Guns is now managed by Doc McGhee

[audjon]

"But when he says he never killed no one that ain't exactly true."

So did he kill no one or never kill anyone?

  

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

"But when he says he never killed no one that ain't exactly true."

So did he kill no one or never kill anyone?

  

Improper grammar and the usage of double negatives are all the rage within the tough crowd these days.

[pilferk]

The point is that I don't see how you can draw ANY conclusion given that his comment is so vague.  While I agree it would be best to have more clarity in what was originally said, or have a follow-up comment from Axl to clarify his statement now, you have a choice as the reader of his statement.  You can choose to indulge in what at this time can only be deemed as idle speculation without any real solid factual basis, or you can simply say "I honestly have no idea what he's talking about there" and move on.  Not that there is anything wrong with speculating and wondering what he meant, but we all need to own the fact that we are making assumptions about what he meant instead of actually knowing what he meant.  That's a valid alternative to saying Axl is responsible for being 100% crystal clear about everything he says.  Frankly, that can never happen.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how an assumption that he's talking about Slash being responsible for Todd Crew's death is all that reasonable.  The sentences immediately preceding his remark are about the media ("So in closing...Fuck the LA Times, TMZ, Contact Music n' Spinner. I don't need "forgiven" for alleged n' fabricated nonsense. I've no respect for mean spirited aholes gettin' paid talkin' shit at other's expense or irresponsible biased partisan politics wanna be journalism by dated hacks") and the only time Slash was mentioned was in refuting rumors that he was taking a shot at Slash for suggesting a GN'R reunion for Haitian relief and that he banned Slash apparel.  Also, it seems very clear to me that the sentences following are again referring to certain media members ("So if we happen to play your neighborhood or for that matter anywhere at anytime regardless of the circumstances, presales, public sales, give aways, even free shows consider yourself uninvited. It's a free country but you're formally n' publicly not welcome").  In the contest of those other remarks, it seems highly unlikely that he's talking about Slash and/or Todd Crew.

Basically, I agree with Will and FunkyMonkey that it is most likely not about Slash given the context of the remarks, but no complete conclusions as to what he IS talking about can really be drawn given the vagueness of the comment.  Certainly, I don't see any real reason, ESPECIALLY given the context of the remarks to think he's talking Slash and Todd Crew.  And, I think it is exactly this type of idle speculation that led to Axl having to clarify that he wasn't taking a shot at Slash for suggesting a GN'R reunion for Haitian relief.

Yeah, I get that this is a message board and people discuss things.  But, we do have the option of taking a step back and saying, "You know what?  It could very well be, if not highly likely, that he isn't talking about Slash and Todd Crew at all.  It really isn't clear what he's talking about from the words themselves, but if you look at the context, it is a very strong possibility we're mistaken.  Let's just keep that in mind."

Ali

Thanks.  Because you basiclly proved my point.  You can't "prove" that you're any more correct than those of a differing opinion.  which IS rather the point.

There are two possible things we can dio with that bit:

Ignore it.

Try to figure out what he meant.

You can interpret it/use it any way you want...I have no issue with that.

But sitting there and bagging on other people who interpret it differently is hypocrisy of the highest order.  We're speculating no less than you are, with no more shaky of a foundation.

The fact is, the press entities mentioned have shown a pretty remarkable point of view (which we've been asked not to discuss in this thread).  Look back at some of the articles they've floated.  YOU might not reasonably see the conclusion being found by others, but that doesn't mean the conclusion's not there to be found.  It's not like I spent a whole lot of time analyzing this from theget go, or "reading into" it.  It was my first, gut, impression reading it...THEN I went back to refresh my memory.

Either Axl meant what some people think he did, or he chose a very poor analogy and words, considering the entities, situation, etc..  I allow for both options here, but I think it's a bit short sighted to ignore one and latch firmly on the other with such conviction....and then go on to tell everyone else they shouldn't do what you just did, but come to a different conclusion.

