|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 2, 2013 10:54:06 GMT -5
I have no problem with naming John's killer in discussion. My reasoning is:
1. John can be done no more harm;
2. We know that (one of) the reasons for the act was in order to establish personal notoriety, and the argument is that use of The Name does exactly that. I don't believe that to be true. I believe the act and its aftermath achieved exactly what it was intended to achieve - could never have done otherwise - and nothing can be done about it - he achieved that notoriety. Any additional subsequent notoriety comes about, arguably, by virtue of the discussion, not the naming (and, to that extent, yes I suppose that starting this thread has that effect). But I firmly believe that by NOT using the name, we are doing what he wanted and attributing an importance to him out of all proportion to the insignificant little speck he is. My inclination is to therefore use his name - it's out there, it's a fact, and the manner of John's death will inevitably be talked about (and rightly so) - but off-handedly: it's an identifier of no greater significance than the pathetic little germ it identifies.
I do understand that using the name causes some concern to others, however, and it is not my wish to do that. And I am more than happy to see him referred to by way of derogatory epithets.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Aug 2, 2013 11:18:50 GMT -5
I like your commentary and I agree with your points.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Aug 2, 2013 11:39:41 GMT -5
I agree Vectis.
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Aug 2, 2013 12:53:51 GMT -5
What about the loon who attacked George and Olivia? Both Dhani and Keith Richards are on record saying they believe the attack hastened George's passing.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 2, 2013 14:24:53 GMT -5
Well, Charles Manson is one of the most famous people in the world (gets more mail than any prisoner in the history of the US prison system). Adolph Hitler is one of the greatest icons of the 20th century. Freddy Krueger is probably one of the most recognizable figures in all of Hollywood. I guess people need their villians just as much as they need their heroes.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 2, 2013 14:25:59 GMT -5
I agree with vectis but now days I try to limit the use as I know the wishes of some to ban that name forever to minimize notoriety to him and/or the name is just painful to some.
Yoko Ono named him once(the first time it came up in her statement) in her last written statement to the Parole Board and thereafter referred to him as "the subject." Not a bad idea and she is the widow, the one the most hurt by that evil person.
I am a history buff so I am use to reading, saying or writing names of the infamous even if still alive.
As part of Steve's staff, I can only urge restraint and that we all respect the feelings of others the best we can. The name if used should be in the context of discussions on John's murder and not used flippantly. That hasn't been a problem because no one here finds any humor in the killer or his deed. If a new member tried to adopt the killer's name as his/her posting name I am sure Steve would stop that in a heartbeat if not before we all tarred and feathered such troll!
There will come a time I predict when John's killer is released and we all will really have to live with that as that will be huge news and his name will be headlines all over again. I do not see the killer truly spending life in prison as much as I want him to.
Both as a poster and a Mod, I'd say we need to respect each other, all of us, on this divisive issue.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Aug 2, 2013 14:38:37 GMT -5
I have no problem with naming John's killer in discussion. My reasoning is: 1. John can be done no more harm; 2. We know that (one of) the reasons for the act was in order to establish personal notoriety, and the argument is that use of The Name does exactly that. I don't believe that to be true. I believe the act and its aftermath achieved exactly what it was intended to achieve - could never have done otherwise - and nothing can be done about it - he achieved that notoriety. Any additional subsequent notoriety comes about, arguably, by virtue of the discussion, not the naming (and, to that extent, yes I suppose that starting this thread has that effect). But I firmly believe that by NOT using the name, we are doing what he wanted and attributing an importance to him out of all proportion to the insignificant little speck he is. My inclination is to therefore use his name - it's out there, it's a fact, and the manner of John's death will inevitably be talked about (and rightly so) - but off-handedly: it's an identifier of no greater significance than the pathetic little germ it identifies. I do understand that using the name causes some concern to others, however, and it is not my wish to do that. And I am more than happy to see him referred to by way of derogatory epithets. 1. That was true on December 9, 1980. 2. I find those that won't use the name Chapman or the initial MDC are simply not facing reality--or perhaps giving themselves an inflated sense of self-worth. The reality is that the world knows who Chapman is, and it doesn't really matter whether I use the name or not, that fact isn't going to change. So, I use it just like I would use Hinkley or Sirhan, and believe those that would refrain from using Mark Chapman but would use others are being inconsistent. IF someone is consistent in the refraining of use of the names of living assassins (or would be), then they should respect their conscience, and not do it. JcS
