Roger Waters is a wanker!

[mosespa]

You know...I agree that Roger needs to quit slamming on the other guys because he's just making himself look bad. But at the same time, I can still understand where he's coming from.

It's like having your girlfriend tell you that she wants to take a "time out" from each other, then you find out that she was really seeing someone else behind your back and that was her whole reason for "taking a break..."

Roger's behaviour over the whole Floyd Fiasco certainly reminds me of someone who feels as though their lover has betrayed them.

But I think he should really just let it go. His solo career has become more fruitful than it used to be...and he's done more in the last ten years than PF has.

[Cluster One]

So what you're saying is Roger and Dave were lovers?

That's just not right...

[Yucateco]

So what you're saying is Roger and Dave were lovers?

That's just not right...

would explain why they say that there were never many groupies

[Eclipse]

i agree he should lay off nick, but AMLOR and TBD are sooooooo boring

Blasphemy!

AMLOR (imo) sucks, but TDB is really good (again, imo).

[bpmolder]

I have read about Roger's reactions on Nick's book in Word magazine and I see Roger as a grumpy old wanker with non stop critics on Nick's book.

Have you actually read the article yet? Well before you start making judgements on an interview you haven't read allow me to provide a bit more of the quotation

Q Is Nick Mason's book good?

Yes it's very nice, light hearted. And it's got a lot of facts un it. I would recommend it to anybody- but you know, don't take it to seriously

He then continues to state it does not always tell what he would call 'the truth' and that when Nick asked him for some input he write "utter bollocks" across the page, which i think in this context of events is far more lighthearted than anything else

What's your point?

[princessDungan74D]

to stop atacking Roger

[bpmolder]

Maybe Roger ought to stop attacking those who were his closest friends for years, just because they want to keep the spirit of the Floyd alive. I mean damn, all he has tried to do over the past 20 years is throw a big fat monkey wrench in the works of the rest of the group for selfish reasons......

Should he be attacked? No, but he needs to be reached and reasoned with, and urged to listen to reason......

[Yucateco]

Maybe Roger ought to stop attacking those who were his closest friends for years,...

i think the different band members (not only rog) said it more than once that they were never real friends. Talking about close friends is completely wrong when talking about Pink Floyd imo.

[Vlad The Impaler]

So what you're saying is Roger and Dave were lovers?

That's just not right...

Oddly enough...there were in fact rumours to that effect and also that Roger got seriously pissed at Dave after catching Dave with a roadie. True? No idea...but t'would explain alot.

.

[princessDungan74D]

oh sick no we are going from accusing Roger from being grumpy to being Davids lover.............Rogers hetro as can be he has been married three times.......you guys are opening a can of worms that shouldn't be opened

[JML]

Rogers hetro as can be he has been married three times.......

Maybe he's been married so many times because he tries to be in the closet and his wife's have allways sooner or later discovered that, Elton John has been married too
only kidding, it's not nessecery to speculate whether Rog is gay or not because it's everybodys own business what they are and what they're not

[Jack Dempsey]

I am sick of these threads

Well cover me in eggs and flour and bake me for 14 minutes !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Charade I am]

It's like having your girlfriend tell you that she wants to take a "time out" from each other, then you find out that she was really seeing someone else behind your back and that was her whole reason for "taking a break..."

Roger's behaviour over the whole Floyd Fiasco certainly reminds me of someone who feels as though their lover has betrayed them.

Please, correct me if I?m wrong...what you say makes sense.....but wasn?t Roger who "dumped his girlfriend" first? I mean, he was the one who left the band....therefore, "his girlfriend" had the right to do whatever "she" wanted to do.....I don?t know...

[Gem]

I am really fed up with the way most discussions about Floyd members turn out. They nearly always end up as a David Gilmour versus Roger Waters showdown.

Take this thread for example: "Roger Waters is a wanker!" crofloyd started the topic, saying essentially that he's sick of RW attacking the output of his former band mates.

Johnny Rotten then initiated the RW versus DG tired-ass debate by deciding that David objected to the book because it would have "hurted Gilmours Pink Floyd business merchandise selling."
I fail to see how this relates to the quoted comments made by RW, or crofloyd?s objection to them.

As a side point: Neither can I believe that it is a serious opinion. I hardly think that the Floyd Empire would have been taken down by Nick Masons book had he written it as an infallible account, as opposed to the history as he recalls it.

Nick said that he "ran up against a lot of disapproval, particularly from Dave because at one point it was going to be the official history of Pink Floyd. So I dithered and tinkered with it and came round to the idea that it would be more realistic and entertaining to just do my own version of the story. I think it was Robert Evans who said there are three versions of any story: your version, my version and the truth!"
"I think [David] felt, quite rightly, that I would treat the real history with too much levity, but that it would also be inaccurate, unless I went and pored over hundreds of interviews to try and arrive at the truth somewhere between mine, Dave's, Roger's and Rick's. Once I decided to do a book from my perspective alone, then both Dave and Roger were enormously helpful, but on the basis that it was my version. Now, if they care to, they can go and do their own".
(Quotes taken from Q Pink Floyd Special Edition pages 108 & 110).

JR's comments were followed up with:

Lets just say then that Roger AND David are both wankers, because they are......

This annoyed me. By all means comment on whether you agree/disagree with RW being called a wanker bpmolder, but I don't see why DG needs to be mentioned here. Why does Roger always have to be compared with David? Why can't his behaviour just be measured against what we find acceptable?

David Smith posted a brilliant reply. He said why he thought crofloyd had been unfair in calling Roger a wanker. He did it without mentioning David Gilmour.

And well done to Libby, not only for being big enough to admit that she thinks Rogers behaviour isn't always perfect (no doubt a difficult thing when she holds him in such high esteem), but also for not retaliating with an attack on David Gilmour as others have done.

If someone had started a thread taking some David Gilmour quotes (on a topic unrelated to RW) and attacking him for them, and I felt compelled to respond, I would address those comments and how I felt about them. I wouldn't have a go at RW. It wouldn't make sense to do that.

[Johnny Rotten]

Maybe Roger ought to stop attacking those who were his closest friends for years,...

i think the different band members (not only rog) said it more than once that they were never real friends. Talking about close friends is completely wrong when talking about Pink Floyd imo.

excactly.. I think Nick&Roger were the only close friends in Floyd.

and wanking is great. They both have done shitty stuff. im not gonna go blind and pretend that there is a good guy and a bad guy when it all is very simple... money. Roger spit on a fan, David showed a finger to some guy who had Roger Waters T-shirt on Momentary - tour. thats it. that is the history. thats why people mention Rogers and Davids actions so that things wont get this polar. I know lot of fans who havent read press quotes and other PF books surely get things confused and start to think Roger was just some guy who wrote lyrics to PF and that David was into "keeping up the PF Flame"

Johnny Rotten then initiated the RW versus DG tired-ass debate by deciding that David objected to the book because it would have "hurted Gilmours Pink Floyd business merchandise selling."
I fail to see how this relates to the quoted comments made by RW, or crofloyd?s objection to them.

you just provided useful quotations that mention Gilmours business intrests with the name Pink Floyd and what debate? It is clear that in the wall period the name&trademark "Pink Floyd" turned into money machine that got everyone into big battles.