Tell Me :
Talk
First, how it relates to the article?
Second, what makes you think so - all I said on this board boils down to what is written in this article( or in Jagger article in New York Times) and unlike the author I never called him a parasite.
Is is possible to criticize Richards without speaking first about how great he is?
Yes, I believe that by trying to destroy Mick's reputation Richards damaged the Stones legacy
But I do not think it makes me less a fan than you or others.
Great riffs, but where is the song?
I mean, that's your attitude right?
Someone post "Out of Focus" or "Too Far Gone"
I hate when this board disintegrates to this, but lets face it: Keith, through the years, has acted and behaved like a punk.
If you idolize him,
I guess you're on that level -
This reminds of the neanderthals in high school who would refer to Mick as 'a fag'.
Ugh...I knew people like that! (Still do, sadly)
I don't know how long you've been a Stones fan Justin, but that kind of attitude has always been there. And why some of us do get defensive about Jagger.
He really doesn't get the respect he deserves.
On what planet have you people been living on? Keith's?
This is the attitude that creates this kind of friction: if you dare critize Keith, you're are some GIRL or Pansy who has a adolescent crush on Mick,
The lack of self-awareness among Keith's disciples is amazing. You never get it...
And that's why these stupid arguments begin. Someone dared to call Keith on his shit and some of you people explode?
But its more than ok to bash Jagger.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-18 21:48 by stupidguy2.
Yes, you have said on several occasions that I post many articles from Internet - from anyone else I have not heard such criticism. When I haven't time I post something that I think might be interesting to others. You see I was born in Russia and my native language is Russian, and express my thoughts in English takes me more time than you. At the same time, it is unlikely I can be accused of that I do not give my opinion
Why the author considers this or that - he explaines it quite clearly.You ask me whether I agree with this or what I think about it or what? I did not write it
Do you really think people can not have opinions about people they do not know personally?
Yes, and that attitude permeated into the media, became a myth. I'm just amazed that some fans still hold onto those myths.
Much of started because Keith and Anita shoot of their mouths...
Keith has gotten less vitriolic, but he constantly belittled Jagger, way before Mick's solos......
I think Anita instigated a lot of it back in the late 60s, and Keith is gullible, and he was also a junkie in those days...so..
But Mick has never added fuel to any fire.
He's got too much class.
You're just an easy target Mary, by virtue of openly being female and someone who respects Jagger and you're not shy about calling a spade and spade (Keith).
Amazing isn't?
Proudmary - I have been on this board for ~ 7 years and have followed this board for longer. I have a pretty good idea of who the principals on this board are and what their biases are. I love your posts. Ignore the negative comments. I know you already do. You have a tough skin. Your presence on this board is much appreciated.
As opposed to the hundreds of articles about Keith being the “heart and soul’ of the band, there are but ~ 2 articles in the popular press that give Jagger some kudos and slight Richards. There is barely 1 that truly recognizes Jagger's songwriting gifts. And a significant proportion of this board cannot even handle that simply because that proportion of this board works hard at diminishing Jagger as an artist. A significant proportion of this board does not even like Mick Jagger. A whining eddy once remarked that he wished Keith would "sing" instead of Jagger. Another toddy declares that Saint of Me is a great song but has to be brought down a notch because it doesn’t feature Keith.
Jagger has at least another 10 years left in him. As Wenner stated nicely, Jagger, along with Lennon and Dylan is one of the three definitive voices of our time. He will be recognized yet. He is flawed for sure but there is little room on this board to discuss Jagger's strengths without discussing Keith's "even greater" strengths. There is NO room to describe Keith's weaknesses without discussing Jagger's "even greater weaknesses". The position that "'Keef' is the real deal and that Mick is a talentless but lucky and somewhat embarrassingly greedy adjunct" is one that Keith himself has craved. One very esteemed poster here stated that Keith was 80% of the Stones and Jagger was an accountant. As I mentioned earlier, there is a huge "let me take him down syndrome" on this board vis-a-vis Jagger. Over the last 20 years or so, Keith Richards himself, more than anyone else seems to have made this a singular mission. And his sycophants parrot his populist bullshit. As does every journalism major or intern who is asked to write up a piece on any a upcoming Stones related event. But Jagger too has a tough skin. He plays by his own rules. He lets his actions speak louder than words. Any Stones fan should be enjoying Jagger’s recent moments in the sun.
