Tell Me :
Talk
No, that's Mathijs.
Haha...yeah, it seems the plot has been lost here ;-)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-14 01:43 by gotdablouse.
No, that's Mathijs.[/quote]
Identical twins I suppose?
In a word...."no."
I think His Majesty in this serious post of his gives some correct and most adequate details. ( He might have added the quires.) It is best to let those details inform one's perspective, without changing the conclusion. It was what i referred to when I wrote in short, perhaps too short, in bold:
don't forget Mathijs also rates the 1981 Tour as the Band's greatest...go figure.
Maybe so, Dandelion. Yes it's true, you do give Taylor praise from time to time, but perhaps grudgingly so, and certainly out of the context of your more overwhelmingly positive general opinions of the rest of the Stones, and of their performances, or non performances (and i'm not especially referring to Woody here, either). As soon as Taylorites etc, gets mentioned though, as a way of determining where posters loyalties lie, all credibility is lost. Everybody is entitled to like any/every era of the Stones, whether involving Jones, Taylor or Wood, and that does not make them any less fans. That said, i do enjoy your posts and enjoy our discussions, because you do have very different opinions generally to me, which gets me thinking! You are also entitled of course to your opinions - so peace be with you!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-14 09:51 by Edward Twining.
If one actually bothers to read what I post, the chore in it is that I don't think there is a parallell between what I call over-playing and taking musical risks - not at all. Out of experience I find the jam band, or free riding-approach much easier, less comitting and less risky than providing a sound in tandem with your band mates.
That has nothing to do with Mick Taylor's ability to play the guitar, which I love dearly. Some people on this board are not able to understand this or to separate these issues, and that is very disappointing, because it makes otherwise good people look like teenage poster boy fans - instead of the music lovers they are.
Some people actually think I hate Mick Taylor - sheesh, grow up!
This will be my last post in this thread.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-14 14:42 by DandelionPowderman.
It's also important for the band you are playing with to be supporting improvisation; if one band member is continually improvising and the rest of the band not supporting that then something has to give. Usually deference is given to the leaders of the band and the songwriters.
You rated Taylor last of all (former) Stones. That says enough.
Of course no one thinks you hate the person Taylor. But you're not honest in your opinions. I see those double cards that Doxa sees too. And I'm fairly sure svt22 sees them too. You even got our peaceful Edward upset. For a little while.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-14 15:28 by kleermaker.
On stage Taylor fit in rather naturally, so apart from him improvising, he always added something substantial, but nobody is perfect.. As for Keith, if you listen to the boots from the Taylor era, he basically sticked to the safe but solid way.
Keith and Taylor were a perfect R&R team, regarded as one of the best ever in their style. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that anymore these day, although I would love to have Taylor on more songs. Wishful thinking, and for obvious reasons.
Hypothetically, do you think it would be different if only Keith and Taylor played the guitar? I think it would be more easy for Taylor and he would also be less distracted by dancing, hopping and whatever he does. Just like the old days. And of course more participation would favour him. Now he's supposed to do a trick of one minute or some more once a week. That seems hard to continue to me.
watch out ! there is a lead button , better disconnect it , we dont want any lead widdling here !
Totally agreed. Please can someone tell Taylor to stop prancing and to focus only on the guitar?
I was wondering/speculating if the old golden tandem Richards-Taylor would be as effective as it once was. But it's all hypothetically of course and a useless question as well.
Lol, from what I understood, Valerie, his (former) wife, already told him.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
TimeWaitsforNooooOne
()
Date: June 14, 2013 00:34
Don't know if it's said before, but...
this tread has up to now been one of the most entertaining ones.
The reason: Mick Taylor once was born and joined a certain band.
No one who loves (feels) good music will ever be able to convince "the other ones" what good music is really like/what it "does" to people, who feel it.
It became very political now and I hope, no one will ever kill another one because of differences regarding musical taste.
Think it's at least ten times more satisfying to talk (what would in a short period of time be needless, 'cause...) to "equals".
Try to accept the opposite and enjoy it, to be (kind of) chosen (or happy with less than possible), to be able to "FEEL IT" (to not having to do with such things like "feelings")...
there is hope:
Am just happy to see young ones kind of "feel" (allthough some kind of "the other ones joins here too) (not the kid is meant here)
amen
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-14 00:49 by TimeWaitsforNooooOne.
this tread has up to now been one of the most entertaining ones.
The reason: Mick Taylor once was born and joined a certain band.
No one who loves (feels) good music will ever be able to convince "the other ones" what good music is really like/what it "does" to people, who feel it.
It became very political now and I hope, no one will ever kill another one because of differences regarding musical taste.
