|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 3, 2013 21:52:48 GMT -5
And those stupid illiterate fucks, they actually misspelled it when they wrote it in blood on the wall: "Healter Skelter." They couldnt even do that right.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 3, 2013 21:57:40 GMT -5
If you want to know how close to home that hit with the Beatles: Ringo, who was the Hollywood cat, was actually friends with Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski. I think he had actually been to parties at their house.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Aug 4, 2013 12:09:46 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. There is nothing childish about my statement. I stand by it 100%. And I am dead serious about this issue. No jokes, puns, or flippancy implied anywhere. In a perfect world, that scum's name would never again appear anywhere in association with John Lennon's name. Especially while he is still alive.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Aug 4, 2013 12:16:36 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. As long as there are people against the death penalty, and prosecutors unwilling to go after it in certain cases, some convicted murderers will enjoy a life sentence of room and board at the expense of the taxpayers for their crimes. And in John Lennon's case, "enjoy" seeing and reading of their notariety for a lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 4, 2013 16:37:39 GMT -5
As long as there are people against the death penalty, and prosecutors unwilling to go after it in certain cases, some convicted murderers will enjoy a life sentence of room and board at the expense of the taxpayers for their crimes. And in John Lennon's case, "enjoy" seeing and reading of their notariety for a lifetime. I guess I'm to blame, then.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 4, 2013 17:06:31 GMT -5
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. . So where are you going with this, then? Are you attempting to stretch this into some sort of "hypocritical" thing for Lennon Fans who won't glorify John's killer and give him what he wanted, but will name Manson? Sorry, but I don't see it at all to be the same driving compulsion in Manson's case, not at all. And as I've already said, even it if was exactly the same circumstances and goal, I don't have any personal interest in Sharon Tate or the others, so I clearly couldn't be as affected or connected. There are people out there who disliked John Lennon, and I wouldn't expect them to refrain from naming his killer... maybe even tattooing his name on their arms. Anyone know the name of who killed Tupac Shakur?
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 4, 2013 17:13:09 GMT -5
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. . So where are you going with this, then? Are you attempting to stretch this into some sort of "hypocritical" thing for Lennon Fans who won't glorify John's killer and give him what he wanted, but will name Manson? Sorry, but I don't see it at all to be the same driving compulsion in Manson's case, not at all. And as I've already said, even it if was exactly the same circumstances and goal, I don't have any personal interest in Sharon Tate or the others, so I clearly couldn't be as affected or connected. There are people out there who disliked John Lennon, and I wouldn't expect them to refrain from naming his killer... maybe even tattooing his name on their arms. Anyone know the name of who killed Tupac Shakur? I wasn't going anywhere with that. I was just disputing your assertion that Manson wasn't out for notoriety. Hell, the guy spent a year hanging out with Dennis Wilson and other Hollywood bigshots trying to break into show business and become a big rock star.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 4, 2013 17:15:22 GMT -5
As long as there are people against the death penalty, and prosecutors unwilling to go after it in certain cases, some convicted murderers will enjoy a life sentence of room and board at the expense of the taxpayers for their crimes. And in John Lennon's case, "enjoy" seeing and reading of their notariety for a lifetime. I'm actually against the death penalty, but only because it's too easy a way out, especially by injection. A known and proven killer should suffer through a life of imprisonment in a cell not much larger than a walk-in closet, with no windows, never seeing the light of day, nothing but bread and water. Just kind of rot there, slowly. Someone like John's killer should still think Carter is president, and have never heard of The Internet, DVDs, or cell phones. Some of these maniacs would rather BE dead than live an existence such as i just described.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 4, 2013 17:26:12 GMT -5
I was just disputing your assertion that Manson wasn't out for notoriety. Hell, the guy spent a year hanging out with Dennis Wilson and other Hollywood bigshots trying to break into show business and become a big rock star. He might have wanted to be a rock star if he could, and had delusions of grandeur thinking he was Christ-like, but I don't feel he felt he desired to kill people to attain this... in fact, he didn't kill anyone on that August night.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 4, 2013 17:45:16 GMT -5
Charlie once said, I was crazy when crazy meant something. That pretty much explains his motive.
