The Most Expensive Album Never Made

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

1) Are you a fan of Guns n'roses?
JL) I am a dedicated fan of Guns N? Roses and have been pretty much from the start. I own every album (including the Lies EP and the Live Era double CD), except ?The Spaghetti Incident?? If I had to wind up stranded on a desert island with only 3 CDs, ?Appetite for Destruction? would be one.

What makes him a 'dedicated fan'?? Oooo? he owns every album... all of them...? okay - I'm impressed?
Chosing AFD as one of his 3 stranded on an island CDs doesn't make him a fan of GN'R's? or Axl Rose's continued efforts.

9) What are your three favourite bands?

JL) I'm a fan of all sorts of music and it would take too long for me to try narrowing down a list of my three favorites. I can say I'm looking forward to hearing a new record from Black Rebel Motorcycle Club.

Look he couldn't even bring himself to say he's looking forward to Chinese Democracy!?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

5) Do you think you gave the Guns n'roses camp sufficient time to offer information towards the article?

JL) Yes, I think I gave the GNR camp sufficient time to think about the fact that there would be a forthcoming article in the Times, and to offer a response. I very much hoped that Axl might participate in the story. But as a reporter for a daily news organization, I'm not bound by his priorities or those of his management.

He says he gave them sufficient time to think about that an article was coming out and to repsond to that fact -
his line about hoping for Axl to participate is bullshit if you ask me.
he clearly tips that off in how he answered the question.... he wanted to blind sight Axl/GN'R
notice - he didn't give them time to CONTRIBUTE to the article.
Hoping for Axl to participate?? ?my ass!?

he only allowed time for them to repsond to the fact that he was running this article

BIG DIFFERENCE



Look at how he answerd this question:

2) How long did your article on Guns n'roses take to compile?

JL) No Comment

he couldn't answer that because as Merck included in his reply - it was apparent that he had been working on it for several weeks - how could he explain working on it for a substantial length of time but then contacting Axl/GN'R Management on Thursday when he's putting it to bed on Monday?

Thursday to Monday inclues only 3 business day... Thursday - the day he first called Merck, Friday, and Monday.
This is exactly only all the time Leed's allowed for them to issue a 'no comment' or to just ignore it.
IT IS NOT ENOUGH TIME for them to ACTUALLY have CONTRIBUTED to the article.
It was never his intention for them to contribute or be involved!!!
If it was he could have contacted them primarily - when he started to comple the article.? Not simply a couple days in advance.? Couple days in advance was simply to advise them of the fact that it was coming out... he says as much in his response!

3) Do you think your article is a balanced and fair reflection on the story of Chinese Democracy?

JL) I think the piece is absolutely a fair and balanced look at the process of making Chinese Democracy so far. It?s clearly not written to stand as some kind of final verdict; as the article makes clear, the story of making Chinese Democracy is continuing.

How far is "so far" supposed to be Leeds?
Up-to-date?? Current??
I think not.? His sources - as Merck pointed out - only took him 'so far' as YEARS BACK.? ?
Those who could have brought him all the way were - as Merck pointed out - not contacted.

(Merck's) mention of the Blair episode strikes me as a cheap shot.

and what is Leed's quote about "management said (Axl) couldn't be reached for comment"?

if you ask me that was a huge 'dig' at Merck because he jerked Merck around - calling him 2 days before he puts his story to bed without telling him that - Simply calling to advise them of the fact that it was going to be published and trying to get a 'reponse' to that fact out of Merck.? Then after all that - simply printing a lie that implies that Merck is some kind of incompetent boob who isn't even able to get in touch with his own client?

and hey - the Blair comment might of been out of place IF it wasn't the New York Times we were talking about but as it IS The NY Times who we are talking about then the comment fits in fine.? Leeds will have to deal with the fact that even his beloved NY Times isn't beyond a little reproach.? Blair thought the name shielded him and look where he ended up.

6) Had you been given the opportunity to listen to the new Guns n'roses album, and interview Axl Rose in two months time, would you have waited before publishing the article?

JL) No comment

7) Did you find out any song titles from your news sources?

JL) No Comment

What studio are Guns n'roses currently recording in?

JL) No Comment

The guy sure knows when to use "no comment".? ?

10) What message do you have for the Guns n'roses fans that read your article?