[Ali]

The point is that I don't see how you can draw ANY conclusion given that his comment is so vague.  While I agree it would be best to have more clarity in what was originally said, or have a follow-up comment from Axl to clarify his statement now, you have a choice as the reader of his statement.  You can choose to indulge in what at this time can only be deemed as idle speculation without any real solid factual basis, or you can simply say "I honestly have no idea what he's talking about there" and move on.  Not that there is anything wrong with speculating and wondering what he meant, but we all need to own the fact that we are making assumptions about what he meant instead of actually knowing what he meant.  That's a valid alternative to saying Axl is responsible for being 100% crystal clear about everything he says.  Frankly, that can never happen.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how an assumption that he's talking about Slash being responsible for Todd Crew's death is all that reasonable.  The sentences immediately preceding his remark are about the media ("So in closing...Fuck the LA Times, TMZ, Contact Music n' Spinner. I don't need "forgiven" for alleged n' fabricated nonsense. I've no respect for mean spirited aholes gettin' paid talkin' shit at other's expense or irresponsible biased partisan politics wanna be journalism by dated hacks") and the only time Slash was mentioned was in refuting rumors that he was taking a shot at Slash for suggesting a GN'R reunion for Haitian relief and that he banned Slash apparel.  Also, it seems very clear to me that the sentences following are again referring to certain media members ("So if we happen to play your neighborhood or for that matter anywhere at anytime regardless of the circumstances, presales, public sales, give aways, even free shows consider yourself uninvited. It's a free country but you're formally n' publicly not welcome").  In the contest of those other remarks, it seems highly unlikely that he's talking about Slash and/or Todd Crew.

Basically, I agree with Will and FunkyMonkey that it is most likely not about Slash given the context of the remarks, but no complete conclusions as to what he IS talking about can really be drawn given the vagueness of the comment.  Certainly, I don't see any real reason, ESPECIALLY given the context of the remarks to think he's talking Slash and Todd Crew.  And, I think it is exactly this type of idle speculation that led to Axl having to clarify that he wasn't taking a shot at Slash for suggesting a GN'R reunion for Haitian relief.

Yeah, I get that this is a message board and people discuss things.  But, we do have the option of taking a step back and saying, "You know what?  It could very well be, if not highly likely, that he isn't talking about Slash and Todd Crew at all.  It really isn't clear what he's talking about from the words themselves, but if you look at the context, it is a very strong possibility we're mistaken.  Let's just keep that in mind."

Ali

Thanks.  Because you basiclly proved my point.  You can't "prove" that you're any more correct than those of a differing opinion.  which IS rather the point.

There are two possible things we can dio with that bit:

Ignore it.

Try to figure out what he meant.

You can interpret it/use it any way you want...I have no issue with that.

But sitting there and bagging on other people who interpret it differently is hypocrisy of the highest order.  We're speculating no less than you are, with no more shaky of a foundation.

The fact is, the press entities mentioned have shown a pretty remarkable point of view (which we've been asked not to discuss in this thread).  Look back at some of the articles they've floated.  YOU might not reasonably see the conclusion being found by others, but that doesn't mean the conclusion's not there to be found.  It's not like I spent a whole lot of time analyzing this from theget go, or "reading into" it.  It was my first, gut, impression reading it...THEN I went back to refresh my memory.

Either Axl meant what some people think he did, or he chose a very poor analogy and words, considering the entities, situation, etc..  I allow for both options here, but I think it's a bit short sighted to ignore one and latch firmly on the other with such conviction....and then go on to tell everyone else they shouldn't do what you just did, but come to a different conclusion.

Pilferk, you completely missed the point of my original post it seems, and I'll reiterate that later.  That seems to have lead to this sidebar here.  But, to be clear, I never "bagged" on people who interpret Axl's statement differently.  It seems you took something as an attack which was not.  I merely stated my opinion, just like you stated yours, that I don't agree with your interpretation of what he said and furthermore think it's going out on quite a shaky limb. I wasn't making a statement of fact, never saying that I could "prove" my opinion, either.  I just stated my opinion, without prefacing it with the words "in my opinion", but I don't think it's necessary to do that on a discussion forum.  I think that's just implicit that people are stating their opinions.  Apparently, I'm mistaken in that regard.  And, my OPINION is that taken out of context, yes, perhaps there is a chance that Axl is referring to Todd Crew's death.  But, Axl's words came in a context of discussing the media. And in that context, my opinion is that it is not reasonable to think he's talking about Todd Crew.  Again, only my opinion and reaction to the opinion stated by others.

But, that wasn't my point, originally.  My point was as much as people want to hold Axl accountable for being clear in his statements to avoid misinterpretation of his words, WE as fans and readers of his statements need to exercise good judgment in reading what he writes and be honest when it isn't clear what he's saying.  WE have a choice in that regard.

Anyway, this is about Doc McGhee managing Guns now, not anything else.  Sorry for the sidebar, Jarmo and co.


Ali

[Buddha_Master]

Manager of Motley Crue and Bon Jovi?

Is it April 1st already?