|
|
|
Post by heysaboda on Aug 2, 2013 16:06:37 GMT -5
I have no problem with naming John's killer in discussion. My reasoning is: 1. John can be done no more harm; Well, have you considered that John's family could be harmed? Or the surviving Beatles could be harmed? In my opinion, the "John can be done no more harm" argument doesn't cut it. Don't get me wrong, if people want to use the name of "The A-hole", I personally am not offended. However, I choose NOT to use it. The guy has already attained plenty of notoriety, etc. including interviews on TV, etc. which I believe were totally SHAMEFUL. (I didn't watch them.) Why give "The A-Hole" more publicity, hmmm? I don't mean this to be a tirade against you, Vectis, because you made a good point and expressed it well. I just happen to strongly disagree. It took me about 5 years after John's murder before I could even listen to ANY Beatles music, happily. But that's just me. Great thread, great discussion! -- David
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Aug 2, 2013 16:20:43 GMT -5
I have no problem with naming John's killer in discussion. My reasoning is: 1. John can be done no more harm; Well, have you considered that John's family could be harmed? Or the surviving Beatles could be harmed? In my opinion, the "John can be done no more harm" argument doesn't cut it. Don't get me wrong, if people want to use the name of "The A-hole", I personally am not offended. However, I choose NOT to use it. The guy has already attained plenty of notoriety, etc. including interviews on TV, etc. which I believe were totally SHAMEFUL. (I didn't watch them.) Why give "The A-Hole" more publicity, hmmm? I don't mean this to be a tirade against you, Vectis, because you made a good point and expressed it well. I just happen to strongly disagree. It took me about 5 years after John's murder before I could even listen to ANY Beatles music, happily. But that's just me. Great thread, great discussion! -- David Your first two lines are actually a strong argument as to why Mark Dog Chit should never see freedom. Personally, I try not use his name and the reference I just used is as close as I will ever get. But I'm not offended by others here using it.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Aug 2, 2013 16:39:59 GMT -5
I have no problem with naming John's killer in discussion. My reasoning is: 1. John can be done no more harm; 2. We know that (one of) the reasons for the act was in order to establish personal notoriety, and the argument is that use of The Name does exactly that. I don't believe that to be true. I believe the act and its aftermath achieved exactly what it was intended to achieve - could never have done otherwise - and nothing can be done about it - he achieved that notoriety. Any additional subsequent notoriety comes about, arguably, by virtue of the discussion, not the naming (and, to that extent, yes I suppose that starting this thread has that effect). But I firmly believe that by NOT using the name, we are doing what he wanted and attributing an importance to him out of all proportion to the insignificant little speck he is. My inclination is to therefore use his name - it's out there, it's a fact, and the manner of John's death will inevitably be talked about (and rightly so) - but off-handedly: it's an identifier of no greater significance than the pathetic little germ it identifies. I do understand that using the name causes some concern to others, however, and it is not my wish to do that. And I am more than happy to see him referred to by way of derogatory epithets. 1. That was true on December 9, 1980. 2. I find those that won't use the name Chapman or the initial MDC are simply not facing reality--or perhaps giving themselves an inflated sense of self-worth. The reality is that the world knows who Chapman is, and it doesn't really matter whether I use the name or not, that fact isn't going to change. So, I use it just like I would use Hinkley or Sirhan, and believe those that would refrain from using Mark Chapman but would use others are being inconsistent. IF someone is consistent in the refraining of use of the names of living assassins (or would be), then they should respect their conscience, and not do it. JcS John's killer would probably like to thank you for using his name if he could... (Who knows, maybe he is on this board incognito..) He loves having his name associated with John as often as possible. After all, that is why he gunned him him down in front of his home 33 years ago. So all of you out there putting his name in print over and over again; He sends his best wishes..... Of course once the scum dies, he won't have that pleasure anymore.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 2, 2013 16:54:08 GMT -5
Well, so much for being respectful to each other on this topic.