JL) Thanks for reading the piece.

No comment.?




edited to correct 'typo' and correct formatting

[Ali]

Eva, I agree wholeheartedly when you say comment on the fact that his assessment that it is a balanced view on the making of Chinese Democracy so far is blatantly false.  After all, it is 2005 and Tom Zutuat hasn't been involved in the album since 2001.  A lot can change in four years.

Ali

[Thorazine Shuffle]

? A lot can change in four years.

Ali

I agree Ali, but to play devils advocate here, it also looks as though alot HAS NOT changed in four years.  It's just one of those situations where I hope I'm wrong, but I feel as though we're in the same situation that we have been in in the past.  No end in sight.

[GNROSAS]

1) Are you a fan of Guns n'roses?
JL) I am a dedicated fan of Guns N? Roses and have been pretty much from the start. I own every album (including the Lies EP and the Live Era double CD), except ?The Spaghetti Incident?? If I had to wind up stranded on a desert island with only 3 CDs, ?Appetite for Destruction? would be one.

What makes him a 'dedicated fan'?? Oooo? he owns every album... all of them...? okay - I'm impressed?
Chosing AFD as one of his 3 stranded on an island CDs doesn't make him a fan of GN'R's? or Axl Rose's continued efforts.

9) What are your three favourite bands?


JL) I'm a fan of all sorts of music and it would take too long for me to try narrowing down a list of my three favorites. I can say I'm looking forward to hearing a new record from Black Rebel Motorcycle Club.

Look he couldn't even bring himself to say he's looking forward to Chinese Democracy!?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

5) Do you think you gave the Guns n'roses camp sufficient time to offer information towards the article?

JL) Yes, I think I gave the GNR camp sufficient time to think about the fact that there would be a forthcoming article in the Times, and to offer a response. I very much hoped that Axl might participate in the story. But as a reporter for a daily news organization, I'm not bound by his priorities or those of his management.

He says he gave them sufficient time to think about that an article was coming out and to repsond to that fact -
his line about hoping for Axl to participate is bullshit if you ask me.
he clearly tips that off in how he answered the question.... he wanted to blind sight Axl/GN'R
notice - he didn't give them time to CONTRIBUTE to the article.
Hoping for Axl to participate?? ?my ass!?

he only allowed time for them to repsond to the fact that he was running this article

BIG DIFFERENCE



Look at how he answerd this question:

2) How long did your article on Guns n'roses take to compile?

JL) No Comment

he couldn't answer that because as Merck included in his reply - it was apparent that he had been working on it for several weeks - how could he explain working on it for a substantial length of time but then contacting Axl/GN'R Management on Thursday when he's putting it to bed on Monday?

Thursday to Monday inclues only 3 business day... Thursday - the day he first called Merck, Friday, and Monday.
This is exactly only all the time Leed's allowed for them to issue a 'no comment' or to just ignore it.
IT IS NOT ENOUGH TIME for them to ACTUALLY have CONTRIBUTED to the article.
It was never his intention for them to contribute or be involved!!!
If it was he could have contacted them primarily - when he started to comple the article.? Not simply a couple days in advance.? Couple days in advance was simply to advise them of the fact that it was coming out... he says as much in his response!

3) Do you think your article is a balanced and fair reflection on the story of Chinese Democracy?

JL) I think the piece is absolutely a fair and balanced look at the process of making Chinese Democracy so far. It?s clearly not written to stand as some kind of final verdict; as the article makes clear, the story of making Chinese Democracy is continuing.

How far is "so far" supposed to be Leeds?
Up-to-date?? Current??
I think not.? His sources - as Merck pointed out - only too him 'so far' as YEARS BACK.
Those who could have brought him all the way were - as Merck pointed out - not contacted.

(Merck's) mention of the Blair episode strikes me as a cheap shot.

and what is Leed's quote about "management said (Axl) couldn't be reached for comment"?

if you ask me that was a huge 'dig' at Merck because he jerked Merck around - calling him 2 days before he puts his story to bed without telling him that - Simply calling to advise them of the fact that it was going to be published and trying to get a 'reponse' to that fact out of Merck.? Then after all that - simply printing a lie that implies that Merck is some kind of incompetent boob who isn't even able to get in touch with his own client?

and hey - the Blair comment might of been out of place IF it wasn't the New York Times we were talking about but as it IS The NY Times who we are talking about then the comment fits in fine.? Leeds will have to deal with the fact that even his beloved NY Times isn't beyond a little reproach.? Blair thought the name shielded him and look where he ended up.