Agreed. I will stand behind any opportunity to hand Mick some well-deserved props but I don't particularly agree with how the author of the article chose to go about it. He could have still made it a point to list Mick's achievements but the author's act of taking away props from Keith was a little snipey--if not driven by emotions. I suppose the writer of an oppinion column can do whatever he pleases but to be the little taddle-tail for no real rhyme or reason is a little sleazy. I suppose this is all some payback for the crap Keith's given Mick in the last few years but I can't recall Keith ever slagging Mick for the work they did...it was all personal bullshit.
wanderingspirit66, thanks for your kind words
All the rest - you're 100% right
Indeed,stupidguy2
no more than you're ridiculous
I don't post more "clips" than others, btw.
This article is on the other Stones boards and no one out there does attack the poster.
I didn't call KR a parasite - author did. I put these words in the title of the thread for people to notice it and read the article. They read and some of them are arguing in effect. Others prefer to vilify me - it just amuses me
Thank you for your sympathy,Green Lady, but I never pay attention to his posts, a man is sick
Keep On Rolling
I ain't the one calling people parasites.
Cool. I didn't know that. But now I am curious who ?
Keep On Rolling
Yes! FFS, the best team of the rock and roll era and both indispensable to the greatness of the Rolling Stones. As Charlie Watts says, the only two that are indispensable. I love 'em both. This board is so depressing.
And yes, the bitchy and childish behavior of the two of them toward each other has encouraged this stuff.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-18 23:36 by TeddyB1018.
"It makes me sad to say this, but I fear it’s the truth.
Keith Richards isn’t the purist.
Lately, he’s more like a parasite."
So, you see I am quoting directly the article and this title is much more attracting attention tnan the vague Two cheers for an aging frontman-no one would read the thread with such a title.
But the article raises issues that I have long felt need to be discussed
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: May 18, 2012 21:27
Quote
SweetThing
While Proud Mary seems not so much a Stones fan to me, but rather a Jagger disciple
First, how it relates to the article?
Second, what makes you think so - all I said on this board boils down to what is written in this article( or in Jagger article in New York Times) and unlike the author I never called him a parasite.
Is is possible to criticize Richards without speaking first about how great he is?
Yes, I believe that by trying to destroy Mick's reputation Richards damaged the Stones legacy
But I do not think it makes me less a fan than you or others.
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Lately Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: May 18, 2012 21:31
Quote
Brue
To the lovely, dried up proudmary
Great riffs, but where is the song?
I mean, that's your attitude right?
Someone post "Out of Focus" or "Too Far Gone"
I hate when this board disintegrates to this, but lets face it: Keith, through the years, has acted and behaved like a punk.
If you idolize him,
I guess you're on that level -
This reminds of the neanderthals in high school who would refer to Mick as 'a fag'.
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Lately Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: May 18, 2012 21:36
Quote
stupidguy2
This reminds of the neanderthals in high school who would refer to Mick as 'a fag'.
Ugh...I knew people like that! (Still do, sadly)
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Lately Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
letitloose
()
Date: May 18, 2012 21:37
dear Proudmary, we know you hate Keith. I don't want to know how deep your love for Jagger runs. it is probably terrifying. Why don't you give it a rest. As for Keith. Yep, he is associating himself with the old bluesy Oddballs, or whatever. Keith knows he is getting old. Why not listen to his classy contribution to Last Leaf from the Tom Waits album. Keith understands that no one gets out of this world alive. he is winding down and enjoying life. You may think he is jealous and frustrated with life, but it's Jagger who is acting the (tiny) cock, singing with Joss Stone like that is relevant. I think Leonard Cohen and Tom Waits is perfect for Keith as he plays out his days.
And I love Jagger. I am so glad he put the work in for the re-issues of Exile and Some Girls. I sincerely believe Plundered and following the river are fantastic. And I know Keith had minimal involvement.
Please, just stop bashing Keith. he's almost 70. A lot of his more clean living contemporaries are gone. he will be too at some point, as will your (our) beloved Mick.
And I love Jagger. I am so glad he put the work in for the re-issues of Exile and Some Girls. I sincerely believe Plundered and following the river are fantastic. And I know Keith had minimal involvement.
Please, just stop bashing Keith. he's almost 70. A lot of his more clean living contemporaries are gone. he will be too at some point, as will your (our) beloved Mick.
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Lately Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: May 18, 2012 21:42
Quote
Justin
Quote
stupidguy2
This reminds of the neanderthals in high school who would refer to Mick as 'a fag'.
