DJ's Letter

[D-GenerationX]

The only one missing is telling people they are fake fans, bad fans, disloyal fans, etc.  That sort of eating our own type behavior seems to be exclusive to us.

vs telling people they're cheerleaders, press agents, looking at things with rose colored glasses, eternal optimists, or aren't looking at things "realistically" (aka through my point of view).

Both sides engage in the same type of "accusations", with slightly different bents. No?

I don't see this as a situation where relativism applies.

The terms you quoted are said merely in response to the hypersensitive reactions and constant "how dare you!" lectures we are made to endure.  And its responses in that manner that leads to accusations that you are carrying Axl's water.

Getting back to the Dre example, there were no fans using terms like "cheerleader" or "advocate".  Why?  There was no need.  No one was running around trying to put their fellow fans through some sort of purity test because they were so threatened by someone offering a dissenting opinion.

[D-GenerationX]

But when someone calls you a pessimist, or a whiner, or a chronic complainer....THATS off the table.  That's tantamount to a SERIOUS "yo momma" joke, and is cause for calling down the heavens to paint yourself as the downtrodden, put upon, martyr just fighting the good fight to bring the truth to the masses (or to re-educate the above sycophants).

I don't make any argument here I would not make away from the friendly confines of fellow travelers.

THAT is the disconnect.  I'm not painting myself as some sort of crusader for truth and justice.  Rather putting forth the proposition that few of the over the top argument I hear here would not play anywhere BUT here.

I am never under any delusions I will change anyone's opinion.  I'm just always going to ask you how confident you'd be making some of the these arguments to anyone but other Axl superfans.

And the people that get all bunged up about it, to me, that's at least, in part, an admission they know they never could.  I'm just the prick for pointing that out.  I should just be happy hunkered down here in the bunker, and its the world that unfair. 

I don't play that game.  River in Egypt...you know how that goes.

[pilferk]

I don't see this as a situation where relativism applies.

I'm sure you don't. Because then you'd have to acknowledge the hypocrisy.  But, in fact, it does.

The terms you quoted are said merely in response to the hypersensitive reactions and constant "how dare you!" lectures we are made to endure.  And its responses in that manner that leads to accusations that you are carrying Axl's water.

I used the most recent examples in THIS conversation.  They're not remotely the only ones.

And those on the flip side would say their reactions are in response to constant contrarian, worst case scenario, doom and gloom posts and accusations that any differing interpretation is that of a cheerleader, or someone carrying Axl's water. 

And you would say that categorization is unfair.  Just as they would say YOURS is unfair.

That's the point.

[Ginger King]

I really don't understand the noble cause against the industry stance.  I mean, he still has to work with "the industry" even with the current lineup, for things like tours, residencies, AFD release, etc.  IMO, it's all pretext for he and Slash can't stand each other.  No righteous stance against "the man" or just cause to fight for.  He and Slash hate each other.  Period.

Yep.

Its only a small segment of the fanbase that puts all this stock in the nobility of it all.  Even amongst our own number, most roll their eyes at the concept.

This is a GREAT example of my point.

The above..that's 100% OK.  Discounting the opposing viewpoint, with a wink wink nudge nudge that they're just starry eyed sycophants or crackpots is just fine.

But when someone calls you a pessimist, or a whiner, or a chronic complainer....THATS off the table.  That's tantamount to a SERIOUS "yo momma" joke, and is cause for calling down the heavens to paint yourself as the downtrodden, put upon, martyr just fighting the good fight to bring the truth to the masses (or to re-educate the above sycophants).

You want an honest conversation?  The above quote, by you, is pretty much the quickest way to end that endeavor.

Just sayin'.

Yeah, I see your point?we should take as good as we give, but to paint us as two polar opposites I feel is not accurate. 

In the pendulum of Gun n Roses, where one end is everything is great, Axl is never (seriously, never) wrong, artistic integrity explains everything, which is great, btw?and the other end is the band was over in 1993, Axl has ruined and continues to ruin the Guns legacy, he?s washed up and sounds like shit, etc?I would say Jarmo and others lean pretty close to the former, but I don?t think myself and others are at the opposite end (although it?s clear some feel that we are). 