6) Had you been given the opportunity to listen to the new Guns n'roses album, and interview Axl Rose in two months time, would you have waited before publishing the article?

JL) No comment

7) Did you find out any song titles from your news sources?

JL) No Comment

What studio are Guns n'roses currently recording in?

JL) No Comment


The guy sure knows when to use "no comment".? ?

10) What message do you have for the Guns n'roses fans that read your article?

JL) Thanks for reading the piece.

No comment.?

I have to disagree. In all you posts you take For Granted that Merck says us the truth and the journalist tell us lies.

I can't Be sure about that. Merck is Axl's Managwer and he gets paid to defent Axl So that fact makes him difficult to be objective. On the Other Hand The Journalist i don't think that he has a financial gain if the outcome of the article will be positive or negative. He just want to write the Facts. He doesn't seem to take sides.

Now I have long ago stopped taking what GNR management says as 100% truth.

I had tickets for the 2001 European tour and the shows were cancelled to the excuse of buckethead Internal Haemorhage. That reason to me seems very Far Fetched and difficult to believe. Even if he suffered of internal haemmorhage They could have played these shows a month later.
 
Also the same year we had the stupid Excuse of Cancelling twice the European Shows due to tha Manager Jumping the Gun. Come on these shows were the Summer rescheduled shows and Axl new them from the beggining that they existed. Why he didn't cancel them at the time and waited just few weeks before to cancel them,  leaving all Us having our hopes up. The Blame went to the manager so as to cover Axl's Ass.

Probably the same happening with Merck. He tries to cover Axl's Ass

I no longer trust the management of GNR 100%. I wish I could.

[erose]

what do you have to write about guns n' roses to make it a good article in your eyes anyway jeezz? 

The article is very good, it has dug up more "facts" than any other article written by anyone in a long long time. I'm sure most of you would have loved it if he praised axl up in the sky and talked about how great the new tunes are etc...

He(leeds) neighter slams or worships axl so i must say it's a fairly balanced written article and all those anonymus quotes would have been highly appreciated if in fact the names were given. The fact that they have all signed that contract with axl stopes them from comming out with full names, it doesn't mean that the quotes are bogus tho... if he made them up, merck would have denied them and mr. leeds would probobly have been fired pretty quickly...

I know some of you can't face the fact that axl is FUCKIN' CRAZY, he is alright! Imo it's what makes him so fuckin' interesting, he's not some average joe, he's a super duper rockstar, with a bunsh of talent and a set mind...

Axl didn't let him listen to the album because it's not done, and axl didn't talk to the paper because he doesn't do that kind of stuff, noone should blame leeds for this article, it's well written, and balanced as far as it can be...

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

Everything Lees says in this interview corroborates what Merck told us.... His comments (and 'no comments') in fact CONFIRM everything Merck said about what transpired between them. ?Merck is telling the truth and Leeds did not deny any of what Merck said. ?

Leeds HIMESLEF indicates that he only contacted them to advise them of the fact that the article was gong to be published AND his 'no comment' when asked how long he had been working on it is a clear indication that Merck was spot ON the mark when he said they already had their own agenda - the article was going to print as-is - just how leed's planned it. ?Leeds only says he wanted their response to that fact. ?His 'no comment' on how long he had been working on the piece is because of exactly what Merck said.

The only lie I have adddressed is how he said "management said (Axl) could not be reached for comment" - ?Merck clearly paints a different picture of what transpired... ?and Leed's does NOT deny any of it.... Rather he CORROBORATES AND CONFIRMS what Merck said... by stating himself that he was only gave them time to respond to the fact that this was going to be published AND his refusal to answer about how long he was working on the piece before he contacted Merck.

It's clear. ?Crystal clear. ?Everything Merck said FITS and makes sense - especially when you see how Leeds answered the questions from Sp1at.

BTW: ?Great questions Sp1at!! ?

[providman]

As a fan he should have never written a piece such as this without talking to someone who actually nows what going on!!!
It is nice to know he is a fan, figured he was, but he took the wrong route in writing that piece.

