tracii guns is dead????

mdmatt4ever

Member
Sep 27, 2006
2,742
23
38
l.a. guns/guns n roses founding guitar player tracii guns may be dead. his wikipedia page states he died this morning but i can find no other mention of this news so i'm thinking fake. anyone know anything?
 
The same thing was written on Wiki about Yngwie a few months ago and was proven false within a day or 2.

Methinks it may be false.

it was also written about joe leste from bang tango/beautiful creatures and was false


god i hope this is false. tracii guns is a badass player and i wanted to hear the new stuff he was working on
 
he was to play a gig in Redlands last night so......He was also at the Sophia benefit Thursday night.

yeah i saw he had a show scheduled for last night. he was there?


what a relief that is. he is probably my favorite guitar player from the 80's. i own every l.a. guns album he plays on except cocked and reloaded, any live album with him, shrinking violet and greatest hits and black beauties. i own his solo album, both brides of destruction albums and even purchased some gilby clarke stuff just because he played on it
 
As a side note. Wikipedia is written by people all over the world with little review IMO (I have written there for hell's sake!). I usually use it as a support for information I already know, just to get sure I didn't miss some data but seldom to know about new things or news.
 
wiki is full of shit, a most unreliable source.

Wikipedia's greatest strength is also its greatest folly: that anyone can edit it. There are a great number of inaccuracies on wikipedia, but there are also thousands of geeks and experts examining most pages like hawks so Wikipedia can often be an excellent source of information. It also contains information about certain things unavailable elsewhere.

But also Stephen Colbert so eloquently pointed out in his speech on the wikiality of the internet: "If I want to cut the number of known elephants in Africa down by 1/3, I can."
 
I think its usually accurate except for occasional troll incidences which are done as a joke and stand out like a sore thumb. I believe most edits have to go up for a review, once solid info is there it stays there or is challenged until the truth is gotten to.

I remember years ago searching there for more info on Crack the Sky and someone had written down that they were responsible for the development of crack, it quickly dissapeared but the other info that was there and accurate was there and stayed there.
 
See some idiot can come and add something stupid to the subject but he cant change what is already there. Wiki has been around long enough now that what is there for most subjects has been challenged and sorted to acceptability, then say your reading along and everything sound about right and suddenly something just aint right... then you know some ass clown has showed up and it will soon be gone.

It was much worse 6-10 years ago then more people that knew and cared about the info got it better sorted out.
 
the point is glad he's not dead so we can get some more awesome tunes like:


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKM8G-IGoLA&feature=fvw[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEuvRr_bXsM&feature=related[/ame]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This goes back to the old saying of "Never trust the Internet"

I think is not about trust but knowledge. I mean, if you know a bit about a subject Internet can give you access to more information (providing somebody uploaded it), if you don't know anything about a subject Internet, newspapers, magazines, books are as untrustful as any other source of information in higher or lesser degree.

Since my background is a scientific one, I'm use to know what sources can I trust and which don't. Also to look for information in the right places, in my younger days those where a dicitionary, an encyclopedia, a textbook, etc.

Nowdays there are sites on the Internet that give us access to the same info faster, providing that info has been transcribed adequately from the original sources.

Of course you need to have the knowledge and the capability to discern between an acceptable source (let's say "Newsweek" or the "Encyclopedia Britannica") and unreliable one ("National Enquirer" or a politician speech :rolleyes:).

You can translate that analogy to the cyberworld. So for example Wikipedia is not a source to me of reliable info, but sites like:

http://scholar.google.com/
http://www.merriam-webster.com/

are good because I know what are the background on them.

Still like anything, cross references as much as you can. If 20 sites tell you Elvis is dead and Wikipedia insist the King is still alive secluded in Alaska...well:Smug:
 
and unreliable one ("National Enquirer" or a politician speech :rolleyes:).

Priceless


Arent those two a shameless comparision yet sooo sad but true ? Worst thing is politicains know most people feel this way about them... and they dont care. Nation Enquirer is shamelessly popular too and makes a good case for the sad state of human affairs.
 
this thread reminded me of the time a guy on the allman brothers forum said l.a. guns was always a second tier band because tracii guns can't even play a simple chuck berry riff to save his life. what a a retard:loco: