|
Post by joeyself on Oct 20, 2015 22:45:17 GMT -5
I'm not convinced that Yoko actually said that, unless it was recorded or filmed. It's just as likely she said, "...very difficult for me to think about him", but the reporters took the liberty of inserting the referent for the pronoun. Reporters do do that. I thought of that, but this quote is a couple of weeks old now, I think (I know I saw it last week), and I've seen nothing in follow-up to indicate Yoko was miffed about the way it came out. If I do, I'll post it here. JcS
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Oct 21, 2015 3:23:50 GMT -5
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-32...rk-Chapman.html Here's where I originally saw it. And I'll say again something which I've said elsewhere, probably earlier in this thread - it is my feeling that going to the lengths of avoiding saying Chapman's name, and taking the time and passion to discuss not saying it (!), afford him exactly the attention he was after: however just using his name in passing, in order to refer to him with exactitude, affords him no respect whatsoever and makes him the insignificant speck he, as an individual, is.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 22, 2015 11:26:12 GMT -5
It is simple; I don't want the scum to ever see his name mentioned in any sort of publication regarding his heinous act perpetrated upon John. That is all he has now to remind himself he is forever linked to John and his legacy. Why should he be allowed that publicity? He should, if possible, never be allowed to hear his name or see it in print along side of John's other than in parole hearings. Do you think it should be otherwise? He should be as good as dead and forgotten in the minds of Beatle fans and John's family and personal fans. As I have pointed out to you a couple of times, Chapman circa 1980 wanted the publicity. Chapman circa 2015 doesn't--or at least that is the evidence we have. You can look at his statements now and determine you put no credibility in them--your choice--but I tend to think after this much time has passed, he would just as rather be forgotten. If that is true, you are giving him what he wants, however inadvertently. Also, he doesn't see message boards--he has no internet access where he is. As I lauded your consistency, I am also--I have used the name Oswald, Sirhan, Hinkley, bin-Laden, and others that have committed heinous acts. That Chapman killed a former member of the Beatles doesn't change my way of thinking about such. JcS Oswald & Sirhan were motivated my political reasons to commit their crimes. Hinkley was motivated by a sick desire to only impress an actress whom he was obsessed with. Bin-Laden was motivated by religious zealotry to further his cause in the name of Islam. None of them were simply looking for mass selfish notoriety; which is by definition; "the state of being famous or well known for some bad quality or deed." John's killer's only motivation was to become famous by linking his name to the leader and founder of the most famous musical group of the 20th Century. To destroy the possibility of John's future potential contributions to the world. It was not to further a cause politically, religiously, or to impress an individual they were infatuated with. I don't put any credibility in his current statements, especially inferring he "just wants to be left alone and forgotten." After spending most of his adult life in prison (almost 35 years now), I would assume he would say anything to the parole board to try and win a release. He may not have access to message boards in prison, but magazine periodicals or newspapers may be a different story. I am trying to assure, or rather encourage, that no matter what he sees either in print, or whatever, that outside of his parole hearings, his name will not be mentioned by anyone else in conjunction with John Lennon or The Beatles. That was always his desire for committing the crime and he should never be allowed to find comfort that he has achieved that goal. Sadly he has, and those of us on the outside of his world see it constantly, especially every year on the anniversary of the murder. But we should do our best to keep him out of that loop for as long as he is alive. Letting him out of prison on parole is of course out of the question, but it would be nice to "assist him" in his so-called desire to be "forgotten" and left alone by removing his name in discussions and allow him to rot out the rest of his existence. I respect your view on this subject, but I feel rather strongly about mine, and as long as he is still alive, I will advocate my position whenever I see his name in print. Some people will go on using his name, especially on this board, when the discussions of John's death invariably come up every year. It is interesting that most of the time that I now read about the Kennedy assassination, or RFK's assassination, or 9/11 anniversaries, to use your examples, the perpetrators of those crimes are rarely, if ever, even mentioned. Bin Laden is dead so who gives a rat's ass about him anymore. Reagan's shooting rarely comes up except when the press comments on what Hinckley is up to because he was released from prison. We certainly don't want John's killer to get that status...Then he could catch up on all his press from the last 35 years and maybe even join some message boards....
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 23, 2015 9:04:41 GMT -5
Oswald & Sirhan were motivated my political reasons to commit their crimes. Hinkley was motivated by a sick desire to only impress an actress whom he was obsessed with. Bin-Laden was motivated by religious zealotry to further his cause in the name of Islam. None of them were simply looking for mass selfish notoriety; which is by definition; "the state of being famous or well known for some bad quality or deed." John's killer's only motivation was to become famous by linking his name to the leader and founder of the most famous musical group of the 20th Century. You are completely correct. And that is a significant difference. What always baffles me is why too many John fans feed into that motivation, especially when it's so much easier just to write "killer", or even have some fun and insult him with words like "jerk". I know there have been fans who feel that by going out of their way NOT to link the moron's name to John's, this somehow "gives him even more importance" --- which I don't buy into. And then when these people thumb their noses at us and continue to link this creep's name with John's, it's like they're happy to be defiant and uncompromising. Makes no sense, other than to fold their arms and stubbornly say "you're not going to tell me what to do, nyah nyah!" . They ought to just consider the differences in various murderers' motivations and goals which you outlined above. I don't believe this either. And when you see his mug in all the updated police shots from his parole hearings over the years, he's always got a grinning and egotistical smirk on his face.
