Originally Posted by BJ?YesPlease (Post 1134577)

Haha, your nose is indeed an unpleasant place to be - as is anyone's!

I can't quite fathom the strength to re-iterate once again that I'm not taking sides and never said "Jon's a prick". I did use a lot of capital IFs, and did that for both RS and JBJ so am quite astonished at how you think I'm taking sides.

I shall just sigh, give a "meh", and trundle off to marry a complete stranger who is bound to be far hotter than I am. Epic win.

Originally Posted by BJ?YesPlease (Post 1134580)

That's all

Originally Posted by Solid Sambora (Post 1134592)

It's all about context fella. IF(!) you'd written "IF Jon did..., IF Richie said..., IF Jon had..." you would have emphasised the fact that we are working with unknown facts. You didn't. You wrote "IF you..., IF you..., IF you..." What you were saying to the reader is "IF you were in Richie's shoes." The 'IF's are not emphasising the unknown facts, rather they are emphasising the point that your reader is not in Richie's shoes. The shoes, whether you intended it or not, were defined by the theoretical situations you had listed, as if those situations were verbatim.

Then you said "Jon should not be able to act like an ass and screw people over and expect them to follow him. But we don't know he's done that either." You are correct. He should not be able to act like that. However, this statement reads like his acting "like an ass" is a known fact. Given the 'IF' fiasco earlier in the post, your post now reads very anti-Jon. The second sentence reads like an afterthought, a tacked on disclaimer put there as a defence mechanism- "I said I didn't know..."- rather than an integral part of your statement.

You didn't literally say "Jon is a prick" but that post gives the impression certainly gives the impression that you think very much that way.

Originally Posted by Solid Sambora (Post 1134592)

It's all about context fella. IF(!) you'd written "IF Jon did..., IF Richie said..., IF Jon had..." you would have emphasised the fact that we are working with unknown facts. You didn't. You wrote "IF you..., IF you..., IF you..." What you were saying to the reader is "IF you were in Richie's shoes." The 'IF's are not emphasising the unknown facts, rather they are emphasising the point that your reader is not in Richie's shoes. The shoes, whether you intended it or not, were defined by the theoretical situations you had listed, as if those situations were verbatim.

Then you said "Jon should not be able to act like an ass and screw people over and expect them to follow him. But we don't know he's done that either." You are correct. He should not be able to act like that. However, this statement reads like his acting "like an ass" is a known fact. Given the 'IF' fiasco earlier in the post, your post now reads very anti-Jon. The second sentence reads like an afterthought, a tacked on disclaimer put there as a defence mechanism- "I said I didn't know..."- rather than an integral part of your statement.

You didn't literally say "Jon is a prick" but that post certainly gives the impression that you think very much that way.

Originally Posted by gareththyer1990 (Post 1134598)

I don't know if this article has been posted but its quite shocking if the "insider" is correct in what he/she says... Prob BS but here you go:

http://www.antimusic.com/news/13/May...Bon_Jovi.shtml

Originally Posted by rolo_tomachi (Post 1134600)

Originally Posted by jovifan93 (Post 1134594)

Oh c'mon now, he's probably not a writer/journalist but just writes like he would talk to someone about it, but anybody should be smart enough to read two consecutive sentences to get what he meant, instead of just go mad after reading the first sentence... I for one got what he meant on first listen (I'm 100% sure on that), and I'm not even a native speaker...