Ugh...I knew people like that! (Still do, sadly)
I don't know how long you've been a Stones fan Justin, but that kind of attitude has always been there. And why some of us do get defensive about Jagger.
He really doesn't get the respect he deserves.
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Lately Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: May 18, 2012 21:47
Quote
letitloose
dear Proudmary, we know you hate Keith. I don't want to know how deep your love for Jagger runs. it is probably terrifying. Why don't you give it a rest. As for Keith. Yep, he is associating himself with the old bluesy Oddballs, or whatever. Keith knows he is getting old. Why not listen to his classy contribution to Last Leaf from the Tom Waits album. Keith understands that no one gets out of this world alive. he is winding down and enjoying life. You may think he is jealous and frustrated with life, but it's Jagger who is acting the (tiny) cock, singing with Joss Stone like that is relevant. I think Leonard Cohen and Tom Waits is perfect for Keith as he plays out his days.
And I love Jagger. I am so glad he put the work in for the re-issues of Exile and Some Girls. I sincerely believe Plundered and following the river are fantastic. And I know Keith had minimal involvement.
Please, just stop bashing Keith. he's almost 70. A lot of his more clean living contemporaries are gone. he will be too at some point, as will your (our) beloved Mick.
On what planet have you people been living on? Keith's?
This is the attitude that creates this kind of friction: if you dare critize Keith, you're are some GIRL or Pansy who has a adolescent crush on Mick,
The lack of self-awareness among Keith's disciples is amazing. You never get it...
And that's why these stupid arguments begin. Someone dared to call Keith on his shit and some of you people explode?
But its more than ok to bash Jagger.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-18 21:48 by stupidguy2.
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Lately Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: May 18, 2012 21:47
I've been a fan since 1998..and was just about going into high school then. It was easy for these dudes around me to side with Keith than Mick because Keith was obviously less flashy. All the alpha males around me couldn't give Mick the time of day. Hell, the Stones in general were always the underdog for me...I couldn't count how many times people around me would chose Zeppelin over the Stones. But that's a whole other issue (but is slightly related to the discussion of Mick and crew never getting the right props).
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Lately Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: May 18, 2012 21:50
Quote
stonesrule
ProudMary, I generally enjoy your posts and your fab collection of news clips.
I whizzed through the article and wasn't quite sure just how the writer came up with the conclusion that Keith is a parasite.
But then I also wonder about the various posters here who've never seen or met any of the Rolling Stones and also have strong opinions about how wonderful or terrible they are.
Yes, you have said on several occasions that I post many articles from Internet - from anyone else I have not heard such criticism. When I haven't time I post something that I think might be interesting to others. You see I was born in Russia and my native language is Russian, and express my thoughts in English takes me more time than you. At the same time, it is unlikely I can be accused of that I do not give my opinion
Why the author considers this or that - he explaines it quite clearly.You ask me whether I agree with this or what I think about it or what? I did not write it
Do you really think people can not have opinions about people they do not know personally?
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Lately Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: May 18, 2012 21:52
Quote
Justin
I've been a fan since 1998..and was just about going into high school then. It was easy for these dudes around me to side with Keith than Mick because Keith was obviously less flashy. All the alpha males around me couldn't give Mick the time of day. Hell, the Stones in general were always the underdog for me...I couldn't count how many times people around me would chose Zeppelin over the Stones. But that's a whole other issue (but is slightly related to the discussion of Mick and crew never getting the right props).
Yes, and that attitude permeated into the media, became a myth. I'm just amazed that some fans still hold onto those myths.
Much of started because Keith and Anita shoot of their mouths...
Keith has gotten less vitriolic, but he constantly belittled Jagger, way before Mick's solos......
I think Anita instigated a lot of it back in the late 60s, and Keith is gullible, and he was also a junkie in those days...so..
But Mick has never added fuel to any fire.
He's got too much class.
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Lately Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: May 18, 2012 21:55
Quote
proudmary
Quote
stonesrule
ProudMary, I generally enjoy your posts and your fab collection of news clips.
I whizzed through the article and wasn't quite sure just how the writer came up with the conclusion that Keith is a parasite.
But then I also wonder about the various posters here who've never seen or met any of the Rolling Stones and also have strong opinions about how wonderful or terrible they are.
Yes, you have said on several occasions that I post many articles from Internet - from anyone else I have not heard such criticism. When I haven't time I post something that I think might be interesting to others. You see I was born in Russia and my native language is Russian, and express my thoughts in English takes me more time than you. At the same time, it is unlikely I can be accused of that I do not give my opinion
Why the author considers this or that - he explaines it quite clearly.You ask me whether I agree with this or what I think about it or what? I did not write it
Do you really think people can not have opinions about people they do not know personally?
