|
Post by mikev on Sept 18, 2008 1:12:08 GMT -5
If I may offer my two cents as I have pondered the question before... I think Lennon would have been a regular on the show, unless he went over the line with Yoko.
|
|
ChuckE
Very Clean
AlexE & RachelE, May '08
Posts: 77
|
Post by ChuckE on Sept 18, 2008 11:47:10 GMT -5
I think Yoko would have tried to squash any John involvement with Howard Stern, much as she (reportedly) kept Paul & John from much reuniting in the '70s, and she disapproved of Cheap Trick being on the Double Fantasy album. But who knows? Past 1980, John may have needed another "break" from Yoko to be more his own man (as he was during the infamous "Lost Weekend"). Complex chemistry those two had... John seemed, for the most part, very willing to acquiesce to Yoko. NP: Van Halen, "Inside," 5150
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Sept 18, 2008 13:13:21 GMT -5
John did a lot of radio spots in NYC in the seventies. He was more apt to do radio spots than TV spots.
Yoko, according to Jack Douglas, also prevented McCartney from reuniting with Lennon in 1980.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Sept 19, 2008 12:56:32 GMT -5
If you heard Howard's interview of Macca in 2001, you'll get an idea of how a Stern-Lennon interview might have gone. Howard loves and respects the Beatles and he deftly combines that awe with his raunchy brand of humor. Somehow it all comes out very entertaining and enjoyable. Howard's neither a sycophant nor a sleaze.
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Sept 19, 2008 16:06:28 GMT -5
Just curious here JSD to your hopeful response on this one. I've always wondered if John had lived and made his way to Howard's show, how do you think the Howard and the John interaction have gone? Stern is a huge John fan. Would he have left the over-the-top sex questions alone, or just go full bore ahead and throw caution to the wind and risk John's ire? That is an interesting question and just one more reason to curse the son-of-a-bitch who killed John for depriving the world of yet another John Lennon possibility(I realize we lost a whole lot more by John's murder than a Stern interview of him but it might have been fun). A Lennon-Stern encounter would probably have been quite entertaining if both men worked hard not to let it explode after 30 seconds. Stern has been very critical of Yoko from what I have heard on the air and read in his first two books. Yet he is blowing Yoko crap from the safety of John's absence. My take is that Stern would have been on his best behavior with John as to Yoko but certainly trying to get John to expand and go into detail on the groupie stories from The Beatles' touring days that John first mentioned in the "Lennon Remembers" RS interview. Howard would ask John about Beatles' penis sizes, the wildest sexual things that John had ever done(focusing on John's being with multiple women, or "every man's fantasy"as Howard likes to say) and every other kinky thing John had ever done pre-Yoko. Stern being Stern, I guarantee that he couldn't resist reminding John that he, John, could be with any woman in the world so why did he pick Yoko? John would keep his cool and remind Howard that Yoko was beautiful and that she challenged him intellectually. Howard would probably stop there and not push that issue any farther. Howard would make the obligatory remark about Oriental women and something to do with sex but John might laugh and say it was true. I think in all seriousness though that Stern would be the only interviewer in the world who could have combined bawdy humor with a solid knowledge of the facts and gotten John to open up a bit more about the whole alleged Brian Epstein sexual thing. I could just hear Stern saying, "Come on John, what's a [insert here slang phrase for sex act of your choice] between friends, it's no big deal, what really went on in Spain?" Of course Robin and the gang would be freaking out at Howard asking John Lennon this. Stern's approach might have actually caused John to open up one way or the other. On the other hand, John might have chickened out and never even made it to Stern's studio or Yoko might have advised that the stars were all wrong. I'd like to think that it would be a bawdy, witty exchange between two rather brilliant but eccentric men trying to one-up each other! Very good response JSD. Exactly how I would've thought that it would've gone. Just leave Yoko out of it and plod along. Both men are and were brilliant in their own right. The exchanges would have been classic if John would be willing. I'm more than sure that John would have found Howard a challenge and an adversary all in one. Like you said, we were all deprived from a lot more than music with John's sudden departure.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Sept 19, 2008 16:38:14 GMT -5
If you heard Howard's interview of Macca in 2001, you'll get an idea of how a Stern-Lennon interview might have gone. Howard loves and respects the Beatles and he deftly combines that awe with his raunchy brand of humor. Somehow it all comes out very entertaining and enjoyable. Howard's neither a sycophant nor a sleaze. And if you haven't heard it, but want to: www.mediafire.com/?g1jjyyhzdgnJcS
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 23, 2008 22:19:27 GMT -5
If any further proof was needed that PETA is a freak outfit, read this:
PETA Urges Ben & Jerry's To Use Human Milk
WATERBURY, Vt. -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sent a letter to Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, cofounders of Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc., urging them to replace cow's milk they use in their ice cream products with human breast milk, according to a statement recently released by a PETA spokeswoman.
