MR

The Blog below from Chuck deals with comments made in this topic below.
http://forums.melodicrock.com/phpBB/vie ... 2b1eaeb41f

LOL I see that another one of my remarks was taken OUT of context.

I never said that bleached hair or tight pants = Gay...I was kidding
with
the guys about that though.
He left that OUT...

You can check out this blog as well as many other blogs by Chuck at http://www.chuckpanozzosblog.com


Thanks

chuck wrote:

LOL I see that another one of my remarks was taken OUT of context.

I never said that bleached hair or tight pants = Gay...

What a relief. For a minute there, I thought I might be gay.

I knew my book would be lost to those who lack the "emotional and
intellectual " capacity to understand what it is like growing up gay in the
USA...................

That was a risk I'm glad I took .....I'm sure when this hits the
bloggers it will be great fun for some of them .. and challenging for others. Some might have to
face there bigotry and Homophobia.

Since the release of "My Story" I've spoken to crowds of people from
every walk of life. From New York, Florida, S. Francisco, and Chicago on Radio TV and
Newspapers. I can't forget the Internet LOL

None of those enlighted individausls have even come close to the
negative comments posted here....I thank them for that

To them My Story has brought hope and in some cases a better
understanding of who they are. How anyone who hasn't read the book and thinks they
know the the contents hasn't been to school in a long time. Gee I'm too lazy to
read so I'll just think what he thinks. YIKES!

When I was a HS teacher and gave a reading assignment I knew there
would be some students that wouldn't read the chapter or the book.
I could always count on this core group of lazy fakers who barely made
it through school they usually dropped.

Why would anyone admit they never read the book and make negative
comments about something they have no personal knowledge about??

LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR AGAIN
-- THIS IS NOT THE DEFINITIVE BOOK ABOUT STYX--

how difficult is that to understand. Most everyone else does my
pubishers thought

Maybe you think you've never met someone gay.-- No Aunt, Uncle,
Sister, Brother Son or Daughter, Father or Mother-Your Minister or Priest or a Gay
Soldier serving our are country in Iraq. Think again......

One day your 18 yr. old son or daughter may tell you there Gay that's
when the phrase "Unconditional Love "

Chuck

styxfanNH wrote:I knew my book would be lost to those who lack the "emotional and
intellectual " capacity to understand what it is like growing up gay in the
USA...................

That was a risk I'm glad I took .....I'm sure when this hits the
bloggers it will be great fun for some of them .. and challenging for others. Some might have to
face there bigotry and Homophobia.

Since the release of "My Story" I've spoken to crowds of people from
every walk of life. From New York, Florida, S. Francisco, and Chicago on Radio TV and
Newspapers. I can't forget the Internet LOL

None of those enlighted individausls have even come close to the
negative comments posted here....I thank them for that

To them My Story has brought hope and in some cases a better
understanding of who they are. How anyone who hasn't read the book and thinks they
know the the contents hasn't been to school in a long time. Gee I'm too lazy to
read so I'll just think what he thinks. YIKES!

When I was a HS teacher and gave a reading assignment I knew there
would be some students that wouldn't read the chapter or the book.
I could always count on this core group of lazy fakers who barely made
it through school they usually dropped.

Why would anyone admit they never read the book and make negative
comments about something they have no personal knowledge about??

LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR AGAIN
-- THIS IS NOT THE DEFINITIVE BOOK ABOUT STYX--

how difficult is that to understand. Most everyone else does my
pubishers thought

Maybe you think you've never met someone gay.-- No Aunt, Uncle,
Sister, Brother Son or Daughter, Father or Mother-Your Minister or Priest or a Gay
Soldier serving our are country in Iraq. Think again......

One day your 18 yr. old son or daughter may tell you there Gay that's
when the phrase "Unconditional Love "

Chuck

It was actually posted ealier in another Topic.

