The albums and where they stand / Soundscan-RIAA

poserboy71 · Post by **poserboy71** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:20 am

erg2 wrote:
He...is...a...jagoff.

36 second mark :
[youtube][/youtube]

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:12 am

Yes, he's Chekov too.

Brainsaw · Post by **Brainsaw** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:45 am

erg2 wrote: I'd like to see YOUR legitimate facts, douchebag mcjagoff. Don't quote press releases from Chrysalis. That's called "marketing".

Obviously you don't know the difference between b.s. statements and actual facts. I've pointed out the difference and you can't grasp those.

Nor can you accept the fact when the claims of sales etc are also backed up by the trade magazines and other factors and when taken as a whole--they stand up unlike alot of the KISS b.s. claims.

And again, what sales figures do you expect people to believe? Phony ones on Wikipedia or some other site.....with nothing to back it up?

Pretty simple!

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:53 am

Dear McJagoff,
Please post the accounting ledgers that accurately show the numbers or scans of the documentation. Please do not copy and paste articles from "hard hitting" news publications such as Hit Parader or Metal Edge. Please do not copy and paste marketing materials from the record company. None of these advertising resources are now or were ever required to publish factual information. That fact that you think that they do proves that you are the leading imbecile currently trolling the internet.

I love this guy's mode of arguing and proving a point. He cuts out a portion of the post that supports his case and leaves out the rest that contradicts him. If he'd quoted the ENTIRE post, you'd see that I agree with him that WIKIPEDIA may or MAY NOT be a valid source of information.

erg2 wrote:
Brainsaw wrote:Yes, it is tiresome to see people still whining about this. Facts are facts...
I'd like to see YOUR legitimate facts, douchebag mcjagoff. Don't quote press releases from Chrysalis. That's called "marketing". That's like listening to Gene Simmons say how KISS is the biggest "X" or best selling "Y" only to find out it's in some kind of weird, obscure category during one year. Don't quote heavy metal magazines unless they reference with footnotes the actual statistical information from the source.

Everyone listen. This shitbag thinks he has done "research" and has the "facts" because he has done an internet search and has some magazines. He has also decided that other internet sources such as Wikipedia and networth sites are illegitimate sources of data...which he may or may not be correct. Where this shit-streaked piece of underwear gets confused is that, unless you go to the source and hold the documentation in your hands then the research you have done is second-hand and complete ASS. And by the transitive property, this guy is complete ASS.

He...is...a...jagoff.

If this is how he supports facts and builds arguments here, how can we trust the information he copies and pastes from any other source?

Sincerely,
You are a total JAGOFF

Brainsaw · Post by **Brainsaw** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:58 am

erg2 wrote: Please post the accounting ledgers that accurately show the numbers or scans of the documentation.

I'll go with what the label puts out...especially when supported by the trade magazines and how well they were doing at retail.

If you don't like it....who gives a "F".

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 8:10 am

ie, you truly do not have ACTUAL facts. You are trusting that what a marketing person has put into a press release is the truth. So not only are you a jagoff, but you are a gullible jagoff.

Brainsaw · Post by **Brainsaw** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 8:13 am

erg2 wrote:ie, you truly do not have ACTUAL facts.

Yes, the facts made by the record label President etc. Chrysalis was a public company. You do know their statements mean something.

Lying about sales etc... those are violations of securities laws...

SO SUCK ON THAT

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 8:25 am

Wrong again, jagoff. Statements made in press-releases and marketing materials are not held with the same legal requirements as those made in a company's financial statements or shareholder's reviews. What are you? I can't believe you make it this easy.

And I'm man enough to say this: I don't even know if Chrysalis was a private company or publicly traded. If it was private, it had no requirement to disclose it's sales figures or financial statements publicly.

It's like arguing with the kids in the "special ed" class that do not realize that they are in the "special ed" class.

Brainsaw · Post by **Brainsaw** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 8:31 am

erg2 wrote:
It's like arguing with the kids in the "special ed" class that do not realize that they are in the "special ed" class.

That sums it up. There's people around here who believe some Celebrity Net Worth site and then stick up for someone who used that site and made claims to back it up. Yep, those people are riding the short bus and don't even know it.

And of course you don't know anything about Chrysalis. It's stock etc. You are just talking out of your ass making a fool of yourself.