"PETA's request comes in the wake of news reports that a Swiss restaurant owner will begin purchasing breast milk from nursing mothers and substituting breast milk for 75 percent of the cow's milk in the food he serves," the statement says.
PETA officials say a move to human breast milk would lessen the suffering of dairy cows and their babies on factory farms and benefit human health.
"The fact that human adults consume huge quantities of dairy products made from milk that was meant for a baby cow just doesn't make sense," says PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman. "Everyone knows that 'the breast is best,' so Ben & Jerry's could do consumers and cows a big favor by making the switch to breast milk."
"We applaud PETA's novel approach to bringing attention to an issue, but we believe a mother's milk is best used for her child," said a spokesperson for Ben and Jerry's.
Read PETA's letter to Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield
September 23, 2008
Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, Cofounders
Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc.
Dear Mr. Cohen and Mr. Greenfield,
On behalf of PETA and our more than 2 million members and supporters, I'd like to bring your attention to an innovative new idea from Switzerland that would bring a unique twist to Ben and Jerry's.
Storchen restaurant is set to unveil a menu that includes soups, stews, and sauces made with at least 75 percent breast milk procured from human donors who are paid in exchange for their milk. If Ben and Jerry's replaced the cow's milk in its ice cream with breast milk, your customers-and cows-would reap the benefits.
Using cow's milk for your ice cream is a hazard to your customer's health. Dairy products have been linked to juvenile diabetes, allergies, constipation, obesity, and prostate and ovarian cancer. The late Dr. Benjamin Spock, America's leading authority on child care, spoke out against feeding cow's milk to children, saying it may play a role in anemia, allergies, and juvenile diabetes and in the long term, will set kids up for obesity and heart disease-America's number one cause of death.
Animals will also benefit from the switch to breast milk. Like all mammals, cows only produce milk during and after pregnancy, so to be able to constantly milk them, cows are forcefully impregnated every nine months. After several years of living in filthy conditions and being forced to produce 10 times more milk than they would naturally, their exhausted bodies are turned into hamburgers or ground up for soup.
And of course, the veal industry could not survive without the dairy industry. Because male calves can't produce milk, dairy farmers take them from their mothers immediately after birth and sell them to veal farms, where they endure 14 to17 weeks of torment chained inside a crate so small that they can't even turn around.
The breast is best! Won't you give cows and their babies a break and our health a boost by switching from cow's milk to breast milk in Ben and Jerry's ice cream? Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tracy Reiman
Executive Vice President]
Paul, Stella and crew are PETA fanatics so I wonder where they stand on this issue concerning the exclusive use of human breast milk in our food products? We know Paul was mad that Heather's huge breasts were going to be dedicated to little Bea and not Paul once the child was born. Remember on the old Board all the references to The Sparks' classic song "Tits" in relation to Paul's complaints? ;D
I wouldn't want Stella's breast milk in my food because I'd be afraid that cocaine or God knows would be in her system and tranfer through her milk.
Ben & Jerry took a sensible position in respondig to PETA. I still have some of that Imagine Whirled Peace in my freezer and I think that I will double check the label to make sure the milk is still that wonderful Vermont dairy variety.