The passege in the article Chuck is referring to implies that sking-tight pants, eyeliner and bleached hair are things that people stereotype with being gay. Chuck did not do these sterotypical things but knows non-gay rockers who did/do. He made a joke... so what?

It was clear this was a joke, so, I am not sure what the issue is and why Chuck felt it necessary to respond. Doesn't he realise that all the posts he keeps responding to come from the same person?

StyxfanNH: That blog entry was already discussed in another thread. http://forums.melodicrock.com/phpBB/vie ... hp?t=26917

He's gotta stop taking this place seriously.

All it's gonna earn him is higher blood pressure and a merry band of stalkers (just ask Burtnik.)

blt man wrote:The passege in the article Chuck is referring to implies that sking-tight pants, eyeliner and bleached hair are things that people stereotype with being gay. Chuck did not do these sterotypical things but knows non-gay rockers who did/do. He made a joke... so what?

It was clear this was a joke, so, I am not sure what the issue is and why Chuck felt it necessary to respond. Doesn't he realise that all the posts he keeps responding to come from the same person?

StyxfanNH: That blog entry was already discussed in another thread. http://forums.melodicrock.com/phpBB/vie ... hp?t=26917

I guess I missed it...

glad to know I can make one statement and get Chuck Panozzo all riled up.

Dude seriously needs to lighten up. I really enjoy the music he made with Styx before things went to hell, he doesn't need to get into internet flame pit.

Perhaps he needs to show a little more security than that.

Hey Chuck... lighten up dude. We don't really know eacho ther well enough to get all offended at eachother - I'm welcome to my opinion. If you choose to make my posts the centrifuge of your blog then I'm honored, but not deserving.

Ash wrote:glad to know I can make one statement and get Chuck Panozzo all riled up.

Dude seriously needs to lighten up. I really enjoy the music he made with Styx before things went to hell, he doesn't need to get into internet flame pit.

Perhaps he needs to show a little more security than that.

Hey Chuck... lighten up dude. We don't really know eacho ther well enough to get all offended at eachother - I'm welcome to my opinion. If you choose to make my posts the centrifuge of your blog then I'm honored, but not deserving.

Hmmm. I guess it depends on the statement and/or the way one defines the term "riled up."

It would seem that it's okay to accuse someone of being a perpetual victim, while making blanket generalizations about his hard work based on guestimations & hearsay, but it's not okay for the "perpetual victim" to speak up against such uninformed accusations by say...implying his accusers lack "intellectual & emotional capacity" to understand. That would be condescending.

Yeah, what an uptight prick! Picking on the easy-going, carefree spirits of the world like that. And then he goes and calls people who were tight pants GAY. Sickening, really.

You're right about one thing: Chuck certainly doesn't need to get involved in an Internet flame pit, but c'est la vie. Free will and stuff.


(And on a completely different note, my new favorite phrase is "merry band of stalkers.")

Zan wrote:

Ash wrote:(And on a completely different note, my new favorite phrase is "merry band of stalkers.")[/color][/b]

HEY! i resemble that remark..... or something like that...

Zan wrote:

Ash wrote:glad to know I can make one statement and get Chuck Panozzo all riled up.

Dude seriously needs to lighten up. I really enjoy the music he made with Styx before things went to hell, he doesn't need to get into internet flame pit.

Perhaps he needs to show a little more security than that.

Hey Chuck... lighten up dude. We don't really know eacho ther well enough to get all offended at eachother - I'm welcome to my opinion. If you choose to make my posts the centrifuge of your blog then I'm honored, but not deserving.

Hmmm. I guess it depends on the statement and/or the way one defines the term "riled up."

It would seem that it's okay to accuse someone of being a perpetual victim, while making blanket generalizations about his hard work based on guestimations & hearsay, but it's not okay for the "perpetual victim" to speak up against such uninformed accusations by say...implying his accusers lack "intellectual & emotional capacity" to understand. That would be condescending.