----
Netflix draws SEC scrutiny over Facebook post

By Emily Steel in New York

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/de0e9116-3ffc ... z2FXOaIPZa

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 8:44 am

I love how you keep picking and choosing the tiny bits and pieces of posts that support your arguments and disregarding the rest. That's because you have nothing. I can tell by the way you write a sentence and the bits of posts you use to make your arguments.

As I said in my previous post...I do NOT know about Chrysalis. Do not make it sound like you got one up on me. I gave you that one. Geesh. Look 4 posts above. I SUPPORT your claim that networth and wikipedia are poor sources of factual information. Geesh.

If I'm supporting your claim and admitting that I do not know something, how can I be talking out of MY ass and making a fool of myself? Geesh!!!!

Dear Lord and creator of Two and a Half Men, please have mercy on this half-wit and his closet full of K-Mart, blue-light special mark-downs. He doth not realize his total jagoff-ishness.

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:29 am

Oh, and BTW, I just went to the Chrysalis website. It is now and has always been a privately held company whose records were (maybe) distributed by publicly held distributing companies. (I don't know. Not pretending to know.)

So, once again, jagoff proven wrong. Privately held companies have no obligation to divulge their financial information to the public. Any marketing or advertising material must only meet the federally mandated Truth In Advertising guidelines, meaning they can't promise to deliver something that they will not.

So saying that VVI was the "fastest selling album in Chrysalis history" or "retailers are on their third round of orders" in a press release is as factually valid as KISS saying they are the "hottest" band in the land. First you would need to define what constitutes the "land', what bands reside in the "land" and take all of their temperature. Otherwise there is no way to validate the claim.

Until jagoff shows me the accounting documentation instead of the marketing materials, press releases and metal magazines, then there is no factual evidence of anything he has claimed. Our statements that VVI was awesome but unsuccessful are every bit as valid as his claims.

Brainsaw · Post by **Brainsaw** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:47 am

erg2 wrote:Oh, and BTW, I just went to the Chrysalis website. It is now and has always been a privately held company whose records were (maybe) distributed by publicly held distributing companies. (I don't know. Not pretending to know.).

Chrysalis has always been a privately held company? You are sure of that. Wanna bet?!

If Chrysalis was sold on the stock exchange....then you lose.... CORRECT??

And if you lose--you agree to not reply to any of my posts for a month?

If I lose-- I won't mention ASG album sales for a month? You on??

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:53 am

nope.

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:54 am

Cuz I don't believe jack shit of anything that YOU post. You're about as credible as the runny shit I just took.

Brainsaw · Post by **Brainsaw** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:59 am

Brainsaw wrote:
erg2 wrote:Oh, and BTW, I just went to the Chrysalis website. It is now and has always been a privately held company whose records were (maybe) distributed by publicly held distributing companies. (I don't know. Not pretending to know.).

Chrysalis has always been a privately held company? You are sure of that. Wanna bet?!

If Chrysalis was sold on the stock exchange....then you lose.... CORRECT??

And if you lose--you agree to not reply to any of my posts for a month?

If I lose-- I won't mention ASG album sales for a month? You on??

[quote="erg2"]nope.[/quote]

Oh so you found out the truth then.... you just keep losing and can't win to save your life!

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:07 am

Are we talking about Chrysalis Records...or are you going to swing in with something petty like "the Chrysalis Music Group", which was formed after Chrysalis Records was bought out by other parties and turned into a music publishing company? Because then you would just be splitting ass-hairs, you Ass Pimple.

poserboy71 · Post by **poserboy71** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:07 am

I am masturbating to this entire exchange.

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:08 am

I am ass-turbating to you masturbating!!!

At least WE can post evidence of our posting.

Brainsaw · Post by **Brainsaw** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:10 am

erg2 wrote:Are we talking about Chrysalis Records...or are you going to swing in with something petty like "the Chrysalis Music Group", which was formed after Chrysalis Records was bought out by other parties and turned into a music publishing company? Because then you would just be splitting ass-hairs, you Ass Pimple.

I'm waiting to answer until you agree or not. STEP UP or NOT chicken ****!

poserboy71 · Post by **poserboy71** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:14 am

erg2 wrote:I am ass-turbating to you masturbating!!!

At least WE can post evidence of our posting.