I remember this dude from the supergroup show. He is a big douche. All McG's are. Please go ahead. I defy any of you to name one McG that isn't a big fucking douche. Nice move GN'R. You went out and hired a McG (and don't even try giving me a lesson in pronunciation. This dude is what he is). Ugh...

[pilferk]

The point is that I don't see how you can draw ANY conclusion given that his comment is so vague.  While I agree it would be best to have more clarity in what was originally said, or have a follow-up comment from Axl to clarify his statement now, you have a choice as the reader of his statement.  You can choose to indulge in what at this time can only be deemed as idle speculation without any real solid factual basis, or you can simply say "I honestly have no idea what he's talking about there" and move on.  Not that there is anything wrong with speculating and wondering what he meant, but we all need to own the fact that we are making assumptions about what he meant instead of actually knowing what he meant.  That's a valid alternative to saying Axl is responsible for being 100% crystal clear about everything he says.  Frankly, that can never happen.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how an assumption that he's talking about Slash being responsible for Todd Crew's death is all that reasonable.  The sentences immediately preceding his remark are about the media ("So in closing...Fuck the LA Times, TMZ, Contact Music n' Spinner. I don't need "forgiven" for alleged n' fabricated nonsense. I've no respect for mean spirited aholes gettin' paid talkin' shit at other's expense or irresponsible biased partisan politics wanna be journalism by dated hacks") and the only time Slash was mentioned was in refuting rumors that he was taking a shot at Slash for suggesting a GN'R reunion for Haitian relief and that he banned Slash apparel.  Also, it seems very clear to me that the sentences following are again referring to certain media members ("So if we happen to play your neighborhood or for that matter anywhere at anytime regardless of the circumstances, presales, public sales, give aways, even free shows consider yourself uninvited. It's a free country but you're formally n' publicly not welcome").  In the contest of those other remarks, it seems highly unlikely that he's talking about Slash and/or Todd Crew.

Basically, I agree with Will and FunkyMonkey that it is most likely not about Slash given the context of the remarks, but no complete conclusions as to what he IS talking about can really be drawn given the vagueness of the comment.  Certainly, I don't see any real reason, ESPECIALLY given the context of the remarks to think he's talking Slash and Todd Crew.  And, I think it is exactly this type of idle speculation that led to Axl having to clarify that he wasn't taking a shot at Slash for suggesting a GN'R reunion for Haitian relief.

Yeah, I get that this is a message board and people discuss things.  But, we do have the option of taking a step back and saying, "You know what?  It could very well be, if not highly likely, that he isn't talking about Slash and Todd Crew at all.  It really isn't clear what he's talking about from the words themselves, but if you look at the context, it is a very strong possibility we're mistaken.  Let's just keep that in mind."

Ali

Thanks.  Because you basiclly proved my point.  You can't "prove" that you're any more correct than those of a differing opinion.  which IS rather the point.

There are two possible things we can dio with that bit:

Ignore it.

Try to figure out what he meant.

You can interpret it/use it any way you want...I have no issue with that.

But sitting there and bagging on other people who interpret it differently is hypocrisy of the highest order.  We're speculating no less than you are, with no more shaky of a foundation.

The fact is, the press entities mentioned have shown a pretty remarkable point of view (which we've been asked not to discuss in this thread).  Look back at some of the articles they've floated.  YOU might not reasonably see the conclusion being found by others, but that doesn't mean the conclusion's not there to be found.  It's not like I spent a whole lot of time analyzing this from theget go, or "reading into" it.  It was my first, gut, impression reading it...THEN I went back to refresh my memory.

Either Axl meant what some people think he did, or he chose a very poor analogy and words, considering the entities, situation, etc..  I allow for both options here, but I think it's a bit short sighted to ignore one and latch firmly on the other with such conviction....and then go on to tell everyone else they shouldn't do what you just did, but come to a different conclusion.

Pilferk, you completely missed the point of my original post it seems, and I'll reiterate that later.  That seems to have lead to this sidebar here.  But, to be clear, I never "bagged" on people who interpret Axl's statement differently.  It seems you took something as an attack which was not.  I merely stated my opinion, just like you stated yours, that I don't agree with your interpretation of what he said and furthermore think it's going out on quite a shaky limb. I wasn't making a statement of fact, never saying that I could "prove" my opinion, either.  I just stated my opinion, without prefacing it with the words "in my opinion", but I don't think it's necessary to do that on a discussion forum.  I think that's just implicit that people are stating their opinions.  Apparently, I'm mistaken in that regard.  And, my OPINION is that taken out of context, yes, perhaps there is a chance that Axl is referring to Todd Crew's death.  But, Axl's words came in a context of discussing the media. And in that context, my opinion is that it is not reasonable to think he's talking about Todd Crew.  Again, only my opinion and reaction to the opinion stated by others.