I don't remember him waiting for the police to give himself up. In fact he denies it. He says he didn't kill anybody.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 4, 2013 18:14:12 GMT -5
I was just disputing your assertion that Manson wasn't out for notoriety. Hell, the guy spent a year hanging out with Dennis Wilson and other Hollywood bigshots trying to break into show business and become a big rock star. He might have wanted to be a rock star if he could, and had delusions of grandeur thinking he was Christ-like, but I don't feel he felt he desired to kill people to attain this... in fact, he didn't kill anyone on that August night. Now I'm not sure we're YOU'RE "going with this." Charlie picked the victims, planned the attack, then sent his zombies to do his bidding. In the second murder, Charlie was the one who first snuck into the house and tied up the two victims, then ordered his zombies to go in there and finish them off. If a mafia Godfather orders a hit you don't think he's responsible for the murder? The law certainly does. And its almost certain that Manson personally killed other people with his own hands during his miserable career.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 4, 2013 18:55:50 GMT -5
Ya know, I like to argue. And I'll argue about just about anything. But I'm not gonna argue about whether Charles Manson, one of the most notorious men in the world, was out for notoriety. I gotta draw the line somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Aug 4, 2013 20:10:54 GMT -5
"THINK" - John Lennon, The Ballad of John and Yoko, 1969
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Aug 4, 2013 21:58:02 GMT -5
As long as there are people against the death penalty, and prosecutors unwilling to go after it in certain cases, some convicted murderers will enjoy a life sentence of room and board at the expense of the taxpayers for their crimes. And in John Lennon's case, "enjoy" seeing and reading of their notariety for a lifetime. I guess I'm to blame, then. If you say so....
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Aug 4, 2013 23:00:53 GMT -5
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. I'm not sure how you got to be his presumptive spokesman. "PROBABLY like to thank you" "He sends his best wishes." Really? You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The fact is that the last public statement we have from Chapman flies completely in the face of what you're saying he would say if asked. I don't know if you've read this, or just the excerpts in the media last year, but here's the transcript of his most recent appearance before the parole board. www.scribd.com/doc/104326743/Mark-Chapman-Parole-hearing-transcript-2012I have actually had experience appearing before a parole board a couple of times; it's not a high priority area of my practice, because the hearings are conducted over 3 hours away, but I've been hired to go to one and attended another on a pro-bono basis. I am quite aware that a man wanting to secure his release can say what he thinks the board wants to hear, but I also know that in the course of nearly 1/3 of a century, a man could well change his mind about a lot of things. I find it a bit ironic that the guy that wanted fame in 1980 doesn't seem to want any part of it now. He understands that since he is now notorious, someone could get their name in the media by killing him. I got the impression that he would rather people just forget who he is now. And those of you that refuse to use his name are playing into his wishes now. Finally, the use of the name Chapman on a bulletin board that a relatively small number of people use--as compared to reading the New York Times or watching CNN--is doing nothing to perpetuate his fame. Everyone here knows who he is, and the monstrous act he committed. In a perverse way, not using his name could lead an ignorant person (on this subject) to investigate him even further than he would had the name been used. "Wait, what was that guy's name?" one might ask, do a Google search and spend time learning about him beyond his name. Bottom line: You seem like a nice enough guy, but you're off base here telling us what Chapman would or might be thinking on a given topic in 2013. You don't have any hard evidence to back it up now; what we have is what was said in 2012, which supports the idea that in 1980, Chapman would have relished all the attention he was getting, but the present day man would rather you didn't put his name out there. Maybe he'd like to thank YOU? (see how ridiculous that sounds coming back at you?) JcS
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Aug 4, 2013 23:47:53 GMT -5
Interesting topic. In stories over the years, I've done both -- named him and not. When I wrote up his last parole hearing, I believe I named him and got a few notes from people objecting. Since my stories go out over Google and they're straight news stories, he must be named. But there are some people that won't accept that.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 4, 2013 23:48:31 GMT -5
I guess I'm to blame, then. If you say so.... No, you said so first. When one generalizes, all who are part of the generalization are part it. One cannot say, "Blondes are dumb," and then tell a blonde, "Oh, but not you." Care to restate your statement about those who are against the death penalty?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 5, 2013 5:54:23 GMT -5
I am quite aware that a man wanting to secure his release can say what he thinks the board wants to hear, Bingo. Too bad. What is done is done. And cannot be un-done. But I'm not playing into his reverse-psychology. Even if this bastard truly is remorseful and no longer seeks any attention, it does not alter the fact that he initially killed Lennon to be a somebody. Aside from "giving him fame", I think mentioning his name at all is giving him too much respect, PERIOD. Much more fitting to call him some unflattering and derogatory insult. A Beatles Message Board, be it tiny or tremendous, is no place for that scum's name to be included with other Beatles-related talk and musings. It's our party here and we don't need the likes of him. It is very sad that you feel the need to fly in the face of Beatles Fans and continue to defiantly utter this creep's name anyway. I cannot imagine why "fans" think he warrants that respect. Shame on them.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 5, 2013 5:56:31 GMT -5
]Now I'm not sure we're YOU'RE "going with this." I'll tell you where I'm going with this -- back to Lennon and his situation. I've already explained why the other murders are of no consequence to me.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 5, 2013 6:05:08 GMT -5
Bottom line: You seem like a nice enough guy, but you're off base here telling us what Chapman would or might be thinking on a given topic in 2013. You don't have any hard evidence to back it up now But meanwhile, it's perfectly okay for you to speculate that he may very well have changed his mind for real.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 5, 2013 6:19:19 GMT -5
I don't remember him waiting for the police to give himself up. In fact he denies it. He says he didn't kill anybody. Great point! Very true - he had constantly tried to distance himself and not admit to it! Meanwhile, Lennon's killer rejected the "not guilty by reason of insanity" defense, and willingly took the rap.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Aug 5, 2013 9:47:35 GMT -5
If you want to know how close to home that hit with the Beatles: Ringo, who was the Hollywood cat, was actually friends with Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski. I think he had actually been to parties at their house. I don't pretend to know everything about where the Beatles were, and when, but the Manson murder spree took place in August, 1969, and I didn't think Ringo's Hollywood days started until after the Beatles broke up. I could be wrong. JcS
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Aug 5, 2013 10:03:49 GMT -5
"THINK" - John Lennon, The Ballad of John and Yoko, 1969
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Aug 5, 2013 10:07:39 GMT -5
"THINK" - John Lennon, The Ballad of John and Yoko, 1969 Of course, that's Lennon-McCartney for those of us keeping score at home.