Yeah, what an uptight prick! Picking on the easy-going, carefree spirits of the world like that. And then he goes and calls people who were tight pants GAY. Sickening, really.

You're right about one thing: Chuck certainly doesn't need to get involved in an Internet flame pit, but c'est la vie. Free will and stuff.


(And on a completely different note, my new favorite phrase is "merry band of stalkers.")

When you (universal) don't feel like engaging in the conversation, it's always easy to just make "blanket and uninformed" statements and "generalizations" about other people's intellectual capacity. In short - it's easier to call people names than to engage the conversation. I never called Chuck any names - I questioned his motives in playing victim. I also simply stated my point of view regarding my perceptions of his point of view. If that's too much for him to deal with without name calling - then who exactly is lacking in intellectual and emotional capacity here?

I guess it shouldn't surprise me - but somehow I expected more. Not the first time I've been disappointed. People would rather just attack the messenger than discuss the message. ::shrug:: I'm moving on.

You know Ash, we're not attacking the messenger, we're mentioning the fact that you haven't read the book yet seem to want to comment on out of context quotes from it.

You won't get the message that's being discussed if you don't know the background behind it.

If you now want to go and play martyr, or take your ball and go home, that's your own thing. Chuck wrote a book on his life and how he choose after a long time NOT to be a victim. If you read it, you might get what he's getting at.

Skates wrote:You know Ash, we're not attacking the messenger, we're mentioning the fact that you haven't read the book yet seem to want to comment on out of context quotes from it.

You won't get the message that's being discussed if you don't know the background behind it.

If you now want to go and play martyr, or take your ball and go home, that's your own thing. Chuck wrote a book on his life and how he choose after a long time NOT to be a victim. If you read it, you might get what he's getting at.

LOL who is playing the martyr? Who said I'm taking my ball and going home. I said I'm moving on, not going home. I've already outlined why I have chosen not to read this book - so I'm not going to repeat myself.

It's funny... interviews are designed to give people snapshots of what is in a product so they can decide if they want to buy that product or not. When a person decides that this product isn't for them and makes a judgment off what the author or other people say and shares that opinion - suddenly they are the asshole for not having read the book and actually having an opinion. Amazing.

Not once have I degraded Chuck Panozzo. Not once. I've explained that why, based on what I have heard, I am not interested in his story. Why some of you refuse to get this through your head is beyond my ability to express. Yet for simply saying this, I've had Chuck Panozzo himself question my intellectual maturity and my statements have been made the focal point of things in his blog.

I'm starting to feel like Deno.

Trust me Ash, you are NOT anything like that guy........If you were, you would be telling us all how you
had put up with enough ( insert several obscenities here ) on this forum, and you were no longer going to post
here anymore. Then we wouldnt see you here for a week or 2, at which point you would be craving some attention
and you would come back.

Oh, and you'd be working real hard to convince everyone that your arguments are infallable, and that no one is your intellectual equal.......

I could go on, but my only point here is to contrast your methods of debate to the person you are referring to.

now duck, because he'll probably come here to spew some insults and obscenities at me about this post real soon.


-CSF

classicstyxfan wrote:Trust me Ash, you are NOT anything like that guy........If you were, you would be telling us all how you
had put up with enough ( insert several obscenities here ) on this forum, and you were no longer going to post
here anymore. Then we wouldnt see you here for a week or 2, at which point you would be craving some attention
and you would come back.

Oh, and you'd be working real hard to convince everyone that your arguments are infallable, and that no one is your intellectual equal.......

I could go on, but my only point here is to contrast your methods of debate to the person you are referring to.

Very true - they are nothing alike. But I think Ash lacks the intellectual capacity to understand the difference. :::ducking:::

Zan wrote:Very true - they are nothing alike. But I think Ash lacks the intellectual capacity to understand the difference. :::ducking:::

And just for that, I'm not going to hit on you when I come down to the Burtnik show in September. Nyah! Don't you feel hurt now!

