Tell Me :
Talk
I think its fascinating. I spent a big part of last night just reading different posts about this chapter in Stones history because, frankly, my familiarity with the topic is somewhat vague and this has opened a whole can of something.
Would you rather discuss Ronnie's alcoholic state or how about the endless Taylor VS Jones Wars. Or better yet, Keith's guitars?
This is interesting and I'm learning something new about the Rolling Stones and after 1000 years, that's saying something.
HBwriter, please continue....
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-03 21:32 by stupidguy2.
+1
"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"
YES MAN,
l promise to start my next post under your frame,God forbid that someone that doesn't know how to read may think it was you writing.
Can l go back to my seat now?
Anything else your highness wants me to do?
@your service..
"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"
Just to clarify,"Yes Man" doesn't mean l think you are a man,that s just an expression.
But if it makes you happy to call me "madame",No problem..
"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"
i agree...it's messy when people quote others & don't know how to reply to a post.
i've even been the victim of people (Helter) changing my statement for their own purposes.
it's not difficult to do it correctly.
re: (Addicted wrote) "Some want to make money on their theories,...."
Please explain? Are you referring to HBwriter?
IORR............but I like it!
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-04 14:15 by sweet neo con.
>
<
Yes obviously, that's him who wrote the book ><
But more seriously , since I'm on IORR, I'd never seen such an authoritarian and intolerant person. We're in Democraty for most of us hopefully, and one could be disagreed with some lines in LIFE my dear and write what we dislike if we want. If you couldn't get this point , I can't help it. There's a life after LIFE, and I don't think your kind of behaviour on this board is the best one.
When I'm not agreed with some lines on some other threads, I'd always tried to answer with some fairness or with some fun, but it seems , that's fairness and fun are not your cup of tea !
HMN
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-04 20:34 by Honestman.
HB, I thought you said a page and a day ago "I AM DONE" with this topic. And something tells me you probably won't be getting one of Addicted's precious signed copies.
I think maybe part of what people have a problem with is the way your presenting your points. You do preface them, usually, with I believe/don't believe/it's my opinion/etc., that show your not presenting them as facts. But, your belief in your beliefs is so overwhelmingly strong that, a lot of times, they seem to come across as facts. I don't think your allowing enough healthy doubt into your opinions and speculations of what happened, and what led Keith to speak like he did (which again, I feel was insensitive, at the very least). You say that section of the book, the way it's written and what is said, is part of some master plan that Keith cooked up to make himself look like a bad-ass, and that Marlon went along with it.
Your coming across to many of us as if you won't even acknowledge the possibility that what you think may be wrong. I'm not saying you won't acknowledge the possibility, just that your coming across that way. For instance, in your supposed last word on this topic, you quoted and stated the following:
""Then your son tells you that the bastard threatened to kill you... Would you be OK with that? Would you think abd speak well of the dead? Or would you be honest and say what you really meant?"
As I've said - i think this is totally false - if Scott Cantrell made constant death threats around that house full of people - someone else would have been hip to it - and Marlon said it happened all the time - I also think Marlon would have mouthed off about it given how he had been raised (I will add I think it is a miracle that kid survived and thrived) Lastly, I buy Scott Cantrell's sister's version of her brother - it sounds honest and straightforward - so "death threats" seems totally out of character."
See, right there, you say "i think this is totally false", but you don't really seem open to accepting that the opposite of any of those points could have happened. Especially when anyone says anything like, Marlon may not have mouthed off about it, other people may not have heard it, Scott's sister may not have known everything that was going on, Scott may have been a jerk to Keith. You've shot everyone down as wrong, without allowing that they may not be. I believe Scott's sister too, but I also believe she may not have known everything that was going on with her brother. Based on all your posts, you think all of these counter arguments, and a lot of other things, are complete bullshit, and that Marlon knowingly went along with some plan Keith had about what to write.