KissMyAss · Post by **KissMyAss** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:16 am

erg2 wrote:Dear McJagoff,
Please post the accounting ledgers that accurately show the numbers or scans of the documentation. Please do not copy and paste articles from "hard hitting" news publications such as Hit Parader or Metal Edge. Please do not copy and paste marketing materials from the record company. None of these advertising resources are now or were ever required to publish factual information. That fact that you think that they do proves that you are the leading imbecile currently trolling the internet.

I love this guy's mode of arguing and proving a point. He cuts out a portion of the post that supports his case and leaves out the rest that contradicts him. If he'd quoted the ENTIRE post, you'd see that I agree with him that WIKIPEDIA may or MAY NOT be a valid source of information.

erg2 wrote:
Brainsaw wrote:Yes, it is tiresome to see people still whining about this. Facts are facts...
I'd like to see YOUR legitimate facts, douchebag mcjagoff. Don't quote press releases from Chrysalis. That's called "marketing". That's like listening to Gene Simmons say how KISS is the biggest "X" or best selling "Y" only to find out it's in some kind of weird, obscure category during one year. Don't quote heavy metal magazines unless they reference with footnotes the actual statistical information from the source.

Everyone listen. This shitbag thinks he has done "research" and has the "facts" because he has done an internet search and has some magazines. He has also decided that other internet sources such as Wikipedia and networth sites are illegitimate sources of data...which he may or may not be correct. Where this shit-streaked piece of underwear gets confused is that, unless you go to the source and hold the documentation in your hands then the research you have done is second-hand and complete ASS. And by the transitive property, this guy is complete ASS.

He...is...a...jagoff.
If this is how he supports facts and builds arguments here, how can we trust the information he copies and pastes from any other source?

Sincerely,
You are a total JAGOFF

About the Wikipedia source, what mr.. Jagoff failed to acknowledge is that I provided an interview of BOBBY ROCK stating the FIRST album almost went gold. 400,000 copies sold. I backed up the wikipedia source with an interview of the band members. BRAINSAW MIXED UP THE SALES OF THE DEBUT AND ALL SYSTEMS GO, and he's too arrogant to admit it.

None of us have the accounting information....

KissMyAss · Post by **KissMyAss** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:18 am

erg2 wrote:Cuz I don't believe jack shit of anything that YOU post. You're about as credible as the runny shit I just took.

Brainsaw · Post by **Brainsaw** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:18 am

KissMyAss wrote: I provided an interview of BOBBY ROCK stating the FIRST album almost went gold. 400,000 copies sold. .

Where is a link to that and cut/paste where Bobby says 400,000 were sold.

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:22 am

Brainsaw wrote:
erg2 wrote:Are we talking about Chrysalis Records...or are you going to swing in with something petty like "the Chrysalis Music Group", which was formed after Chrysalis Records was bought out by other parties and turned into a music publishing company? Because then you would just be splitting ass-hairs, you Ass Pimple.

I'm waiting to answer until you agree or not. STEP UP or NOT chicken ****!

Fine. I will "step up" and "not respond to YOUR posts for a month if you can prove that Chrysalis RECORDS was publicly traded company during it's time as Chrysalis RECORDS. Not AFTER it was bought out and parceled and turned into different subsidiaries of BMG and such. And it can't be any of it's "partners" that distributed their materials either. And you can't copy and paste your data. You have to post a scan of your source material referencing the year.

Geesh. What an Ass Pimple.

He really doesn't want me to respond to his posts anymore. I wonder why? Cause I've now proven him wrong 6 times today?

Brainsaw · Post by **Brainsaw** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:23 am

erg2 wrote:Oh, and BTW, I just went to the Chrysalis website. It is now and has always been a privately held company whose records were (maybe) distributed by publicly held distributing companies. ).

Chrysalis was always privately held.... and he sticks with that. And yet he claims real proof won't cut it.

For starters DIP SHIT....how could Chrysalis be a private company when (even has I have pointed out NUMEROUS TIMES ON HIS FREAKIN BOARD) that EMI bought 50% of them and then completed the transaction like a year later.

The minute they were 50% owned by EMI...... you're already screwed on your lying statement about them!!!

But again....why don't you check the facts and see that you screwed up even worse you lying turd!

poserboy71 · Post by **poserboy71** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:25 am

Though I am heterosexual, I am enjoying this MANWICH.