Although I'm sure your husband (and consequently my teeth) are happier about that.

Ash wrote:And just for that, I'm not going to hit on you when I come down to the Burtnik show in September. Nyah! Don't you feel hurt now!

Although I'm sure your husband (and consequently my teeth) are happier about that.

Depends on the day.

classicstyxfan wrote:Trust me Ash, you are NOT anything like that guy........If you were, you would be telling us all how you
had put up with enough ( insert several obscenities here ) on this forum, and you were no longer going to post
here anymore. Then we wouldnt see you here for a week or 2, at which point you would be craving some attention
and you would come back.

Oh, and you'd be working real hard to convince everyone that your arguments are infallable, and that no one is your intellectual equal.......

I could go on, but my only point here is to contrast your methods of debate to the person you are referring to.

now duck, because he'll probably come here to spew some insults and obscenities at me about this post real soon.


-CSF

The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh, CSF?

Bugsy

Ash wrote:Not once have I degraded Chuck Panozzo. Not once.

That's true....

Ash wrote:It just seems as if Panozzo has used the Styx name to sell a book about his personal struggle with being gay because if you take Styx out of it - nobody would buy it.

Ash wrote:I don't see what makes him so damn special.

Ash wrote: Some people grow up loud and proud about who they are, no matter what or who they are - and others make themselves out to be victims.

Ash wrote:All I am saying is there are a lot of people who suffered TRUE persecution.

Ash wrote:I wouldn't read a book about Julius Earving (Dr. J) having slept with 20,000 women any more or less than I would a book about Chuck Panozzo sleeping with other men.

Ash wrote:It's just amazing to me that people choose to define themselves by what they like to do with their genitalia.

...definitely wasn't once.

stabbim wrote:

Ash wrote:Not once have I degraded Chuck Panozzo. Not once.

That's true....

And it's...it's...OUTTA THERE!

Ash wrote:It just seems as if Panozzo has used the Styx name to sell a book about his personal struggle with being gay because if you take Styx out of it - nobody would buy it.

How is this an attack on Chuck? This is about his book?

Ash wrote:I don't see what makes him so damn special.

That is my personal opinion. Removing someone from their pedestal isn't a personal attack.

Ash wrote: Some people grow up loud and proud about who they are, no matter what or who they are - and others make themselves out to be victims.

My perception based on things he is saying and doing. How is this an attack on him personally?

Ash wrote:All I am saying is there are a lot of people who suffered TRUE persecution.

And what does this have to do with Panozzo at all? This relates to other people.

Ash wrote:I wouldn't read a book about Julius Earving (Dr. J) having slept with 20,000 women any more or less than I would a book about Chuck Panozzo sleeping with other men.

Because I mentioned what Panozzo is doing or has done makes it an attack and why I wouldn't buy it is also? What?

Ash wrote:It's just amazing to me that people choose to define themselves by what they like to do with their genitalia.

This is an observation. I fail to see how this is an attack.


your post proves nothing.

Zan wrote:

Ash wrote:your post proves nothing.

You said "degrade," Ash.

Main Entry: de·grade
Pronunciation: di-'grAd, dE-
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French degrader, from Late Latin degradare, from Latin de- + gradus step, grade -- more at GRADE
transitive verb
1 a : to lower in grade, rank, or status : DEMOTE b : to strip of rank or honors c : to lower to an inferior or less effective level <degrade the image quality> d : to scale down in desirability or salability

OK then... I degraded his work - not him personally. I didn't call him stupid, or intellectually bankrupt or anything else. I made reasoned arguments for my positions and said nothing derogatory about him. Some of it was sarcastic, yes, but it was not personally degrading. There is a BIG, BIG difference.

Ash wrote:

Ash wrote:It just seems as if Panozzo has used the Styx name to sell a book about his personal struggle with being gay because if you take Styx out of it - nobody would buy it.

How is this an attack on Chuck? This is about his book?