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Aug 2, 2013 17:00:38 GMT -5
That's exactly what they want, their name in the biography of that Beatle. It's the only way they could achieve such an association with their own loser history. The same goes for the Boston Marathon bomber. Loser to name-associated-with- Beatle in an instant. Don't give them the satisfaction.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Aug 2, 2013 17:55:23 GMT -5
It's only a problem if you think Mark Chapman is guilty of the murder.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 3, 2013 9:21:07 GMT -5
2. I find those that won't use the name Chapman or the initial MDC are simply not facing reality--or perhaps giving themselves an inflated sense of self-worth. The reality is that the world knows who Chapman is, and it doesn't really matter whether I use the name or not, that fact isn't going to change. So, I use it just like I would use Hinkley or Sirhan, and believe those that would refrain from using Mark Chapman but would use others are being inconsistent. IF someone is consistent in the refraining of use of the names of living assassins (or would be), then they should respect their conscience, and not do it. I won't use his name because he wants you to use his name. And also because it feels so much better to call him "creep", "jerk", "idiot", "A-hole", or any other appropriately offensive moniker. Why give him the respect of using his birth name? Does he deserve such respect? (Besides, those insult names are quicker and easier to write than using his full name -- especially if you include his middle name, like most killers are referred to). I think it's ridiculous to suggest that people who don't use the name are avoiding reality. I have lived with that reality every day since the murder occurred, and I do not hide my head in the sand and pretend it just did not happen and that Lennon is alive. I'm not "giving myself an inflated sense of self-worth"... what I am doing is deflating the jerk's degree of self-worth.No, it's true that the facts of what occurred 33 years ago are not going to change by refusing to respect his namesake, but it certainly makes his popularity a little less. Younger people today are more likely to say "I don't know the name of the guy who killed John" if it's at least less tossed about, than they would be of it was mentioned more routinely. That is just common sense. If some "fans" here think there is nothing wrong with respecting the creep by adorning him with his given name, have at it ... but I do not have to respect that, and I think it is shameful and a disservice to the memory of John Lennon. Go ahead and boldly repeat it here as if to "show me", but all you're doing each time is aiding that idiot.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 3, 2013 9:23:49 GMT -5
Well, so much for being respectful to each other on this topic. I don't respect anyone who respects the killer by using his name.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 3, 2013 9:43:03 GMT -5
I agree with Joe 100% on this one.
So I say Manson's name, Hinkley or Sirhan. Heaven forbid I show Lennon's killer a little more disdain.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Aug 3, 2013 9:52:27 GMT -5
I agree with vectis but now days I try to limit the use as I know the wishes of some to ban that name forever to minimize notoriety to him and/or the name is just painful to some. Yoko Ono named him once(the first time it came up in her statement) in her last written statement to the Parole Board and thereafter referred to him as "the subject." Not a bad idea and she is the widow, the one the most hurt by that evil person. I am a history buff so I am use to reading, saying or writing names of the infamous even if still alive. As part of Steve's staff, I can only urge restraint and that we all respect the feelings of others the best we can. The name if used should be in the context of discussions on John's murder and not used flippantly. That hasn't been a problem because no one here finds any humor in the killer or his deed. If a new member tried to adopt the killer's name as his/her posting name I am sure Steve would stop that in a heartbeat if not before we all tarred and feathered such troll! There will come a time I predict when John's killer is released and we all will really have to live with that as that will be huge news and his name will be headlines all over again. I do not see the killer truly spending life in prison as much as I want him to. Both as a poster and a Mod, I'd say we need to respect each other, all of us, on this divisive issue. I hope fervently that your prediction of the animal's release from prison never comes to pass. And I believe as long as Yoko, Sean, and Julian are alive they will see to it that it never happens. And there is a good chance he will be dead long before Sean or Julian pass away. You don't see RFK's killer or Sharon Tate's killer getting out of jail anytime soon do you? I don't believe he will ever be released. And I say a prayer every Oct. 9, and Dec. 8 to that effect.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Aug 3, 2013 9:58:41 GMT -5
