I'm really baffled by everything regarding GNR at this point in time, but it's been really great to see the wide spectrum of responses in this thread...
For me personally, while I commend Merck for coming to Axl's defence (and earning his salary), any words coming from that camp at this point seem to ring hollow in my ears.? Kudos to the journalist for not selling his sources down the river.? This is just another example of Axl and co's determination to control beyond control.? At the end of the day, this is the tale of a meglomaniacal artist consistantly overestimating his own importance, regardless of how much of a genius we believe him to be.? I do not expect a point by point repudiation of the information in the article, but if they are so indignant over the whole thing, let's hear the whole story from the only people that they seem to deem worthy of telling it.? Once again, the energy and focus is completely misguided.? Controlling through veiled threats, harsh words, legalities, and brute force has been the MO for years now.? Going by past events, I have to assume that the "offer" to hear CD was yet another attempt to hold people at bay, or at the very least, to delay the publishig of an article which Axl might have suspiciously suspected may not paint him using the brightest of colors.? 24 hours, 48 hours, irrelevant.? We ALL know Axl would have redacted the hell out of that article, most likely persuing legal action against those who exercised their right to speak.? In all honesty, I think it was just a matter of the journalist hitting too close to a nerve, however, in Axl's defence, most of the "info" was certainly outdated, and at the very least, probably irrelevant to current circumstances.
It's like a trial by jury.? If the defendant does nothing to refute the charges against them except shift focus and point fingers, you would have to logically make the assumption that by choosing not to prove the charges against them inaccurate through fact that they are conceding that there is some level of truth to the charges, and may, in fact, be indirectly lending creedence to these assumptions through lack of an alternative...I'll stop now
Getting a bit out of hand, no? Settle down folks...Truth is, no one here was privy to the phone conversations...let it go... the earth will continue to rotate, largely unaffected by the latest in a large string of earth-shattering revelations
So now we can only consider conversatoins to which we have witnessed/heard with ouir own ears?
In that case then, Leeds was witness to none of the accounts he related, was he? ?So then he was not 'privy' to what he reported on was he?
Yet its offered for our consumption. ?
Considering Merck himself WAS PRESENT for the phone conversation which he related to us I'd say that info has 1000 times more weight than anything Leeds reported.... Thus my discussion of the account Merck related in his letter as fact has more merit than any of the second and third hand accounts Leeds reported.
As for the continued rotation of the earth, I'm waiting for the NY Times to report on it. ?LOL!
You obviously chose to disregard my point....
I take it that your point is/was that this thread does/did not merit further discussion - due to our not being there to witness anything.
I did address your point - so it was not disregarded.
Just because YOU chose pages ago in this thread to "stop now", apparently no longer finding "its great to hear the wide spectrum of responses',
does not mean that the topic no longer merits discussion amongst those that choose to. ?You made your comments. ?If you have found my continued replies are not to your liking, as I advised noizzynofutre, I have no remedy to offer you in that regard.
now, once again... back on topic:
Merck's letter is NOT in today's (March 13) Sunday NY Times ... but I'm wondering if it's because Merck chose NOT to edit his original letter down to the 300 words or less for the free space and chose NOT to pay to have the entire letter posted?
I got the impression Merck's letter was written for GnR fans and the New York Times itself rather than for publication. I may be wrong. But that's the impression I got...
I get what you're saying gigger. ?In any event he may feel, much like you did about your article, satisfied that the ones who matter did receive it:
the parties to whom it was addressed (Leeds and the Times editors) and the other most interested parties (the fans whom he knew it would reach through Mysteron posting here at HTGTH.) ?If the Times chose to print it - that would have been a bonus I suppose, but seeing how it exposes the treatment he received from their writer and editor - I'm not surprised it was not printed - even in part.
Which brings me to the 300 words or less thing - the Times could have edited it themselves, no?
...with a note indicating it was edited for space constraints. ? Though, hmm, ?I wonder: ?which parts would they edit?
The whole thing was a great read.... and I'm really pleased that Merck made sure that we were privy to it.
Author