I don't think what you believe is wrong, just that your taking your taking a lot of it a bit too far. Do you really believe Keith said something to Marlon like:
"Hey man, say it like this, so, you know, so it will fit in with the rest of the book, my being a bad-ass. That's one of the main themes, you know"
"Sure, Pop, no problem. And hey, you are a bad-ass"
"Right back at ya, son"
As silly as I made it, do you REALLY believe they had a conversation like that? Because if your idea of, "I think it's obvious he and marlon cooked up the narrative to support this ridiculous "tough guy" swagger", is true, then they must have had some type of conversation along those lines. I acknowledge it's possible, but I just don't think anything like that happened. It's a bit melodramatic to me.
Back this up, sister. Speak it out. What hidden agendas do you know about? because if they exist, they should be made known. And if you're making false accusations as a way of "protecting" Keith -- who doesn't require protecting -- please don't go there again.
As various people have said, this is a discussion board. In my opinion there's some awfully polarized viewpoints here--some very black and white either/or thinking--which are also further polarizing people. But that's part of what goes down on discussions boards. In my opinion there are several notable instances in LIFE where Keith comes off hollow and disingenuous--not to mention bizarrely callous. Always around tragic events. Objectively it's fair for him to "speak his piece," in his own voice, his own tone--it's his own autobiography.
At the same time, what many here are reacting to is a jarring disconnect between the writings/insights of a self-described (and very evidently so) sensitive artist and man---with these odd posturing, swaggering emotionally vacant bitter-tinged anecdotes around death and tragedy.
Call that what you will, Addicted. It's not "speculation, slander and the opinion of people with a "hidden agenda"....[who] want to make money on their theories."
It's exploration. It's analysis. It's trying to synthesize Keith Richards the person (who we---and I would maintain this includes you, despite your rather frequent self-promotional claims to closeness--do NOT intimately know) and Keith Richards the guitarist, song writer, member of a band we know really well, and adore. He write LIFE. You don't think he wrote it for us to ooooh and aaaah uncritically about what he wrote and says, do you? If so, that would be even more bizarre than referring to a kid whose face was shot off in his wife's bedroom, and whose brains his child saw splattered on the walls, as a "prick."
I like to think, Addicted, that there's a language issue, and you couldn't possibly be as strident, officious, dismissive, and caustic as you come off. If that is the case, I hope you look into weaving a bit more nuance into what you say. And if it isn't a language issue, I still wish the same for you.
- swiss
"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-05 03:58 by sweetcharmedlife.
that's okay, man - and yeah, finally common ground - very cool
Don't want to really get into another back-and-forth (since it's obvious neither side is budging), but you are leaving out the part about why he remembers this date -- because he was watching a special on the tenth anniversary of the moon landing on TV when he heard the shot. Probably you innocently left that detail out ... surely you wouldn't misrepresent the facts to sway others in any way.
Since you referred to it, here ya go -
"I remember the date, July 20,1979, vividly, because it was the tenth anniversary of the moon landing. I remember he was only around for a few months, but Anita was being very self-destructive. This was the time Keith was off with Lil, so Anita was like, right, I'm gonna show him, get her own back so to speak. So she flaunted him quite blatantly; Keith met him, actually. I was watching the anniversary of the lunar landings and I heard one pop."
He doesn't say he remembers the date because of a TV show he was watching - he says he remembers it *vividly* BECAUSE (my emphasis) it was the 10th anniversary* -
that seems like TOTAL BS to me - that's not why he would remember it - and it is a very deliberate statement and so the whole story gets suspicious - also - (I feel like Felix Unger playing lawyer in a g'damnned Odd Couple episode)
--look how Marlon's version of Anita flaunting Scott to tick Keith off - hey, how weird, that's EXACTLY Keith's version too! So this 9 year old with the amazing memory also had a bead on his mother's motivation to tempt Keith? And it totally corresponds with Dad's? And he's aware back then of his father's affair with Lil? SO - let's say that really happened--maybe Marlon was that smart - but if both he and Keith believed she was doing that to this unsuspecting kid -
THEN WHY BASH HIM THIS HEARTLESS MANNER- why not simply pity him since they both thought (or claim to think) he was a pawn?
Do you start to see my point that I think this attitude toward Cantrell is concocted - or at least highly suspect? And that I base that on THEIR words - not MY feelings?
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-05 05:08 by hbwriter.
