I don't buy it.  And I doubt anybody else does either.

But, if that's REALLY the case...I harken back to my previous post.

[mortismurphy]

It is actually frightening, disturbing even, the levels of hyperbolic offense taken at such an innocuous word! But rolling with it for one second...

I think Brain described the crowd as 'crazy', 'going crazy'. I was paraphrasing (of which, I freely acknowledged at the time), some seven or so hours after originally listening to this interview (this was before Jarmo posted a complete transcription of the passage) and used 'riotous' over 'crazy'.

Do you really want to continue with this as it is dull beyond belief?

[pilferk]

It is actually frightening, disturbing even, the levels of hyperbolic offense taken at such an innocuous word! But rolling with it for one second...

I think Brain described the crowd as 'crazy', 'going crazy'. I was paraphrasing (of which, I freely acknowledged at the time), some seven or so hours after originally listening to this interview (this was before Jarmo posted a complete transcription of the passage) and used 'riotous' over 'crazy'.

Do you really want to continue with this as it is dull beyond belief?

Nope, I think you've made my point for me stunningly well!  Your insistence that, in this setting, and in this context, the word was "Innocuous" (after, yourself, pointing out it's connection to GnR history) better makes my point than anything else I could add.

And I agree: It IS dull...though for likely entirely different reasons than you do.

[mortismurphy]

There are two readings of the word 'riotous'. There is a generalised reading, 'crazy, unruly, turbulent', and a more specific reason, meaning someone or something is 'liable to riot'. Correct? Now, I implied the former. When I discussed the riots in connection with GN'R, I was sort of, rolling with Jarmo's opinion for sake of argument. Because, in truth, even if I did imply the latter rendering, I still do not find that usage that controversial. Let's face it, 'no Axl' and there is a more than decent chance that the crowd will riot. Axl's reputation rather proceeds him. And Brain toured with them in 2002. That tour alone included two riots!

[pilferk]

There are two readings of the word 'riotous'. There is a generalised reading, 'crazy, unruly, turbulent', and a more specific reason, meaning someone or something is 'liable to riot'. Correct? Now, I implied the former. When I discussed the riots in connection with GN'R, I was sort of, rolling with Jarmo's opinion for sake of argument. Because, in truth, even if I did imply the latter rendering, I still do not find that usage that controversial. Let's face it, 'no Axl' and there is a more than decent chance that the crowd will riot. Axl's reputation rather proceeds him. And Brain toured with them in 2002. That tour alone included two riots!

You said you thought this was dull...yet...you're still going.

Seriously, you can stop making my case for me!

[mortismurphy]

A last hurrah on, 'riotousgate'.

[jarmo]

Like I said, you're "paraphrasing" what was said and the first word that came to mind, you used. The reasons are that you want to use that word because it fits the picture you have of GNR and because you like to stir shit up.

Simple.

I'm glad you find it frightening that some here are calling your bullshit. 

Shouldnt this thread be at the Ex gunners section?

Brain made pretty clear in this interview that he is out of the band.

But he's still involved. Just not touring.




/jarmo

[mortismurphy]

Like I said, you're "paraphrasing" what was said and the first word that came to mind, you used. The reasons are that you want to use that word because it fits the picture you have of GNR and because you like to stir shit up.

Simple.

I'm glad you find it frightening that some here are calling your bullshit. 

Shouldnt this thread be at the Ex gunners section?

Brain made pretty clear in this interview that he is out of the band.

But he's still involved. Just not touring.




/jarmo

In your, incorrect, opinion.

[jarmo]

No, not incorrect. Just different.
Just like 99% of your opinions are based on assumptions and wishful thinking, two can play that game.

Just like some of you are free to dismiss facts and things said because it doesn't matter to you, the same can be applied to you. So yeah, you can deny it all you want. That's how it looks to me.



/jarmo