Did you even read the article? He said he spoke to 30 people involved in the Album. How do you know he didn't speak to anyone who knows what's actually going on. For all you know he spoke to the entire band. You might THINK he didn't, but you don't know.
 
Please explain, how did he take the wrong route in writing that piece? And give better examples than Merck said this, Merck said that....I want to hear your analysis, based on what YOU know, not what you think you know, not what you wish or pretend to be true, not what Merck propagated.

Lets hear a fact by refutation by all you people in the know. For example, he stated what the studio costs were at one point, & how much the engineers & players were getting paid. Explain how his numbers were wrong, & tell us what the correct numbers were.

He said he spoke to 30 people involved in the project. Is this a lie? If yes, please explain.

Is this following line from the article a fabrication, a lie?:

HAVING EXCEEDED ALL budgeted and approved recording costs by millions of dollars," the label wrote in a letter dated Feb. 2 , 2004, "it is Mr. Rose's obligation to fund and complete the album, not Geffen's." ?

Did Leeds make up that sentence? If he did, please explain how it's not correct or, since Jayson Blair's name was invoked, come right out & say he made it up.

Was Tom Zutaut lying when he said:

"I really thought I could get him to deliver the record," said Mr. Zutaut, who spent nine months trying. "And we got close."

How does the fact that he's been out of the picture for years negate that statement? did Leeds make it up?

These are just a few examples to get you started. Since this article was so obviously a hatchet job, lets hear the specifics on how & why it is a hatchet job.

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

As a fan he should have never written a piece such as this without talking to someone who actually nows what going on!!!
It is nice to know he is a fan, figured he was, but he took the wrong route in writing that piece.

Did you even read the article? He said he spoke to 30 people involved in the Album. How do you know he didn't speak to anyone who knows what's actually going on. For all you know he spoke to the entire band. You might THINK he didn't, but you don't know.
 
Please explain, how did he take the wrong route in writing that piece? And give better examples than Merck said this, Merck said that....I want to hear your analysis, based on what YOU know, not what you think you know, not what you wish or pretend to be true, not what Merck propagated.

Lets hear a fact by refutation by all you people in the know. For example, he stated what the studio costs were at one point, & how much the engineers & players were getting paid. Explain how his numbers were wrong, & tell us what the correct numbers were.
He said he spoke to 30 people involved in the project. Is this a lie? If yes, please explain.

Is this following line from the article a fabrication, a lie?:

HAVING EXCEEDED ALL budgeted and approved recording costs by millions of dollars," the label wrote in a letter dated Feb. 2 , 2004, "it is Mr. Rose's obligation to fund and complete the album, not Geffen's."   

Did Leeds make up that sentence? If he did, please explain how it's not correct or, since Jayson Blair's name was invoked, come right out & say he made it up.

Was Tom Zutaut lying when he said:

"I really thought I could get him to deliver the record," said Mr. Zutaut, who spent nine months trying. "And we got close."

How does the fact that he's been out of the picture for years negate that statement? did Leeds make it up?

These are just a few examples to get you started. Since this article was so obviously a hatchet job, lets hear the specifics on how & why it is a hatchet job.

The wrong route is in spending a period of time he won't divulge taking us 'so far' and then simply advising the people in the know, 2 days beforehand, of the fact that he was going to publish his story.  If you believe it was the right "route"...?  

And for your other comments on whether he made things up - or lied about what he was told by whoever ...
Would you even consider that the info he received was inaccurate and/or incomplete? 

If not then there in lies the problem.  You, and possibly hundreds of thousands of others people will take what the NEW YORK TIMES prints and gives rights for re-printing and replublications all round the world - AS FACT.

As for specific refutal on/response on many of the issues you single out, you may enjoy this article:   http://www.sp1at.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=3875#3875

[gigger]

As a fan he should have never written a piece such as this without talking to someone who actually nows what going on!!!
It is nice to know he is a fan, figured he was, but he took the wrong route in writing that piece.

Did you even read the article? He said he spoke to 30 people involved in the Album. How do you know he didn't speak to anyone who knows what's actually going on. For all you know he spoke to the entire band. You might THINK he didn't, but you don't know.
 