Growing up I lived among dairy farms and my best friends in high school were dairy farmers. Those dairy cows had a great life, gave milk twice a day, roamed the grass pastures the rest of the day and came into the barns to sleep at night in regulary cleaned stahls which I was often paid to clean so I know.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Sept 24, 2008 0:19:26 GMT -5
If any further proof was needed that PETA is a freak outfit, read this: So, John, what makes it freaky? The only thing "wrong" with it I see is the cost. On a large scale food manufacturing basis, I doubt one could get enough human milk, unless, of course, you had a bunch of Dolly Parton's and Pamela Anderson's ;D It initially sounds weird and gross, but think about it. Is it really more gross to drink human milk than cow, goat, camel, or any other milk from an animal? Milk is milk. (By the way, after weening, I think humans are the only or one of the few mammals who continue to drink milk. There is no reason nutritionally for humans to drink milk. The lactose intolerance many people have is due to the older human body's inability to digest lactose - due to dwindling of lactase with age.) Why is it okay for young humans to drink mother's milk, but not adults? I suspect that the revulsion is in part due to the puritanical view we tend to have about sex or maybe it reeks of cannibalism, to some. Don't get me wrong, I ( a vegetarian and animal rights activist) would be weirded out by it, too, but I think I could rationalize myself to accepting it, sooner or later . . . or maybe not, it is kinda gross and wack. Can you imagine some of the new flavors? "Boob Tube", "Itty Bitty Titty", "Tits and Bits," "Nippleonian", "Pounds of Mounds", . . . ;D
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Sept 24, 2008 7:34:55 GMT -5
I am an animal lover (but not a vegetarian-sorry-but I don't eat veal), but this is getting a little whacked.
If PETA had it their way, Umpteen million people in the the world that are employed in the food industry would lose their job, but I'm sure PETA will find comparable employment for all of them. And PETA must have realistic, inexpensive alternatives that do not use meat or meat byproducts to feed all including the hungry. Wait...how about...Soylent Green? Sure it's meat, but it's people!! Soylent Green is PEOPLLLLLEEEEE!!!!!!
A true PETA person should NEVER go to ANY sporting event that uses a leather ball or has athletes that wear leather cleats. You can't watch tv or movies-because everybody wears leather and they sometimes eat meat in movies-can't support that.
Can't go to a live play-some people are wearing leather shoes and belts. My God!
Can't even walk down a street. You should be screaming at just about everyone.
Excuse me as I walk into my Disney world and drink my Disney coffee (with non-dairy creamer and sugar picked by people who are paid very well), under skies of Disney blue, eating byproducts of Soylent Frozen Walt Disney.
And, if the whole world went veggie, what happens then when we start hearing protests from PETP? (People for Ethical Treatment of Plants)?? Yes, plants are living creatures too!
We have now gone from Pauly Gump to Soylent Green. We need Kevin BACON in the mix ;D
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Sept 24, 2008 7:54:41 GMT -5
If PETA had it their way . . . I'm generally a supporter of PETA, but I won't argue with you because I see the humor and irony in what you wrote and I appreciate the art of exaggeration to make a point. So, I guess that's going to be my point. My opinion is that we need the fringe to move the agenda. Whether it is in art (the avant garde), politics (revolutionaries), religion (Jesus), science (Copernicus), and even animal rights (PETA), they, for good or for bad, stimulate the talk. Without these "outsiders" stagnation becomes the norm. Yes, they are often frustrating because they throw things in our faces, but they are not often wrong. Even when they are, it forces the rest of us to rethink our views. Quite often it also causes us to update our views. That's not so bad. PETA wack? Often. A bad thing? Not really.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 24, 2008 8:50:05 GMT -5
sayne, you have always been articulate and persuasive on vegetarianism(is that a word?) and I have not ruled out the possibility of becoming a vegetarian myself for health reasons and moral reasons because I loath confined feeding operations which apparently is becoming the norm in our food processing industry because of the costs and productivity issues of free-range animals used for meat.
But I cannot understand the militant vegans who are against the use of animals for any and all non-lethal purposes like wool and milk. If someone wants to be a vegan great, that is his or her business, but this stuff on human breast milk and such is ridiculous and I understand your point above about pushing the envelope. It seems that PETA has been taken over by the most radical vegan elements out there which leaves little room for compromise or even the mass conversion of the population to PETA's more noble goals on animal cruelty issues.
Heather Mills' breast milk ran black per her detractors(keeping this post on topic! ;D ).
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Sept 24, 2008 10:38:58 GMT -5
PETA serves a purpose in keeping us aware of issues, but when you go to the extreme-you start to lose the legitimacy of the arguement.
My point is you can't just shut down "the machine". You can make people think. You can try to make adjustments, make it better.
The cruelty factor should be removed in foods, testing, etc. I don't believe animals should be killed just for luxury (furs), but where do you draw the line with leather and other uses?
At least Paul didn't edit out his wearing a leather bomber jacket in Give My Regards to Broad Street.
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Sept 24, 2008 14:39:19 GMT -5
Don't know what the big fuss is all about. I'm willing to pay 50 bucks for just an ounce of Raquel Welch's breast milk right now. Don't need to drink it, but just freeze it. Just consider it a good investment.
