Ali wrote:

Just FYI, I got the following message when attempting to PM you:  "User's inbox is full. You cannot send your message to the user."

Cheers for pointing this out Ali. There's definitely a bug turned up in our PM system, possibly happened with the server move. Aussie cleared out his PM's the other day when sp1at tried PM'ing him, and it worked fine when I pm'ed him after.

Please can some of you guys try PM'ing each other and let me know if you're all getting the same error. Not sure if it's specific to Aussie, all moderators, everyone etc. I'm free all night so can get this fixed with some more info.

Ali wrote:

Disagree.  The font issue, etc. is immaterial IMO with regard to date.  There is no date associated with those fonts.  It's possible that section was added after an initial draft of the document was typed.  But, there is an issue with claiming that as proof they were added at a time/date that would verify Duff/Slash's version of events...

Even if those sections were added to the document after the first draft had been typed, there is nothing to indicate they were added and subsequently initialed while the band was on tour, not in 10/1992. 

In other words, there is nothing to verify when that section was added, IF it was added at a later time.

Ali

It's not immaterial, it strongly suggests it was added later.  If it was put in at the time the original document was prepared why was it not formatted exactly the same?  Why is the right hand margin bigger.  Why is it squished in, why does it go over the footnote in one copy and the page number in another.  I would suggest so they could fit all the text in because it wasn't in there when the original document was done.

Go back and read my posts I haven't claimed that as proof that it was added in 1993, I simply suggested it might have been, but I have no idea when.   My guess is Slash and Duff and Goldstein would say 1993.

That 15/10/92 is on every page of the document.  Have a look at the signature page, that footnote is there too.  It confirms that the document was likely created on that date and every page had that date in the footnote.

Again this would help explain why in MSL's version those asterixed sections seems to go over the top making that date barely legible.  Again because they were likely added after the originally document had been prepared.

Ok thinking about this some more and looking at those 2 docs.  The original document was prepared on 15th October 1992. Each document has that date in the footnote of each page.

However, those asterixed sections appear to have been added at a later date.  If you look at Snooze's copy the font looks different and it clearly seems to have a wider margin on the right hand side.  It appears to me that they were typed onto the document at a subsequent time, then the parties were asked to initial the addition.

So why would there by multiple copies, my understanding is that this is not altogether uncommon.  Sometimes not everyone is in the same location or documents need to be signed with a sense of urgency.  Perhaps this was the case when the original document was prepared in 1992.  There might have been 2 or 3 copies prepared??

Fast forward to 1993 and backstage in Barcelona.  The lawyers have added those two asterixed sections into the 1992 dated document.  Axl himself in his chats told us that the lawyers were with them in Europe working on the Adler case.

These additions have been manually typed into each document.  If you carefully look at the wording there are 2 slight differences in the "**" section.  The word "the" is missing in MSL's version in the sentence "Duff shall be THE Terminated Partner" .  This suggests to me that it was manually typed in to each and human error crept in.

So possibly this section about the name was added to the original document backstage in Barcelona in 1993 and the guys were told to initial it by John Reese or Axl wouldn't go onstage.  Did Axl tell Reese to give that directive, did Reese explicitly state it to get them to sign or just intimate it.  Or did he not even need to do that, given the previous history Slash and Duff knew what was likely to happen if they didn't sign it.

Who knows, but well done MSL you appear to have started a process which ultimately seems to lend support to Slash and Duff and Goldstein's version rather than expose them as liars.  Does this mean Axl lied - not necessarily, but he wasn't there when the documents were given to Slash and Duff so who knows what they were told.  They all could be telling the truth - just their side of what happened.