Tell Me :
Talk
HCT
HepCatTrap
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-28 00:42 by Max'sKansasCity.
Second, while the article is well-written and entertaining, it's pure fantasy. Note the title: "Imagine if..." I'm sure the article was already discussed on IORR when it came out so I won't go further.
PEACE, LOVE, & Rolling Stones!
Excellent post. Mick was more likely leery of Gram, the impressionable young musician in love with Keith and Anita. It didn't take much to gain access into Keith and Anita's inner sanctum: drugs.
Mick knew that. Can you imagine watching your best friend, artistic collaborator....dig himself deeper and deeper into oblivion? The Stones were on top, had been for years.....and at their artistic peak. And here is Keith slipping away....
We'll never know how Keith's addiction affected Mick emotionally, how it must have weighed on him throughout the 70s as Keith got worse......because he'll never tell us. In that sense, I believe Mick was protecting not only the Stones, but Keith as well. Mick kept Keith's condition from affecting the band's work, touring etc...he just expected Keith to show up....
People talk about Keith's resentments toward Mick for 'taking over the Stones', 'hobnobbing with society' and what that did to their writing partnership. That's Keith and ANita's party line and they're sticking to it.
But Mick is obviously made of some tough stuff to have dealt with all of that and keep the Stones together. Gram P. is a mere footnote.....
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-28 04:46 by stupidguy2.
The writer Bill Wyman has been notorious over the years for speaking negatively to almost anything that pertains the Stones.
The bass player Bill Wyman has been no walk in the park either.
I wonder which IORR poster he is?...
plenty of the posters here sound resemble that description
Funny
I really enjoy the writer BW's writing and his elegant style. His Slate article is one of the definitive responses to 'Life' in my opinion. However, I would have to say that in writing from Mick's perspective, he is far more articulate and witty than Mick actually is. Mick is ever diplomatic, but not complicated or subtle, from my years of reading his interviews.
Yep, I agree!
Well put DP, I finally realize it takes a musician to see the true value of another musician, some guys will never get it and would rather debate the effect the drugs Keith and Gram took had on the band or who they slept with and the ramifications of that. It's clear to me both Keith and Mick put the music ahead of all that stuff in the long run and because of that have given me an awfully lot of inspiration too....
Some Chris Hillman quotes on Gram and the Stones from the aforementioned article:
"The thing is, there is some credence to the fact that he did influence them, and he got them into listening to some country music"
and
"Wild Horses was probably some kind of offshoot of Gram being around them."
The bottom line on this Gram thread is that all quotes from Mr. Hillman and Mr. Richards indicate he was an influence on the Stones. As far as being obsessed with Mick, who wasn't in 1972? My opinion is that he caught the same bug everyone on this board has concerning The Rolling Stones, a great buzz while it lasts. peace
..peace
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-30 23:24 by Naturalust.
nice
I heard comedian and Rat Pack member Joey Bishop tell the following story on the radio shortly before he died: He said he once was having lunch in a Las Vegas hotel with other members of the Rat Pack, including Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra. At one point, Bishop was returning from the restroom, when he passed a table of women, one of whom was going on and on about how despicable she found Frank Sinatra. "Frank Sinatra is awful. I do not find him appealing at all!" Bishop continued on to his table, where he told Frank Sinatra, "See that woman over there? She's going on and on about how awful you are." Sinatra immediately stood up, went to the table, held out his hand to the woman and said, "I'd like to take you up to my room." The woman took Sinatra's hand, went up to his room, where he proceeded to bone her the rest of the afternoon.
That doesn't mean she still didn't find him despicable.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-31 17:28 by tatters.
count me in
come to think about it - isn't a voyeurism just a part of rock'n'roll experience?
Mick at least thinks so [hightimes.com]
People are just that stonesrule, we all have a fight or flight instinct and when I am personally attacked I will shoot arrows of truth. I'm quite sure jealousy has nothing to do with it, in my case anyway..
I have tried to stick to the issues but it has been difficult when words of sheer crap are hurtled my way.