But, that wasn't my point, originally.  My point was as much as people want to hold Axl accountable for being clear in his statements to avoid misinterpretation of his words, WE as fans and readers of his statements need to exercise good judgment in reading what he writes and be honest when it isn't clear what he's saying.  WE have a choice in that regard.

Anyway, this is about Doc McGhee managing Guns now, not anything else.  Sorry for the sidebar, Jarmo and co.


Ali

I think YOU'RE missing the point.

Read the very first paragraph you wrote, above.

Then witness that you, in fact, draw your own conclusion (that it's not the person in question).

See where I"m going, here?

You either think it's way too vague, and thus no conclusion can be drawn, because doing so engages in idle speculation...and so we shouldn't even discuss it.

Or you don't, at which point either of the two conclusions are valid.... since both are based on just as equal parts idle speculation.  My subsequent posts are meant to demonstrate THAT fact.

I respect that you draw a different conclusion.  No problem there.

But the "You shouldn't/couldn't/wouldn't draw a conclusion because it's speculating"  chiding then jumping to  drawing your own conclusion based on speculation and poo pooing the alternate one seems like a pretty massive bit of juxtoposition, no?  It sure reads that way.

Yes, we're all speculating.  I think I've said that in the original posts I made....nobody is in Axl's head, so that's all we got.  But it's not like we're reading private correspondance, here.  It was a message to the fans (that is, you and me), so there has to be some expectation of comprehension, no?  You base comprehension on your own interpretation and knowledge, no?

So I don't think there's any issue (besides the objection jarmo raised, that is) with doing exactly what you purport probably shouldn't be done (but then go on to do yourself).

One other point:  The fact of the matter is..the onus is on the author to get his point across, clearly.  That's true if it's Axl, you, me, or little Johnny writing his "What I did over Summer Vacation" thesis.  The reader gets what the author gives.  If there's a misunderstanding here (and I can certainly see clear that there might be one) it's because Axl (likely unknowingly) used an unfortunate analogy given the entities involved and their past contributions.   The fact it CAN be interpreted the way it has, by some people, demonstrates that.

[Ali]

I do think you DID in fact miss the point of my original post, latching on to part of what I said instead of the overall meaning.  That is what started this little sidebar here, but oh well, it's already done.

Again, trying to be 100% clear because I admit I have not been as much as I could up until now:  I have not drawn any 100%, set in stone conclusion based on what Axl said.  In fact, I said in a previous post, "Basically, I agree with Will and FunkyMonkey that it is most likely not about Slash given the context of the remarks, but no complete conclusions as to what he IS talking about can really be drawn given the vagueness of the comment."  My working hypothesis at this point, one which I strongly believe in, is that it is not about Todd Crew given the context of the remarks.  Can I conclude that beyond any shadow of a doubt?  No, not without further clarification from Axl.  Is it possible he is talking about Todd Crew?  Yes.  Do I believe that it likely is?  No, that is not my personal belief (belief, not conclusion).  I don't see disagreeing with the other hypothesis as "poo pooing" it, either.  It's just a disagreement.

If you look at my original post that you quoted, I used the phrase "jumps to conclusion" as in someone stating and believing beyond any shadow of a doubt that Axl was talking about Todd Crew.  THAT is what I have issue with.  On another board, with the whole Slash-reunion for Haitian relief issue, people seemed to conclude, as in it was irrefutable and inarguable to them, that Axl was taking a shot Slash for suggesting GN'R should reunite for Haitian earthquake relief.  My issue was not with presenting a working hypothesis.  It was with "jumping to a conclusion" as if it is 100% clear and inarguable and stating it as such.

In retrospect, it seems perhaps that you were just tossing out a possibility, a working hypothesis of your own, and I misinterpreted it as a firm conclusion that had been drawn.  I apologize if that is the case.

Ali

[pilferk]

Since I've no issue with you having an alternate POV, I addressed the piece of the original post I thought needed adressing, rather than the conclusion you drew based on your own speculation.

If you look at my original post that you quoted, I used the phrase "jumps to conclusion" as in someone stating and believing beyond any shadow of a doubt that Axl was talking about Todd Crew.  In retrospect, it seems perhaps that you were just tossing out a possibility, a working hypothesis of your own, and I misinterpreted it as a firm conclusion that had been drawn.  I apologize if that is the case.