Think it's at least ten times more satisfying to talk (what would in a short period of time be needless, 'cause...) to "equals".
Try to accept the opposite and enjoy it, to be (kind of) chosen (or happy with less than possible), to be able to "FEEL IT" (to not having to do with such things like "feelings")...
there is hope:
Am just happy to see young ones kind of "feel" (allthough some kind of "the other ones joins here too)
(not the kid is meant here)amen
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-14 00:49 by TimeWaitsforNooooOne.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: June 14, 2013 00:41
@ Blouse
Great pic! I think it's not the tour, but this thread Taylor has just read.
Great pic! I think it's not the tour, but this thread Taylor has just read.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: June 14, 2013 01:00
Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
DandelionPowderman
I know what was happening at the time musically. However, moving in the guitar hero direction (JJF, Texas 1972) made a unique band sound more similar to the vlassic rock bands and the early metal bands - a development I didn't particularly enjoy.
This really doesn't have anything to do with taking risks, as Taylor in fact didn't improvise so much on stage as many think. Many of his motifs were crafted, and some of them fit really well, especially those who took us by surprise, went in and out or had room, provided by the band, imo. The continous on-going lead guitar, blocking riffs and vocal melodies doesn't interest me.
He gets to improvise today. And he gets room to shine on CYHMK and partly on MR.
Everybody should be happy...
Some people do like it though, Dandelion.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Dandelion, you sound rather bitter, almost envious towards Taylor and the high appreciation afforded him. I know we are all welcome to our own opinions, of course, but you sound like you are on an ongoing crusade to diminish everything he has ever done!
No, that's Mathijs.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
gotdablouse
()
Date: June 14, 2013 01:11
Quote
kleermaker
@ Blouse
Great pic! I think it's not the tour, but this thread Taylor has just read.
Haha...yeah, it seems the plot has been lost here ;-)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-14 01:43 by gotdablouse.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: June 14, 2013 01:14
Quote
71Tele
Some people do like it though, Dandelion.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Dandelion, you sound rather bitter, almost envious towards Taylor and the high appreciation afforded him. I know we are all welcome to our own opinions, of course, but you sound like you are on an ongoing crusade to diminish everything he has ever done!
No, that's Mathijs.
[/quote]Identical twins I suppose?
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
duffydawg
()
Date: June 14, 2013 03:30
Almost every real music critic point to the live performances that MT was involved in....those tours 1969 - 1973 as the RS high water mark.
Indeed almost every music critic on this tour has cited the strength and excitement that MT brings to this former Vegas Act....
Yet for the sillies like HM, MisterDDDD, Dandie and a few other poofs they want to deny reality.
RS w Mick Taylor = Greatest Rock and Roll Band Ever!!!!
Indeed almost every music critic on this tour has cited the strength and excitement that MT brings to this former Vegas Act....
Yet for the sillies like HM, MisterDDDD, Dandie and a few other poofs they want to deny reality.
RS w Mick Taylor = Greatest Rock and Roll Band Ever!!!!
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
SweetThing
()
Date: June 14, 2013 04:21
Quote
duffydawg
Almost every real music critic point to the live performances that MT was involved in....those tours 1969 - 1973 as the RS high water mark.
Indeed almost every music critic on this tour has cited the strength and excitement that MT brings to this former Vegas Act....
Yet for the sillies like HM, MisterDDDD, Dandie and a few other poofs they want to deny reality.
RS w Mick Taylor = Greatest Rock and Roll Band Ever!!!!
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: June 14, 2013 06:17
Do you think jack will ever do another movie like the shining?
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Thrylan
()
Date: June 14, 2013 06:37
Quote
sonomastone
Do you think jack will ever do another movie like the shining?
In a word...."no."
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: June 14, 2013 07:29
Quote
His MajestyQuote
Doxa
So for me the issue is that do we want this safe and sure old concept to carry on till the end, or do we need some fresh blood and dareness to the mix.
- Doxa
.......................................................
Various things are different on this tour... It's stripped down minimal stage set up, less constant backing musicians, a rejuvenated Ron Wood, an older, but more focused on playing Keith, some guests kicking up a storm and yes, the inclusion of Mick Taylor.
..............................
Even without Taylor, this tour is different and features "fresh blood and dareness to the mix",...............
I see myself more as an observer of these tours etc, not a fan, but with or without Taylor this tour is far from just being a re-run of previous modern day tours.
