Keith, I know you said this conversation will stop now, but I am not sure if you are being serious (The thread is not locked, after all). Nonetheless, I would like to address the last few messages in this thread. I have a strong desire to do so.
When a person accuses a "non-devotee" of being limited or stupid for not agreeing with him,
I have not called anyone stupid or limited in here for any reason. I do not think anyone has. That stuff is not welcome here at Neptune, but even if it were I, for one, certainly would not be displaying such infantile behavior.
it is because of that person's severely limited understanding or ignorance that music is a matter of personal tastes, a matter they are incapable of accepting due in fact to their own fanaticism.
It is not about the music, it is about the fact they went on calling themselves Pink Floyd when I feel they are NOT Pink Floyd. That is what bothers me.
'Hey man, The Division Bell sucks, dump those stinking records into the trash can and pick up Amused To Death instead'
I actually like a couple of tunes on The Division Bell (Marooned and Cluster One). It's not the music of The Division Bell that bothers me, although I do admit I do not like much of it, but so what? I don't enjoy a great deal of Ummagumma, AHM, SOS, and MFTB either. What displeases me is the fact the album says it's by Pink Floyd because I feel it is not "Pink Floyd."
I feel Pink Floyd was once a band made up of Roger Waters, David Gilmour, Nick Mason AND Richard Wright.
If it is fanatical to hold that belief, well, I guess I'm guilty of fanaticism.
If you think I'm a fanatic, you should take a look at some folks who claim simply David Gilmour or Roger Waters is/was Pink Floyd. If you think I'm fanatical for calling "Post-Waters Pink Floyd" Pink Fraud, you should take a look at the Syd Barrett "stalker" video on the net. If I'm an extremist, what does that make those who collect such sordid films as "Syd's first acid trip"?
If I'm a fanatic for thinking Pink Floyd are more than simply a POP BAND that made POP MUSIC, for thinking that the name should have been retired after The Wall Tour, for trying to get out why I feel that to the populace, for trying to drive the point home to everyone, for questioning comments David Gilmour or Nick Mason made in the past, for suggesting perhaps David Gilmour and Steve O'Rourke had the take-over of "Pink Floyd" well planned long before 1986, then I'm sorry for my fanaticism.
Maybe I'm missing something here?
As I said a long time ago in this thread:
"I don't really see anything nasty I've said about Gilmour. I've seen people call Roger Waters an egomaniac, a credit-hogger, every name in the book. But I haven't said too much about Gilmour. I've said I think he whored the name Pink Floyd, but that's pretty much it."
Apparently I am some sort of "Roger Waters fanatic" for believing and stating David Gilmour and Co. whored the name Pink Floyd, and for believing and stating that I feel Pink Floyd once was a band made up of David Gilmour, Richard Wright, Nick Mason, AND Roger Waters. Well, I'd love to know how one comes to that conclusion.
I do not download bootlegs on a consistent basis, nor do I "weed" out "ROIOs" (Or whatever they call bootlegs now) on Echoes, watch Syd Barrett "stalker" and "acid" videos, read subscriptions to REG, Gilwhore, or any Pink Floyd fan club.
I have been a bit too vocal lately on here with the whole Pink Fraud sham. Perhaps I have been a bit redundant too.
I have decided to cool it on the matter for a while. It appears nobody on here has a desire to seriously discuss my points on the matter at the present time anyway.
if you were the same way there and you are and you even post the exact same posts there as you do here word for word. a bit obsessive aren't you?
All of the posts on PinkFloyd.org were recently deleted by accident during a make-over of the site. I posted numerous posts on there from here to try to get the wheels rolling. Excuse me for actually trying to be a member of a Pink Floyd message board, GUEST.
On PinkFloyd.org, much like I have here, I have commented on the Syd Barrett "stalker video," posted some thoughts on Roger's DVD, started a thread asking if David Gilmour is using the name Pink Floyd by having his DVD advertised on the Floyd's official home page (Which Keith started on here. I feel this WAS a good thread until the end of the second page.), posted the piece "Syd's mental state," answered the question of "Does Roger sing enough when he tours?," commented on Rick Wright's solo albums, posted an analysis which debunks the myth that TFC is more of a solo album than MLOR, posted the PF vocals list (You will find the same sort of thing on numerous Pink Floyd fan sites now), discussed Vernon Fitch's latest book (Pink Floyd: The Press Reports), and wrote a post which poses the question "How will people look back on Pink Floyd many years from now?"
Obsessed with Pink Floyd? Well, you'd have to like the Floyd quite a bit to participate on a Pink Floyd message board, right?
Again, I'm sorry for trying to spark some interesting discussion. Apparently you, GuitarPlayer AKA Guest #12165677822323238, who won't even take the time to register a handle, bring so much more to this Pink Floyd message board and the one at PinkFloyd.org. You have done a great deal more than simply asserting, without examples to backup your claim, I bash Gilmour. Oh wait, that's all you've done on here. Instead of only berating me for attempting to spark some fascinating discussion and posting my thoughts, perhaps
YOU should give it a go like I have done?
I hope this post is fine, Keith.
on all of you!