You're just an easy target Mary, by virtue of openly being female and someone who respects Jagger and you're not shy about calling a spade and spade (Keith).
Amazing isn't?
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
wanderingspirit66
()
Date: May 18, 2012 21:56
Quote
proudmary
Quote
swiss
proudmary - with all due respect, your thread title is misleading.
swiss, I posted a complete article with it's original title and gave a link to it. Anyone can read and agree or disagree with the author(not me in this case)
I took the concluding words of the text, which define the essence of this article - on my opinion. I realized that it was provocative and was ready for the next portion of the personal attacks om me.
But I think that this article shows that the discussions that we have here on the board are gradually moving in the field of conventional media, outside of our bubble. And there is a topic for discussion - public perception of Jagger and Richards in recent years - not what I feel about Richards or whether I am a real Stones fan or Jagger's groupie.
Proudmary - I have been on this board for ~ 7 years and have followed this board for longer. I have a pretty good idea of who the principals on this board are and what their biases are. I love your posts. Ignore the negative comments. I know you already do. You have a tough skin. Your presence on this board is much appreciated.
As opposed to the hundreds of articles about Keith being the “heart and soul’ of the band, there are but ~ 2 articles in the popular press that give Jagger some kudos and slight Richards. There is barely 1 that truly recognizes Jagger's songwriting gifts. And a significant proportion of this board cannot even handle that simply because that proportion of this board works hard at diminishing Jagger as an artist. A significant proportion of this board does not even like Mick Jagger. A whining eddy once remarked that he wished Keith would "sing" instead of Jagger. Another toddy declares that Saint of Me is a great song but has to be brought down a notch because it doesn’t feature Keith.
Jagger has at least another 10 years left in him. As Wenner stated nicely, Jagger, along with Lennon and Dylan is one of the three definitive voices of our time. He will be recognized yet. He is flawed for sure but there is little room on this board to discuss Jagger's strengths without discussing Keith's "even greater" strengths. There is NO room to describe Keith's weaknesses without discussing Jagger's "even greater weaknesses". The position that "'Keef' is the real deal and that Mick is a talentless but lucky and somewhat embarrassingly greedy adjunct" is one that Keith himself has craved. One very esteemed poster here stated that Keith was 80% of the Stones and Jagger was an accountant. As I mentioned earlier, there is a huge "let me take him down syndrome" on this board vis-a-vis Jagger. Over the last 20 years or so, Keith Richards himself, more than anyone else seems to have made this a singular mission. And his sycophants parrot his populist bullshit. As does every journalism major or intern who is asked to write up a piece on any a upcoming Stones related event. But Jagger too has a tough skin. He plays by his own rules. He lets his actions speak louder than words. Any Stones fan should be enjoying Jagger’s recent moments in the sun.
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Lately Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: May 18, 2012 21:58
Mary, I understand that you don't necessarily endorse the clips you post. I commend you for posting them.
Opinions about people we don't know personally is one thing. Calling Jagger cheap or a sex fiend or Keith a parasite go beyond "an opinion" when it is not backed up by actual facts from RELIABLE sources. Especially when the gossip or clip is 20 or more years old.
Opinions about people we don't know personally is one thing. Calling Jagger cheap or a sex fiend or Keith a parasite go beyond "an opinion" when it is not backed up by actual facts from RELIABLE sources. Especially when the gossip or clip is 20 or more years old.
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Lately Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: May 18, 2012 22:01
Quote
stupidguy2
Yes, and that attitude permeated into the media, became a myth. I'm just amazed that some fans still hold onto those myths.
Much of started because Keith and Anita shoot of their mouths...
Keith has gotten less vitriolic, but he constantly belittled Jagger, way before Mick's solos......
I think Anita instigated a lot of it back in the late 60s, and Keith is gullible, and he was also a junkie in those days...so..
But Mick has never added fuel to any fire.
He's got too much class.
Agreed. I will stand behind any opportunity to hand Mick some well-deserved props but I don't particularly agree with how the author of the article chose to go about it. He could have still made it a point to list Mick's achievements but the author's act of taking away props from Keith was a little snipey--if not driven by emotions. I suppose the writer of an oppinion column can do whatever he pleases but to be the little taddle-tail for no real rhyme or reason is a little sleazy. I suppose this is all some payback for the crap Keith's given Mick in the last few years but I can't recall Keith ever slagging Mick for the work they did...it was all personal bullshit.