Countless times we?ve pointed out positives of Axl and the current lineup?have attended multiple shows, bought AFD, and are looking forward to hearing new music.  I think that?s what bothers me the most?not that I?m labeled a whiner, complainer (which is completely ironic because I?m the one in my group of friends still flying the GnR flag) but that any level of criticism throws you to the other end of the pendulum.  Sorry, but it?s not black or white?there is some gray. 

[D-GenerationX]

And those on the flip side would say their reactions are in response to constant contrarian, worst case scenario, doom and gloom posts and accusations that any differing interpretation is that of a cheerleader, or someone carrying Axl's water. 

OK, so disagree.  Make your case.  That's what debate is.

But "why are you here?"  Come on.  That's a weak minded crutch.  Make your case on the merits without getting overemotional and somehow personally aggrieved.

[D-GenerationX]

Countless times we?ve pointed out positives of Axl and the current lineup?have attended multiple shows, bought AFD, and are looking forward to hearing new music.  I think that?s what bothers me the most?not that I?m labeled a whiner, complainer (which is completely ironic because I?m the one in my group of friends still flying the GnR flag) but that any level of criticism throws you to the other end of the pendulum.  Sorry, but it?s not black or white?there is some gray. 

Not to mention that this is disregarded as clever cover on our part.  We are pretending to say something positive we don't believe, as misdirection so that we can say other mean things.

How do you take that seriously?

[pilferk]

I don't make any argument here I would not make away from the friendly confines of fellow travelers.

I'd offer that those here with the opposing POV would say the same.

THAT is the disconnect.  I'm not painting myself as some sort of crusader for truth and justice.  Rather putting forth the proposition that few of the over the top argument I hear here would not play anywhere BUT here.

So? The discussion is taking place in what construct? This one, right?

I'd also say that just because you might not hear them anywhere else doesn't make them less valid or less right.  It just makes them less popular.

And THATS the real disconnect.  You're confusing "popularly held" with "correct and obvious".  The world isn't flat, and wasn't ever flat.  In this case, we're arguing an unknown (and maybe unknowable). That means both POV are pretty equally valid.

You discount theirs because they come from what you see as Axl Super fans.

They discount yours because the come from what they see as a chronic complainer/whiner.

Tit for tat.

Neither gets an "honest conversation".
  

I am never under any delusions I will change anyone's opinion.  I'm just always going to ask you how confident you'd be making some of the these arguments to anyone but other Axl superfans.

Seems like many folks are pretty confident.  No?

So, at that point, it's time to stop discounting them and ridiculing their stances by categorizing their position.

Or not...but then..you're not looking for honest discussion.

You're looking to espouse your views without challenge, which is different.

And the people that get all bunged up about it, to me, that's at least, in part, an admission they know they never could.  I'm just the prick for pointing that out.  I should just be happy hunkered down here in the bunker, and its the world that unfair. 

pot. kettle. black.

If you can ascribe those perceptions and motivations to their objections, they can equally do the same with yours. No?

You'll object, saying that it's not true for you.

They've been loudly doing the same, if you haven't noticed.

I don't play that game.  River in Egypt...you know how that goes.

Yup, and the river is wide and foggy.  And your own boat is leaking....

[pilferk]

Yeah, I see your point?we should take as good as we give, but to paint us as two polar opposites I feel is not accurate. 

On the spectrum of the argument? No, not polar opposites.  Opposing points of view, but not diametrically opposed (or most of you..there is one, but I generally ignore him now).

But in terms of tone? Yup, pretty much polar opposites.

You: You guys are all kool aid drinking, rose colored glasses wearing, card carrying members of the Axl Rose fan club so everything you say is not to be taken seriously.