Brainsaw · Post by **Brainsaw** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:26 am

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company- ... c-history/

Company Perspectives:

Chrysalis's aim is to create an integrated, predominantly rights-based independent media group that is acclaimed as a leader in each of its fields. Key Dates:
Key Dates:

1967: Chris Wright and Terry Ellis form Ellis Wright Agency to book rock bands.
1968: Chrysalis Records is formed to release recordings of Jethro Tull and other groups.

1970s-80s:Company experiences success with Tull, Blondie, Billy Idol, and other recording artists.
1985: Terry Ellis sells stake to Wright; company goes public through reverse merger.
1985:Lasgo Exports is acquired.
1989: Fifty percent of record company is sold to Thorn EMI.
1991: Remainder of record business is acquired by Thorn EMI; Chrysalis Group, now consisting of only a music publishing business and a coin-operated amusement and vending operation, starts over by moving into TV production and other ventures.
1993: Company launches Commercial Radio Division and new Echo record label.
1994: First radio station, Birmingham-based Heart 100.7 FM, debuts.
1998: Firm expands into book publishing via acquisitions and investments.
2000: Capitalization of music publishing assets raises £60 million.

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:58 am

I knew you were going to pull shit.

If you were a real man, you would admit that I posted THIS:

erg2 wrote:Not AFTER it was bought out and parceled and turned into different subsidiaries of BMG and such.

The agreement stated:

erg2 wrote:And you can't copy and paste your data. You have to post a scan of your source material referencing the year.

Just because one company buys a portion of another company does not mean that the original company is being traded on the market, Ass Pimple. It just means the original company is an asset of the latter. "Chrysalis" itself was never traded. There was never a Chrysalis Records on the stock exchange. It never had a call. No one ever owned Chrysalis Records stock. Do you even understand how the stock market works?

But I'll give you this, if 5 of the other posters on this site say that YOUR take on this bet based on the stated terms is correct, I will acquiesce.

1031 · Post by **1031** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:29 am

Oky Doky I had a slow day in the shop and its cold. So I did a bit of research. Now I am not going to post every single link, but is all easily searchable on google books. And the group here has seen my past research on various subjects since I have been on the board so I will stand with that.
Note I used Billboard a highly respected TRADE Mag that compiles reviews, top LP sales, Video rotation , and Radio playlists from all the reporting industry sources. Searched all available credible source material.

On the subject claims and to sales and popularity of VVI radio play and to the like: The Vinnie Vincent invasion debut album hit the scene with a 10 word blurb in billboard. At ten weeks in it hit 64 after six later weeks it was off the charts. It never made any of the nations top 40 radio stations " 50 song " playlists. While it may have made light rotation somewhere briefly it was never in the 50 playlist. There was a blurb saying LA" KNAC was playing something off the album but not what. In Nov 86 Boys are gonna rock video was released with just a listing of the release " no fan fare" it made it in to rotation on MTV but never made it to heavy rotation status. They started the Alice Cooper tour as support, industry reviews were not great and it did nothing to bump the album. There is no mention of the album as a top seller or radio play in any of the world record sales or European markets or anywhere else that report to billboard. There is no record of sales reaching gold status in any country bay there reporting bodies.

From all looks there just was not a lot of excitement in the industry for VVI , nor did it connect with a mass audience, Despite hooking up with Coopers tour , this pretty much doomed All systems go for a chart push of any kind. And we all know what happened soon after that release.

My personal thoughts are that the fast players hitting the stage like Vai and Malmsteen were smooth shredders very in context of the song the solo while fast was to close to melody to make a impact so it was palatable for the listener. Where Vinnie gave you this melodic great song then just punched you in the face with a raw speed metal fist solo. I dont think they new what to do with that.
Now does any of this lesson the fact that both albums were unhinged metal mastery ... not in the least. Not everyone is going to get something out of the normal, it takes time for them to catch up. Vinnie was not afforded the time for the mass to catch up to what he was doing. Some of this was just the music business clock " sell or see ya" and some was just Vinnie self imploding before his sound caught on.

Now anyone that reads this is welcome to back source if you found I missed something please post it from a credible place.

http://books.google.com/books?id=7CMEAA ... nt&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=ayQEAA ... nt&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=9SQEAA ... nt&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=9SQEAA ... nt&f=false

Brainsaw · Post by **Brainsaw** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:46 am

1031 wrote:On the subject claims and to sales and popularity of VVI radio play and to the like: The Vinnie Vincent invasion debut album hit the scene with a 10 word blurb in billboard. At ten weeks in it hit 64 after six later weeks it was off the charts.

