Quote
Bärs

Quote
courtfieldroad

Quote
Bärs

Quote
courtfieldroad
...

You missed the point. Perhaps my fault.

Sorry, Bärs, based on your response I re-read what you wrote and can see another interpretation I didn't before so it was my misreading.

But still I'm glad to have posted the links where it's shown how Keith is revising the Stones history in this particular case of who he thought was so important in the beginning. It's really but one example of him rewriting the truth as he sees fit, and it's such an obvious example.

As annoying as it can seem, it actually does good to have other posters try to dance around what Keith is doing and defend him on this point. That only emphasizes the reality of what Doxa so rightly called Keith's agenda when writing the book.

I actually think that the only agenda existing is the one that tries to demonize Keith.

Look at Stu. He sacrificed a lot for the band when he accepted being put out of it. He was still loyal. He was sober and reliable when the pressure was high. He perfected his strenghts as a piano player. Brian deliberately chose to do everything contrary. Now Brian is famous and Stu is not, because of Stu's sacrifice. Brian's got a statue and films made about him. He's got a fanclub that speaks for him. Stu's got nothing of that and he is not here either to speak for him. Keith is now balancing the picture since Stu was written out of the whole story right from the beginning.

The point isn't whether Stu should be honored. If anything, Keith makes a royal joke of "honoring" Stu by ripping off his previous beliefs about Brian. He comes off looking petty for not being able to give Brian credit where he previously had and downright stupid pumping up Stu's reputation by using his documented perceptions of Brian's original importance as the blueprint.

It makes you really wonder: couldn't Keith think of a single genuine reason to honor Stu in his own right? How sad and a disservice to both Stu and Brian.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Doxa

No mention of any "ancient art of weaving" is mentioned in those pages when golden era - Keith also agrees with the title - from BEGGARS to EXILE is discussed - and this the era Keith gives his most detailed musical analysis and is most proud of.

- Doxa

Now we have Keith and Charlie recently saying the Taylor era was the Golden Era, and Jagger just brought Taylor back into the studio. Now, who does that leave? Oh, right...

Well, in fact, there was something I would say news in book regarding Ronnie's role. According to Keith they all - expect him - didn't want Ronnie to do 1981 American Tour at all because Ronnie was in such a bad shape. So they were actually throwing him out - this always been rumoured but never as far as I know "confirmed" so clearly. Keith claims that he needed to pay Ronnie's insurances to have Ronnie in (and thereby it was his duty to take care of/look after him). So when Ronnie took the coke/heroin ride, Keith came and hit him.

It is funny that in that during that very time Keith - after 12 years and 300 hundred pages of memoirs [and my god what amount of babying and saving his ass for years by others, Mick that is] - he was finally "clean", he immediately started to moralize Ronnie's behavior and his junkie friends, etc. A typical act of hypocricy Keith masters all over the book. (There are portions where Keith wonders why Mick never "liked" his friends - who, by the way, were all junkies... Well, Mick was just jealous and wanted to have him all by himself, reflects Keef...)

- Doxa

Good points Doxa. I had heard that Ronnie had it written into his '81 contract that he would be kicked off the tour if found with drugs. Very interesting that Keith would come down on him so hard after all of his own troubles for so many years.

Wait a minute: Didn't Keith always say that Brian was a @#$%&? What's the issue here?

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
Rolling Hansie
Maybe a stupid question, please forgive me if that is the case.
But, butt, bud I really like reading this book. Anybody else with the same feeling ?

Yes, i like reading the book too. In most people's lives events are not set in stone, as on the written page. Events happen, and people tend to have their own individual take on things, depending on their circumstances, or their own perspective, so to speak. I have been to pop concerts with groups of friends, where we have all come away with totally different opinions on whether we liked what we saw, almost giving the impression we had been to totally different shows. None of us are telling lies necessarily, we truly believe in our own instincts. People change over time too. They often mature, or at least develop a different understanding to events. I used to love certain friends and colleagues, but time has taught me wisdom, and experience counts for a lot. Suddenly you see things and people in a new light. Keith's book is pretty much like that, i feel, especially when he's looking back at events from such an enormous hindsight. He's going back half a century in many of his recollections or longer. He's doing well to have any recollection of them at all. Maybe he's bigging himself up as has been alledged, well most people do tend to see things in a way that shows them in the best light. However, he is fairly even handed in his criticism of others, he's not out to demolish anyone's reputation. When reading biographies, whether they are autobiographies or not, it pays to use discretion. It's pretty much up to the reader how they choose to interpret what is written. I think Keith's book actually works better than most in providing interesting information - there's plenty to digest. He makes some interesting observations which are worth pondering. Whether it's the definitive Keith/Stones biography i'm a little less sure. I don't think there will ever be a definite version of the Stones in terms of the turn of events that took place. Everyone's got their own, very personal, perspective, and point of view.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-02 10:17 by Edward Twining.