Please explain, how did he take the wrong route in writing that piece? And give better examples than Merck said this, Merck said that....I want to hear your analysis, based on what YOU know, not what you think you know, not what you wish or pretend to be true, not what Merck propagated.

Lets hear a fact by refutation by all you people in the know. For example, he stated what the studio costs were at one point, & how much the engineers & players were getting paid. Explain how his numbers were wrong, & tell us what the correct numbers were.

He said he spoke to 30 people involved in the project. Is this a lie? If yes, please explain.

Is this following line from the article a fabrication, a lie?:

HAVING EXCEEDED ALL budgeted and approved recording costs by millions of dollars," the label wrote in a letter dated Feb. 2 , 2004, "it is Mr. Rose's obligation to fund and complete the album, not Geffen's." ?

Did Leeds make up that sentence? If he did, please explain how it's not correct or, since Jayson Blair's name was invoked, come right out & say he made it up.

Was Tom Zutaut lying when he said:

"I really thought I could get him to deliver the record," said Mr. Zutaut, who spent nine months trying. "And we got close."

How does the fact that he's been out of the picture for years negate that statement? did Leeds make it up?

These are just a few examples to get you started. Since this article was so obviously a hatchet job, lets hear the specifics on how & why it is a hatchet job.

In 2004 Caram Costanzo when questioned about the album by Sp1at said...

"Only a few know the facts; Axl, myself and one other. Unless you speak with one of us, you'll only have fiction. That's a fact. Thank you"

I point you in the direction of the Sp1at article also (seeing as I am the author and the fact that on reading it Merck OK'd it)...

http://www.sp1at.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=608

[dolphin]

seems like sp1at also wants their "15 minutes of fame"

Dude, you are associated with a fucking RUMOR BOARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are no more credible than the NY TIMES writer in our eyes.

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

seems like sp1at also wants their "15 minutes of fame"

Dude, you are associated with a fucking RUMOR BOARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are no more credible than the NY TIMES writer in our eyes.

NEW YORK TIMES writer Leeds apparently thought enough of Sp1at and Gigger's creditials- enough so to grant him an interview.   

[dolphin]

seems like sp1at also wants their "15 minutes of fame"

Dude, you are associated with a fucking RUMOR BOARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are no more credible than the NY TIMES writer in our eyes.

NEW YORK TIMES writer Leeds apparently thought enough of Sp1at and Gigger's creditials- enough so to grant him an interview.? ?

and that interview was BEFORE gigger wrote and sent "his side" of the story.

He's still associated with a RUMOR BOARD regardless of what he says or does and that is pure FACT

[gigger]

seems like sp1at also wants their "15 minutes of fame"

Dude, you are associated with a fucking RUMOR BOARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are no more credible than the NY TIMES writer in our eyes.

"our eyes"? You taken it upon yourself to speak on behalf of everyone else now?

Merck didn't seem to have a problem with the article I wrote, and Brain kindly commented for the article so according to some of the "fairly" important people we're credible.

Speaking to Merck, Brain and using a past publicly unknown comment from Caram Costanzo actually equates to a lot more research than the NY Times did! ?

But hey, you're entitled to your opinion. Maybe in future you can actually try and express it eloquently rather than rubbishing something without any evidence... ?

[gigger]

seems like sp1at also wants their "15 minutes of fame"

Dude, you are associated with a fucking RUMOR BOARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are no more credible than the NY TIMES writer in our eyes.

NEW YORK TIMES writer Leeds apparently thought enough of Sp1at and Gigger's creditials- enough so to grant him an interview.? ?

and that interview was BEFORE gigger wrote and sent "his side" of the story.

He's still associated with a RUMOR BOARD regardless of what he says or does and that is pure FACT

Actually the article was already written before Jeff Leeds's interview. The majority of the article was written on Sunday. It was sent to Merck for his comments on Monday.

I waited for Leeds's interview to come in so that I could change any info that may have arisen in his interview and changed the circumstances. As it is his comments made no difference to what I had already written.

[dolphin]

seems like sp1at also wants their "15 minutes of fame"

Dude, you are associated with a fucking RUMOR BOARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are no more credible than the NY TIMES writer in our eyes.

"our eyes"? You taken it upon yourself to speak on behalf of everyone else now?

Merck didn't seem to have a problem with the article I wrote, and Brain kindly commented for the article so according to some of the "fairly" important people we're credible.