I apologize if my recent posts have hurt you or anybody else in any way, no intention.
I would always perfer a decent debate but that takes people who are willing to look outside of themselves and actually retract from positions which are infalmmatory insulting or just plain wrong. I am learning and will recognize traps that are set but such folks and avoid them altogether.
I apologize to for the second time hb. Not likely to change my sign off anytime soon, sorry it bothers you so much.
There is history of peaceful men resorting to less than peaceful words, there is certainly a time it makes perfect sense. Bullying is something that I abhore and I will have find and more peaceful way to counter such verbal ignorance on this board.
I apologize to you too bv. Sorry you had to get involved, I certainly didn't ring your bell. I hope you didn't have to take your ski boots off to sort this out. lol peace
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: March 28, 2012 00:40
Quote
duke richardson
just saw that...
thats funny!
HCT
HepCatTrap
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-28 00:42 by Max'sKansasCity.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
duke richardson
()
Date: March 28, 2012 00:41
seriously--
the article by Bill Wyman in Slate had a lot of the same points being made here
give it a read if you haven't and another if you have...kinda long though.
[www.slate.com]
the article by Bill Wyman in Slate had a lot of the same points being made here
give it a read if you haven't and another if you have...kinda long though.
[www.slate.com]
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
memphiscats
()
Date: March 28, 2012 02:40
I read this article when it came out. First, for those of you who might not know, Bill Wyman is a journalist - not Bill Wyman from the Rolling Stones.Quote
duke richardson
seriously--
the article by Bill Wyman in Slate had a lot of the same points being made here
give it a read if you haven't and another if you have...kinda long though.
[www.slate.com]
Second, while the article is well-written and entertaining, it's pure fantasy. Note the title: "Imagine if..." I'm sure the article was already discussed on IORR when it came out so I won't go further.
PEACE, LOVE, & Rolling Stones!
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: March 28, 2012 04:44
Quote
Bliss
Back on topic here..
I think Gram being both a drug buddy and a skilled and knowledgeable musician did pose a threat to Mick, in the way of being a problem. After years of hard, disciplined work together, Keith had suddenly checked out due to his heroin use. Mick couldn't count on him for anything - not business decisions, writing, playing or touring. And there was nothing he could do about it - he had lost control; they were no longer on the same page. And along comes Gram who could give Keith the musical companionship he formerly got from Mick, plus a deep understanding of Keith's addiction, since he shared it. I would bet Mick was upset, impatient, and completely uncomprehending of Keith's withdrawal into drugs. He would have felt, '...things are going great, we are doing better than we ever have, why are you sabotaging it all with this selfish escapism?'
But as to Mick being threatened personally.....no. Mick was a huge star of long standing (in the rock world) , he had a strong grasp of business, and he was in full control of his life. Gram couldn't threaten that.
.
Excellent post. Mick was more likely leery of Gram, the impressionable young musician in love with Keith and Anita. It didn't take much to gain access into Keith and Anita's inner sanctum: drugs.
Mick knew that. Can you imagine watching your best friend, artistic collaborator....dig himself deeper and deeper into oblivion? The Stones were on top, had been for years.....and at their artistic peak. And here is Keith slipping away....
We'll never know how Keith's addiction affected Mick emotionally, how it must have weighed on him throughout the 70s as Keith got worse......because he'll never tell us. In that sense, I believe Mick was protecting not only the Stones, but Keith as well. Mick kept Keith's condition from affecting the band's work, touring etc...he just expected Keith to show up....
People talk about Keith's resentments toward Mick for 'taking over the Stones', 'hobnobbing with society' and what that did to their writing partnership. That's Keith and ANita's party line and they're sticking to it.
But Mick is obviously made of some tough stuff to have dealt with all of that and keep the Stones together. Gram P. is a mere footnote.....
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-28 04:46 by stupidguy2.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
filstan
()
Date: March 28, 2012 04:54
Quote
duke richardson
seriously--
the article by Bill Wyman in Slate had a lot of the same points being made here
give it a read if you haven't and another if you have...kinda long though.