Quote
Cocaine Eyes
YAY - my book just arrived! Haven't had time to start reading.
To with sssoul - NO it is NOT autographed. It only has Keith's signature on the front cover (in silver)

smile: thanks for the update! do you mean the front cover of the book itself (not the dust jacket)
has his signature like embossed in it or something? cool! mine doesn't have that

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
stones78

Quote
Mathijs
What reason do we have to assume that? There's just a few "factual" acounts, and these quite match what we know and assume to be true. There isn't much that, when checked against a source that has no doubts than can be atributed as "fiction".

98% of the book is about his feelings, and how he experienced things, and hence is his truth. If you want to read facts read Wyman's books, only problem is that he was hardly a member of the Stones.

Mathijs

Bill hardly a member of the Stones? What do you mean?

Bill screwed the most girls. That's what's R&R is about.
Some people never dig that.

Hahahha! It is one of the funniest revalations (read: gossips) Keith "The Deep Throat" Richards wants to share with us in the book regards Bill Wyman that his claims for screwing so many girls is heavily over-exaggarated and all he was able to do is to serve them awful mild tea... (keith was hiding behind the next door and making notes..)

But there was one tender moment between them Keith remembers almost fondly: when Bill carried him smack in Toronto. Good Bill was something good for. That and the big amp.

Not a member... well well well... good that here finally starts some politically correct (revisionist) voices be heard; Mathijs took the demanding job into his informative shoulders... to keep his 'old' claim that nothing was lost when Darryl replaced Wyman, because, well, there wasn't hardly anything existing to be replaced... in fact, the Stones have always been a four piece-band - Just look at the RARITIES cover.. ><

- Doxa

Hey Doxa, you're getting really over the top in this thread. You used to be well-thought and eloquent, and now you're just ranting about how everything is a lie.

You know very well what I feel about Wyman, I'm not going to repeat that. What I meant with 'not being a Stone' is that he wasn't part of the social lives of Richards, Jagger and Wood, and not even that of Watts. Wyman was there for tour rehearsals and tours, and half the time in the studio, and that was it. So if you want to hear the facts about the shillings earned in 1966 read Wyman’s book, for the juice Wood's and Richards books are much better.

Mathijs

Yeah, I rant and critizise the book from the base I have learned of The Stones in the years I've been following and to and to extent studied (as an entertaining hobby). Your Wyman comment sounded like a person who has never heard anything about Bill Wyman but what Keith writes about him. I don't see why on earth to emphesize the role of "socializing" in talking about being a member in the band. One is not a member if one doesn't take heroin with Keith? All I know and care is that Bill Wyman was there from the late 62 on, played every gig until '90 , and in almost every studion session (until some phases in 70's.), and he knows bloody much interesting stuff as far as the MUSIC of the Rolling Stones is concerned. I've been critical to Bill's book, and emphesizised its anti-Keith/Mick flavor, and pro-Bill (via Jones) agenda, but I guess that is the fate or a sin of any autobiography. The same is with Keith's book. I don't care of its stories of who fbvked and who and how much, or who snorted what and when - even though I find some of the personal stuff almost like made an old bitter woman who has lost the point of life long ago, and all that is left is to mock others, and tell gossips ("stories) from her past. What interests me is the music - the miracle of The Rolling Stones - and I find Keith actually being very biased there. I don't hear a honest man there, but a man with an agenda. Otherwise he is such a total solipsist who is not able to reflect anything but his own feelings (of anger, jealousy, whatever) and self-importance. As a Stones fan, I don't like the way he belittles the role of Brian and makes Mick's contributions in creative work almost like a joke. Keith really have taken to his heart the myth created in the early 80's that 'Keith Richards is The Rolling Stones'. Unfortunately.