Yes, he remembers it because of the tv show! Jesus Christ, does he actually have to write "I wouldn't normally have remembered the date but there was a tv special on at the time". Some things are pretty obvious, unless of course someone is refusing to see them. He states he remembers the date because of the moon landing anniversary ... then later states he was watching a program on it. Some things aren't that hard to put together. Either way, it was convenient how you left out the part about him watching the program when trying to convey your astonishment at him remembering the date.
And you keep saying they concocted the story, without considering the fact that it seems so absurd for them to even care enough to do such a thing. How did this come to be? Keith decided to call him a prick ... then considered "wait, the reader is gonna see this and think lesser of me (like he really cares that much), so let me get Marlon to give his take on this ... oh and while we're at it, let me tell Marlon to make up stuff ... oh and wait, let's also make up that Marlon remembered the date due to the moon landing -- let's take out the part that he watched a program on tv to remember that so it seems like he's so smart ... nah, better leave it in so it seems more realistic ... still, Marlon really admired this boy when he was younger but I'm sure he won't mind making shit up to make him look bad now ... why don't we throw in that this kid ass-raped him, that will really help our story ... damn this part got edited out of the book, oh well".
Actually I think it makes me much more objective, but I can see how you wouldn't be able to realize this (considering how taken aback you are from such a comment, it must make you somewhat biased).
Again, wow! I am still not getting how you find this so bizarre. But you didn't address this part to me, so sorry!
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
hbwriter
()
Date: December 3, 2010 21:18
scottkeef--like many here - i read the book (more than once) and found it fascinating. As to the validity - who knows?- but given that Keith never pushed back too hard on it - and since all of it (to me anyway) seemed at least plausible - I'd guess it lies someplace near the middle in terms of accuracy - and yeah, Anita's vulture/vampire-like behavior makes me pity any wide-eyed 17 year guy that wandered into the viper's nest in south salem that was Keith's home- i don't think he ever stood a chance -
I posted his sister's account of Scott earlier in this thread - it's worth a read - some have already said "well yeah it's his SISTER whaddya expect??" - but for now, it's the only real account of him/his personality--and the situation - be your own judge
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-03 21:29 by hbwriter.
I posted his sister's account of Scott earlier in this thread - it's worth a read - some have already said "well yeah it's his SISTER whaddya expect??" - but for now, it's the only real account of him/his personality--and the situation - be your own judge
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-03 21:29 by hbwriter.
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
sweetcharmedlife
()
Date: December 3, 2010 21:22
Not exactly sure how. But I know I'd rather watch that than read this thread anymore.
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
hbwriter
()
Date: December 3, 2010 21:26
sweet--it may shock you - I'D rather watch this than read this thread anymore
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-03 21:31 by hbwriter.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-03 21:31 by hbwriter.
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: December 3, 2010 21:31
I think its fascinating. I spent a big part of last night just reading different posts about this chapter in Stones history because, frankly, my familiarity with the topic is somewhat vague and this has opened a whole can of something.
Would you rather discuss Ronnie's alcoholic state or how about the endless Taylor VS Jones Wars. Or better yet, Keith's guitars?
This is interesting and I'm learning something new about the Rolling Stones and after 1000 years, that's saying something.
HBwriter, please continue....
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-03 21:32 by stupidguy2.
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: December 3, 2010 21:33
Quote
stupidguy2
I think its fascinating. I spent a big part of last night just reading different posts about this chapter in Stones history because, frankly, my familiarity with the topic is somewhat vague and this has opened a whole can of something.
Would you rather discuss Ronnie's alcoholic state or how about the endless Taylor VS Jones Wars. Or better yet, Keith's guitars?
This is interesting and I'm learning something new about the Rolling Stones and after 1000 years, that's saying something.
HBwriter, please continue....
+1
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
hbwriter
()
Date: December 3, 2010 21:39
sG2 & PM
*thank you*
slight irony - the back cover picture of the V. Bockris book on Keith features a shot of the two of them - mid-interview - it was actually taken at this house called "Frog Hollow" where the shooting took place - (by the pool) thus sort of tying it together with "Life"
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-03 21:48 by hbwriter.