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Lately Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
letitloose
()
Date: May 18, 2012 22:13
I thought I was quite balanced about Jagger. he exudes the elixir of youth, which is fine, but he collaborates with all the wrong people in his bid to remain "relevant". I just think Keith is growing old more gracefully. oh, and I am sorry Proudmary, but you can't hide behind "Russian is my first language" , when you clearly delight in being able to post he is a "parasite".
Others may rush to your defence. I think you are appalling.
Others may rush to your defence. I think you are appalling.
Quote
stupidguy2
Quote
letitloose
dear Proudmary, we know you hate Keith. I don't want to know how deep your love for Jagger runs. it is probably terrifying. Why don't you give it a rest. As for Keith. Yep, he is associating himself with the old bluesy Oddballs, or whatever. Keith knows he is getting old. Why not listen to his classy contribution to Last Leaf from the Tom Waits album. Keith understands that no one gets out of this world alive. he is winding down and enjoying life. You may think he is jealous and frustrated with life, but it's Jagger who is acting the (tiny) cock, singing with Joss Stone like that is relevant. I think Leonard Cohen and Tom Waits is perfect for Keith as he plays out his days.
And I love Jagger. I am so glad he put the work in for the re-issues of Exile and Some Girls. I sincerely believe Plundered and following the river are fantastic. And I know Keith had minimal involvement.
Please, just stop bashing Keith. he's almost 70. A lot of his more clean living contemporaries are gone. he will be too at some point, as will your (our) beloved Mick.
On what planet have you people been living on? Keith's?
This is the attitude that creates this kind of friction: if you dare critize Keith, you're are some GIRL or Pansy who has a adolescent crush on Mick,
The lack of self-awareness among Keith's disciples is amazing. You never get it...
And that's why these stupid arguments begin. Someone dared to call Keith on his shit and some of you people explode?
But its more than ok to bash Jagger.
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: May 18, 2012 22:20
Quote
wanderingspirit66
Quote
proudmary
Quote
swiss
proudmary - with all due respect, your thread title is misleading.
swiss, I posted a complete article with it's original title and gave a link to it. Anyone can read and agree or disagree with the author(not me in this case)
I took the concluding words of the text, which define the essence of this article - on my opinion. I realized that it was provocative and was ready for the next portion of the personal attacks om me.
But I think that this article shows that the discussions that we have here on the board are gradually moving in the field of conventional media, outside of our bubble. And there is a topic for discussion - public perception of Jagger and Richards in recent years - not what I feel about Richards or whether I am a real Stones fan or Jagger's groupie.
Proudmary - I have been on this board for ~ 7 years and have followed this board for longer. I have a pretty good idea of who the principals on this board are and what their biases are. I love your posts. Ignore the negative comments. I know you already do. You have a tough skin. Your presence on this board is much appreciated.
As opposed to the hundreds of articles about Keith being the “heart and soul’ of the band, there are but ~ 2 articles in the popular press that give Jagger some kudos and slight Richards. There is barely 1 that truly recognizes Jagger's songwriting gifts. And a significant proportion of this board cannot even handle that simply because that proportion of this board works hard at diminishing Jagger as an artist. A significant proportion of this board does not even like Mick Jagger. A whining eddy once remarked that he wished Keith would "sing" instead of Jagger. Another toddy declares that Saint of Me is a great song but has to be brought down a notch because it doesn’t feature Keith.
Jagger has at least another 10 years left in him. As Wenner stated nicely, Jagger, along with Lennon and Dylan is one of the three definitive voices of our time. He will be recognized yet. He is flawed for sure but there is little room on this board to discuss Jagger's strengths without discussing Keith's "even greater" strengths. There is NO room to describe Keith's weaknesses without discussing Jagger's "even greater weaknesses". The position that "'Keef' is the real deal and that Mick is a talentless but lucky and somewhat embarrassingly greedy adjunct" is one that Keith himself has craved. One very esteemed poster here stated that Keith was 80% of the Stones and Jagger was an accountant. As I mentioned earlier, there is a huge "let me take him down syndrome" on this board vis-a-vis Jagger. Over the last 20 years or so, Keith Richards himself, more than anyone else seems to have made this a singular mission. And his sycophants parrot his populist bullshit. As does every journalism major or intern who is asked to write up a piece on any a upcoming Stones related event. But Jagger too has a tough skin. He plays by his own rules. He lets his actions speak louder than words. Any Stones fan should be enjoying Jagger’s recent moments in the sun.
wanderingspirit66, thanks for your kind words
All the rest - you're 100% right
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Lately Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
Honestman
()
Date: May 18, 2012 22:22
Jagger has a tiny todger
Keith is a parasite
What the @#$%& ???