What surprises me that you have taken the opposite direction, and what you say about it sounds like it is a Bible to you. I know how you (used to?) think about Wyman, but now you sound like taking a Keith Richards LIFE stance here.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-02 11:54 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
Yeah, I rant and critizise the book

So, I guess that is a "NO" as an answer to my earlier question ?

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

What interests me is the music - the miracle of The Rolling Stones - and I find Keith actually being very biased there. I don't hear a honest man there, but a man with an agenda. Otherwise he is such a total solipsist who is not able to reflect anything but his own feelings (of anger, jealousy, whatever) and self-importance. As a Stones fan, I don't like the way he belittles the role of Brian and makes Mick's contributions in creative work almost like a joke. Keith really have aken the myth creaed in the early 80's that Keith Richards is The Rolling Stones.
- Doxa


Doxa has the talent to articulate it for all of us feeling the same way. One can't say it better.
Well done!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-02 13:27 by proudmary.

It's amusing that some people here, many not even procreated when the band was formed, think they know the "facts" about the Rolling Stones better than Keith Richards.

Quote
Bärs
It's amusing that some people here, many not even procreated when the band was formed, think they know the "facts" about the Rolling Stones better than Keith Richards.

Well, this all is amusing, but if one entertains oneself by trying to grasp the reality beyond the myths and funny stories, it doesn't ask much of reasoning or reflection to seek for all the evidence and material there is available about this band (there is a huge load of it), and then a little, critical comperative study, and ooh-la-la, there might be something like an educated guess in your mind.

Well, another option is to take, say, Keef's words as granted, and stick to them. Or just relativize it all by saying "who knows teh truth so forget it" or "it doesn't really matter. Who cares".

- Doxa

It's amusing that some people here, many not even procreated when the band was formed, think they know the "facts" about the Rolling Stones better than Keith Richards

WHAT!!! ....Now ya tell me ..... from the way they wrote I thought they were there in those early days...Bummer



ROCKMAN

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
stones78

Quote
Mathijs
What reason do we have to assume that? There's just a few "factual" acounts, and these quite match what we know and assume to be true. There isn't much that, when checked against a source that has no doubts than can be atributed as "fiction".

98% of the book is about his feelings, and how he experienced things, and hence is his truth. If you want to read facts read Wyman's books, only problem is that he was hardly a member of the Stones.

Mathijs

Bill hardly a member of the Stones? What do you mean?

Bill screwed the most girls. That's what's R&R is about.
Some people never dig that.

Hahahha! It is one of the funniest revalations (read: gossips) Keith "The Deep Throat" Richards wants to share with us in the book regards Bill Wyman that his claims for screwing so many girls is heavily over-exaggarated and all he was able to do is to serve them awful mild tea... (keith was hiding behind the next door and making notes..)

But there was one tender moment between them Keith remembers almost fondly: when Bill carried him smack in Toronto. Good Bill was something good for. That and the big amp.

Not a member... well well well... good that here finally starts some politically correct (revisionist) voices be heard; Mathijs took the demanding job into his informative shoulders... to keep his 'old' claim that nothing was lost when Darryl replaced Wyman, because, well, there wasn't hardly anything existing to be replaced... in fact, the Stones have always been a four piece-band - Just look at the RARITIES cover.. ><

- Doxa

Hey Doxa, you're getting really over the top in this thread. You used to be well-thought and eloquent, and now you're just ranting about how everything is a lie.

You know very well what I feel about Wyman, I'm not going to repeat that. What I meant with 'not being a Stone' is that he wasn't part of the social lives of Richards, Jagger and Wood, and not even that of Watts. Wyman was there for tour rehearsals and tours, and half the time in the studio, and that was it. So if you want to hear the facts about the shillings earned in 1966 read Wyman’s book, for the juice Wood's and Richards books are much better.

Mathijs

Agree with Mathjis about Wyman's first book, but Wood's book is worthless, about anything musical anyway.

Quote
Rockman
from the way they wrote I thought they were there in those early days...Bummer

LOL

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Just got my copy this morning, great way to start the day!!