YAWN! Funny how your claims of reviews weren't accurate....

Funny you also didn't even bother to mention the Iron Maiden tour they got after the Cooper tour.

Gee and since they didn't do anything according to you on those tours--then why the Aerosmith Permanent Vacation offer??? That would be All Systems Go BTW

In your links to Billboard, did you mention Billboard mentioning VVI in their year end roundup in 1986?

I didn't see you play up VVI review Billboard they were a "PICK" Sep 13th issue.

Funny, how KNAC had the album #1 on their playlist of 300 record stores in CA.

1031 · Post by **1031** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:13 pm

Sorry I dont eat corn

KissMyAss · Post by **KissMyAss** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:14 pm

erg2 wrote:Wrong again, jagoff. Statements made in press-releases and marketing materials are not held with the same legal requirements as those made in a company's financial statements or shareholder's reviews. What are you? I can't believe you make it this easy.

And I'm man enough to say this: I don't even know if Chrysalis was a private company or publicly traded. If it was private, it had no requirement to disclose it's sales figures or financial statements publicly.

It's like arguing with the kids in the "special ed" class that do not realize that they are in the "special ed" class.

You are right. GAAP applies to accounting, hence "Generally Accepted ACCOUNTING Principles". Public Relations is not accounting!

Don't ask me for my source, Brainsaw. My source is a Financial Accounting class!

Brainsaw · Post by **Brainsaw** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:18 pm

KissMyAss wrote: Public Relations is not accounting!
!

No, but public statements and efforts to mislead will get ya in trouble by the SEC (if you are a public company).

Brainsaw · Post by **Brainsaw** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:24 pm

Somehow "more than adequate" isn't a good review for Alice Cooper =)

and of course I had already posted this but

http://books.google.com/books?id=tiQEAA ... nd&f=false

"and Vinnie Vincent Invasion began to make waves"

And where's all the other "sources". Looks as if someeone used Billboard google and that was all. And of course there's a ton of Billboard issues that are missing. Bu ....

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:26 pm

Brainsaw wrote:
KissMyAss wrote: Public Relations is not accounting!
!
No, but public statements and efforts to mislead will get ya in trouble by the SEC (if you are a public company).

Ass Pimple, when those statements were made...circa 1986 and 1988, Chrysalis Records had yet to be sold to EMI. According to your own shitty research posting, that didn't happen until at least 1989. So...ummm, no again. I think that makes 7 times I have proven you wrong today.

But that's assuming that you are correct about anything you are saying above, which I'm not saying you are. Nobody in their right mind confuses the content of marketing/advertising with financial statements. It's ludicrous that you'd think so. The point is moot seeing as that, when THESE were released, Chrysalis had yet to enter into ANY kind of business relationship with EMI. Completely private.

Suck it, Ass Pimple.

And even when EMI did purchase 50% of Chrysalis Records in 1989 (other sites say 1990), that does not mean that Chrysalis Records was publicly traded. That means EMI invested money...and at 50% they didn't even have a controlling share, limpdick. It wasn't until the following year that they bought them out the rest of the way and absorbed them as a true subsidiary.

None of your points hold true, Ass Pimple. And you still haven't shown any paperwork that shows what the purchase/buyout agreement really meant. Was it just an investment? When did it become a true subsidiary? The truth is, your info is all copy and pasted from that website and you personally don't know dick.

Brainsaw · Post by **Brainsaw** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:30 pm

erg2 wrote:Ass Pimple, when those statements were made...circa 1986 and 1988, Chrysalis Records had yet to be sold to EMI. .

No, not then. But of course you claimed they never were a public company...so you were wrong already.

Then, since they were in 1985, that's before 1986, you are wrong again.

You just continue to be wrong and you aren't even supposed to be responding because you said you wouldn't.

So STFU....

KissMyAss · Post by **KissMyAss** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:34 pm

Brainsaw wrote:
KissMyAss wrote: Public Relations is not accounting!
!
No, but public statements and efforts to mislead will get ya in trouble by the SEC (if you are a public company).

The SEC pursues fraudulent public statements on publically traded companies. Did that include Chrysalis before they were bought out by EMI or you splitting hairs, again?

BTW, asshole, I do not think unethical business practices are EVER wise. Look at what happened to Metalluna records.