These two guys are , were and will stay in my mind as The Glimmer Twins.
The best team of the greatest rock'n'roll band ever.
HMN
StonesCave
Keith is a parasite
What the @#$%& ???
These two guys are , were and will stay in my mind as The Glimmer Twins.
The best team of the greatest rock'n'roll band ever.
HMN
StonesCave
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Lately Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: May 18, 2012 22:25
Quote
stupidguy2
Quote
proudmary
Quote
stonesrule
ProudMary, I generally enjoy your posts and your fab collection of news clips.
I whizzed through the article and wasn't quite sure just how the writer came up with the conclusion that Keith is a parasite.
But then I also wonder about the various posters here who've never seen or met any of the Rolling Stones and also have strong opinions about how wonderful or terrible they are.
Yes, you have said on several occasions that I post many articles from Internet - from anyone else I have not heard such criticism. When I haven't time I post something that I think might be interesting to others. You see I was born in Russia and my native language is Russian, and express my thoughts in English takes me more time than you. At the same time, it is unlikely I can be accused of that I do not give my opinion
Why the author considers this or that - he explaines it quite clearly.You ask me whether I agree with this or what I think about it or what? I did not write it
Do you really think people can not have opinions about people they do not know personally?
You're just an easy target Mary, by virtue of openly being female and someone who respects Jagger and you're not shy about calling a spade and spade (Keith).
Amazing isn't?
Indeed,stupidguy2
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Lately Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
Green Lady
()
Date: May 18, 2012 22:30
I disagree with proudmary about many things, but nobody deserves your last two posts, Brue. I'm sure the lady has too much class to respond, so I'll say on her behalf that I have never reported a post and never will but I'm sorely tempted...
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Lately Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: May 18, 2012 22:32
Quote
letitloose
Others may rush to your defence. I think you are appalling.
no more than you're ridiculous
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Lately Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: May 18, 2012 22:43
Quote
stonesrule
Mary, I understand that you don't necessarily endorse the clips you post. I commend you for posting them.
Opinions about people we don't know personally is one thing. Calling Jagger cheap or a sex fiend or Keith a parasite go beyond "an opinion" when it is not backed up by actual facts from RELIABLE sources. Especially when the gossip or clip is 20 or more years old.
I don't post more "clips" than others, btw.
This article is on the other Stones boards and no one out there does attack the poster.
I didn't call KR a parasite - author did. I put these words in the title of the thread for people to notice it and read the article. They read and some of them are arguing in effect. Others prefer to vilify me - it just amuses me
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Lately Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: May 18, 2012 22:48
Quote
Green Lady
I disagree with proudmary about many things, but nobody deserves your last two posts, Brue. I'm sure the lady has too much class to respond, so I'll say on her behalf that I have never reported a post and never will but I'm sorely tempted...
Thank you for your sympathy,Green Lady, but I never pay attention to his posts, a man is sick
I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: May 18, 2012 23:01
Quote
Honestman
These two guys are , were and will stay in my mind as The Glimmer Twins.
The best team of the greatest rock'n'roll band ever.
Keep On Rolling
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Lately Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: May 18, 2012 23:06
Douglas Sirk would have been proud of page 3 of this thread... 
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Lately Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
swiss
()
Date: May 18, 2012 23:11
proudmary - my criticism was your thread title says "Washington Times: It’s the truth..." [emphasis mine].
You say you were quoting directly the article. But nowhere in the article does it say "It’s the truth."
That is your own editorial comment (and I have no problem if that's your opinion). But you have
framed up the discussion --not only in a provocative manner, as you claim-- but in a misleading manner.
I have my opinion about why The Washington Times would post this. Maybe I'll administer a confidential
survey on iorr to gather some data about this to see whether my hunch is right about that---i.e., it seems
to me many people most into drawing these ferocious battle lines between Keith and Mick (which I don't
-- I love them both and am grateful to what they have created and contributed, as well as hopeful
about what they might do next) may also be the most politically polarized people posting here.