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Bärs
It's amusing that some people here, many not even procreated when the band was formed, think they know the "facts" about the Rolling Stones better than Keith Richards.

Well, this all is amusing, but if one entertains oneself by trying to grasp the reality beyond the myths and funny stories, it doesn't ask much of reasoning or reflection to seek for all the evidence and material there is available about this band (there is a huge load of it), and then a little, critical comperative study, and ooh-la-la, there might be something like an educated guess in your mind.

Well, another option is to take, say, Keef's words as granted, and stick to them. Or just relativize it all by saying "who knows teh truth so forget it" or "it doesn't really matter. Who cares".

- Doxa

There sure is much material about this band, but if you want to reconstruct what happened those few days in 1962 there is no other method than listening to those who were there. I'd say that a biography by one of the founders counts as pretty heavy evidence in any trial, and nothing to polemically dismiss as part of The Great Conspiracy against the poor Brian. That is, if´you want to truth.

But Keith is contradicted by Bill Wyman and Ian Stewart. As well as by Keith Richard: [members7.boardhost.com]

Quote
Bärs
There sure is much material about this band, but if you want to reconstruct what happened those few days in 1962 there is no other method than listening to those who were there. I'd say that a biography by one of the founders counts as pretty heavy evidence in any trial, and nothing to polemically dismiss as part of The Great Conspiracy against the poor Brian. That is, if´you want to truth.

We do listen to the ones that were there. The problem starts when somebody like Keith contradicts himself or doesn't get support from others that were there. If this book is the truth - does that mean Keith lied back in the 70's or that other people is wrong?

I don't want to talk about any "Great Conspiracy against the poor Brian". But if you really want to know something about Brian this book doesn't hold much truth. Keith is pretty lonely about his present view on Brian Jones and I'd suggest that you read what Keith said about the guy in the 70's as it fits a lot better with what other people had said about him.

A biography by a founding member is heavy evidence in a trial but not if the founding member changes the story from decade to decade.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-02 14:21 by tonterapi.

Quote
tonterapi

Quote
Bärs
There sure is much material about this band, but if you want to reconstruct what happened those few days in 1962 there is no other method than listening to those who were there. I'd say that a biography by one of the founders counts as pretty heavy evidence in any trial, and nothing to polemically dismiss as part of The Great Conspiracy against the poor Brian. That is, if´you want to truth.

We do listen to the ones that were there. The problem starts when somebody like Keith contradicts himself or doesn't get support from others that were there. If this book is the truth - does that mean Keith lied back in the 70's?

I don't want to talk about any "Great Conspiracy against the poor Brian". But if you really want to know something about Brian this book doesn't hold much truth. Keith is pretty lonely about his present view on Brian Jones and I'd suggest that you read what Keith said about the guy in the 70's as it fits a lot better with what other people had said about him.

A biography by a founding member is heavy evidence in a trial but not if the founding member changes the story from decade to decade.

It actually is possible that Keith "lied" in the 70's and that the recent account is more balanced. If Keith started emphasizing Stu's role after Stu died, as some say, it's not strange if he, and others, did the same after Brian died. The early accounts might have been influenced by the fact that Brian had died and people involved were "nice" when asked about Brian's role in the early Stones. If Keith would have known in the 70's that everything he says about Brian and Stu would be held against him 40 years later he would perhaps have put his words differently.

I don't know. I simply say that 1. it is POSSIBLE that the official foundation myth needs correction, 2. a "changing story" does not necessarily implies deliberate deception, 3. an early version is not necessarily better or more truthful than a later one in these cases.

Haven't read the book yet (It's only out in Danish, and it must be read in The Kings' IMO).
I've been reading Doxa's posts and the answers to those for some time now. It's very interesting. Especially the part about Keith not telling the truth and having an agenda. Now, I don't know if that's true or not (Will read it when I get it for Christmas). There's, however, something that I can say without having read the book: Did anyone really think that Keith wouldn't be biased? Hell, I expected him to be. I know darn well that the truth (The REAL truth) will be forever debatable. When all of them have released their biographies and we've read them and all the hangers-on have had their say, the future opinion on the Rolling Stones will be made out of the grey area between all those books. And the music of course.

JumpingKentFlash

There is no reality, only perception.