[www.slate.com]
The writer Bill Wyman has been notorious over the years for speaking negatively to almost anything that pertains the Stones.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 28, 2012 05:04
Quote
filstan
Quote
duke richardson
seriously--
the article by Bill Wyman in Slate had a lot of the same points being made here
give it a read if you haven't and another if you have...kinda long though.
[www.slate.com]
The writer Bill Wyman has been notorious over the years for speaking negatively to almost anything that pertains the Stones.
The bass player Bill Wyman has been no walk in the park either.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: March 28, 2012 05:12
Quote
filstan
The writer Bill Wyman has been notorious over the years for speaking negatively to almost anything that pertains the Stones.
I wonder which IORR poster he is?...
plenty of the posters here sound resemble that description
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: March 28, 2012 12:17
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
filstan
Quote
duke richardson
seriously--
the article by Bill Wyman in Slate had a lot of the same points being made here
give it a read if you haven't and another if you have...kinda long though.
[www.slate.com]
The writer Bill Wyman has been notorious over the years for speaking negatively to almost anything that pertains the Stones.
The bass player Bill Wyman has been no walk in the park either.
Funny
I really enjoy the writer BW's writing and his elegant style. His Slate article is one of the definitive responses to 'Life' in my opinion. However, I would have to say that in writing from Mick's perspective, he is far more articulate and witty than Mick actually is. Mick is ever diplomatic, but not complicated or subtle, from my years of reading his interviews.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: March 28, 2012 20:52
StupidGuy2, I REALLY respect your post. You summed it up succinctly.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
TrulyMicks
()
Date: March 29, 2012 21:19
Quote
stonesrule
StupidGuy2, I REALLY respect your post. You summed it up succinctly.
Yep, I agree!
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: March 30, 2012 22:38
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I respect the different opinions about Gram and his music. However, as a musician, no one has inspired me to write songs more than Mick, Keith and Gram.
The sense of melody, attitude and tenderness shines through:
Well put DP, I finally realize it takes a musician to see the true value of another musician, some guys will never get it and would rather debate the effect the drugs Keith and Gram took had on the band or who they slept with and the ramifications of that. It's clear to me both Keith and Mick put the music ahead of all that stuff in the long run and because of that have given me an awfully lot of inspiration too....
Some Chris Hillman quotes on Gram and the Stones from the aforementioned article:
"The thing is, there is some credence to the fact that he did influence them, and he got them into listening to some country music"
and
"Wild Horses was probably some kind of offshoot of Gram being around them."
The bottom line on this Gram thread is that all quotes from Mr. Hillman and Mr. Richards indicate he was an influence on the Stones. As far as being obsessed with Mick, who wasn't in 1972? My opinion is that he caught the same bug everyone on this board has concerning The Rolling Stones, a great buzz while it lasts. peace
..peace
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-30 23:24 by Naturalust.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
hbwriter
()
Date: March 31, 2012 00:06
"I finally realize it takes a musician to see the true value of another musician" how do you know who is a musician here and who isn't?
also - "some guys will *never* get it"
does your pompous and pretentious posturing *ever* stop? EVER? why come on here to simply issue backhand slaps and insults to people?
peas
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-31 00:18 by hbwriter.
also - "some guys will *never* get it"
does your pompous and pretentious posturing *ever* stop? EVER? why come on here to simply issue backhand slaps and insults to people?
peas
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-31 00:18 by hbwriter.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: March 31, 2012 00:19
If this "takes a musician.." stuff was true, most of the record and concert ticket sales would have never happened. And most of us wouldn't be interested in IORR.
I'm definitely not a musician but I do know music and some pretty cool cats would vouch for it.
I imagine the same could be said for HB and others here.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-31 00:56 by stonesrule.
I'm definitely not a musician but I do know music and some pretty cool cats would vouch for it.
I imagine the same could be said for HB and others here.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-31 00:56 by stonesrule.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: March 31, 2012 00:24
Yeah that pretty much says it all Stonesrule....like I said... peace
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: March 31, 2012 01:09
Mick talks about country music (nothing about Parsons)
MJ...Some of the songs were recorded in sessions for the previous album, like Sweet Virginia.