*thank you*
slight irony - the back cover picture of the V. Bockris book on Keith features a shot of the two of them - mid-interview - it was actually taken at this house called "Frog Hollow" where the shooting took place - (by the pool) thus sort of tying it together with "Life"
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-03 21:48 by hbwriter.
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
sweetcharmedlife
()
Date: December 3, 2010 21:48
LOL,finally common ground...We do have a way of beating things into the ground around here.Quote
hbwriter
sweet--it may shock you - I'D rather watch this than read this thread anymore
"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
ROPENI
()
Date: December 4, 2010 01:35
Quote
Addicted
"Imagine yourself being a father, and you're worried sick because your son is living with his mom, who keeps BAD COMPANY. Actually The WORST there is. One of the bastards kills himself in the bed he's sharing with your son's mom. Then your son tells you that the bastard threatened to kill you"..
Well Addicted, we were just waiting for you to come to Keith defense,after all "you know Keith" and work for him trying to sell his book,so your perspective on this whole mess of Scott Cantrell is suspected,and of course you have to tow the line, but l think you go a bit far in your emotional defense of your boss,when you state
"Imagine yourself being a father, and you're worried sick because your son is living with his mom, who keeps BAD COMPANY. Actually The WORST there is".
Keith was worried?,he told you so?
Give me a break l am a father and if knew my wife was doing a teenager in my house and doing drugs and everything else that goes on in the scene,and putting our son in danger,a real concerned father would have taken his son out of that environment.Of course Keith didn't do it, so please spare us the line that he was a concerned parent,he was a junkie,who knew his wife being screwed by a teenager,whom she seduced and his son was in the middle of it all.
And Keith let it go on,and for him and you at this time to try to change things in order to make Keith look good is total bullshit.
"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: December 4, 2010 09:20
I want to make an additional point about understanding Keith's behaviour. Very often when reading about various celebrity excesses, such as those of Michael Jackson, Prince Charles, Mick and his women, Bill and Mandy Smith, Phil Spector, etc etc, I used to think, how the hell can they do this? How do they get so far from normal human behaviour?
And the reason is, because they can. Money and fame put them in a different universe and they lose sight of all the normal constraints which limit people's behaviour. They get used to doing whatever they want, and this makes them go further and further. (Until it all comes crashing down of course, when they go too far and break human laws, and then they have to face the music.)
The reason Keith could treat people as he has, and then write about it is that he has been one of the biggest stars in history, and incredibly wealthy for most of his life. Everyone he knows treats him like a god.
Hopefully the fallout from this and the tiny todger saga will be a wakeup call, but probably not...
And the reason is, because they can. Money and fame put them in a different universe and they lose sight of all the normal constraints which limit people's behaviour. They get used to doing whatever they want, and this makes them go further and further. (Until it all comes crashing down of course, when they go too far and break human laws, and then they have to face the music.)
The reason Keith could treat people as he has, and then write about it is that he has been one of the biggest stars in history, and incredibly wealthy for most of his life. Everyone he knows treats him like a god.
Hopefully the fallout from this and the tiny todger saga will be a wakeup call, but probably not...
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
Addicted
()
Date: December 4, 2010 12:20
ROPENI:I absolutely have to tidy up in a crucial misunderstanding: Keith's not my boss. He's never told me to say this or that. The publishing house who has aquired the rights to his book in Norway (Bazar Forlag) is a client of my PR company.
And next time you quote one of my posts, please do NOT write inside the post, because it looks as if I wrote the things you're saying.
So - you should start your post beneath the frame other peoples posts are in. OK?
And seriously - this thread is based on pure speculation, slander and the opinion of people with a "hidden agenda". Some want to make money on their theories, some know the Cantrell family and feel bad about their loss and some see it from Keith's point of view. And there's no way we're ever gonna agree on anything.
And next time you quote one of my posts, please do NOT write inside the post, because it looks as if I wrote the things you're saying.
So - you should start your post beneath the frame other peoples posts are in. OK?
And seriously - this thread is based on pure speculation, slander and the opinion of people with a "hidden agenda". Some want to make money on their theories, some know the Cantrell family and feel bad about their loss and some see it from Keith's point of view. And there's no way we're ever gonna agree on anything.