Dr. Phil

Quote
Bärs

Quote
tonterapi

Quote
Bärs
There sure is much material about this band, but if you want to reconstruct what happened those few days in 1962 there is no other method than listening to those who were there. I'd say that a biography by one of the founders counts as pretty heavy evidence in any trial, and nothing to polemically dismiss as part of The Great Conspiracy against the poor Brian. That is, if´you want to truth.

We do listen to the ones that were there. The problem starts when somebody like Keith contradicts himself or doesn't get support from others that were there. If this book is the truth - does that mean Keith lied back in the 70's?

I don't want to talk about any "Great Conspiracy against the poor Brian". But if you really want to know something about Brian this book doesn't hold much truth. Keith is pretty lonely about his present view on Brian Jones and I'd suggest that you read what Keith said about the guy in the 70's as it fits a lot better with what other people had said about him.

A biography by a founding member is heavy evidence in a trial but not if the founding member changes the story from decade to decade.

It actually is possible that Keith "lied" in the 70's and that the recent account is more balanced. If Keith started emphasizing Stu's role after Stu died, as some say, it's not strange if he, and others, did the same after Brian died. The early accounts might have been influenced by the fact that Brian had died and people involved were "nice" when asked about Brian's role in the early Stones. If Keith would have known in the 70's that everything he says about Brian and Stu would be held against him 40 years later he would perhaps have put his words differently.

I don't know. I simply say that 1. it is POSSIBLE that the official foundation myth needs correction, 2. a "changing story" does not necessarily implies deliberate deception, 3. an early version is not necessarily better or more truthful than a later one in these cases.

So by Bärs's line of reasoning that keith was lying/misperceiving things back in the 1970s...

1. He was giving Brian credit he should've been giving Stu (he would've known this at the time, don't kid ourselves on that, he knew who held the auditions and made the decisions etc, that's not a memory that changes truthfully with time - so thereby confirming how little he must've cared about Stu to do such a thing to him).

2. Stu not only doesn't mind Keith doing this, but actually supports Keith's tales by also giving Brian the same credit in the 1970s and 1980s.

3. Quite coincidentally or deliberately, Mick, Charlie, and Bill all at one time or another support Keith in different aspects of Keith's misleading "foundation myth" about Brian.

My question would be why did the rest fall in line with Keith's myth-making for the past 40 years?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-02 15:16 by courtfieldroad.

Quote
Bärs


It actually is possible that Keith "lied" in the 70's and that the recent account is more balanced. If Keith started emphasizing Stu's role after Stu died, as some say, it's not strange if he, and others, did the same after Brian died. The early accounts might have been influenced by the fact that Brian had died and people involved were "nice" when asked about Brian's role in the early Stones. If Keith would have known in the 70's that everything he says about Brian and Stu would be held against him 40 years later he would perhaps have put his words differently.

I don't know. I simply say that 1. it is POSSIBLE that the official foundation myth needs correction, 2. a "changing story" does not necessarily implies deliberate deception, 3. an early version is not necessarily better or more truthful than a later one in these cases.

Thank you so much for saying some of what I've been thinking for the past couple of days! GREAT POINT! While history can't be changed, one's view of it over time most certainly can and many times does.

Also:

Rolling Hansie: Yes, I am enjoying the book. Loving how it feels that Keith's just hanging out and talking about his life to the reader. I actually kind of feel sorry for all the historians who seem to be focusing on all the minute details, searching for hidden codes and reading between the lines. Sometimes I feel like people are writing off the book due to a few certain specific sentences rather than just enjoying the fact that Keith was willing to share his view with us. It almost seems like criticizing a painter for their brushstrokes rather than looking at the painting.

I understand that people were hoping that Keith would write about what THEY wanted to read and they are disappointed that they're not getting that. However, I'm thankful that Keith was willing to sit down and put the pen to paper. It's what he was willing to share and I thank him for sharing it. Who knows, maybe someday Mick or Charlie will be willing to share their memories with us. I'll thank them if they do but, after all of the crap that's been slung at Keith for sharing his version of the story, it won't surprise me at all if they don't bother with the hassle.