I think His Majesty in this serious post of his gives some correct and most adequate details. ( He might have added the quires.) It is best to let those details inform one's perspective, without changing the conclusion. It was what i referred to when I wrote in short, perhaps too short, in bold:
Quote
Witness
Accordingly, The Stones are trapped in their long functionning solution. They are deeply in need of somehow lessening some of their control and be able to play some new made songs live. Their more guitar oriented approach has given them some renewed vitality, but the novelty factor runs the risk of being used up. I believe that Mick Taylor's improvising way of playing can contribute to both lessening of control and the possibility to play new songs live, and give the band a boost.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Eleanor Rigby
()
Date: June 14, 2013 08:06
Quote
71TeleQuote
Edward TwiningQuote
DandelionPowderman
I know what was happening at the time musically. However, moving in the guitar hero direction (JJF, Texas 1972) made a unique band sound more similar to the vlassic rock bands and the early metal bands - a development I didn't particularly enjoy.
This really doesn't have anything to do with taking risks, as Taylor in fact didn't improvise so much on stage as many think. Many of his motifs were crafted, and some of them fit really well, especially those who took us by surprise, went in and out or had room, provided by the band, imo. The continous on-going lead guitar, blocking riffs and vocal melodies doesn't interest me.
He gets to improvise today. And he gets room to shine on CYHMK and partly on MR.
Everybody should be happy...
Some people do like it though, Dandelion.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Dandelion, you sound rather bitter, almost envious towards Taylor and the high appreciation afforded him. I know we are all welcome to our own opinions, of course, but you sound like you are on an ongoing crusade to diminish everything he has ever done!
No, that's Mathijs.
don't forget Mathijs also rates the 1981 Tour as the Band's greatest...go figure.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: June 14, 2013 08:32
I think 69 was their best tour, not having attended any prior to 89 ( and so not really qualified to comment...)
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Thrylan
()
Date: June 14, 2013 08:36
69' or 81'.....I dig them both
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: June 14, 2013 08:56
For me at least I like the guitars louder like in 69 and prefer mick's more restrained performance in 69 as well. Might be the sound of the recordings and the influence of the visuals of mick influencing me though.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Thrylan
()
Date: June 14, 2013 09:19
69' is MT's great tour....Ronnie gets 81'.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: June 14, 2013 09:45
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Edward TwiningQuote
DandelionPowderman
I know what was happening at the time musically. However, moving in the guitar hero direction (JJF, Texas 1972) made a unique band sound more similar to the vlassic rock bands and the early metal bands - a development I didn't particularly enjoy.
This really doesn't have anything to do with taking risks, as Taylor in fact didn't improvise so much on stage as many think. Many of his motifs were crafted, and some of them fit really well, especially those who took us by surprise, went in and out or had room, provided by the band, imo. The continous on-going lead guitar, blocking riffs and vocal melodies doesn't interest me.
He gets to improvise today. And he gets room to shine on CYHMK and partly on MR.
Everybody should be happy...
Some people do like it though, Dandelion.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Dandelion, you sound rather bitter, almost envious towards Taylor and the high appreciation afforded him. I know we are all welcome to our own opinions, of course, but you sound like you are on an ongoing crusade to diminish everything he has ever done!
That's cheap Edward. A little bit of effort will lead you to many favourable posts about Taylor and his playing - several today, in fact
I thought you should be able to differ between being critical to the use of Taylor in some contexts, and what I think of him as a player. Those who know me know that he's been a huge inspiration for me as a musician and a music lover.
When I'm debating with fanatics my arguments might be lead a bit away from the chore point. Just a bit, though..
Maybe so, Dandelion. Yes it's true, you do give Taylor praise from time to time, but perhaps grudgingly so, and certainly out of the context of your more overwhelmingly positive general opinions of the rest of the Stones, and of their performances, or non performances (and i'm not especially referring to Woody here, either). As soon as Taylorites etc, gets mentioned though, as a way of determining where posters loyalties lie, all credibility is lost. Everybody is entitled to like any/every era of the Stones, whether involving Jones, Taylor or Wood, and that does not make them any less fans. That said, i do enjoy your posts and enjoy our discussions, because you do have very different opinions generally to me, which gets me thinking! You are also entitled of course to your opinions - so peace be with you!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-14 09:51 by Edward Twining.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 14, 2013 12:41
Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Edward TwiningQuote
DandelionPowderman
I know what was happening at the time musically. However, moving in the guitar hero direction (JJF, Texas 1972) made a unique band sound more similar to the vlassic rock bands and the early metal bands - a development I didn't particularly enjoy.
This really doesn't have anything to do with taking risks, as Taylor in fact didn't improvise so much on stage as many think. Many of his motifs were crafted, and some of them fit really well, especially those who took us by surprise, went in and out or had room, provided by the band, imo. The continous on-going lead guitar, blocking riffs and vocal melodies doesn't interest me.