Them: You guys are chronic complaining, whining, pessimests who don't like the current incarnation of Gnr, would probably be happier whining somewhere else, and you're not to be taken seriously.

These are the contexts I read as I lurk.  And, quite frankly, they are certainly not conducive to "honest discussion".  They might be conducive to heated debate, but that's not what the stated goal was.  If it is...carry on.  But, by the same token, maybe keep the "butt hurt" to a minimum, since both sides are engaging in the same sort of rhetoric.

In the pendulum of Gun n Roses, where one end is everything is great, Axl is never (seriously, never) wrong, artistic integrity explains everything, which is great, btw?and the other end is the band was over in 1993, Axl has ruined and continues to ruin the Guns legacy, he?s washed up and sounds like shit, etc?I would say Jarmo and others lean pretty close to the former, but I don?t think myself and others are at the opposite end (although it?s clear some feel that we are). 

Countless times we?ve pointed out positives of Axl and the current lineup?have attended multiple shows, bought AFD, and are looking forward to hearing new music.  I think that?s what bothers me the most?not that I?m labeled a whiner, complainer (which is completely ironic because I?m the one in my group of friends still flying the GnR flag) but that any level of criticism throws you to the other end of the pendulum.  Sorry, but it?s not black or white?there is some gray. 

Sure there is.

[D-GenerationX]

I am never under any delusions I will change anyone's opinion.  I'm just always going to ask you how confident you'd be making some of the these arguments to anyone but other Axl superfans.

Seems like many folks are pretty confident.  No?

How the hell do I know?  For that matter, how the hell do you know?

The only interaction we ever have with these folks is here.  I'd even go a step further to say that the only place any of really talk about GNR is here.  Are you out at a lot of dinner parties where Guns N' Roses comes up as a topic?

But let's take the most handy example possible.  You are with a group of friends and someone that knows you are a fan says "Man, Axl really fucked that whole thing up."  Are you then going to leap into action with talk of "last man standing"?  How they all quit on him?  Or this is all simply a natural progression of the same band, and if you can't draw a straight line from 'Welcome To The Jungle' to 'Prostitute', you are simply incorrect?

Who's not laughing at that?  What does your gut tell you?

[pilferk]

OK, so disagree.  Make your case.  That's what debate is.

They have.  And, in large swaths, the response to their disagreement is "You're a cheerleading press agent" or "You're swinging from Axl's nuts" or...whatever. And, to be clear, this type of stuff isn't JUST focused on jarmo, either.  I've had it turned toward me (though not by you in a LONG time), I've seen it turned on others.  jarmo is largely the brunt, sure...but he's also the most vocal/prolific poster in opposition.

So, I'd turn that back around.  Disagree. Make your case.  Refrain from "attacking the poster". Attack "the argument".

But "why are you here?"  Come on.  That's a weak minded crutch.  Make your case on the merits without getting overemotional and somehow personally aggrieved.

Is it any weaker than "I'm under no delusions as to what you are"?  To me..it's honestly not.  It's cheap heat, a cheap way to try to discount the posters credibility rather than the contents of the post.

It works both ways. No?

And that's my point.  If you're going to get upset over being categorized a specific way, you can't be doing the same thing to the opposing POV.  It gives you no high ground from which to launch that objection.  The "butt hurt" is forced, or fake, or, at the very least, hypocritical.

Again, that's if we're working toward "honest conversation".

If we're working toward heated debate...carry on.  But then...you can't play the martyr when you're addressed using the same tactics you're turning on the opposition.  Or, rather, you can..but it all rings sort of false.

[jarmo]

That's the easy answer to everything.

Well, it certainly makes a hell of a lot more sense than the notion Axl is actually a sweetheart, and all these people the past 25 years have just been lying, for whatever reason.

Once again you offer zero evidence of being interested in a discussion. It's one generalization after another.
Did anybody say this? No. They just pointed out that your version of events is faulty. And I'm being nice here.

Is it possible you're once again wrong? Yes it is.




/jarmo

[pilferk]

How the hell do I know?  For that matter, how the hell do you know?

