Reply With Quote
You're absolutely wrong, my dear. He was pure .
Mick Jagger, Robert Plant, Angus Young, Ozzy Osbourne... hm... yes, they are VERY similar to Gwar. Try making sense before you let your fingers go, dolt. You ask people to think of the 5 best frontmen ever, Freddie Mercury wouldn't hit the tongue of 85 out of 100 people. Mick Jagger would be there at least 80% of the time. As would Plant.
Live Aid act in 85? Yeah, Queen would probably be VERY highly-regarded, and well-reviewed... by a few sexual writers who have friends that have tested HIV positive. In case you're slow, Freddie Mercury was a sexual. sexuals stick together. I'm not the least bit surprised if a few sexual writers wrote some good reviews of Queen. Who gives a about that concert anyway? Most of the singers and bands that were there were way past their primes. Consistently voted the best live performance of all-time? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH OK, give me a second... Woodstock anyone? Woodstock blows that out of the water, in anyone's book.
I end with this.
Game over.
TheAuthority = win
You're absolutely wrong, my dear. He was pure .
Soooo, youve come to SpursTalk and registered to tell me how wrong I am and that Freddie Mercury sucks.
Your basis for this is because of other bands popularity among the masses. Have you seen the Live Aid performance? Of course not, why did I ask, youre a phobe.
So Freddie Mercury suck not based on vocals or songwriting, but because he was sexual.
And that argument makes sense, to you and you alone. Youre a bigot and a cretin.
Nice keeping track of your own score and professing how much you win, btw. Thats never been done before. Ever. Seriously.
That sounded pretty gay. Why is it every phobe uses phrases and wording that are very borderline?
You make a pretty convincing arguement to the fact that you're an idiot. If you think that no one is aware of Freddie Mercury's sexuality, you're just a ing re .
So, you're going to take away from an amazing performance because the guy was gay?? What the ?
I'm secure enough in my own masculinity to give Mercury props for his amazing performance. You, apparently, are not. So, that more than likely means that you are a closet sexual, or you're a pubescent teenager who thinks it's "cool" to call s out on their gedness. My guess: you're probably a mix of the two.
And, you said something about Woodstock . . . but we weren't even talking about comparing Woodstock to Live Aid. So, your point came out completely flat.
You're an idiot . . . accept that fact (along with the fact that you're probably gay) and you'll have a happier life.
There's nothing worse than a gay man hating on other gay men to make himself feel more manly.
"my dear"????
Accept your blatant sexuality and become the you're destined to be.
I say the same thing to you pee wee
Stage presence? Ozzy Osbourne?!
I told you, I don't swing that way!!I say the same thing to you pee wee
You need to stop hoping I'll rump your roast on of these days.
It's just not going to happen.
Self-hating gay...
And what the is gay about Prince? Have you seen his female acts? Have you listened to his songs? They aren't gay. A little pop, but Purple Rain was a classic album, and there are plenty of other GREAT examples of his genius.
I'm not even a huge Prince fan, but you can't just say someone sucks because you don't have them on repeat listen.
It's funny that "The Authority" is so openly phobic, yet so openly pro Mick Jagger.
David Bowie, anyone?!
I have to say Jessica Simpson has the best vocals.
I could see her joining Slayer.
Excellent point.
Are you aware that Mick has probably banged more chicks than all current male porn stars combined? I don't give a what he might or might not have done when he was stoned out of his mind. The fact is, he isn't a sexual. He's had wives, many of them. "My dear" has nothing about it. If that were the case, I guess Johnny Cash would be a , by your standards.
And... yeah... prince isn't a , at all.
First of all, Prince has had more pussy than you ever will in your life . . . if you ever happen to get some, that is.Are you aware that Mick has probably banged more chicks than all current male porn stars combined? I don't give a what he might or might not have done when he was stoned out of his mind. The fact is, he isn't a sexual. He's had wives, many of them. "My dear" has nothing about it. If that were the case, I guess Johnny Cash would be a , by your standards.
And... yeah... prince isn't a , at all.
And secondly, of course Mick has banged more chicks. The er is 100 years older than Prince, who has been married several times and has children of his own.
You make no sense you .
Prince doesn't get any pussy. He takes it up the ass. (see previous post for picture proof)
By the way, I wasn't even comparing Prince with Mick Jagger. I'd never insult Mick by comparing him to a like Prince. That would be slander to Mick's name.
Man-crush. Man-love. Man-flling. Man, youre gay.
Dude... I love The Rolling Stones, but this is moronic how Jagger can do no wrong, but greats like Prince and Mercury are being belittled simply because of you're own insecurities and self-hating...
First, Jagger is better than Mercury because the latter is a " " ... OK, then I drudge up that Jagger is a bisexual, at least was for a point in his life ... so now Jagger is better than Prince, because Prince looks like a " " ... OK... well...
Come on! This is so far past rediculous that it's fast approaching absurdity.
Jagger was both bisexual and oft flamboyant througout parts of his rock career.
sheila e, sheena e, appalonia, carmen electra, vanity. and those are just the big name ones. yeah, prince is gay...
Randy Newman! JK
There's a difference between being a showman and being a sexual. Mick didn't cross that line. Plus, that was a different time back then as far as fashion goes. That Prince photo is a recent photo. There's no getting around it, Prince is a sexual.Dude... I love The Rolling Stones, but this is moronic how Jagger can do no wrong, but greats like Prince and Mercury are being belittled simply because of you're own insecurities and self-hating...
First, Jagger is better than Mercury because the latter is a " " ... OK, then I drudge up that Jagger is a bisexual, at least was for a point in his life ... so now Jagger is better than Prince, because Prince looks like a " " ... OK... well...
Come on! This is so far past rediculous that it's fast approaching absurdity.
Jagger was both bisexual and oft flamboyant througout parts of his rock career.
He didn't? Really?? Famously getting caught ing David Bowie doesn't cross into gay territory?
What, then, cons utes sexuality in your world?
While its always been rumored that Mick might have been bisexual, I dont remember ever hearing Prince being rumored to be anything but a voracious ladies man.
Funny, youre defending the undefendable.
Nobody ever caught them doing anything, that was a rumor. happens, gets written. You see in the tabloids, does that mean it's true?
You're right, you can't defend the undefendable... which is Prince being a full-blown sexual. The end.
No. They did get caught. They got walked in on by Bowie's wife.
WTF? Do you just ignore this?
________________________
The Authority on the topic...
*Hands on ears, stomping feet loudly*
"LA LA LA LA LA... I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!! LA LA LA LA LA..."
________________________
Fact is, as most here have said, nobody has ever linked Prince to any lover, other than women. And smoking hot women at that. Like you said, there's a difference between being a showman and a sexicle...
Jagger has been linked. Solly Cholly...
I call bull on his wife. Pictures (with blurred out penis plz) or it didn't happen.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