Peace
Mr DJA

Quote
Bärs
It actually is possible that Keith "lied" in the 70's and that the recent account is more balanced. If Keith started emphasizing Stu's role after Stu died, as some say, it's not strange if he, and others, did the same after Brian died. The early accounts might have been influenced by the fact that Brian had died and people involved were "nice" when asked about Brian's role in the early Stones. If Keith would have known in the 70's that everything he says about Brian and Stu would be held against him 40 years later he would perhaps have put his words differently.

I don't know. I simply say that 1. it is POSSIBLE that the official foundation myth needs correction, 2. a "changing story" does not necessarily implies deliberate deception, 3. an early version is not necessarily better or more truthful than a later one in these cases.

Yes, everything is "possible". But again, what Keith says in this book doesn't fit in with what others said - including what he has said himself - about Brian and his role in the band. That makes me question the truth in this book.
I mean it's no news that many believe that Keith has got unresolved issues with Brian and what happend. Guilt, pain, anger...I don't know - but there are rare occassions in interviews where he has shown a more reflective and forgiving side towards Brian.

I don't know how the things said by Keith about Brian in this book can be seen as more balanced compared to what he said in the 70's. I mean Keith isn't eaxctly known to hold things back just to be nice. He say what's on his mind and he wasn't "nice" towards Brian in the 70's but definitely more objective about the whole situation. He didn't just bash him like nowadays.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-02 15:34 by tonterapi.

I finally got the book yesterday (I was in Asia when it came out so couldn't get it the first day) and have been up all night with it - a good companion for my jet lag.

It is interesting that Keith can't seem to resist getting digs in at Brian even when discussing his death. I guess this is "honest" but not very classy.

I dislike political correctness, but find his constant need to refer to women as "bitches" juvenile at best. How do the "bitches" here feel about it?

What distinguishes the book from the snoozers put out by Eric Clapton, Ron Wood, etc., is that he actually talks about music, even going into details of the open G tuning and how songs were written. His love for songs and music shine through.

The voice is really Keith, the good and the bad of it. I love the guy, but could use less of the "bitches" and all the macho "shooter", knife and fight anecdotes. These seem like Little Man Syndrome to me, sorry.

for those of you who haven't got time to read the book, The Guardian has handily produced a digested version - made me chuckle a little...

[www.guardian.co.uk]

Quote
Bärs
It actually is possible that Keith "lied" in the 70's and that the recent account is more balanced. If Keith started emphasizing Stu's role after Stu died, as some say, it's not strange if he, and others, did the same after Brian died. The early accounts might have been influenced by the fact that Brian had died and people involved were "nice" when asked about Brian's role in the early Stones. If Keith would have known in the 70's that everything he says about Brian and Stu would be held against him 40 years later he would perhaps have put his words differently.

I don't know. I simply say that 1. it is POSSIBLE that the official foundation myth needs correction, 2. a "changing story" does not necessarily implies deliberate deception, 3. an early version is not necessarily better or more truthful than a later one in these cases.

This is a good point, and I agree with it. In '71 Brian's legacy was still very much present, and no one was interest in Stu. But I don't know if after Stu's death, he suddenly started to be more "honest", or how much, for example, Wyman's book and its claims started to bother him, etc. But inconsistencies like these just makes Keith's testimony over-all a bit suspectible. How do you know when he actually is talking "honestly" or without any outer motive?

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-02 16:13 by Doxa.

"How do you know when he actually is talking "honestly" or without any outer motive?"

How do you know that about ANYONE... Especially someone in the public eye. That's why you've got to keep the proverbial salt shaker so close, at all times, these days.

Peace
Mr DJA

Quote
mr_dja
I actually kind of feel sorry for all the historians who seem to be focusing on all the minute details, searching for hidden codes and reading between the lines. Sometimes I feel like people are writing off the book due to a few certain specific sentences rather than just enjoying the fact that Keith was willing to share his view with us. It almost seems like criticizing a painter for their brushstrokes rather than looking at the painting.

Very well said. It is a book to read and enjoy. Not a history book to study.

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Voor Nederlandstaligen: hier de recensie van de Belg Herman Brusselmans. De beste, in ieder geval de leukste, die ik tot nu toe gelezen heb:

[img828.imageshack.us]

Herman is smart guy for this matter.
Not a word about Taylor.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-02 17:09 by Amsterdamned.