Um, I can read? Unless you think you're an Axl Super fan?

The only interaction we ever have with these folks is here.  I'd even go a step further to say that the only place any of really talk about GNR is here.  Are you out at a lot of dinner parties where Guns N' Roses comes up as a topic?

I've seen some of the posters here (including jarmo...though maybe not for awhile) make similar arguments in similar forums.

But, in short, I take them at their word.  They've all pretty much said this, time and again.  That their opinions are honest ones, and the way they feel.

If you question that...then aren't they similarly valid in questioning your motivations?

But let's take the most handy example possible.  You are with a group of friends and someone that knows you are a fan says "Man, Axl really fucked that whole thing up."  Are you then going to leap into action with talk of "last man standing"?  How they all quit on him?  Or this is all simply a natural progression of the same band, and if you can't draw a straight line from 'Welcome To The Jungle' to 'Prostitute', you are simply incorrect?

Depends on the group.

Of my actual friends and people I socialize with?

We've had those conversations, and they've been long and nuanced.  And yes...I pretty much espouse the same general POV I do here.  But I will say...those folks are usually less informed, in general, of events with GnR.  Not just since 1993, but of some of the "behind the scenes" details for the entire run.

So...yeah....I come here for more nuanced discussion, just like I go to a disney forum to discuss more nuanced stuff regarding the parks, and their business practices.  Not because I feel more comfortable expressing a particular POV to them, but because there are more folks that actually understrand, and are knowledgable, about the subject.

I think, for topics like this, we have to stop thinking "IRL" is more compelling, or somehow contains more valid opinions, than targeted forums do.  But that's a larger topic...

Who's not laughing at that?  What does your gut tell you?

Lot of folks aren't, if you can make your case in a reasonable way.  Sure, the random dude bro might snicker...but what does his opinion matter anyway?

[D-GenerationX]

They have.  And, in large swaths, the response to their disagreement is "You're a cheerleading press agent" or "You're swinging from Axl's nuts" or...whatever. And, to be clear, this type of stuff isn't JUST focused on jarmo, either.  I've had it turned toward me (though not by you in a LONG time), I've seen it turned on others.  jarmo is largely the brunt, sure...but he's also the most vocal/prolific poster in opposition.

You're right, I don't say it to you.  I don't really say it to anyone.  I don't think it applies across the board by any means.

If others do, I can't help that.  I can only speak for myself, obviously.  But in speaking for myself, I can tell you Jarmo is the only one say that stuff to.

Of course, he's also the only one that follows me around like a golden retriever and picks fights with me over everything I say.

The percentage of my posts that draw a direct response from Jarmo is absurdly high.  Both in sheer number and in relation to, I'd argue, anyone else here.

mortis spent the last year or so carrying that weight for me.  But if he has truly bounced, I'm right back to where I was most of 2013 and 2014 with the Big Chief.

[D-GenerationX]

How the hell do I know?  For that matter, how the hell do you know?

Um, I can read? Unless you think you're an Axl Super fan?

I meant that while I don't know if anyone is making these arguments away from this board or not.  Neither do you.  We only see these people here.

But, as I asked you, what does your gut tell you?  Know what my gut tells me?  They don't.

I think if the topic of Axl or GNR comes up "IRL" you are most likely to hear something other than the stuff you hear around here.  And my gut tells me that people that make these passionate arguments around here don't leap in with the same stuff "IRL".  I think they just sort of deflect and stay silent.  All the while in their head lamenting how these people don't have "the facts".

And I think the cop out of all time to explain the silence and unwillingness to engage and push HTGTH talking points in public is the notion "I'm not even going to bother getting into it with them".  I think that is couched as being above it all, but in truth, is just way to have to avoid making arguments people would never, ever, ever accept.  And would most likely get you labeled a fanboy apologist, and no one wants that label.

That's just my read, anyway.

[pilferk]

You're right, I don't say it to you.  I don't really say it to anyone.  I don't think it applies across the board by any means.