He gets to improvise today. And he gets room to shine on CYHMK and partly on MR.
Everybody should be happy...
Some people do like it though, Dandelion.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Dandelion, you sound rather bitter, almost envious towards Taylor and the high appreciation afforded him. I know we are all welcome to our own opinions, of course, but you sound like you are on an ongoing crusade to diminish everything he has ever done!
That's cheap Edward. A little bit of effort will lead you to many favourable posts about Taylor and his playing - several today, in fact
I thought you should be able to differ between being critical to the use of Taylor in some contexts, and what I think of him as a player. Those who know me know that he's been a huge inspiration for me as a musician and a music lover.
When I'm debating with fanatics my arguments might be lead a bit away from the chore point. Just a bit, though..
Maybe so, Dandelion. Yes it's true, you do give Taylor praise from time to time, but perhaps grudgingly so, and certainly out of the context of your more overwhelmingly positive general opinions of the rest of the Stones, and of their performances, or non performances (and i'm not especially referring to Woody here, either). As soon as Taylorites etc, gets mentioned though, as a way of determining where posters loyalties lie, all credibility is lost. Everybody is entitled to like any/every era of the Stones, whether involving Jones, Taylor or Wood, and that does not make them any less fans. That said, i do enjoy your posts and enjoy our discussions, because you do have very different opinions generally to me, which gets me thinking! You are also entitled of course to your opinions - so peace be with you!
If one actually bothers to read what I post, the chore in it is that I don't think there is a parallell between what I call over-playing and taking musical risks - not at all. Out of experience I find the jam band, or free riding-approach much easier, less comitting and less risky than providing a sound in tandem with your band mates.
That has nothing to do with Mick Taylor's ability to play the guitar, which I love dearly. Some people on this board are not able to understand this or to separate these issues, and that is very disappointing, because it makes otherwise good people look like teenage poster boy fans - instead of the music lovers they are.
Some people actually think I hate Mick Taylor - sheesh, grow up!
This will be my last post in this thread.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-14 14:42 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Thrylan
()
Date: June 14, 2013 14:29
The problem with an improvisational style is, when you're on, its magic, but when you're not...... It's a lot like Jerry Garcia, when he would cook, fine, but other times he wasn't worth a pint of piss.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: June 14, 2013 14:32
Quote
Thrylan
The problem with an improvisational style is, when you're on, its magic, but when you're not...... It's a lot like Jerry Garcia, when he would cook, fine, but other times he wasn't worth a pint of piss.
It's also important for the band you are playing with to be supporting improvisation; if one band member is continually improvising and the rest of the band not supporting that then something has to give. Usually deference is given to the leaders of the band and the songwriters.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
Thrylan
()
Date: June 14, 2013 14:41
Yes, being on the same page is helpful. As far as the present, I don't know if Keith as a band leader, can change on the fly like he used to be capable of.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: June 14, 2013 15:24
Quote
DandelionPowderman
If one actually bothers to read what I post, the chore in it is that I don't think there is a parallell between what I call over-playing and taking musical risks - not at all. Out of experience I find the jam band, or free riding-approach much easier, less comitting and less risky than providing a sound in tandem with your band mates.
That has nothing to do with Mick Taylor's ability to play the guitar, which I love dearly. Some people on this board are not able to understand this or to separate these issues, and that is very disappointing, because it makes otherwise good people look like teenage poster boy fans - instead of the music lovers they are.
Some people actually think I hate Mick Taylor - sheesh, grow up!
This will be my last post in this thread.
You rated Taylor last of all (former) Stones. That says enough.
Of course no one thinks you hate the person Taylor. But you're not honest in your opinions. I see those double cards that Doxa sees too. And I'm fairly sure svt22 sees them too. You even got our peaceful Edward upset. For a little while.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-14 15:28 by kleermaker.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
duffydawg
()
Date: June 14, 2013 15:37
If anyone honestly thinks 81 was in the league with they Taylor Years, they need their head examined. The only cool thing about the 81 tour was Keef fighting off that fan with his guitar on stage.
I can't even believe any true Stones fans don't treasure MT immeasurably. Silly and a joke frankly.
More MT please.
I can't even believe any true Stones fans don't treasure MT immeasurably. Silly and a joke frankly.
More MT please.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
svt22
()
Date: June 14, 2013 15:43
Quote
Thrylan
The problem with an improvisational style is, when you're on, its magic, but when you're not...... It's a lot like Jerry Garcia, when he would cook, fine, but other times he wasn't worth a pint of piss.