2. I find those that won't use the name Chapman or the initial MDC are simply not facing reality--or perhaps giving themselves an inflated sense of self-worth. The reality is that the world knows who Chapman is, and it doesn't really matter whether I use the name or not, that fact isn't going to change. So, I use it just like I would use Hinkley or Sirhan, and believe those that would refrain from using Mark Chapman but would use others are being inconsistent. IF someone is consistent in the refraining of use of the names of living assassins (or would be), then they should respect their conscience, and not do it. I won't use his name because he wants you to use his name. And also because it feels so much better to call him "creep", "jerk", "idiot", "A-hole", or any other appropriately offensive moniker. Why give him the respect of using his birth name? Does he deserve such respect? (Besides, those insult names are quicker and easier to write than using his full name -- especially if you include his middle name, like most killers are referred to). I think it's ridiculous to suggest that people who don't use the name are avoiding reality. I have lived with that reality every day since the murder occurred, and I do not hide my head in the sand and pretend it just did not happen and that Lennon is alive. I'm not "giving myself an inflated sense of self-worth"... what I am doing is deflating the jerk's degree of self-worth.No, it's true that the facts of what occurred 33 years ago are not going to change by refusing to respect his namesake, but it certainly makes his popularity a little less. Younger people today are more likely to say "I don't know the name of the guy who killed John" if it's at least less tossed about, than they would be of it was mentioned more routinely. That is just common sense. If some "fans" here think there is nothing wrong with respecting the creep by adorning him with his given name, have at it ... but I do not have to respect that, and I think it is shameful and a disservice to the memory of John Lennon. Go ahead and boldly repeat it here as if to "show me", but all you're doing each time is aiding that idiot. I am really with you 100% on this one Joe. One has the right to say his name, but I say shame on them for such disrespect to John's memory and for perpetuating the name while the scum is alive and able to see it. I hold that view for any still living assassin or killer who's sole point was to achieve fame and have their name associated with their victim's for all time.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 3, 2013 11:09:39 GMT -5
I hope fervently that your prediction of the animal's release from prison never comes to pass. And I believe as long as Yoko, Sean, and Julian are alive they will see to it that it never happens. And there is a good chance he will be dead long before Sean or Julian pass away. You don't see RFK's killer or Sharon Tate's killer getting out of jail anytime soon do you? I don't believe he will ever be released. And I say a prayer every Oct. 9, and Dec. 8 to that effect. I deeply feel it's a sure bet that he will never be released. His crime was too immense, he hurt a lot of people, and we still will have John's sons alive even after Yoko is gone. There is no telling if this rat will ever go off again and harm anyone else... not only people associated with The Beatles, but anyone else. However, if he were to be released and beaten to death, I would feel it was a punishment which fit his crime, much like I was thrilled when Jeffrey Dahmer was bludgeoned to death in prison (see, I can say Dahmer's name because the guy didn't do it at least partly for the self-gratification of being known, so I am not giving him what he wants). I think Lennon's killer has really had the Life Of Riley while in prison, and that he is not suffering at all. We're much too humane for not dealing out appropriate discomforts for trash like this who murder people. It's basically a luxury apartment, secluded from other prisoners who might do him harm, with three squares a day and access to TV, computer, etc. Hardly a fitting punishment.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 3, 2013 11:14:00 GMT -5
I agree with Joe 100% on this one. So I say Manson's name, Hinkley or Sirhan. Heaven forbid I show Lennon's killer a little more disdain. Right, they have nothing to do with anything. First, did they kill their target(s) just to achieve worldwide notoriety? (And Hinckley didn't even kill anyone)... and second, I'm sorry but honest to say, I don't care as much because to me I am mainly concerned with John Lennon. You know? If it was someone I couldn't give two craps aboput, I wouldn't be as resistant to giving the murderer what he wanted. For example, there are people I work with who hate Lennon, and they love it whenever December 8th rolls around, to salute the scum who took John from us and rub it in my face. So I can see them having to qualms about respecting him affording him the courtesy of using his Christian name.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 3, 2013 11:15:04 GMT -5
That's exactly what they want, their name in the biography of that Beatle. It's the only way they could achieve such an association with their own loser history. The same goes for the Boston Marathon bomber. Loser to name-associated-with- Beatle in an instant. Don't give them the satisfaction. I heard Lennon's killer say "The Beatles changed the world -- and I changed them".