KissMyAss · Post by **KissMyAss** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:47 pm

Google recently got caught releasing fraudulent information publically, and they are a bigger company than Chrysalis was in the 80s. Not as though companies don't ever engage in risky behavior, even Chrysalis was a publically traded company!

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:48 pm

Oh Ass Pimple, you didn't follow any of the terms of the bet. I said NO copy & pasting. You had to post actual researched documentation.
You've yet to do so. You've yet to show me where there was anyone in 1985 that bought a share of the publicly traded company CHRYSALIS RECORDS...cuz it was a private company dingleberry.

And when that private company's marketing department released those adverts about Vinnie, they were under no obligation to ensure they were factual. Even when EMI invested in Chrysalis Records in 1989 or 1990 (depending on which website you want to believe), Chrysalis was still a privately owned company with a corporate investor. It did not become a subsidiary of a publicly traded company until 1991 or 1992 when EMI bought the full 100% of the company.

And do you know what the terms of the buyout were, Ass Pimple? Can you post the contracts and agreements? Do we know that Chrysalis Records immediately became absorbed? Does Ass Pimple know that 100%, no doubt, has paperwork to back it up or is it just the copy & paste again...because I've found slightly different info on 3 different sites.

KissMyAss · Post by **KissMyAss** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:57 pm

Brainsaw wrote:
erg2 wrote:Ass Pimple, when those statements were made...circa 1986 and 1988, Chrysalis Records had yet to be sold to EMI. .

You just continue to be wrong and you aren't even supposed to be responding because you said you wouldn't.

What's the matter? Do you dislike other people defending me?

I don't cry as easily as other girls, so you lose!

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:10 pm

KissMyAss wrote:I don't cry as easily as other girls, so you lose!

Oh, poor little Ass Pimple lost a LONG time ago. A LOOONGG time ago.

Brainsaw · Post by **Brainsaw** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:12 pm

So long Erg2 and take your lying ass buddy with ya!

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/06/busin ... salis.html

BUSINESS PEOPLE; Producer of Pop Music Buys Stake in Chrysalis
By ANDREA ADELSON
Published: January 06, 1989

Chrysalis, which first sold stock to the public in 1985, is one of Britain's few independent record labels and has a reputation for signing interesting contemporary artists. In July, however, Mr. Wright warned of a downturn in the company's 1988 profits and suggested taking Chrysalis private. The company's small roster of artists, including Pat Benatar and Huey Lewis, has had a poor year, and an expected release by Billy Idol was delayed, record industry exectives say.

(click link above for whole story)

KissMyAss · Post by **KissMyAss** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:56 pm

Brainsaw wrote:So long Erg2 and take your lying ass buddy with ya!

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/06/busin ... salis.html

BUSINESS PEOPLE; Producer of Pop Music Buys Stake in Chrysalis
By ANDREA ADELSON
Published: January 06, 1989

Chrysalis, which first sold stock to the public in 1985, is one of Britain's few independent record labels and has a reputation for signing interesting contemporary artists. In July, however, Mr. Wright warned of a downturn in the company's 1988 profits and suggested taking Chrysalis private. The company's small roster of artists, including Pat Benatar and Huey Lewis, has had a poor year, and an expected release by Billy Idol was delayed, record industry exectives say.

(click link above for whole story)

Lying???? I wasn't lying about not crying as easily as most girls. I'm an INTP. My feelings are my least active function. INTP women are only 2% of the population.

You were right about Chrysalis being a publically traded company, but you can't guarantee the press release statement was true. Can you?

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:28 pm

That article is in reference to the CHRYSALIS GROUP...not Chrysalis Records. The guys chunked up the company, called it the CHRYSALIS GROUP to leverage ALL the company's different holdings and sold stock. Depending on which article you find, most say that did not happen until much later than 1985...which is why you can't trust the internet.

Am I splitting hairs? Absolutely. I'm a dick. If you read any of my posts you will see that I ask for proof that Chrysalis RECORDS sold stock. It never happened. It's when they conglomerated and became the Chrysalis GROUP that they sold stock...but at that point they had ventured into more than just music publishing and artist representation. It's a fine line, but I'm still right. And my point on everything else still holds that marketing and advertising is NOT held to the same legal requirements as financial statements. (But what do I know, I only work in advertising.)

Brainsaw · Post by **Brainsaw** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:08 pm

KissMyAss wrote:
You were right about Chrysalis being a publically traded company, but you can't guarantee the press release statement was true. Can you?