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
ROPENI
()
Date: December 4, 2010 13:22
Quote
Addicted
ROPENI:I absolutely have to tidy up in a crucial misunderstanding: Keith's not my boss. He's never told me to say this or that. The publishing house who has aquired the rights to his book in Norway (Bazar Forlag) is a client of my PR company.
And next time you quote one of my posts, please do NOT write inside the post, because it looks as if I wrote the things you're saying.
So - you should start your post beneath the frame other peoples posts are in. OK?
And seriously - this thread is based on pure speculation, slander and the opinion of people with a "hidden agenda". Some want to make money on their theories, some know the Cantrell family and feel bad about their loss and some see it from Keith's point of view. And there's no way we're ever gonna agree on anything.
YES MAN,
l promise to start my next post under your frame,God forbid that someone that doesn't know how to read may think it was you writing.
Can l go back to my seat now?
Anything else your highness wants me to do?
@your service..
"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
Addicted
()
Date: December 4, 2010 13:27
Apart from "behave yourself"? Not really, madame!
But I think it's fair that we don't write inside other people's posts.
But I think it's fair that we don't write inside other people's posts.
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
ROPENI
()
Date: December 4, 2010 13:37
Quote
Addicted
Apart from "behave yourself"? Not really, madame!
But I think it's fair that we don't write inside other people's posts.
Just to clarify,"Yes Man" doesn't mean l think you are a man,that s just an expression.
But if it makes you happy to call me "madame",No problem..
"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
sweet neo con
()
Date: December 4, 2010 14:12
Quote
Addicted
But I think it's fair that we don't write inside other people's posts.
i agree...it's messy when people quote others & don't know how to reply to a post.
i've even been the victim of people (Helter) changing my statement for their own purposes.
it's not difficult to do it correctly.
re: (Addicted wrote) "Some want to make money on their theories,...."
Please explain? Are you referring to HBwriter?
IORR............but I like it!
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-04 14:15 by sweet neo con.
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
hbwriter
()
Date: December 4, 2010 17:59
"And seriously - this thread is based on pure speculation, slander and the opinion of people with a "hidden agenda". Some want to make money on their theories, some know the Cantrell family and feel bad about their loss and some see it from Keith's point of view. And there's no way we're ever gonna agree on anything."
--
Addicted - I'd like to offer that this thread, by design, was not based on "pure speculation" - it was a posting of an *opinion* piece I wrote for AOL News based on something that bothered me - along with a book excerpt documenting an innocent moment from this period - no more, no less. I'm a columnist - I write dozens-of pieces that sometimes express points of view when it strikes me. If that's what you consider to be a "hidden agenda" then maybe we have different definitions of what a free press is and how it functions- and I mean that most seriously.
Accusations or implications regarding "hidden agendas," "making money on their theories" etc. are serious charges that, if you're going to levy them, I'd say are best when made more specific. Are you addressing me? Someone else? It's dodgy to just toss that out these things in such a vague manner. If you'd like to have that debate - let's have it - eye to eye - toe to toe. I've started dozens of threads here, all (as i recall) either positive, curious, celebratory--running the gamut of love felt for the band. If, on this rarest occasion of being critical it prompts such limp finger pointing - feel free to assume I'll challenge you to back it up.
However, if it's merely a knee-jerk reaction to what you perceive as an unfair attack on Keith Richards, I'd suggest maybe taking a step back and realizing that it's doubtful such nefarious behavior is taking place here - these are simply people having a spirited discussion (that most seem to be enjoying).
What you might consider "pure speculation" I'd argue is merely a group of fans trying to figure out what might account for such sad behavior in this instance from Keith.
Rather than go in to full-on Keith protection mode with baseless accusations, why not just accept that this event bothers some reasonable people and they felt like discussing it? Isn't that sort of the point of this board--regardless of whether you agree or disagree? I think (for the most part) people have been reasonable, objective and I'm sure we'll all still agree on who the greatest rock and roll band in the world is - but I'd also say that, ironically, your post may be the *most* speculative of all - - to assume that Keith is fretting over who is living in the house (given that he never expresses an ounce of concern anywhere else in the book) seems to me, politely, *highly* speculative. Yet I'd still never accuse you of having a "hidden agenda" nor question your motives for stating something you simply feel.
regards
chris
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-04 18:42 by hbwriter.