You say it (or infer it) to others, and one other pretty prominently (Emily).

And they, largely, are the ones saying similar, but opposing, things about you.

If others do, I can't help that.  I can only speak for myself, obviously.  But in speaking for myself, I can tell you Jarmo is the only one say that stuff to.

Of course, he's also the only one that follows me around like a golden retriever and picks fights with me over everything I say.

The percentage of my posts that draw a direct response from Jarmo is absurdly high.  Both in sheer number and in relation to, I'd argue, anyone else here.

I'd bet you dollars to donuts the opposite is true, too.

That, by a wide margin, you reply to his posts more than any other single poster.



Part of that is occupational hazard, too.  You both, I'd bet, are the two single most prolific posters, post for post, on the forums.

And this is jarmos "home", for lack of a better term, so you sort of expect he's going to post a lot.  And I'm thinking you, like me, do a lot of "progress bar watching" at work, and are generally bored looking for something to do while the bar moves.

Again, when you engage the way you do, it's tough to take the "butt hurt" seriously.

[D-GenerationX]

You're right, I don't say it to you.  I don't really say it to anyone.  I don't think it applies across the board by any means.

You say it (or infer it) to others, and one other pretty prominently (Emily).

And they, largely, are the ones saying similar, but opposing, things about you.

I have largely given up on Emily as a source of serious conversation.

We still talk in civil terms from time to time.  She does seem pretty well versed on music.  But when she gives me her standard bit about being toxic and terrible, I let those go unanswered. 

I haven't gotten into with her in a long, long time.  If she chooses to present herself around here as the angriest of birds, I can't do much with that.  But I don't fight it either.

[D-GenerationX]

If others do, I can't help that.  I can only speak for myself, obviously.  But in speaking for myself, I can tell you Jarmo is the only one say that stuff to.

Of course, he's also the only one that follows me around like a golden retriever and picks fights with me over everything I say.

The percentage of my posts that draw a direct response from Jarmo is absurdly high.  Both in sheer number and in relation to, I'd argue, anyone else here.

I'd bet you dollars to donuts the opposite is true, too.

That, by a wide margin, you reply to his posts more than any other single poster.

Not so sure about that.

I get in long conversations with many folks where he is not around.  However, if there are 5 of us talking for 3 pages, and in saunters Jarmo...guess who's posts are the ones quoted?  The other 4 might as well be in gray and red camouflage.

[Ginger King]

Yeah, I see your point?we should take as good as we give, but to paint us as two polar opposites I feel is not accurate. 

On the spectrum of the argument? No, not polar opposites.  Opposing points of view, but not diametrically opposed (or most of you..there is one, but I generally ignore him now).

But in terms of tone? Yup, pretty much polar opposites.

You: You guys are all kool aid drinking, rose colored glasses wearing, card carrying members of the Axl Rose fan club so everything you say is not to be taken seriously.

Them: You guys are chronic complaining, whining, pessimests who don't like the current incarnation of Gnr, would probably be happier whining somewhere else, and you're not to be taken seriously.

These are the contexts I read as I lurk.  And, quite frankly, they are certainly not conducive to "honest discussion".  They might be conducive to heated debate, but that's not what the stated goal was.  If it is...carry on.  But, by the same token, maybe keep the "butt hurt" to a minimum, since both sides are engaging in the same sort of rhetoric.

In the pendulum of Gun n Roses, where one end is everything is great, Axl is never (seriously, never) wrong, artistic integrity explains everything, which is great, btw?and the other end is the band was over in 1993, Axl has ruined and continues to ruin the Guns legacy, he?s washed up and sounds like shit, etc?I would say Jarmo and others lean pretty close to the former, but I don?t think myself and others are at the opposite end (although it?s clear some feel that we are). 

Countless times we?ve pointed out positives of Axl and the current lineup?have attended multiple shows, bought AFD, and are looking forward to hearing new music.  I think that?s what bothers me the most?not that I?m labeled a whiner, complainer (which is completely ironic because I?m the one in my group of friends still flying the GnR flag) but that any level of criticism throws you to the other end of the pendulum.  Sorry, but it?s not black or white?there is some gray. 