Ali

Read back what I wrote, and you'll see lots of this:

I don't know what really happened.

I want to be uber-clear:  I don't KNOW that's what happened.

I don't know what really occurred, since I wasn't there

IF (and that's a big if)

with lots of "I think", "likely" and "maybe" thrown in for good measure.

I don't know how to hedge any more clearly than that.....

[Ali]

If you look at my original post that you quoted, I used the phrase "jumps to conclusion" as in someone stating and believing beyond any shadow of a doubt that Axl was talking about Todd Crew.  In retrospect, it seems perhaps that you were just tossing out a possibility, a working hypothesis of your own, and I misinterpreted it as a firm conclusion that had been drawn.  I apologize if that is the case.

Ali

Read back what I wrote, and you'll see lots of this:

I don't know what really happened.

I want to be uber-clear:  I don't KNOW that's what happened.

I don't know what really occurred, since I wasn't there

IF (and that's a big if)

with lots of "I think" and "maybe" thrown in for good measure.

I don't know how to hedge any more clearly than that.....

Well, then, I apologize for making it sound you were stating an irrefutable fact/100% conclusion, Pilferk.  But, to be fair, my original post quoted someone else, not you, and I never meant it to be directed to you specifically.

Let's move on.

Ali

[pilferk]

Well, then, I apologize for making it sound you were stating an irrefutable fact/100% conclusion, Pilferk.  But, to be fair, my original post quoted someone else, not you, and I never meant it to be directed to you specifically.

Let's move on.

Ali

 Largely, I'm begining to wonder if the disconnect here is one of language.

Drawing a conclusion is pretty much a synonym for forming an opinion.  A conclusion is, strictly, an inference based on premises.  It's not a finding of fact.  In the scientific method (and, professional hazard, that's my habitat), your conclusion is what you HOPED to prove or what you THINK has occured when studying preceeding research/experiments...it's your theory.  Those conclusions may, or may not, turn out to be fact after further study (or repeated/related experimentation).

But yes...lets move on.   

[Ali]

Well, then, I apologize for making it sound you were stating an irrefutable fact/100% conclusion, Pilferk.  But, to be fair, my original post quoted someone else, not you, and I never meant it to be directed to you specifically.

Let's move on.

Ali

 Largely, I'm begining to wonder if the disconnect here is one of language.

Drawing a conclusion is pretty much a synonym for forming an opinion.  A conclusion is, strictly, an inference based on premises.  It's not a finding of fact.  In the scientific method (and, professional hazard, that's my habitat), your conclusion is what you HOPED to prove or what you THINK has occured when studying preceeding research/experiments...it's your theory.  Those conclusions may, or may not, turn out to be fact after further study (or repeated/related experimentation).

But yes...lets move on.   

Yes, I think you're right.  The disconnect here is one of language.  The issue of declaring irrefutable fact vs. working hypothesis and opinion was muddied by semantics. 

Doc McGhee everyone.  What do you think he can do for GN'R?   

Ali

[pilferk]

Doc McGhee everyone.  What do you think he can do for GN'R?   

Ali

I think it's a pretty good move, actually.

I suspect Azoff was more than "distracted" with his duties with TM....I think he did pretty well right up until Front Line was purchased by TM, and he changed roles.  Then, I suspect he was completely indoctrinated into his TM duties, with little actual time left to do anything else.

I think McGhee has a proven track record with established, big name, acts.  He's done a pretty good job with Kiss, and he was with both Crue and Bon Jovi during their rise to stardom.  That's a decent resume.  In addition, he's stayed active and current with other acts.

GnR is in a somewhat weird place.  They're not really a nostalgia act, touring on past laurels.  They're not the biggest band in the world, anymore, either.  They're touring on new material after a LONG period of (relative, now....we fans know otherwise) inactivity.  It's almost like both building a new band AND working with an established act.  McGhee has done both, and isn't new to the scene.  In addition, I expect he'll be very hands on, rather than delegating duties to "office staff".   I think Axl and the crew both need that, and like that style of management. It's what Doug Goldstein did, back in the day...even once he was running BFG...and it's what Merck did (GnR was REALLY his only client while he was also CEO of Sanctuary), too..though I suppose you can argue effectiveness on that one.