--
Addicted - I'd like to offer that this thread, by design, was not based on "pure speculation" - it was a posting of an *opinion* piece I wrote for AOL News based on something that bothered me - along with a book excerpt documenting an innocent moment from this period - no more, no less. I'm a columnist - I write dozens-of pieces that sometimes express points of view when it strikes me. If that's what you consider to be a "hidden agenda" then maybe we have different definitions of what a free press is and how it functions- and I mean that most seriously.
Accusations or implications regarding "hidden agendas," "making money on their theories" etc. are serious charges that, if you're going to levy them, I'd say are best when made more specific. Are you addressing me? Someone else? It's dodgy to just toss that out these things in such a vague manner. If you'd like to have that debate - let's have it - eye to eye - toe to toe. I've started dozens of threads here, all (as i recall) either positive, curious, celebratory--running the gamut of love felt for the band. If, on this rarest occasion of being critical it prompts such limp finger pointing - feel free to assume I'll challenge you to back it up.
However, if it's merely a knee-jerk reaction to what you perceive as an unfair attack on Keith Richards, I'd suggest maybe taking a step back and realizing that it's doubtful such nefarious behavior is taking place here - these are simply people having a spirited discussion (that most seem to be enjoying).
What you might consider "pure speculation" I'd argue is merely a group of fans trying to figure out what might account for such sad behavior in this instance from Keith.
Rather than go in to full-on Keith protection mode with baseless accusations, why not just accept that this event bothers some reasonable people and they felt like discussing it? Isn't that sort of the point of this board--regardless of whether you agree or disagree? I think (for the most part) people have been reasonable, objective and I'm sure we'll all still agree on who the greatest rock and roll band in the world is - but I'd also say that, ironically, your post may be the *most* speculative of all - - to assume that Keith is fretting over who is living in the house (given that he never expresses an ounce of concern anywhere else in the book) seems to me, politely, *highly* speculative. Yet I'd still never accuse you of having a "hidden agenda" nor question your motives for stating something you simply feel.
regards
chris
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-04 18:42 by hbwriter.
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
Honestman
()
Date: December 4, 2010 19:19
Quote
Addicted
... Keith's not my boss. He's never told me to say this or that...
>
<Quote
Addicted
... and some see it from Keith's point of view...
Yes obviously, that's him who wrote the book >
<But more seriously , since I'm on IORR, I'd never seen such an authoritarian and intolerant person. We're in Democraty for most of us hopefully, and one could be disagreed with some lines in LIFE my dear and write what we dislike if we want. If you couldn't get this point , I can't help it. There's a life after LIFE, and I don't think your kind of behaviour on this board is the best one.
When I'm not agreed with some lines on some other threads, I'd always tried to answer with some fairness or with some fun, but it seems , that's fairness and fun are not your cup of tea !
HMN
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-04 20:34 by Honestman.
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
bustedtrousers
()
Date: December 5, 2010 00:07
Quote
hbwriter
"And seriously - this thread is based on pure speculation, slander and the opinion of people with a "hidden agenda". Some want to make money on their theories, some know the Cantrell family and feel bad about their loss and some see it from Keith's point of view. And there's no way we're ever gonna agree on anything."
--
Addicted - I'd like to offer that this thread, by design, was not based on "pure speculation" - it was a posting of an *opinion* piece I wrote for AOL News based on something that bothered me - along with a book excerpt documenting an innocent moment from this period - no more, no less. I'm a columnist - I write dozens-of pieces that sometimes express points of view when it strikes me. If that's what you consider to be a "hidden agenda" then maybe we have different definitions of what a free press is and how it functions- and I mean that most seriously.
Accusations or implications regarding "hidden agendas," "making money on their theories" etc. are serious charges that, if you're going to levy them, I'd say are best when made more specific. Are you addressing me? Someone else? It's dodgy to just toss that out these things in such a vague manner. If you'd like to have that debate - let's have it - eye to eye - toe to toe. I've started dozens of threads here, all (as i recall) either positive, curious, celebratory--running the gamut of love felt for the band. If, on this rarest occasion of being critical it prompts such limp finger pointing - feel free to assume I'll challenge you to back it up.