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Oct 23, 2015 10:17:31 GMT -5
Someone should take the Delorean back to 1980 and run over the said miscreant.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 23, 2015 13:04:56 GMT -5
Someone should take the Delorean back to 1980 and run over the said miscreant. I wish! One person knew the killer was there in NYC and what his motive was and did nothing about it and that was the dude's wife! Now she gets conjugal visits and says even more outrageous things than the killer, like Macca would like the killer and that Yoko should forgive the killer and would if she only knew him!
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 23, 2015 16:23:32 GMT -5
Someone should take the Delorean back to 1980 and run over the said miscreant. I wish! One person knew the killer was there in NYC and what his motive was and did nothing about it and that was the dude's wife! Now she gets conjugal visits and says even more outrageous things than the killer, like Macca would like the killer and that Yoko should forgive the killer and would if she only knew him! She is as screwed up as he is. Conjugal visits.....Besides getting banged, in their pillow talks, I am sure she tells him about all his "press coverage" over the last 35 years in the outside world....
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Oct 23, 2015 20:44:55 GMT -5
She is as screwed up as he is. Conjugal visits.....Besides getting banged, in their pillow talks, I am sure she tells him about all his "press coverage" over the last 35 years in the outside world.... Gloria is not a sympathetic figure; even though I believe marriage is for life save for the cause of adultery, she comes across as, well, unsympathetic in her interviews. For reasons I can't quite understand, too many folks feel compelled to talk to the press when asked. But I have no idea how you can be "sure" of what is talked about--you can speculate, but speculation is by its very definition unsure. JcS
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 23, 2015 22:38:46 GMT -5
She is as screwed up as he is. Conjugal visits.....Besides getting banged, in their pillow talks, I am sure she tells him about all his "press coverage" over the last 35 years in the outside world.... Gloria is not a sympathetic figure; even though I believe marriage is for life save for the cause of adultery, she comes across as, well, unsympathetic in her interviews. For reasons I can't quite understand, too many folks feel compelled to talk to the press when asked. But I have no idea how you can be "sure" of what is talked about--you can speculate, but speculation is by its very definition unsure. JcS Your views on marriage vows are commendable, but I hope you are not implying this woman and John's killer deserve any sympathy, and as such, be awarded conjugal visits of any sort. The fact that it is occurring totally disgusts me. That animal was sentenced to life in prison, and that in my book does not include enjoying the pleasures of your wife every once and a while. Your comments on my choice of the word "sure" is insignificant in the context of what this discussion here is about. So lets use your word "speculation". Care to speculate on what good ol' Gloria and her husband discuss while they enjoy their evenings together? Personally, I can't understand why they have any opportunity whatsoever to discuss anything in private while they have these rendevous'. But they happen, and that is repugnant. If JSD's comments are accurate that she thinks if only Yoko or Paul would really get to know her husband, Paul might actually "like" him, or Yoko might forgive him, border on insane. That's a little more than just coming across as "unsympathetic in her interviews."
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 24, 2015 0:32:11 GMT -5
Some people don't see a writer's position as different, but here's my take on it: If I'm writing a story and not an opinion piece, if I have to write his name, I will. On this board, I will take the situation in context, but I could go either way. I've gotten heat for writing his name on Examiner, but that's too bad. As an ex-newspaper reporter, that's the way I'm supposed to do it.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 24, 2015 5:36:34 GMT -5
Some people don't see a writer's position as different, but here's my take on it: If I'm writing a story and not an opinion piece, if I have to write his name, I will. On this board, I will take the situation in context, but I could go either way. I've gotten heat for writing his name on Examiner, but that's too bad. As an ex-newspaper reporter, that's the way I'm supposed to do it. I know what you mean, Steve. I had to use that idiot's name as well when I wrote a movie review of CHAPTER 27.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 24, 2015 5:52:55 GMT -5
Your views on marriage vows are commendable, but I hope you are not implying this woman and John's killer deserve any sympathy, and as such, be awarded conjugal visits of any sort. The fact that it is occurring totally disgusts me. That animal was sentenced to life in prison, and that in my book does not include enjoying the pleasures of your wife every once and a while. Your comments on my choice of the word "sure" is insignificant in the context of what this discussion here is about. So lets use your word "speculation". Care to speculate on what good ol' Gloria and her husband discuss while they enjoy their evenings together? Personally, I can't understand why they have any opportunity whatsoever to discuss anything in private while they have these rendevous'. But they happen, and that is repugnant. If JSD's comments are accurate that she thinks if only Yoko or Paul would really get to know her husband, Paul might actually "like" him, or Yoko might forgive him, border on insane. That's a little more than just coming across as "unsympathetic in her interviews." I agree completely. It's absolutely disgusting that this vermin is able to enjoy his wife every now and then, as well as many other things. When a person murders another, that garbage should not be allowed any type of enjoyment for the rest of his days. He should be in a cell no larger than a bathroom, and no windows, just some bread and water shoved under a door slot for his taking -- if he decides not to starve himself due to the insanity instead. He never gets out, never sees the light of day, no television, no radio, nothing. He doesn't even know who's been president after Carter, and he has never heard of the internet or cell phones. This is, after all, supposed to be a PUNISHMENT. As for his wife Gloria, what JSD has quoted is the truth, because her disrespectful comments came from an interview fairly recently.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2015 7:36:11 GMT -5
If i was allowed to i would refer to Chapman as "The Murdering C**T" any time i wanted to mention him, alas, that C word somehow offends people, me, i think it's the best adjective in the English vocabulary.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Oct 24, 2015 8:17:55 GMT -5
I don't think he should be in protective custody, separated from the regular inmates.