I think it has the potential to turn out well.   I think Doc is going to have to realize what GnR need from him, and what they don't...and be content in that role.   He's going to need to learn when he can push and when he needs to fade into the wood work and let GnR be GnR (and, consequently, let Axl be Axl).  By the same token, he can't let them use him as a doormat, though.  Of course, the only way that's gonna happen is if he steps right into the fray and earns the bands/Axl's respect.  I think he can do that...

[LunsJail]

McGhee hasn't managed Motley Crue or Bon Jovi in a long time.....let's keep that in mind. So any recent touring success they've had isn't exactly his creation.

But he does seem like somebody who won't be a yesman or a doormat, which means he'll be promptly fired at the first bump in the road. 

[norway]

Doc has passion, if he want something to be seen around the world he has a reason.

People wanna see Axl, and the band isn't that bad either.

Now with DJ Asbha they reach out to a younger mainstream audience too.

[pilferk]

McGhee hasn't managed Motley Crue or Bon Jovi in a long time.....let's keep that in mind. So any recent touring success they've had isn't exactly his creation.

But he does seem like somebody who won't be a yesman or a doormat, which means he'll be promptly fired at the first bump in the road. 

True.  It's been awhile, yes.  But he managed both bands during the height of their run...when they were HUGE acts. 

So while any recent success (or failure) might not be attributable to him, their run UP to the big success....that he was involved with.

[ppbebe]

and yet you don't wonder why the band keeps picking those who don't seem to be yes man.

"But when he says he never killed no one that ain't exactly true."

So did he kill no one or never kill anyone?

  

its not that important i guess. the double negative is perhaps because it isn't exactly referring to any real person's death (or survival) in particular, scrupulous care isn't required there.

we all know the closeness of 'hack' n 'slash' and none of which is most innocent or honest. i dont see anything shocking if that is mentioned again there.

Alternatively, i think the bit can be read as
they (the media) come to u pretending as your biggest supporters (Back ur boy!) and when you tell the truth that isn't sensational enough (But when he says he never killed no one), they don't listen (that ain't exactly true.) like who cares, you're so boring and disappointing. (Yeah, that's right, stone cold.).

still, imo the former reading looks more natural and fitting. isn't corrected in the follow-up either.

either way i believe the focus is on the media hypocrisy.

[D]

Every band Doc managed for the most part has become the biggest band in the world.

Motley,Bon Jovi etc

Jon fired him cause he wouldn't listen when the band said they were burnt out and done and kept booking shows! LOL

so thats why I say GNR will stay super busy

[audjon]

and yet you don't wonder why the band keeps picking those who don't seem to be yes man.

"But when he says he never killed no one that ain't exactly true."

So did he kill no one or never kill anyone?

  

its not that important i guess. the double negative is perhaps because it isn't exactly referring to any real person's death (or survival) in particular, scrupulous care isn't required there.

we all know the closeness of 'hack' n 'slash' and none of which is most innocent or honest. i dont see anything shocking if that is mentioned again there.

Alternatively, i think the bit can be read as
they (the media) come to u pretending as your biggest supporters (Back ur boy!) and when you tell the truth that isn't sensational enough (But when he says he never killed no one), they don't listen (that ain't exactly true.) like who cares, you're so boring and disappointing. (Yeah, that's right, stone cold.).

still, imo the former reading looks more natural and fitting. isn't corrected in the follow-up either.

either way i believe the focus is on the media hypocrisy.

I hope that most of you took my remark as a joke, if not, well...
I'm just glad that Axl is speaking, just as I love how consequently some board members analyze every sentence, word for word. It's what makes this site so great.
 

[icpillusions]

Nice to hear all the news in Axl's recent post.  Very cool. 

On a little side note about the "killing" comment.  The commandment in the Bible has two meanings. 1. Not to physically kill anyone.  and 2. Not to kill anyone's good reputation by spreading lies about them. (This is considered just as bad as physically killing someone.) Something that I picked up on in an Old Testament course I've taken.  To whom he is referring to?  I don't know, but the person it is directed towards probably does. 

On a lighter note.  Axl, can I come to the next surprise show in the NYC area? 

[One.In.A.Million]

I really don't think Axl wants us micro analyzing his every word. Thats how rumours begin, with people thinking they know the exact meaning of what was said.

In the words of Axl in Used To Love Her, " Take it for what it is ".

Which is a truly talented artist good enough to communicate with us via twitter. To have Axl posting little updates via twitter was almost unimaginable 6 months ago. Lets just be thankful about that, and lets not discuss for pages whether Axl meant that a certain somebody actually killed someone. 


Lee