However, if it's merely a knee-jerk reaction to what you perceive as an unfair attack on Keith Richards, I'd suggest maybe taking a step back and realizing that it's doubtful such nefarious behavior is taking place here - these are simply people having a spirited discussion (that most seem to be enjoying).
What you might consider "pure speculation" I'd argue is merely a group of fans trying to figure out what might account for such sad behavior in this instance from Keith.
Rather than go in to full-on Keith protection mode with baseless accusations, why not just accept that this event bothers some reasonable people and they felt like discussing it? Isn't that sort of the point of this board--regardless of whether you agree or disagree? I think (for the most part) people have been reasonable, objective and I'm sure we'll all still agree on who the greatest rock and roll band in the world is - but I'd also say that, ironically, your post may be the *most* speculative of all - - to assume that Keith is fretting over who is living in the house (given that he never expresses an ounce of concern anywhere else in the book) seems to me, politely, *highly* speculative. Yet I'd still never accuse you of having a "hidden agenda" nor question your motives for stating something you simply feel.
regards
chris
HB, I thought you said a page and a day ago "I AM DONE" with this topic. And something tells me you probably won't be getting one of Addicted's precious signed copies.
I think maybe part of what people have a problem with is the way your presenting your points. You do preface them, usually, with I believe/don't believe/it's my opinion/etc., that show your not presenting them as facts. But, your belief in your beliefs is so overwhelmingly strong that, a lot of times, they seem to come across as facts. I don't think your allowing enough healthy doubt into your opinions and speculations of what happened, and what led Keith to speak like he did (which again, I feel was insensitive, at the very least). You say that section of the book, the way it's written and what is said, is part of some master plan that Keith cooked up to make himself look like a bad-ass, and that Marlon went along with it.
Your coming across to many of us as if you won't even acknowledge the possibility that what you think may be wrong. I'm not saying you won't acknowledge the possibility, just that your coming across that way. For instance, in your supposed last word on this topic, you quoted and stated the following:
""Then your son tells you that the bastard threatened to kill you... Would you be OK with that? Would you think abd speak well of the dead? Or would you be honest and say what you really meant?"
As I've said - i think this is totally false - if Scott Cantrell made constant death threats around that house full of people - someone else would have been hip to it - and Marlon said it happened all the time - I also think Marlon would have mouthed off about it given how he had been raised (I will add I think it is a miracle that kid survived and thrived) Lastly, I buy Scott Cantrell's sister's version of her brother - it sounds honest and straightforward - so "death threats" seems totally out of character."
See, right there, you say "i think this is totally false", but you don't really seem open to accepting that the opposite of any of those points could have happened. Especially when anyone says anything like, Marlon may not have mouthed off about it, other people may not have heard it, Scott's sister may not have known everything that was going on, Scott may have been a jerk to Keith. You've shot everyone down as wrong, without allowing that they may not be. I believe Scott's sister too, but I also believe she may not have known everything that was going on with her brother. Based on all your posts, you think all of these counter arguments, and a lot of other things, are complete bullshit, and that Marlon knowingly went along with some plan Keith had about what to write.
I don't think what you believe is wrong, just that your taking your taking a lot of it a bit too far. Do you really believe Keith said something to Marlon like:
"Hey man, say it like this, so, you know, so it will fit in with the rest of the book, my being a bad-ass. That's one of the main themes, you know"
"Sure, Pop, no problem. And hey, you are a bad-ass"
"Right back at ya, son"
As silly as I made it, do you REALLY believe they had a conversation like that? Because if your idea of, "I think it's obvious he and marlon cooked up the narrative to support this ridiculous "tough guy" swagger", is true, then they must have had some type of conversation along those lines. I acknowledge it's possible, but I just don't think anything like that happened. It's a bit melodramatic to me.
