You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- killingvector
- Rep: 21
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
Again, you're going back to legal. This isn't about legal. Circling around yet again...
Again, you used the word 'swindle'.
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
buzzsaw wrote:killingvector wrote:LMAO.
Usually it is the one who resorts to personal attacks who has run out things to say.
But, I agree that it is time for us to move on.
Agreed, which is why I haven't used any. I'm just pointing out that you keep going back to the same thing every time a point is made and we're going in circles. I've posted the same thing (in different ways) three times now. You keep circling the conversation back because you can't continue once we get to the point of you admitting what Axl did was not right regardless of if it was legal or not. That's where you take it back to what is legal or people believing the unproven...
It doesn't matter. You used the word swindle, that implies an illegality.
What I am saying to you is that there is no evidence the name change occurred due to an act of coercion due to substance abuse or otherwise. S&D signed over the name willingly, knowing the full consequences of their actions. The myth is the pre-show ultimatum.
Was it right? That is a question for Slash and Duff to conclude.
No, I would have said illegal if I meant illegal. I am trying to eliminate law from this discussion.
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
Answer me this then KV, Alan Nven got Peter Paterno to draw up a partnership agreement which Axl refused to sign so it sat in a draw. Axl then sacked Niven and post that event took control of the name.
How ethical do you think that was even if not illegal? Why would he not sign it other than the fact he wanted to fuck the other guys over?
Also what was the statute of limitations on them launching a claim for this shit too? Honest question, was it passed before they realized what had happened?
KV?
- killingvector
- Rep: 21
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
killingvector wrote:buzzsaw wrote:Agreed, which is why I haven't used any. I'm just pointing out that you keep going back to the same thing every time a point is made and we're going in circles. I've posted the same thing (in different ways) three times now. You keep circling the conversation back because you can't continue once we get to the point of you admitting what Axl did was not right regardless of if it was legal or not. That's where you take it back to what is legal or people believing the unproven...
It doesn't matter. You used the word swindle, that implies an illegality.
What I am saying to you is that there is no evidence the name change occurred due to an act of coercion due to substance abuse or otherwise. S&D signed over the name willingly, knowing the full consequences of their actions. The myth is the pre-show ultimatum.
Was it right? That is a question for Slash and Duff to conclude.
No, I would have said illegal if I meant illegal. I am trying to eliminate law from this discussion.
Good luck with that.
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
Again, why does Izzy get a free pass? The original 4 with Myles would have been even better.
I think Izzy is holding out for the real deal...that or he's just never going to do it. If that's the case, I understand.
Plus I don't think anybody hates Izzy.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
Again, why does Izzy get a free pass? The original 4 with Myles would have been even better.
Because a lot of people think the 1992 Tour lineup was just fine and dandy. I tend to be one of "those" hardliners who feels GN'R died in 1991 when he left.
- killingvector
- Rep: 21
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
Aussie wrote:Answer me this then KV, Alan Nven got Peter Paterno to draw up a partnership agreement which Axl refused to sign so it sat in a draw. Axl then sacked Niven and post that event took control of the name.
How ethical do you think that was even if not illegal? Why would he not sign it other than the fact he wanted to fuck the other guys over?
Also what was the statute of limitations on them launching a claim for this shit too? Honest question, was it passed before they realized what had happened?
KV?
Niven was G&R manager and, as such, could be sacked at any time. From what I know about Axl and Niven's relationship, there were numerous problems between the two.
Additionally, it is not illegal to refuse to sign a contract. Everyone has a right to walk away; sometimes there are consequences to doing so.
If Axl committed a criminal act in obtaining the name, the statute of limitations would be longer than the civil, if my base legal knowledge is right. S&D could have sought relief based on fraud and coercion anytime up until that statute ended.
Since there is no evidence that the name was obtained through an illegal action and S&D have never commented on the statute running out, we can't conclude that this occurred.
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
Sky Dog wrote:Again, why does Izzy get a free pass? The original 4 with Myles would have been even better.
Because a lot of people think the 1992 Tour lineup was just fine and dandy. I tend to be one of "those" hardliners who feels GN'R died in 1991 when he left.
As someone that saw the 1992 lineup, I can tell you it was fine and dandy. I think the recording entity died when he left, but the touring entity didn't (and apparently still hasn't).