For Sticky Fingers?
[He looks at the sleeve of my Sticky Fingers CD.] I can’t see the song titles on it. Do you have a song title list there? Brown Sugar and Wild Horses were done in Muscle Shoals, very influenced by the place. Geographically influenced.
The country element was now free of pastiche, being treated as another strand in the music, like the blues.
But it’s a style which is very easily parodied, isn’t it? It was like, we really like this style of music, but most of the people who do it are not hip. It’s country influenced, it’s of the country. Wild Horses is very much one of those. Dead Flowers is still in the parody world, to some extent, though I think it’s a very good country song. And some of the odd ones are great one-offs like Moonlight Mile, which we revived on the last tour. They were done in previous sessions for the record before this. [ie Let It Bleed]
Do you think it took a British band to achieve the best synthesis of American music?
We’re probably going to gloss over the achievements of some good American bands of the time, but maybe it’s because British bands had a good overall history of the thing – blues, country, rock, black music, jazz, whatever. Whereas, if you were from Memphis, you might be so heavily influenced by your local music that you couldn’t grapple with any other style. So, The Allman Brothers, from Georgia, you are the music of Georgia, you’re interpreting that music and it’s hard to step out of it. Whereas if you’re suburban, you actually are creating this synthesis. If you only had Cliff Richard coming before you, locally… It’s also that middle class knowledge, the sense of history and the desire to know everything, like how Slim Harpo’s harmonica licks work. Of course American bands did it, but English bands did it with a breadth of American music, and it eventually synthesised without them knowing it. That’s what happened to The Rolling Stones, who started off as “a blues band”, but a blues band who played Buddy Holly covers in their spare time. Once all that snobbery was thrown out the window, you could play Buddy Holly without anyone turning their noses up.
Because the other band who were very good at that synthesis were The Band, who were themselves largely outsiders.
They were Canadian, yeah. I always thought of them as a country band, first of all, though they had a very strange influence, I don’t really know where it all came from. They were very country, but in a sort of ancient way.
Almost 19th century country.
Exactly. If you think of their songs about the Civil War, it feels like a history lesson.
[www.pauldunoyer.com]
MJ...Some of the songs were recorded in sessions for the previous album, like Sweet Virginia.
For Sticky Fingers?
[He looks at the sleeve of my Sticky Fingers CD.] I can’t see the song titles on it. Do you have a song title list there? Brown Sugar and Wild Horses were done in Muscle Shoals, very influenced by the place. Geographically influenced.
The country element was now free of pastiche, being treated as another strand in the music, like the blues.
But it’s a style which is very easily parodied, isn’t it? It was like, we really like this style of music, but most of the people who do it are not hip. It’s country influenced, it’s of the country. Wild Horses is very much one of those. Dead Flowers is still in the parody world, to some extent, though I think it’s a very good country song. And some of the odd ones are great one-offs like Moonlight Mile, which we revived on the last tour. They were done in previous sessions for the record before this. [ie Let It Bleed]
Do you think it took a British band to achieve the best synthesis of American music?
We’re probably going to gloss over the achievements of some good American bands of the time, but maybe it’s because British bands had a good overall history of the thing – blues, country, rock, black music, jazz, whatever. Whereas, if you were from Memphis, you might be so heavily influenced by your local music that you couldn’t grapple with any other style. So, The Allman Brothers, from Georgia, you are the music of Georgia, you’re interpreting that music and it’s hard to step out of it. Whereas if you’re suburban, you actually are creating this synthesis. If you only had Cliff Richard coming before you, locally… It’s also that middle class knowledge, the sense of history and the desire to know everything, like how Slim Harpo’s harmonica licks work. Of course American bands did it, but English bands did it with a breadth of American music, and it eventually synthesised without them knowing it. That’s what happened to The Rolling Stones, who started off as “a blues band”, but a blues band who played Buddy Holly covers in their spare time. Once all that snobbery was thrown out the window, you could play Buddy Holly without anyone turning their noses up.