Speaking to Merck, Brain and using a past publicly unknown comment from Caram Costanzo actually equates to a lot more research than the NY Times did! ?

But hey, you're entitled to your opinion. Maybe in future you can actually try and express it eloquently rather than rubbishing something without any evidence... ?

Let me spell it out for you

SP1aT.com equals RUMOR BOARD
maybe you ?need glasses

It does not matter what you say or contribute. ?You are associated with a RUMOR BOARD. ?How do you expect anyone to believe what you say? ?All you are is a fan just like everyone else on here.

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

NEW YORK TIMES writer Leeds apparently thought enough of Sp1at and Gigger's creditials- enough so to grant him an interview.? ?

that interview was BEFORE gigger wrote and sent "his side" of the story...

and how does that change the FACT that Leed's granted the interview to Sp1at - indicating his approval of their credentials?

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

seems like sp1at also wants their "15 minutes of fame"

Dude, you are associated with a fucking RUMOR BOARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are no more credible than the NY TIMES writer in our eyes.

"our eyes"? You taken it upon yourself to speak on behalf of everyone else now?

Merck didn't seem to have a problem with the article I wrote, and Brain kindly commented for the article so according to some of the "fairly" important people we're credible.

Speaking to Merck, Brain and using a past publicly unknown comment from Caram Costanzo actually equates to a lot more research than the NY Times did! ?

But hey, you're entitled to your opinion. Maybe in future you can actually try and express it eloquently rather than rubbishing something without any evidence... ?

Let me spell it out for you

SP1aT.com equals RUMOR BOARD
maybe you ?need glasses

It does not matter what you say or contribute. ?You are associated with a RUMOR BOARD. ?How do you expect anyone to believe what you say? ?All you are is a fan just like everyone else on here.

the writer of Sp1at's article is a fan who was granted an interview by NEW YORK TIMES writer Jeff Leeds - of his own volition.

[gigger]

seems like sp1at also wants their "15 minutes of fame"

Dude, you are associated with a fucking RUMOR BOARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are no more credible than the NY TIMES writer in our eyes.

"our eyes"? You taken it upon yourself to speak on behalf of everyone else now?

Merck didn't seem to have a problem with the article I wrote, and Brain kindly commented for the article so according to some of the "fairly" important people we're credible.

Speaking to Merck, Brain and using a past publicly unknown comment from Caram Costanzo actually equates to a lot more research than the NY Times did! ?

But hey, you're entitled to your opinion. Maybe in future you can actually try and express it eloquently rather than rubbishing something without any evidence... ?

Let me spell it out for you

SP1aT.com equals RUMOR BOARD
maybe you ?need glasses

It does not matter what you say or contribute. ?You are associated with a RUMOR BOARD. ?How do you expect anyone to believe what you say? ?All you are is a fan just like everyone else on here.

There is a section of the Sp1at forum site that is a rumourboard. The main site is a music site not a Guns n Roses rumourboard. No need to spell it out for me but I just thought I should clarify that. (I don't want this to descend into a "Is Sp1at credible" thread because I know it pisses off Jarmo and the rest of the mods.

I know I'm "just a fan", I never claimed to be anything else. I wrote the article as "just a fan" that's perfectly clear if you read it. I did circulate it to a number of high up people in the GnR World and the music industry.

You don't have to believe what I say. As I said, you're entitled to your opinion. The fact that the article I wrote, if bullshit, is highly libellous would surely make you think that I'm telling the truth.

I'd have to be crazy to make all these claims if they weren't true and then send the article to people at MTV, UMG and actual band members. I can prove that the claims I make are true, I could forward you emails that I sent and received and I could put you in touch with the people quoted in the article but why should I?

The people who are doubters shall remain doubters and the people who believe are free to believe. It is not my job to prove otherwise.

P.S. I do need glasses. I'm fairly short-sighted... Altho I favour contacts. ?

[Thorazine Shuffle]

BURN IN HELL SP1AT!!!  BURRNNN!!!!









Just having fun.  I like you guys.

[gigger]

BURN IN HELL SP1AT!!!? BURRNNN!!!!









Just having fun.? I like you guys.

 

I'm sure that when we die we will be consigned to hell for making up all our lies...