On stage Taylor fit in rather naturally, so apart from him improvising, he always added something substantial, but nobody is perfect.. As for Keith, if you listen to the boots from the Taylor era, he basically sticked to the safe but solid way.
Keith and Taylor were a perfect R&R team, regarded as one of the best ever in their style. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that anymore these day, although I would love to have Taylor on more songs. Wishful thinking, and for obvious reasons.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: June 14, 2013 16:05
Quote
svt22Quote
Thrylan
The problem with an improvisational style is, when you're on, its magic, but when you're not...... It's a lot like Jerry Garcia, when he would cook, fine, but other times he wasn't worth a pint of piss.
On stage Taylor fit in rather naturally, so apart from him improvising, he always added something substantial, but nobody is perfect.. As for Keith, if you listen to the boots from the Taylor era, he basically sticked to the safe but solid way.
Keith and Taylor were a perfect R&R team, regarded as one of the best ever in their style. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that anymore these day, although I would love to have Taylor on more songs. Wishful thinking, and for obvious reasons.
Hypothetically, do you think it would be different if only Keith and Taylor played the guitar? I think it would be more easy for Taylor and he would also be less distracted by dancing, hopping and whatever he does. Just like the old days. And of course more participation would favour him. Now he's supposed to do a trick of one minute or some more once a week. That seems hard to continue to me.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
RobertJohnson
()
Date: June 14, 2013 16:40
I wouldn't distinguish between a more "regular" and a more improvised style. It is rather a matter of musical ability, technical skills and the willingness to do something unconventional. The last point I miss on Keith's and Ronnie's side on this tour (and on the tours of the last 25 years) apart from the limited technical skills of both regular guitarists. What a difference if you hear LA Friday when both were on top of their skills. Compare the kitchy YCAGWYW nowadays to the rough and genuine version in 75/76. The first is rather awkward, the solos by Ronnie are very modest. The latter proved the existential sadness of the song and Ronnie played very interesting solos, sometimes without any sax support at all. Nowadays Mick Taylor doesn't manage to animate Keith and Ronnie to do something unusual, unfortunately. They aren't willing to leave their comfort zone, maybe they aren't able to. Mick Taylor guarantees a higher level of quality by his genius, but Mick Taylor and the Rolling Stones nowadays are not the same as The Rolling Stones with Mick Taylor as regular member in the seventies and, too, not the same as The Rolling Stones with Ronnie as regular member in the seventies and in the first part of the eighties. To make a long story short: Leeds '82 was the last gig of the genuine Rolling Stones.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
svt22
()
Date: June 14, 2013 16:49
@ Kleermaker:
You better ask the Stones.
MT is no member anymore, but I do think it would be better for Taylor if he played along on more songs, and not the least: not prancing around like he does now, but focus more on playing the guitar on (and off) stage. People also want to see some action and entertainment. Wood and Richards were very good at it, let alone Jagger, a fabulous frontman.
You better ask the Stones.
MT is no member anymore, but I do think it would be better for Taylor if he played along on more songs, and not the least: not prancing around like he does now, but focus more on playing the guitar on (and off) stage. People also want to see some action and entertainment. Wood and Richards were very good at it, let alone Jagger, a fabulous frontman.Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
straycatblues73
()
Date: June 14, 2013 17:05
watch out ! there is a lead button , better disconnect it , we dont want any lead widdling here !
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: June 14, 2013 17:13
Quote
svt22
... but I do think it would be better for Taylor if he played along on more songs, and not the least: not prancing around like he does now, but focus more on playing the guitar on (and off) stage. People also want to see some action and entertainment. Wood and Richards were very good at it, let alone Jagger, a fabulous frontman.
Totally agreed. Please can someone tell Taylor to stop prancing and to focus only on the guitar?
I was wondering/speculating if the old golden tandem Richards-Taylor would be as effective as it once was. But it's all hypothetically of course and a useless question as well.
Re: We want Mick Taylor on more songs please
Posted by:
svt22
()
Date: June 14, 2013 17:30
Quote
kleermakerQuote
svt22
... but I do think it would be better for Taylor if he played along on more songs, and not the least: not prancing around like he does now, but focus more on playing the guitar on (and off) stage. People also want to see some action and entertainment. Wood and Richards were very good at it, let alone Jagger, a fabulous frontman.
Totally agreed. Please can someone tell Taylor to stop prancing and to focus only on the guitar?
Lol, from what I understood, Valerie, his (former) wife, already told him.
This Thread has been closed
Online Users
Big Al , eibert , esqcjh , Irix , Joce , MartinB , NilsHolgersson , perkmo , rockdoc8885 , Ross , sonnystitt , wiredallnight , zubbid
Guests:
1494
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10