Of course I was right about Chrysalis being a publicly traded company. I had a friend who bought stock in it--just for the company reports etc they would send out.

Of course that slimy ass lying pathetic scum Erg2 is still around even though, he fell on his face again. I guess he loves being a WELCHER!

Brainsaw · Post by **Brainsaw** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:19 pm

Brainsaw wrote:
erg2 wrote:Oh, and BTW, I just went to the Chrysalis website. It is now and has always been a privately held company whose records were (maybe) distributed by publicly held distributing companies. (I don't know. Not pretending to know.).

Chrysalis has always been a privately held company? You are sure of that. Wanna bet?!

If Chrysalis was sold on the stock exchange....then you lose.... CORRECT??

And if you lose--you agree to not reply to any of my posts for a month?

If I lose-- I won't mention ASG album sales for a month? You on??

Chrysalis was sold and the link to the NY Times story about it being a publically traded company in 1985 has already been posted. Along with another source.

ERG2 FLAT OUT LIED and said Chrysalis has always been a privately held company.

HE WAS TOTALLY WRONG.... now he's bitching and won't leave because he's a welching ass tool. Also a lying moron who says I just cut and pasted except he forgets the links that were provided to both stories as well.

He's a lying ass TROLL!

Brainsaw · Post by **Brainsaw** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:24 pm

erg2 wrote:I knew you were going to pull shit.

If you were a real man, you would admit that I posted THIS:
erg2 wrote:Not AFTER it was bought out and parceled and turned into different subsidiaries of BMG and such.
The agreement stated:
erg2 wrote:And you can't copy and paste your data. You have to post a scan of your source material referencing the year.
Just because one company buys a portion of another company does not mean that the original company is being traded on the market, Ass Pimple. It just means the original company is an asset of the latter. "Chrysalis" itself was never traded. There was never a Chrysalis Records on the stock exchange. It never had a call. No one ever owned Chrysalis Records stock. Do you even understand how the stock market works?

But I'll give you this, if 5 of the other posters on this site say that YOUR take on this bet based on the stated terms is correct, I will acquiesce.

Pull what stunt?! You said it never was a publically traded company. So you were WRONG. Not only were you wrong because of 1985 but then you were wrong again with EMI. So you lose twice.

It shouldn't take 5 people saying you were wrong. The NY Times story I provided a link to proves you were wrong as does the other link. Just accept it and STFU for a month! Be a man!

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:26 pm

Listen, It's late and I'm tired and you apparently can't read an entire paragraph. All you can do is copy and paste. Oh...and "you had a friend". (Doubtful.)

There were TWO components to the bet:
1- you had to show scanned proof that Chrsyalis RECORDS had sold stock. You haven't done and will never do because Chrysalis RECORDS was just a part of a bigger organization, Ass Pimple.
2- No copy and paste. Show actual proof in the form of a scan or other documentation. Something else you can't do because all you can do in your mom's basement is find links to articles that everybody else can find and paste them up here. That's not research, Ass Pimple. That doesn't make you smart. That makes you what you are. Sad.

So now I am going to go upstairs in MY house and have some sex with my wife.

I am not going to respond to YOUR posts anymore, Ass Pimple. Not because you won any bet. Oh no. But because you are a sad, pitiable ass pimple. And now that I have succeeded in fucking with you all day, proving you wrong numerous times, playing you like the half-wit puppet I knew you would be and having my fun.

Oh my...how easy it was to get you SO worked up! Man. I had you dancing all over the internet looking for pointless shit! It took a little longer than I thought to get you to start calling me names, but I knew an ass pimple like you would get there.

I bid you adieu, you pathetic clown. EVERYONE. JOIN ME IN A LAUGH AT HIS EXPENSE!

AAAAAAAAAAND curtain.

Brainsaw · Post by **Brainsaw** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:30 pm

erg2 wrote:
There were TWO components to the bet:
.

No there wasn't. You claimed Chrysalis was never a public company. You made that claim after I mentioned Mike Bone and Public statements.

Then your whole b.s. was that Chrysalis was never a public company so statements wouldn't matter.

You were totally wrong. You lost. Now you can't man up.

It doesn't matter what the corporate parents name. Chrysalis was a public company. No disputing that. And they were a public company during Mike Bone's tenure there. There's no disputing that.

You lose. Game over. STFU for a month!

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:31 pm

curtain closed