Meaning, some people's intense identification with Mick or Keith and what they appear to represent
[MICK: savvy, successful, sophisticated, reasonable, mature, conservative OR greedy, cold, calculating,
shallow, empty, desperately self-conscious -- KEITH: free-spirited, seasoned, independent, real, honest,
heart/soul of Stones, OR sloppy, pathetic, parasitic, immature, mean-spirited] may align with people's
political/social/economic class beliefs. So it seems natural to me that the Washington Times (which
really isn't as disreputable as many of you-all are saying here--when I lived in DC I'd sometimes read
it to get an idea of some of the views of a certain stripe of conservatives, and it's not like
off-the-rails crazy) would publish an article showing Mick in this particular type of favorable light.
I'm glad there are articles looking more closely at the stones---but am sad that they sometimes seem to have to be so polarizing.
-swiss
You say you were quoting directly the article. But nowhere in the article does it say "It’s the truth."
That is your own editorial comment (and I have no problem if that's your opinion). But you have
framed up the discussion --not only in a provocative manner, as you claim-- but in a misleading manner.
I have my opinion about why The Washington Times would post this. Maybe I'll administer a confidential
survey on iorr to gather some data about this to see whether my hunch is right about that---i.e., it seems
to me many people most into drawing these ferocious battle lines between Keith and Mick (which I don't
-- I love them both and am grateful to what they have created and contributed, as well as hopeful
about what they might do next) may also be the most politically polarized people posting here.
Meaning, some people's intense identification with Mick or Keith and what they appear to represent
[MICK: savvy, successful, sophisticated, reasonable, mature, conservative OR greedy, cold, calculating,
shallow, empty, desperately self-conscious -- KEITH: free-spirited, seasoned, independent, real, honest,
heart/soul of Stones, OR sloppy, pathetic, parasitic, immature, mean-spirited] may align with people's
political/social/economic class beliefs. So it seems natural to me that the Washington Times (which
really isn't as disreputable as many of you-all are saying here--when I lived in DC I'd sometimes read
it to get an idea of some of the views of a certain stripe of conservatives, and it's not like
off-the-rails crazy) would publish an article showing Mick in this particular type of favorable light.
I'm glad there are articles looking more closely at the stones---but am sad that they sometimes seem to have to be so polarizing.
-swiss
Quote
proudmary
Quote
stonesrule
Mary, I understand that you don't necessarily endorse the clips you post. I commend you for posting them.
Opinions about people we don't know personally is one thing. Calling Jagger cheap or a sex fiend or Keith a parasite go beyond "an opinion" when it is not backed up by actual facts from RELIABLE sources. Especially when the gossip or clip is 20 or more years old.
I don't post more "clips" than others, btw.
This article is on the other Stones boards and no one out there does attack the poster.
I didn't call KR a parasite - author did. I put these words in the title of the thread for people to notice it and read the article. They read and some of them are arguing in effect. Others prefer to vilify me - it just amuses me
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Lately Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
Brue
()
Date: May 18, 2012 23:15
Quote
proudmary
Quote
Green Lady
I disagree with proudmary about many things, but nobody deserves your last two posts, Brue. I'm sure the lady has too much class to respond, so I'll say on her behalf that I have never reported a post and never will but I'm sorely tempted...
Thank you for your sympathy,Green Lady, but I never pay attention to his posts, a man is sick
I ain't the one calling people parasites.
Re: The Washington Times - Mick Jagger: Two cheers for an aging frontman
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: May 18, 2012 23:22
Quote
sweetcharmedlife
The author of this article is also a regular poster on Rocks Off.
Cool. I didn't know that. But now I am curious who ?
Keep On Rolling
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Lately Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
TeddyB1018
()
Date: May 18, 2012 23:31
Quote
Honestman
Jagger has a tiny todger
Keith is a parasite
What the @#$%& ???
These two guys are , were and will stay in my mind as The Glimmer Twins.
The best team of the greatest rock'n'roll band ever.
Yes! FFS, the best team of the rock and roll era and both indispensable to the greatness of the Rolling Stones. As Charlie Watts says, the only two that are indispensable. I love 'em both. This board is so depressing.
And yes, the bitchy and childish behavior of the two of them toward each other has encouraged this stuff.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-18 23:36 by TeddyB1018.
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Lately Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: May 18, 2012 23:47
Quote
swiss
proudmary - my criticism was your thread title says "Washington Times: It’s the truth..." [emphasis mine].
You say you were quoting directly the article. But nowhere in the article does it say "It’s the truth."
That is your own editorial comment (and I have no problem if that's your opinion). But you have
framed up the discussion --not only in a provocative manner, as you claim-- but in a misleading manner.