The book which you readily criticize, yet haven't read and have no interest in reading.

Ash wrote:I don't see what makes him so damn special.
That is my personal opinion. Removing someone from their pedestal isn't a personal attack.

And Chuck's personal opinion is that you lack the intelligence required to understand, hence why you criticize things you don't bother to read. And what makes you think he has himself on a pedestal that he needs to be removed from - by you, no less?

Ash wrote: Some people grow up loud and proud about who they are, no matter what or who they are - and others make themselves out to be victims.

My perception based on things he is saying and doing. How is this an attack on him personally?

Because he ISN'T making himself out to be one. A victim blames. A survivor conquers. If you read the book, you'd know that, as well as that he has to IDENTIFY where he came from before he can make any sense of his achievements (and to help others struggling with similar things to identify with him - and maybe *gasp* take action so they too can be survivors. But you just want to criticize based on nothing real - a few clips and quotes.

Ash wrote:All I am saying is there are a lot of people who suffered TRUE persecution.

And what does this have to do with Panozzo at all? This relates to other people.[/quote]


Wrong again...you're using it to imply he is NOT one of those people, so you can further prove your "victim" theory.

Ash wrote:I wouldn't read a book about Julius Earving (Dr. J) having slept with 20,000 women any more or less than I would a book about Chuck Panozzo sleeping with other men.

Because I mentioned what Panozzo is doing or has done makes it an attack and why I wouldn't buy it is also? What?

Again, not remotely what the book is about. Your remarks are based on ignorance and falsities and are absolutely degrading.

Ash wrote:It's just amazing to me that people choose to define themselves by what they like to do with their genitalia

This is an observation. I fail to see how this is an attack.

Wow. Maybe you fail to see it as such because where this particular topic is concerned, Chuck was right on the nail.

OK then... I degraded his work - not him personally. I didn't call him stupid, or intellectually bankrupt or anything else. I made reasoned arguments for my positions and said nothing derogatory about him. Some of it was sarcastic, yes, but it was not personally degrading. There is a BIG, BIG difference.

You said "what's the big deal about him?" You said he "defines himself by what he does with his genetalia." You called him a perpetual victim. You dared compare his persecution with that of others, a lot fo which, you don't know first-hand. I'd say you DID degrade him personally.

I said I was moving on so I am. People who can't stay on the subject demonstrate their own intellectual shallowness - so I guess there is plenty to go around.

You can always twist and re-interpret people's words to mean whatever fits your agenda - and I'm simply going to step down from it because from my perspective you are wrong and taking everything I say out of context and incorrectly.

Of course, I've known you long enough to know that there's nothing I can do about that. So we'll just agree to not agree here and move on before feelings get hurt.

Ash wrote:I said I was moving on so I am. People who can't stay on the subject demonstrate their own intellectual shallowness - so I guess there is plenty to go around.

You can always twist and re-interpret people's words to mean whatever fits your agenda - and I'm simply going to step down from it because from my perspective you are wrong and taking everything I say out of context and incorrectly.

Dude. You seriously need to lighten up. That is what you said to Chuck when he felt he was being taken out of context, and then slammed for it here, no less, wasn't it?

I'm sorry - Did I stray from the subject? Did I misquote you regading the subject? What did I take out of context, and what did you actually mean? I'm being serious here.

Of course, I've known you long enough to know that there's nothing I can do about that. So we'll just agree to not agree here and move on before feelings get hurt.

C'est la vie, as they say.

stabbim wrote:He's gotta stop taking this place seriously.

All it's gonna earn him is higher blood pressure and a merry band of stalkers (just ask Burtnik.)

LOL, too true. Glen used get pretty worked up about all of that, and now I get the impression he could give a flying rat's ass. Good for him!


Sterling

Rockwriter wrote:LOL, too true. Glen used get pretty worked up about all of that, and now I get the impression he could give a flying rat's ass. Good for him!

Having been on the other end of that ... well, 'nuff said.