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Aug 3, 2013 12:54:29 GMT -5
but I say shame on them for such disrespect to John's memory How dare you. This is now getting so childish that it's reminding me of The Knights of Ni.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 3, 2013 16:22:12 GMT -5
I hope fervently that your prediction of the animal's release from prison never comes to pass. And I believe as long as Yoko, Sean, and Julian are alive they will see to it that it never happens. And there is a good chance he will be dead long before Sean or Julian pass away. You don't see RFK's killer or Sharon Tate's killer getting out of jail anytime soon do you? I don't believe he will ever be released. And I say a prayer every Oct. 9, and Dec. 8 to that effect. I hope not either. Sirhan Sirhan and Charles Manson(and members of his cult)were both convicted by a jury after lengthy trials of first degree murder, both sentenced to death. Both were spared their lives by People v. Anderson, 493 P.2d 880, 6 Cal. 3d 628 (Cal. 1972) wherein the Supreme Court of California ruled capital punishment a violation of the California Constitution's prohibition of cruel or unusual punishment. It made its ruling retroactive. Yes, these two are subject to parole hearings but the convictions by jury and original sentencing is a wonderful weight against those monsters as to the chance for success with parole. The Judge would not let Sirhan Sirhan change his plea from not guilty to guilty and in hindsight that was smart. More weight is given to a conviction after the Defendant was afforded the right of a jury trial. Lennon's killer(and I'll play by your and Joe's rules here) was allowed to plead guilty to second degree murder thus no jury trial and he did so against the streneous objections of his defense attorney. The Judge sentenced John's killer to 20 years to life, less than the possible maximum sentence of 25 years to life. The guy wasn't even given the maximum sentence! I hope he doesn't get out either but legally he would seen to have a better chance than Manson and Sirhan. At least the killer has served more than the minimum sentence of 20 years!
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 3, 2013 16:41:14 GMT -5
I agree with Joe 100% on this one. So I say Manson's name, Hinkley or Sirhan. Heaven forbid I show Lennon's killer a little more disdain. Right, they have nothing to do with anything. First, did they kill their target(s) just to achieve worldwide notoriety? I would say notoriety was a big factor in Manson's case. And he certainly got it.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 3, 2013 17:36:23 GMT -5
Right, they have nothing to do with anything. First, did they kill their target(s) just to achieve worldwide notoriety? I would say notoriety was a big factor in Manson's case. And he certainly got it. I'm not so sure of that motive but ok, then I guess if I was a lifelong devotee of Sharon Tate's, I wouldn't want to mention that nutjob, either.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 3, 2013 18:29:15 GMT -5
I would say notoriety was a big factor in Manson's case. And he certainly got it. I'm not so sure of that motive but ok, then I guess if I was a lifelong devotee of Sharon Tate's, I wouldn't want to mention that nutjob, either. 1. The Manson Family had a list of famous people they wanted to kill to ensure maximum publicity/notoriety. 2. The gruesomeness of the crimes were designed for maximum publicity/notoriety. 3. Manson had messianic delusions and felt he was deserving of the greatest notoriety. .
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 3, 2013 18:39:26 GMT -5
Same as The Turd Who's Name We Dare Not Mention, Manson wanted to latch onto the Beatles fame to catapult himself to fame. In his demented mind he actually considered the Beatles as the mere warm up act, the four prophets who were heralding the true great one, Charles Manson Superstar. Take enough acid and it all makes perfect sense. Groovy.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Aug 3, 2013 19:11:25 GMT -5
Ace, thanks for the info on Manson. I remember the gruesome murders and you're right, he wanted notoriety.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 3, 2013 21:02:52 GMT -5
Ain't the way I remember it. I thought he wanted the murders to look like blacks had done it and were starting Helter Skelter.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 3, 2013 21:47:34 GMT -5
Thats true Debjorgo. Charlie had a unique interpretation of the song "Revolution # 9"
|
|