"It makes me sad to say this, but I fear it’s the truth.
Keith Richards isn’t the purist.
Lately, he’s more like a parasite."
So, you see I am quoting directly the article and this title is much more attracting attention tnan the vague Two cheers for an aging frontman-no one would read the thread with such a title.
But the article raises issues that I have long felt need to be discussed
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Lately Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: May 18, 2012 23:49
First off, let's dismiss any political overtones to the 'conservative' Washington Times publishing a pro-Jagger artice. Wasn't Jagger just pilloried by the right for Sweet Neo Con?
Secondly, articles like this are to be expected now. The fallout from Keith's 'Life' has finally settled. After the initial enjoyment of the bio, it's become apparent how petty Mr. Richards can be. And for all his tiny todgering and attempts to belittle Mr. Jagger, all it's done is elevate Mick's star ever higher. "Just make sure you spell the name right".
Mick Jagger still wants to entertain us, and he will by appearing and spreading his magic on groups like Arcade Fire this Saturday night, live. Mick still likes to keep his finger on the pulse of current music, from here or around the world. Can Keith say the same? I don't know what Keith thought he'd achieve by trying to diminish Mr. Jagger. It failed to do so, and only shone back harshly on Keith. And this is not a two-way pissing match. Mick just smiles and moves on. And I think the crux of it comes from something Mick said a while back along the lines of, "I already have a brother. His name is Chris."
Secondly, articles like this are to be expected now. The fallout from Keith's 'Life' has finally settled. After the initial enjoyment of the bio, it's become apparent how petty Mr. Richards can be. And for all his tiny todgering and attempts to belittle Mr. Jagger, all it's done is elevate Mick's star ever higher. "Just make sure you spell the name right".
Mick Jagger still wants to entertain us, and he will by appearing and spreading his magic on groups like Arcade Fire this Saturday night, live. Mick still likes to keep his finger on the pulse of current music, from here or around the world. Can Keith say the same? I don't know what Keith thought he'd achieve by trying to diminish Mr. Jagger. It failed to do so, and only shone back harshly on Keith. And this is not a two-way pissing match. Mick just smiles and moves on. And I think the crux of it comes from something Mick said a while back along the lines of, "I already have a brother. His name is Chris."
Re: The Washington Times: It’s the truth - Lately Richards is more like a parasite.
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: May 18, 2012 23:59
We all have strong opinions about the band, their work, and their solo work and outside projects, but seriously, Brue think about what you wrote to ProudMary.
No matter how much you disagree with her opinions of Keith, would you want someone talking to your mom or sister or wife/girlfriend or daughter like that?
In real life, most guys would either deck the jerk who acted that way or look at taking legal action to make sure their loved ones were safe from harm. I know it's only a messageboard and few of us will ever meet each other in real life, but that was way out of line just because you're fed up with a fellow fan's low opinion of Keith. Debate her, but don't debase yourself and offend her in the process. There is a basic standard of respect everyone deserves even when you don't agree. We all have moments where we get too emotional, but show some integrity and apologize for being out of line.
No matter how much you disagree with her opinions of Keith, would you want someone talking to your mom or sister or wife/girlfriend or daughter like that?
In real life, most guys would either deck the jerk who acted that way or look at taking legal action to make sure their loved ones were safe from harm. I know it's only a messageboard and few of us will ever meet each other in real life, but that was way out of line just because you're fed up with a fellow fan's low opinion of Keith. Debate her, but don't debase yourself and offend her in the process. There is a basic standard of respect everyone deserves even when you don't agree. We all have moments where we get too emotional, but show some integrity and apologize for being out of line.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
1962 , 69firebird , bonddm , boynamedsue69 , champ72 , coowouters , CousinC , crholmstrom , dandelion12 , DandelionPowderman , DiamondDog7 , Doxa , EddieByword , ewiggen , FRANCKY , guezeg , Hillside Blues , His Majesty , hockenheim95 , jammingedward , jisao2in109 , leatherjacket , liddas , Lien , lougio , MadMax , maradona , maumau , mtaylor , muenke , novica , rebelrebel , resotele , rob , RobertJohnson , Rolling Hansie , rumcoke72@aol.com , strettonbull , stringpull , TE , thijs1981 , tomzen , ts , vertigojoe , walkingthedog
Guests:
269
Record Number of Users:
54
on May 21, 2013 13:00
Record Number of Guests:
246
on May 21, 2013 13:05