This thread has gone beyond weird, but has brought up a good point.
What is the difference between cow's milk and human milk? Probably almost indiscernible if given a laboratory test. Milk is milk man. If Ben & Jerry's did make a pint of ice cream with human milk, you would not know the difference unless you were told.
This is a lost thread.
|
|
|
Post by redlespaul on Sept 24, 2008 14:52:59 GMT -5
Let's remember, today was Linda McCartney's birthday. Paul loved her and went "veggie" for her. I know he's missing her today...
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Sept 24, 2008 15:44:06 GMT -5
PETA serves a purpose in keeping us aware of issues, but when you go to the extreme-you start to lose the legitimacy of the arguement. Yes, that often happens with many "isms". The civil rights movement would not have gone anywhere if the Black Panthers or Nation of Islam had the voice and not Martin Luther King. I think the war in Vietnam would have ended a lot sooner if the mothers had taken to the streets instead of the Yippies. Christianity, Islam, pro-life, pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-gun , and all other supporters of particular cause or lifestyle have their wackos. The extreme and most vocal adherents should realize that just because they are being heard doesn't mean people are listening.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Sept 24, 2008 15:48:22 GMT -5
Don't know what the big fuss is all about. I'm willing to pay 50 bucks for just an ounce of Raquel Welch's breast milk right now. Jeez, how old are you? At least go with something that is not past it's expiration date. ;D
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Sept 24, 2008 17:24:13 GMT -5
Don't know what the big fuss is all about. I'm willing to pay 50 bucks for just an ounce of Raquel Welch's breast milk right now. Jeez, how old are you? At least go with something that is not past it's expiration date. ;D Expiration dates are of no value. In the world of collectibles and what not, older is better. Should I settle for an ounce of say Pamela Anderson's milk? Hell no!!!! All the truly rich bastards on this planet are older and wealthier and still remember the allure of Raquel. Need I say more? I'll settle for 1/2 ounce of Patti Boyd's milk in deference to this board. Will that fetch a higher price than Raquel? Who knows and who really cares? Maybe JSD.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 24, 2008 17:41:23 GMT -5
I'll settle for 1/2 ounce of Patti Boyd's milk in deference to this board. Will that fetch a higher price than Raquel? Who knows and who really cares? Maybe JSD. [Gulp] In all my fantasies of Pattie Boyd, breast milk never played into any of them.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Sept 24, 2008 19:15:48 GMT -5
This thread has now taken on a realm known only to Borat and his wife's "homemade" cheese.
The look on the Senator's face was that of Hollywood legend-cept he wasn't acting. Very Nice.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Sept 24, 2008 19:49:03 GMT -5
PETA serves a purpose in keeping us aware of issues, but when you go to the extreme-you start to lose the legitimacy of the arguement. Yes, that often happens with many "isms". The civil rights movement would not have gone anywhere if the Black Panthers or Nation of Islam had the voice and not Martin Luther King. I think the war in Vietnam would have ended a lot sooner if the mothers had taken to the streets instead of the Yippies. Christianity, Islam, pro-life, pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-gun , and all other supporters of particular cause or lifestyle have their wackos. The extreme and most vocal adherents should realize that just because they are being heard doesn't mean people are listening. You sound like John Lennon in this post.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Sept 24, 2008 21:27:30 GMT -5
You sound like John Lennon in this post. Thanks. You should hear my Don Knotts.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Sept 24, 2008 23:17:01 GMT -5
Nobody does Don Knotts better than Billy West (getting back to Howard Stern). Mayberry KKK may have been one of the funniest radio skits ever.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Sept 25, 2008 18:19:28 GMT -5
If any further proof was needed that PETA is a freak outfit, read this: So, John, what makes it freaky? The only thing "wrong" with it I see is the cost. On a large scale food manufacturing basis, I doubt one could get enough human milk, unless, of course, you had a bunch of Dolly Parton's and Pamela Anderson's ;D It initially sounds weird and gross, but think about it. Is it really more gross to drink human milk than cow, goat, camel, or any other milk from an animal? Milk is milk. (By the way, after weening, I think humans are the only or one of the few mammals who continue to drink milk. There is no reason nutritionally for humans to drink milk. The lactose intolerance many people have is due to the older human body's inability to digest lactose - due to dwindling of lactase with age.) Why is it okay for young humans to drink mother's milk, but not adults? I suspect that the revulsion is in part due to the puritanical view we tend to have about sex or maybe it reeks of cannibalism, to some. Don't get me wrong, I ( a vegetarian and animal rights activist) would be weirded out by it, too, but I think I could rationalize myself to accepting it, sooner or later . . . or maybe not, it is kinda gross and wack. Can you imagine some of the new flavors? "Boob Tube", "Itty Bitty Titty", "Tits and Bits," "Nippleonian", "Pounds of Mounds", . . . ;D Sold in "jugs."
