" very much similar to your 1999-2008 posting output, no?  "


What ?!

!!!!!!

As previously mentioned, Keith will be in Nashville on the 28th taking part in that hall of fame event.

Ian Billen wrote on Oct 21^st, 2008 at 9:24pm:

curious if you had anything to add.

Ian [/quote]
curious if you had anything to add. [/quote]


__________________________

I certainly do. Why on earth do people, when presented with such news, not simply ask a simple question:

"Is it Stones related"? or ...maybe "Is this for work concerning The Stones"? ...It is that simple.

Instead they "him-hau" around or simply don't ask at all. Then they come to a Rolling Stones message board and talk about it and wonder themselves??? What sense does it make?

If he doesn't want to tell you well then fine... don't push things... but at least you asked the dude versus going to a message board to report it then posting messages wondering about what it's purpose really was versus just asking the guy when you had the chance. I mean,... the guy did tell him he was in the studio with Keith Richards righty-right??? Well then now  ...why not simply ask what it's about or ask if it is involving The Rolling Stones? Is that so hard? Yikes. You may not get the complete story and that is fine but at least it may result something to go on ...versus coming to a message board to post messages pondering it???

It always surprises, and makes me wonder why so very many people do things so strangely.



Ian

Ian Billen wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 10:45am:


VIOLATION NOTICE

Viceroy of the Gramatical Police touching down in this thread.
Ian, you are in violation of a common idiom in the American
language.  It is "hem and haw". as in hesitate in speech.
Please look to use the correct spelling in all future uses of
this phrase.  This is considered a warning.
Thank you for your continued cooperation.
We now return you to regular programming.

Gazza Wrote:

"the guy"

_____________________

As I understood it I thought someone actually spoke to Blondie and Blondie told this person that.

If I am mistaken then I apologize.


Ian

gimmekeef wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 1:31pm:

Gazza wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 5:13pm:

__________________________________

Actually,

I take my apology back after a little further review  . Supposedly there are people on one of our fellow message boards, that being iorr.org, who are on speaking terms with Blondie and have spoke personally to him as short as ...a time frame of few days ago or so it seems...while he was in New York City.

This is from "the juf" on iorr.org concerning Blondie and Keith in the studio as of late. This quote is supposedly a genuine statement and not some sarcastic far fetched remark:

"by the way, I can confirm it IS true, Blondie is in NY. I talked to him on the phone the other day."

This is why I'm sort of irritated at the fact that they don't just ask the dude ...what's going on now with the Stones ???

See my point...


Ian

[quote author=Ian Billen This is from "the juf" on iorr.org concerning Blondie and Keith in the studio as of late. This quote is supposedly a genuine statement and not some sarcastic far fetched remark:

"by the way, I can confirm it IS true, Blondie is in NY. I talked to him on the phone the other day."



Ian [/quote]

Already reported by Gazza. See post no 17!

Gazza Wrote:

"I think you should respect the fact that some people know when it's prudent not to fish for information that maybe Blondie has chosen (or been told) not to disclose."

______________________________________

I can't agree more. However, by the way juf writes ....Blondie told him personally. If you are a die hard, or stronger Stones fan, which I am sure the juf is (...otherwise why belong to both of these message boards), why on earth would Blondie disclose such a tid-bit unless he figured it would interest the juf right?

Not every aspect of someone's business has to be spread across message boards as if it's our right to know it, and blabbing stuff that you may have been told in confidence is often a sure fire way of not only losing someone's trust as well as messing up the chance to do business with them again, which in many cases may have taken considerable time, effort and expense to set up in the first place.

____________________________________

Right again. But then why should "the juf" disclose anything to us??? Why not keep the information to yourself? If it was that confidential I wouldn't peep a word. "the juf" already started spreading information by volunteering his scoop, and the confirmation to us on a public message board. Nobody asked for it from him now did they?

___________________________________


I think the bottom line is this:

If someone knows your a Stones fan as such, you can't expect to tell them you've been in the studio with Keith Richards and not expect a follow up question as to what it's concerning...

I wouldn't expect details, but I would expect a generalization as to whether it is Rolling Stones related or not...otherwise ...why tell me anything? ...Unless you just like teasing me.

Really, a simple "stones related or not" question, it isn't asking much, if your a die hard Rolling Stones fan and were just told that Keith and the person your talking to were in the studio together...

That is all I would ask and sort of, expect from such a statement made directly to me. You don't tell a strong Rolling Stones fan, who probably would be intrigued about a recording situation involving The Rolling Stones such info and expect them just to say ...."cool". Nor do you post what you have learned on a public message board if you are planning on keeping things quiet because you were asked to do such.

As I said, it doesn't hurt to ask a simple and pretty general follow-up question if Blondie brought this up to the dude in the first place. This was my "bitch" in these types of scenarios that I couldn't understand. I mean, why not just ask a general response question like ....."Really, Can I just ask if the studio time you guys are having is Stones related or not? You have me wondering on this".

I can't see that general response being out of line at all in the particular scenario.


Ian