Do You Guy's Have A Problem With This? Options

[Hoodstock]

Alright - we're going into the 2012 tour season. Ed has obviously moved on from Live and Live (as we all know) is moving on as a band without Ed. Today I saw this:



It reads "Live's Ed Kowalczyk". Obviously Ed was a huge part of Live but he's moved on and Live is a band that will be active and touring without him.

Because of what he did for the band does Ed forever have the right to claim that he is "Live's" or do you guys think it would be proper for him to indicate "former" in some way?

[OutToDry]

perhaps this statement informs you.

Not true, he is not allowed by law to use that name. He can only saw formerly.

Your passive aggressive nature is amazing. I link a place to recall the reason but you feign ignorance and ask a question.....nuts

This post has been edited by OutToDry: Jan 22 2012, 10:20 am

[SJN1279]

perhaps this statement informs you.
Your passive aggressive nature is amazing. I link a place to recall the reason but you feign ignorance and ask a question.....nuts

If it was ILLEGAL as you say, he wouldn't be able to do it. Especially if their was a pending court case.

My point is, there is no difference between LIVE's Ed Kowalczyk and Ed Kowalczyk formerly of LIVE, when it comes to promotion. Fans just need to know that he was the lead singer of LIVE and will perform LIVE songs.

Most importantly, this poster is from a promoter in Manila. I'm sure no one knows of the alleged LIVE 2.0 in Manila.

[dancing queen]

If it was ILLEGAL as you say, he wouldn't be able to do it. Especially if their was a pending court case.

My point is, there is no difference between LIVE's Ed Kowalczyk and Ed Kowalczyk formerly of LIVE, when it comes to promotion. Fans just need to know that he was the lead singer of LIVE and will perform LIVE songs.

Most importantly, this poster is from a promoter in Manila. I'm sure no one knows of the alleged LIVE 2.0 in Manila.

Nick, is it a joke that you're a teacher? or is that real? because for shit's sake, learn to speak English!
Earlier in this thread, your first post, you used "know" instead of "no" so let me define them for you.
Know: to understand, comprehend, to apprehend, be cognizant or aware of, to perceive
No: negative (used to express dissent, denial, or refusal), not in any degree or manner, not at all

and while I have the dictionary out:

Ed Kowalczyk
former lead singer of
LIVE

LIVE's
Ed Kowalczyk
http://www.fansoflive.com/forums/style_ima...s/textcolor.gif
It is basically the same message.

Former: preceding in time, prior or earlier; past, long past, or ancient; having once or previously been

so "Live's Ed Kowalczyk" means Live has a band member (because as you've been previously informed, an apostrophe s [ 's ] indicates possession) and his name is Ed Kowalczyk. This statement takes place in the present.
"Ed Kowalczyk, formerly of Live" indicates past tense.

Past tense and present tense are NOT the same thing.
for example: Nick, you used to suck. (past tense)
Nick, you fucking suck. (present tense)
see the difference?

I understand my typing is often lacking, but I hope it's clear that English is, in fact, my first language and I know how to use the words within.

So besides the difference between the no/knows, let me show you another cool thing that happens in English.
There: in or at that place, thither
They're: contraction of "they are"
Their: possessive, indicating something belongs to "them" or "they own it"

And in response to the "alleged" Live 2.0 - what the hell, Nick. There IS a new Live. We've heard it. Alleged means "doubtful, suspect, or supposed" so I'm not quite sure why you chose this adjective. The new incarnation of Live is real, Nick. I know you know this, because you hate it so much. Surely you wouldn't bother to hate something that wasn't real???


No one takes you seriously. It doesn't help that you use English like a stereotypical gym teacher. I hope the rest of the teachers at your school are more capable of speaking the language. Your poor students.


In actual response to this thread, I do know that Ed's not really in control of what promoters do, but at some point Ed's management is going to have to let promoters know that they can no longer use present tense on these posters.

What bothers me more is that Ed (in that 105.3 radio interview) seems totally at peace with the fact that most of his set is old Live songs, and only "4 or 5" of his new songs make it to the stage. It bothers me because I really wanted him to move on and make something great. I'm still holding out hope that his next solo work will be something really special.

[SJN1279]

Nick, is it a joke that you're a teacher? or is that real? because for shit's sake, learn to speak English!
Earlier in this thread, your first post, you used "know" instead of "no" so let me define them for you.
Know: to understand, comprehend, to apprehend, be cognizant or aware of, to perceive
No: negative (used to express dissent, denial, or refusal), not in any degree or manner, not at all

and while I have the dictionary out:
Former: preceding in time, prior or earlier; past, long past, or ancient; having once or previously been

so "Live's Ed Kowalczyk" means Live has a band member (because as you've been previously informed, an apostrophe s [ 's ] indicates possession) and his name is Ed Kowalczyk. This statement takes place in the present.
"Ed Kowalczyk, formerly of Live" indicates past tense.

Past tense and present tense are NOT the same thing.
for example: Nick, you used to suck. (past tense)
Nick, you fucking suck. (present tense)
see the difference?

I understand my typing is often lacking, but I hope it's clear that English is, in fact, my first language and I know how to use the words within.

So besides the difference between the no/knows, let me show you another cool thing that happens in English.
There: in or at that place, thither
They're: contraction of "they are"
Their: possessive, indicating something belongs to "them" or "they own it"

And in response to the "alleged" Live 2.0 - what the hell, Nick. There IS a new Live. We've heard it. Alleged means "doubtful, suspect, or supposed" so I'm not quite sure why you chose this adjective. The new incarnation of Live is real, Nick. I know you know this, because you hate it so much. Surely you wouldn't bother to hate something that wasn't real???
No one takes you seriously. It doesn't help that you use English like a stereotypical gym teacher. I hope the rest of the teachers at your school are more capable of speaking the language. Your poor students.
In actual response to this thread, I do know that Ed's not really in control of what promoters do, but at some point Ed's management is going to have to let promoters know that they can no longer use present tense on these posters.

What bothers me more is that Ed (in that 105.3 radio interview) seems totally at peace with the fact that most of his set is old Live songs, and only "4 or 5" of his new songs make it to the stage. It bothers me because I really wanted him to move on and make something great. I'm still holding out hope that his next solo work will be something really special.

I caught my know/no mistake after it was too late to edit. That's what happens when you don't check your work. The point I am trying to make is that the way Ed bills himself will not effect LIVE 2.0 until they actually start touring.

As for Chad Taylor's drunken post, Ed has made them too. Along with about a million other celebrities, it is no big deal.