Because the other band who were very good at that synthesis were The Band, who were themselves largely outsiders.
They were Canadian, yeah. I always thought of them as a country band, first of all, though they had a very strange influence, I don’t really know where it all came from. They were very country, but in a sort of ancient way.
Almost 19th century country.
Exactly. If you think of their songs about the Civil War, it feels like a history lesson.
[www.pauldunoyer.com]
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: March 31, 2012 04:05
Mary, maybe we should form a club for those of us who are getting bored with
drug tales and childish voyeurism about rock star bodies.
The Mick haters would drop in their tracks if they ever came face to face with him.
The Gram lovers would have nodded off around him.
The Keith haters would doubtless find him somewhat beguiling face to face.
drug tales and childish voyeurism about rock star bodies.
The Mick haters would drop in their tracks if they ever came face to face with him.
The Gram lovers would have nodded off around him.
The Keith haters would doubtless find him somewhat beguiling face to face.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
andrewm
()
Date: March 31, 2012 04:13
Is it inconceivable one could be a huge fan of all three? Because that's what I am. What's with the hate?
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
hbwriter
()
Date: March 31, 2012 05:38
Quote
stonesrule
Mary, maybe we should form a club for those of us who are getting bored with
drug tales and childish voyeurism about rock star bodies.
The Mick haters would drop in their tracks if they ever came face to face with him.
The Gram lovers would have nodded off around him.
The Keith haters would doubtless find him somewhat beguiling face to face.
nice
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
tomk
()
Date: March 31, 2012 06:19
I've got all the books and read all the magazine articles, just like all of us,
but has Jagger EVER mentioned Parsons at all? Off the top of my head, I can't recall if he has or not. I don't remember seeing/reading anything.
but has Jagger EVER mentioned Parsons at all? Off the top of my head, I can't recall if he has or not. I don't remember seeing/reading anything.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Title5Take1
()
Date: March 31, 2012 09:46
Quote
stonesrule
The Mick haters would drop in their tracks if they ever came face to face with him.
I heard comedian and Rat Pack member Joey Bishop tell the following story on the radio shortly before he died: He said he once was having lunch in a Las Vegas hotel with other members of the Rat Pack, including Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra. At one point, Bishop was returning from the restroom, when he passed a table of women, one of whom was going on and on about how despicable she found Frank Sinatra. "Frank Sinatra is awful. I do not find him appealing at all!" Bishop continued on to his table, where he told Frank Sinatra, "See that woman over there? She's going on and on about how awful you are." Sinatra immediately stood up, went to the table, held out his hand to the woman and said, "I'd like to take you up to my room." The woman took Sinatra's hand, went up to his room, where he proceeded to bone her the rest of the afternoon.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
tatters
()
Date: March 31, 2012 17:24
Quote
Title5Take1
Quote
stonesrule
The Mick haters would drop in their tracks if they ever came face to face with him.
I heard comedian and Rat Pack member Joey Bishop tell the following story on the radio shortly before he died: He said he once was having lunch in a Las Vegas hotel with other members of the Rat Pack, including Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra. At one point, Bishop was returning from the restroom, when he passed a table of women, one of whom was going on and on about how despicable she found Frank Sinatra. "Frank Sinatra is awful. I do not find him appealing at all!" Bishop continued on to his table, where he told Frank Sinatra, "See that woman over there? She's going on and on about how awful you are." Sinatra immediately stood up, went to the table, held out his hand to the woman and said, "I'd like to take you up to my room." The woman took Sinatra's hand, went up to his room, where he proceeded to bone her the rest of the afternoon.
That doesn't mean she still didn't find him despicable.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-31 17:28 by tatters.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: March 31, 2012 17:37
Quote
stonesrule
Mary, maybe we should form a club for those of us who are getting bored with
drug tales and childish voyeurism about rock star bodies.
count me income to think about it - isn't a voyeurism just a part of rock'n'roll experience?