If he want's to be the famous, notorious murderer, he should have to live like one in prison.
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Oct 24, 2015 10:17:56 GMT -5
And it is a universal rule of law that a criminal, especially a murderer, not be permitted to need it from his crime. (In most countries, anyway). I know that usually means "profit from" as in writing a book, but this guy should never see anything that would give him satisfaction from his abominal act, such as seeing or even knowing about the Chapter 27 movie or any Beatle or John Lennon book that shows his photo or mentions his name.
|
|
cosmo
Very Clean
Posts: 264
|
Post by cosmo on Oct 24, 2015 17:45:26 GMT -5
I don't think about this guy much except when it's time to write the parole board about denying him. Such a nothing person to have affected the lives of so many! And fabfour - if c**t is such a great adjective, let's have it signify the male genetalia from now on. Then no females will ever mind if you use it.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Oct 24, 2015 20:41:28 GMT -5
These kinds of threads don't really interest me. If you want Lennon's killer to go away, stop starting threads about him and stop commenting on him. The you more you debate whether to say his name or not, the more 'celebrity' currency you're giving him.
Other than the Keith-Richards-disses-Sgt.Pepper one, this thread has more posts than any other on the first page of this forum.
If people would just stop caring about him so much, he would fade from pop culture and linger in obscurity. (Yoko doesn't help by taking out full-page ads in Rolling Stone magazine and whatnot.)
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Oct 25, 2015 4:44:49 GMT -5
Sadly, c**t (if you mean the word I think you mean) is a noun, not an adjective.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Oct 25, 2015 22:23:57 GMT -5
Your views on marriage vows are commendable, but I hope you are not implying this woman and John's killer deserve any sympathy, and as such, be awarded conjugal visits of any sort. The fact that it is occurring totally disgusts me. That animal was sentenced to life in prison, and that in my book does not include enjoying the pleasures of your wife every once and a while. Your comments on my choice of the word "sure" is insignificant in the context of what this discussion here is about. So lets use your word "speculation". Care to speculate on what good ol' Gloria and her husband discuss while they enjoy their evenings together? Personally, I can't understand why they have any opportunity whatsoever to discuss anything in private while they have these rendevous'. But they happen, and that is repugnant. If JSD's comments are accurate that she thinks if only Yoko or Paul would really get to know her husband, Paul might actually "like" him, or Yoko might forgive him, border on insane. That's a little more than just coming across as "unsympathetic in her interviews." In order--too lazy to multi-quote... 1. No, what I was saying about Gloria is that what her husband did would not entitle her to a divorce, and she seems to understand that. I feel for her about like I did Huma Abedin when her husband Anthony Weiner got caught--twice--sexting strangers. I can't imagine what it would be like for my wife to do something that notorious--but she would remain my spouse unless it involved adultery. 2. As for the conjugal visits, I don't run the prisons in New York. If I wanted the job, I'd apply for it (that's the line I use often with clients complaining about the jail where they are being housed). If the Chapmans qualify under the prison guidelines, so be it. I understand the concept behind the visits--dangle a perk in front of a prisoner to encourage good behavior and it is safer for the guards and other inmates--but I'd not studied it to see if it works as designed. 3. No, I don't care to speculate about the conversations between the Chapmans--it's pointless to do so. They could be talking about anything under the sun. 4. Those comments about Yoko and Paul are part of what make her an unsympathetic character to me. That's just goofy. JcS
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Oct 25, 2015 22:33:33 GMT -5
These kinds of threads don't really interest me. Then you probably won't see this, but the simple answer to not seeing these is...not to open them. I do it all the time here. JcS
|
|