I'd go with Naive, bordering on excessively hopeful.
> New Game! It's called Naivety or Maliciousness. Simple
> premise: take something that has been said in the past
> about something subsequently disproven, and pontificate
> over whether the person who said it was simply being
> Naive, or Malicious.
>
> Adding to the fun is that we invariably only ever know one
> side of the story, making any and all of our responses
> potential future subject of the great game of Naivety or
> Maliciousness. Lol.
>
> We'll start with Meat, cause he is the obvious and easy
> target.
>
> On MLFUCK, 09 Jul 2010, 18:05, Meat said re: TMiL:
> I was hoping Jim would come on board and help finish
> the record. with a couple of different songs. Get rid of
> Monster and a couple of others. The lyrics on monster are
> just not well structured.
>
> So lemme get this right… Meat was hoping that Jim, whom he
> had just finished suing and taking IP from, would come in
> and salvage the already well-advanced body of songs
> written and/or arranged by Desmond Child, in some bid to
> protect the very IP that Meat had just taken from him for
> the purposes of the album Desmond CHild was now making.
>
> Hmm…
>
> I'm gonna give Meat the benefit of the doubt here and say
> that, somehow, he actually DID think that Jim would be
> willing to come in somewhere along the line and help fix
> his and Desmond's trainwreck of an album that shits all
> over his own legacy. I'll go with Naive.
>
>
|
