For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Where did you get this from, Svartmer?
Quote
Svartmer
From today´s Aftonbladet.
Quote
Rolling HansieQuote
Svartmer
From today´s Aftonbladet.
Great source LOL
With some pride and not like a cocky 20 year old looking for a fight. The "lucky to get from here alive" is just pathetic. I mean Keith already has the upper hand. Everybody knows Markus is shit.Quote
DandelionPowderman
Much better than what? He told the reporter what he thought of him and left the room.
Quote
tonterapi
He could have handled this much better and still make Markus look like the fool he is.
Just for the record I didn't report you. Either someone else did or BV deleted the post on his own.Quote
Doxa
Typical. The people are hurraying a violent childish behavior, "way to Keith!", and then someone says some critical words of such fanaticism, that post is reported and got delated.
Finally I started to get what being a "fan" is all about.
I guess I have said all I have to say, and a bit more, of The Rolling Stones during all these years. Time to go on.
Cheers.
- Doxa
Quote
Bingo
This thread is pure comedy. Thanks.
Quote
ROPENI
Q: "Funny thing that no one else felt the way you did. So now it´s personal. Now we say goodbye. (Keith gives the reporter´s head a little push). Consider yourself lucky to get out from here alive". (Keith quickly leaves the room)
l think Keith head bump made him lose his memory,many people here, including some of his biggest defenders say that in that particular show he played bad.
If, this translation is correct ,then he comes across as a primadonna,and a bully,and actually threatening the reporter"Consider yourself lucky to get out from here alive" What an a--hole.
Quote
GazzaQuote
ROPENI
Q: "Funny thing that no one else felt the way you did. So now it´s personal. Now we say goodbye. (Keith gives the reporter´s head a little push). Consider yourself lucky to get out from here alive". (Keith quickly leaves the room)
l think Keith head bump made him lose his memory,many people here, including some of his biggest defenders say that in that particular show he played bad.
If, this translation is correct ,then he comes across as a primadonna,and a bully,and actually threatening the reporter"Consider yourself lucky to get out from here alive" What an a--hole.
Thats one way of looking at it.
Another way could be that if the reporter was faced with the same scenario with someone else who wasn't a public figure (say, a gang leader) or someone younger and in better shape, that he'd been telling lies about, the interview may not have ended simply with the interviewee walking out and giving him a harmless tap on the head.
I've seen it happen.
Bottom line is for the journalist - if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Quote
proudmary
On August 4, 2007, The Rolling Stones, got a 2 out of 5 review for the gig at Ullevi in Gothenburg, Sweden, of tabloid Aftonbladets music reviewer Markus Larsson, 34.
A review that enraged guitarist Keith Richards, 67.
Afterwards, he demanded a public apology.
What was at that review that Keith demanded an apology then and still after 3 years is so angry? Did somebody say he has a little cock?
Quote
ROPENI
[[/quote]
Point taken Gazza,but l don't think that anyone has the right to threaten someone with violence just cause you didn't like a review he did,l don't know anything about this reporter,but he was doing the job that he gets paid for.
Keith should not be so sensitive after so many years dealing with the press..
Some will like you some will not,big deaa is not the end of the world.
Quote
GazzaQuote
ROPENI
[[/quote]
Point taken Gazza,but l don't think that anyone has the right to threaten someone with violence just cause you didn't like a review he did,l don't know anything about this reporter,but he was doing the job that he gets paid for.
Keith should not be so sensitive after so many years dealing with the press..
Some will like you some will not,big deaa is not the end of the world.
I agree with what youre saying. I dont think that his final comment is a threat though. The earlier one about putting the lights out - well, it seems Keith took the guy's review very personally. I assume it was the personal attack on him that he took serious exception to, after all Keith must be thick-skinned enough by now to ignore five decades of being slagged off in tabloids.
If someone you dont know and have never met prints a comment about your personal habits which you know is untrue - and which the writer has no way of validating - its not always that easy to just shrug it off when you know that the journalist's 'version' is the one thats going to be circulated worldwide and accepted as 'the truth'.
Easy for us sitting at a keyboard to pontificate on it regardless of whose side we take - but we're not ever going to be in a position where we have to put up with being fodder for tabloid journalists.
He's human. Someone posted a story about him that he took exception to at the time and it still needles him 3 years later when the journalist chooses to bring it up again. I dont see why he should have been expected to just shrug his shoulders and laugh it off - by doing so, he'd be effectively acknowledging that he overreacted when it first happened. Personally, I think its in some way good to see that he still cares enough to be pissed off.
No right to threaten violence? Correct, but a reporter has a moral duty to report something accurately and truthfully so that such a scenario is unlikely. There seems to be a different rule for journalists when it comes to morality - giving the gig a bad review if he didnt enjoy it is perfectly reasonable, however when it gets beyond that, it crosses the line as to what is and isn't acceptable journalistic standards.