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Aug 5, 2013 10:09:09 GMT -5
Sorry. We lurkers don't know how to use the Quote button.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 5, 2013 13:51:23 GMT -5
Joeyself. Check the Anthology book. I think thats where Ringo talks about his friendship with Tate and Polanski. Ringo appeared in the movies Head and Candy around that time. Was good friends with the actor Peter Sellers. Hell, John Lennon was famously hanging with the actor Peter Fonda when he went on his second acid trip. My point is, the Beatles were well connected with the Hollywood in crowd during the late 60s.
|
|
|
Post by heysaboda on Aug 5, 2013 14:07:51 GMT -5
Aside from "giving him fame", I think mentioning his name at all is giving him too much respect, PERIOD. Much more fitting to call him some unflattering and derogatory insult. A Beatles Message Board, be it tiny or tremendous, is no place for that scum's name to be included with other Beatles-related talk and musings. It's our party here and we don't need the likes of him. It is very sad that you feel the need to fly in the face of Beatles Fans and continue to defiantly utter this creep's name anyway. I cannot imagine why "fans" think he warrants that respect. Shame on them. I agree 100%, Joe. Nicely said! I am not "offended" that people use his name, whatever. But, again, why give The A-Hole the publicity?
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Aug 5, 2013 16:34:24 GMT -5
Joeyself. Check the Anthology book. I think thats where Ringo talks about his friendship with Tate and Polanski. Ringo appeared in the movies Head and Candy around that time. Was good friends with the actor Peter Sellers. Hell, John Lennon was famously hanging with the actor Peter Fonda when he went on his second acid trip. My point is, the Beatleswere well connected with the Hollywood in crowd during the late 60s. Ringo was not in Head. Maybe you are thinking of 200 Motels. also Ringo appeared on Laugh-In-I think around 1969.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Aug 5, 2013 16:36:54 GMT -5
Joeyself. Check the Anthology book. I think thats where Ringo talks about his friendship with Tate and Polanski. Ringo appeared in the movies Head and Candy around that time. Was good friends with the actor Peter Sellers. Hell, John Lennon was famously hanging with the actor Peter Fonda when he went on his second acid trip. My point is, the Beatles were well connected with the Hollywood in crowd during the late 60s. I do recall the Peter Fonda visit while the Beatles were in L.A. (or was it San Fran?) while touring. Ringo did appear in CANDY, but it wasn't filmed in Hollywood (see www.imdb.com/title/tt0062776/locations?ref_=tt_dt_dt). Now, I'm quite aware that the "Hollywood in-crowd" didn't always stay in Southern California, but since you thought Ringo had visited the Tate-Polanski home, I focused on that locale. It may well have been that while John was dropping acid with Fonda, Starr was over at Sharon and Roman's place. I just hadn't heard of that connection. Ringo was in HEAD? I didn't remember that, and I don't see it on the IMDB listing for Starr's film career: www.imdb.com/name/nm0823592/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1JcS
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Aug 5, 2013 16:42:05 GMT -5
Aside from "giving him fame", I think mentioning his name at all is giving him too much respect, PERIOD. Much more fitting to call him some unflattering and derogatory insult. A Beatles Message Board, be it tiny or tremendous, is no place for that scum's name to be included with other Beatles-related talk and musings. It's our party here and we don't need the likes of him. It is very sad that you feel the need to fly in the face of Beatles Fans and continue to defiantly utter this creep's name anyway. I cannot imagine why "fans" think he warrants that respect. Shame on them. I agree 100%, Joe. Nicely said! I am not "offended" that people use his name, whatever. But, again, why give The A-Hole the publicity? I dunno-I think there is credibility in Joey's post and link. This speck of shit will want to lay low if he gets out. He has taken away so much from the world yet alone John's wife and two children. The hate is probably immeasurable, but I have to think of that ghastly story a few weeks ago on the soccer ref from Brazil who was torn apart (LITERALLY)by the crowd. And um, I won't be going to the 2016 Olympics
|
|