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Sept 26, 2008 11:43:59 GMT -5
So, John, what makes it freaky? The only thing "wrong" with it I see is the cost. On a large scale food manufacturing basis, I doubt one could get enough human milk, unless, of course, you had a bunch of Dolly Parton's and Pamela Anderson's ;D It initially sounds weird and gross, but think about it. Is it really more gross to drink human milk than cow, goat, camel, or any other milk from an animal? Milk is milk. (By the way, after weening, I think humans are the only or one of the few mammals who continue to drink milk. There is no reason nutritionally for humans to drink milk. The lactose intolerance many people have is due to the older human body's inability to digest lactose - due to dwindling of lactase with age.) Why is it okay for young humans to drink mother's milk, but not adults? I suspect that the revulsion is in part due to the puritanical view we tend to have about sex or maybe it reeks of cannibalism, to some. Don't get me wrong, I ( a vegetarian and animal rights activist) would be weirded out by it, too, but I think I could rationalize myself to accepting it, sooner or later . . . or maybe not, it is kinda gross and wack. Can you imagine some of the new flavors? "Boob Tube", "Itty Bitty Titty", "Tits and Bits," "Nippleonian", "Pounds of Mounds", . . . ;D Sold in "jugs." Check out the movie Mother, Jugs and Speed. A real eye-opener from 1976 starring none other that the queen of jugs, Raquel.
|
|
ChuckE
Very Clean
AlexE & RachelE, May '08
Posts: 77
|
Post by ChuckE on Sept 26, 2008 11:44:45 GMT -5
I think the one thing you guys are forgetting... in order for a woman to be lactating, she needs to be pregnant (or recently pregnant with an actively nursing baby). Though it might possibly be induced with hormones...? That would make breast milk from the likes of Raquel and Pattie extremely rare, if not completely non-existent... in any case, merely the stuff of fantasies (not necessarily my own!). NP: Swag, "Trixie," catch-all
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Sept 28, 2008 18:01:44 GMT -5
I think the one thing you guys are forgetting... in order for a woman to be lactating, she needs to be pregnant (or recently pregnant with an actively nursing baby) Yeah, right Next thing you'll be telling us is that babies don't come from storks, the moon is not made of cheese, the earth is not the center of the solar system, and mammoths did not help with the building of the pyramids. Are you trying to punk us? We may be gullible, but don't think you can pull the wool over our eyes. After all, we are products of the American public school system.
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Sept 29, 2008 7:13:55 GMT -5
Actually, women only begin lactating after they have delivered a baby. Several days after. And as someone who has "been there, done that," let me say that PETA's idea is the most insane thing I have ever heard.
Having commented on Pauls' philanthropic efforts on another thread, PETA is the one charity I wish he would jettison, and pronto. They are a bunch of militant extremists, from Ingrid on down, and do more harm than good for animal rights--because they don't seek just to elevate animals to human level, but to elevate them above humans. Milking a cow is not cruel. Milking a woman would be.
First of all, how many dairy cows do you think there are in the US? How many lactating women? The women need their milk to feed their babies; I presume that after weaning their children they would be hired to...what? Be hooked up to machines several times a day to "produce?" How is this not treating women like animals, replacing cows with humans? Why should a woman become a doctor or lawyer or CEO, do something with her brain, when she can spend her days eating and making milk? Since the cows will have so much more free time, maybe THEY should become doctors. Sheesh.
