Merck Has 21 Days Left

[jimmythegent]

Jeff Leeds was unduly criticised by the zealots and apologists on this board and others. He was made out to be some kind of villain (see giggers "article" ), when in all fairness, he wrote a balanced and seemingly accurate article for a reputable publication.

[Mikkamakka]

Jeff Leeds was unduly criticised by the zealots and apologists on this board and others. He was made out to be some kind of villain (see giggers "article" ), when in all fairness, he wrote a balanced and seemingly accurate article for a reputable publication.

BTW why are we talking about Jeff Leeds' credibility? This thread is about Merck's credibility which is near to zero after his false alarm.

[mikegiuliana]

Good calls Warchild and Voodoo.?

the article was nothing eye opening to us since the gnr net community is rife with bs.?
On the positive note the article spread Chinese democracy to the public. The NY times readers were informed that there's a legendary phantom album an unparalleled musician is persistently struggling with in adversity and it might finally come out soon. People hadn't heard of such a pure artist spirit for a long time.

Jeff Leeds should write a follow up article and offer Merck the chance to contribute.

Amen to that save that there might be better journalists than Jeff Reed and more quality newspapers than NY times.

I don't think many new york time's readers are savoring that article.. Might have been so that's where he's been or that's what happened to gnr type thoughts.. After reading an article like that a week or so later you almost  forget about it.. Only forum fans keep that shit alive

[Voodoochild]

Jeff Leeds was unduly criticised by the zealots and apologists on this board and others. He was made out to be some kind of villain (see giggers "article" ), when in all fairness, he wrote a balanced and seemingly accurate article for a reputable publication.

Are you kiddin, right? Reputable publication? Uh... Maybe you should check those links:

http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000310.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2101294/

Also, there's some people on this publication who make up big storys about south-america governments with no truth at all, just to fuck up the reputation and create a huge buzz in the business people. They even published some fake pictures to give some credibility to their articles.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/brazil/story/0,12462,1215417,00.html


BTW, it's really funny how it's a fair article for you - a truly negative and biased person. I wonder if it had the Merck and Axl's side of the story you would still think it's that fair.

[Mysteron]

Jeff Leeds was unduly criticised by the zealots and apologists on this board and others. He was made out to be some kind of villain (see giggers "article" ), when in all fairness, he wrote a balanced and seemingly accurate article for a reputable publication.

The Jeff Leeds article was old information.

[Mysteron]

Jeff Leeds was unduly criticised by the zealots and apologists on this board and others. He was made out to be some kind of villain (see giggers "article" ), when in all fairness, he wrote a balanced and seemingly accurate article for a reputable publication.

BTW why are we talking about Jeff Leeds' credibility? This thread is about Merck's credibility which is near to zero after his false alarm.

Merck's info was correct at the time

I hope you can understand through this why GN'R do not give out 'updates'. Merck offered up some info and now here's a 5 page thread questioning his credibility.

[Nytunz]

Jeff Leeds was unduly criticised by the zealots and apologists on this board and others. He was made out to be some kind of villain (see giggers "article" ), when in all fairness, he wrote a balanced and seemingly accurate article for a reputable publication.

BTW why are we talking about Jeff Leeds' credibility? This thread is about Merck's credibility which is near to zero after his false alarm.

Merck's info was correct at the time

I hope you can understand through this why GN'R do not give out 'updates'. Merck offered up some info and now here's a 5 page thread questioning his credibility.

Well, there is different types of info to give.. Not only "when" things will happen. But "Why" things is taking so long. And info about the progress..
Anyway. I dont actually care that much anymore.. But i WILL be waiting, and give 100% support when things start happening.

[Mysteron]

Jeff Leeds was unduly criticised by the zealots and apologists on this board and others. He was made out to be some kind of villain (see giggers "article" ), when in all fairness, he wrote a balanced and seemingly accurate article for a reputable publication.

BTW why are we talking about Jeff Leeds' credibility? This thread is about Merck's credibility which is near to zero after his false alarm.

Merck's info was correct at the time

I hope you can understand through this why GN'R do not give out 'updates'. Merck offered up some info and now here's a 5 page thread questioning his credibility.

Well, there is different types of info to give.. Not only "when" things will happen. But "Why" things is taking so long. And info about the progress..
Anyway. I dont actually care that much anymore.. But i WILL be waiting, and give 100% support when things start happening.

I think the 'why' part is self explanatory

[jimmythegent]

Jeff Leeds was unduly criticised by the zealots and apologists on this board and others. He was made out to be some kind of villain (see giggers "article" ), when in all fairness, he wrote a balanced and seemingly accurate article for a reputable publication.

Are you kiddin, right? Reputable publication? Uh... Maybe you should check those links:

http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000310.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2101294/

Also, there's some people on this publication who make up big storys about south-america governments with no truth at all, just to fuck up the reputation and create a huge buzz in the business people. They even published some fake pictures to give some credibility to their articles.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/brazil/story/0,12462,1215417,00.html


BTW, it's really funny how it's a fair article for you - a truly negative and biased person. I wonder if it had the Merck and Axl's side of the story you would still think it's that fair.

The New Yourk times and the Guardian? Plus the biggest music publication in Europe, Q magazine? "Are you kiddin, right? "

I object to your assertion that I am negative and biased. You don't know me OK? So quit the judgement buddy. Perhaps my opinion differs from yours, instead of continually making excuses for Axl, I prefer to hold him to a higher standard - a standard that I know he is capable of.

Voodoochild, your comment is negative and does nothing for discussion on this board. I personally am sick of people like you attacking free discussion and thought. Grow up. If you disagree, by all means disagree. Do so in a way thats conducive to good debate though.

BTW, my post had nothing to do with Mercks credibility (off topic, I know? ?), it was simply drawing attention to the fact that Leeds was slammed unfairly.

[V]

Jeff Leeds was unduly criticised by the zealots and apologists on this board and others. He was made out to be some kind of villain (see giggers "article" ), when in all fairness, he wrote a balanced and seemingly accurate article for a reputable publication.

Are you kiddin, right? Reputable publication? Uh... Maybe you should check those links:

http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000310.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2101294/

Also, there's some people on this publication who make up big storys about south-america governments with no truth at all, just to fuck up the reputation and create a huge buzz in the business people. They even published some fake pictures to give some credibility to their articles.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/brazil/story/0,12462,1215417,00.html


BTW, it's really funny how it's a fair article for you - a truly negative and biased person. I wonder if it had the Merck and Axl's side of the story you would still think it's that fair.

The New Yourk times and the Guardian? Plus the biggest music publication in Europe, Q magazine? "Are you kiddin, right? "

I object to your assertion that I am negative and biased. You don't know me OK? So quit the judgement buddy. Perhaps my opinion differs from yours, instead of continually making excuses for Axl, I prefer to hold him to a higher standard - a standard that I know he is capable of.

Voodoochild, your comment is negative and does nothing for discussion on this board. I personally am sick of people like you attacking free discussion and thought. Grow up. If you disagree, by all means disagree. Do so in a way thats conducive to good debate though.

BTW, my post had nothing to do with Mercks credibility (off topic, I know   ), it was simply drawing attention to the fact that Leeds was slammed unfairly.

Geeez are you Axl Rose's mother?
.. A standard that I know he is capable of ..

[jarmo]

This is pointless, none of us know why 2005 wasn't the year of GN'R.



/jarmo