Mick at least thinks so [hightimes.com]
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: March 31, 2012 21:14
Quote
idiot
hb and stonesrule are so full of themselves.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: March 31, 2012 21:14
Naturalust, you had some interesting posts here for a time but you seem to have changed.
HBwriter has made a lot of friends here in the past three or four years.
When you insult him for many of us,it comes as a shock to hear from someone whose mantra is Peace.
Aren't we all past the jealousy stage?
HBwriter has made a lot of friends here in the past three or four years.
When you insult him for many of us,it comes as a shock to hear from someone whose mantra is Peace.
Aren't we all past the jealousy stage?
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: March 31, 2012 21:36
It is very interesting and controversial thread. This is an important chapter in Stones' history and the anti Jagger myth that surrounds them. This discussion should be continued despite the efforts of one poster who tries to make the moderator to close it. I have nothing else to expect from the poster who has repeatedly accused me of getting paid for my SuperHeavy thread (he was very upset that this thread attracted the attention of many people)
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: March 31, 2012 21:46
Let's face it: A lot of things in the Stones mythology (including the Gram Parsons influence) have come from years of Keith telling the story a certain way. We can choose to believe him or not. Personally, I take anything he says with a grain of salt, but am entertained by the way he tells the stories nonethless...Except for the ones where he is a hero and it involves some kind of weapon ("shooter", "blade", etc.) Those I find tiresome.From Keith's telling, he and Gram were musical soul mates, and Freddy Sessler was the best buddy anyone could have. What's the common thread in so many of these tales?
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
letitloose
()
Date: March 31, 2012 22:20
But...The Gram Parsons albums are beautiful. One of my best friends said to me "pound for pound that double cd is the best record ever made". it's not my favourite but it is top 10. And I finally tracked em down on vinyl. I will say, if "she" doesn't move you, you have no soul
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
letitloose
()
Date: March 31, 2012 22:23
Oh and Naturalust and HB- sort it out. You are two of my favourite people here, and it depresses me to see you both demean yourselves.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
bv
()
Date: March 31, 2012 22:35
Please post with respect, and please no fights and personal insults. Otherwise I have to take action. And... edit your own post when you understand you have been out of line. Thank you!
Bjornulf
IORR Editor
Bjornulf
IORR Editor
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: March 31, 2012 23:12
Quote
stonesrule
Naturalust, you had some interesting posts here for a time but you seem to have changed.
HBwriter has made a lot of friends here in the past three or four years.
When you insult him for many of us,it comes as a shock to hear from someone whose mantra is Peace.
Aren't we all past the jealousy stage?
People are just that stonesrule, we all have a fight or flight instinct and when I am personally attacked I will shoot arrows of truth. I'm quite sure jealousy has nothing to do with it, in my case anyway..
I have tried to stick to the issues but it has been difficult when words of sheer crap are hurtled my way.I apologize if my recent posts have hurt you or anybody else in any way, no intention.
I would always perfer a decent debate but that takes people who are willing to look outside of themselves and actually retract from positions which are infalmmatory insulting or just plain wrong. I am learning and will recognize traps that are set but such folks and avoid them altogether.
I apologize to for the second time hb. Not likely to change my sign off anytime soon, sorry it bothers you so much.
There is history of peaceful men resorting to less than peaceful words, there is certainly a time it makes perfect sense. Bullying is something that I abhore and I will have find and more peaceful way to counter such verbal ignorance on this board.
I apologize to you too bv. Sorry you had to get involved, I certainly didn't ring your bell. I hope you didn't have to take your ski boots off to sort this out. lol peace
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
54 Les Paul Junior , adrianmfa2 , AllAboutYours , bigmac7895 , DandelionPowderman , desertblues68 , dph , EddieByword , Fan Since 1964 , Harm , Havo , jammingedward , johnh , Keef1966 , Kurt , maumau , paquerette , rastakeith , RollingTbilisiStones , silkcut1978_ , Tate , TMONTANA , triceratops , Witness
Guests:
211
Record Number of Users:
56
on May 17, 2013 21:31
Record Number of Guests:
259
on May 19, 2013 07:53