Vegetarianism is a worthy endeavor, whether it's done for health reasons or out of love for animals. Veganism--shunning all dairy, eggs, and animal products of any kind--is another matter. Less than 5% of the population in the US and UK is vegetarian; somewhere between 0.2%-0.4% is vegan. It's an extreme discipline. One horrifying consequence is that 66-year-old knights of the realm are constantly photographed wearing trainers with a suit. And to raise a child from infancy as a vegan, as Paul and Heather have done with Bea, is not only extreme, but inadvisable. Many pediatricians are absolutely opposed to it, and warn of developmental impairment as the child matures. Veganism requires such dedication and discipline that I think it's a lifestyle choice that should only be made by a child when he or she is old enough to personally make an informed decision. Besides the possible negative health consequences, a child who is a vegan will be "different" in his or her circle of friends. Kids can't latch on to the things that are different about other kids fast enough, and use it to ridicule and even ostracize. Unless Paul has recently had a change of heart, he eats dairy and eggs, as did Linda. Militant veganism is Heather's big cause. Bea's not a social experiment, she's a little girl. Give her a frickin' ice cream cone--it's one of the great joys of childhood. Heck, it's one of the great joys of adulthood. (Haven't tried the Whirled Peace, though.)
I told my daughter about this PETA/breast milk story, and after she burst out laughing, she said, "Mom, you know how much I love animals, but PETA is just plain weird." And that verdict comes from a veterinarian.
Might I ask, sayne, why vegetarians--and especially vegans--are so hypersensitive and strident about their choices? Soy chicken cutlets aren't chicken, and veggie burgers aren't meat. As such they are fake, and I don't see why I should have to use quotation marks or smiley faces to keep from offending anyone. I once saw an interview with Paul on VH1 where he stated, straight-faced, that he didn't proselytize about his vegetarianism. Interesting, then, that all his serious female companions end up "converted." Or perhaps they and their self-serving agendas just know what side their bread is fake-buttered on?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Sept 29, 2008 8:52:46 GMT -5
Might I ask, sayne . . . Soy chicken cutlets aren't chicken, and veggie burgers aren't meat. As such they are fake, and I don't see why I should have to use quotation marks or smiley faces to keep from offending anyone. You said "fake food", not "fake meat." You are wrong to call it "fake food." It's not. As for quotation marks and emoticons, it's not about offending, it's about clarity. Writing, especially the short and to the point writing in boards, is often NOT nuanced. Irony and humor frequently are lost or missed. Thus, what is left is usually dry and very open to interpretation and misinterpretation. Therefore, the use of quotes and emoticons usually helps put ones thoughts and ideas and words in context. I've always believed that if there is a misunderstanding in communication, it is mostly the fault of the sender, not the receiver.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 29, 2008 8:59:32 GMT -5
One horrifying consequence is that 66-year-old knights of the realm are constantly photographed wearing trainers with a suit. LMAO! Great all around post sexysadie but that line was priceless. The image of women who have just given birth being forced onto human dairy farms is chilling. The thought that milking cows or shearing the wool from sheep is an evil thing is strained to say the least. Paul, give real ice cream a chance!
|
|
|
Post by richforman on Sept 29, 2008 10:46:01 GMT -5
SexySadie, you've made it clear that you don't actually "hate" Paul, still I can't help notice that all your posts, whci are many, many paragraphs longer than the closest runners up on this forum, consist primarily of your making the case that he is stupid, ignorant, irrelevant, physically unattractive, greedy, hypocritical, washed-up, delusional, pathetic, clueless, chauvanistic, egomaniacal, and making clear that you pretty much disapprove, or are highly critical of, 99.99% of everything he has done both professionally and in his personal life for the last ten years or so. Frequently served up with a side dish of how much smarter you clearly think you are than anyone else. Anyway it seems to me an odd way to spend so much of one's time (what's the end point?) but okay.
Personally I'm more interested in discussing music.....do you agree with the statement you quoted that Paul hasn't made a good record in 25 years? Now, I think stated that way it's patently ridiculous because if nothing else, it ignores what I think many would rank among Paul's all-time best albums, Flowers in the Dirt. However, even if we limit it to the last 10 years I disagree strongly. For me, Run Devil Run is fantastic, one of his very best, I really dig it; but besides that, although I wouldn't call any of them masterpieces or even rate them among his best (and all contain duds and lame filler), I do think that Driving Rain, Chaos and Creation, and Memory Almost Full, all contain their share of at least interesting, surprising, well-crafted and quite worthwhile tracks, musically, lyrically, and arrangement/production-wise. (Now, going back an extra year or two, another album that many fans and critics seem to rate highly, is one that I find largely unlistenable save for a very spare few highlights, Flaming Pie, so what do I know!) Anyway, I think that the music is the only aspect of the man that any of us are really in a position to meaningfully, substantively criticize and judge, the rest is basically gossip and bloviation.
(a longish post here itself, but still paling in comparison!) richforman
|
|