Sure there is.

It?s evident in the posts.

Can you find a post from Jarmo (Jarmo may not be fair b/c it?s his site) or others of his ilk where they are critical of Axl, the band, or some of the decisions that have been made?  I don?t think you can.

Conversely, can you find a post from me (or D-X or others) where we said positive things about Axl, the current band, or some of the decision that have been made?  Answer:  Yes.  Shit, even Mortis (I think) said some positive things.

That?s the difference.  You can?t really have an ?honest discussion? where one side will never, ever, concede anything.  And I get that I?m never, ever, going to change their opinion (nor am I trying to), but ask yourself:  Can you honestly say things are good right now with Guns?  I can?t, and people who are saying it?s a-ok, nothing to see here are intentionally burying their heads in the sand.  It?s like the band on the Titanic.

BBF is a perfect example.  We had been saying (for a long time) that he?s out, the evidence was quite clear he left.  That was met with the typical negative, amateur hour, armchair quarterback response (?how would you know, until there?s an official announcement, you don?t know anything?).  Well, how?d that end up?

There are some parallels here.  One quarter of the band is gone.  Arguably, the two most important members (besides Axl, of course) left.  Everyone one else is currently with other bands, and their comments range from ?there?s a plan in place? to ?I have no clue what the plan is.? (not actual quotes, btw).  I think it?s rational to say what the hell is going on here, are there larger problems as play?  Fernando says no, and that we?ll know something soon, so I?m hopeful for some positive news whenever ?soon? become ?now?, but, IMO, it?s not out of bounds at all to question what?s going on.

[pilferk]

I meant that while I don't know if anyone is making these arguments away from this board or not.  Neither do you.  We only see these people here.

That's enough for me...

But, as I asked you, what does your gut tell you?  Know what my gut tells me?  They don't.

My gut tells me I'm hungry.

My brain tells me it doesn't matter what my perception is....because the only people that can answer that are on the other side of the screen, and I'll never know.  So if I go by perception I'm making a leap of logic that, really, it isn't my place to make.

Easier to assume they are genuine, and go from there.  Because they could easily make the same (potentially unflattering, potentially incorrect) assumptions about me, and let them color my argument.

If I don't want them doing that, I should probably not do it, either.

But if I DO go by my "gut", I can't get righteously outraged when they do the same.

I think if the topic of Axl or GNR comes up "IRL" you are most likely to hear something other than the stuff you hear around here.  And my gut tells me that people that make these passionate arguments around here don't leap in with the same stuff "IRL".  I think they just sort of deflect and stay silent.  All the while in their head lamenting how these people don't have "the facts".

Maybe.  I can only speak for myself and say "Nope".  Not in a group of friends.

In a bar of dude bros?  

I'm likely not arguing music, sports, religion, or politics in that environment.  Because the potential for conflict is high, and the value of opinions is relatively low.

And I think the cop out of all time to explain the silence and unwillingness to engage and push HTGTH talking points in public is the notion "I'm not even going to bother getting into it with them".  I think that is couched as being above it all, but in truth, is just way to have to avoid making arguments people would never, ever, ever accept.  And would most likely get you labeled a fanboy apologist, and no one wants that label.

That's just my read, anyway.

I think that's an easy way to discount an opposing viewpoint that doesn't fit in with yours, to be honest.

It's just as much of a cop out as "You're a chronic complainer so why should we listen to you".

Because it doesn't, at all, address the actual content.

[pilferk]

Not so sure about that.

I get in long conversations with many folks where he is not around.  However, if there are 5 of us talking for 3 pages, and in saunters Jarmo...guess who's posts are the ones quoted?  The other 4 might as well be in gray and red camouflage.

I don't mean most of your posts are responses to jarmos.

I mean most of the responses to jarmos posts are by you.