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
hbwriter
()
Date: December 5, 2010 00:30
Okay--to qualify--i am done-i answered addicted (biting my tongue) because there were some serious misrepresentations-accusations in that post -thanks for your comments though--good food for thought - but I stand by my opinions--just curious--any comment on addicted's post?
Respectfully
Ce
Respectfully
Ce
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
swiss
()
Date: December 5, 2010 00:35
etcQuote
Addicted
And seriously - this thread is based on pure speculation, slander and the opinion of people with a "hidden agenda". Some want to make money on their theories
Back this up, sister. Speak it out. What hidden agendas do you know about? because if they exist, they should be made known. And if you're making false accusations as a way of "protecting" Keith -- who doesn't require protecting -- please don't go there again.
As various people have said, this is a discussion board. In my opinion there's some awfully polarized viewpoints here--some very black and white either/or thinking--which are also further polarizing people. But that's part of what goes down on discussions boards. In my opinion there are several notable instances in LIFE where Keith comes off hollow and disingenuous--not to mention bizarrely callous. Always around tragic events. Objectively it's fair for him to "speak his piece," in his own voice, his own tone--it's his own autobiography.
At the same time, what many here are reacting to is a jarring disconnect between the writings/insights of a self-described (and very evidently so) sensitive artist and man---with these odd posturing, swaggering emotionally vacant bitter-tinged anecdotes around death and tragedy.
Call that what you will, Addicted. It's not "speculation, slander and the opinion of people with a "hidden agenda"....[who] want to make money on their theories."
It's exploration. It's analysis. It's trying to synthesize Keith Richards the person (who we---and I would maintain this includes you, despite your rather frequent self-promotional claims to closeness--do NOT intimately know) and Keith Richards the guitarist, song writer, member of a band we know really well, and adore. He write LIFE. You don't think he wrote it for us to ooooh and aaaah uncritically about what he wrote and says, do you? If so, that would be even more bizarre than referring to a kid whose face was shot off in his wife's bedroom, and whose brains his child saw splattered on the walls, as a "prick."
I like to think, Addicted, that there's a language issue, and you couldn't possibly be as strident, officious, dismissive, and caustic as you come off. If that is the case, I hope you look into weaving a bit more nuance into what you say. And if it isn't a language issue, I still wish the same for you.
- swiss
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
hbwriter
()
Date: December 5, 2010 00:41
Swiss--rock on sister- 
oh--and busted -i was thinking - sorry to get pulled back in - but ya got me thinking - because I think you've had some some fine posts in this thread - no, the conversation the way you suggest is silly and i know you intended it that way- I imagine something far more subtle - look at it like this --that is one of just a handful of passages Marlon actually wrote - which gives it real weight - there had to have been at least a little back and forth on it
in it Marlon says - ""I remember the date, July 20,1979, vividly, because it was the tenth anniversary of the moon landing."
Detail like this from a nine year old?? That doesn't seem a little bit odd to you?
There is so much about his recollection that seems unbelievable, that I seriously question how it was put together--Perhaps J. Fox wove it into something that fit the narrative - I don't know- but I do think it is orchestrated - it defies reason on several key levels - did anyone challenge it or look to corroborate it - you're accusing a dead teen of making constant death threats - if you can't back that up, editorially, I'd keep it out.
But however it happened, obviously it was editorially decided that in the Keith/Marlon version, that Scott Cantrell was an "absolute prick" who made loads of death threats that nobody but Marlon heard. You can buy that if you'd like - I don't - but who cares? My original post had nothing to do with that - it was in answer simply to Keith's attitude toward Cantrell and why he'd choose to present it as such - some others have twisted this into making me the issue with veiled accusations (addicted) and outright stupidity (LeonidP accusing me of harboring a vendetta for 30 years) - so if what you say is true ("Your coming across to many of us as..." ) then I'm curious how people like addicted and leonidP are coming across to you as, as well. I think what they have done is far more egregious than anything I've done here - what they've done is akin to slander.
--and as for the signed book comment you made - you know what?- I submitted an honest entry that I still stand by - the fact that addicted threw it back at me publicly in this thread as if I was not able to write a sincere entry while still asking an objective question about Keith Richards - then passionately defending my point of view - well, I think that tells you all you need to know about the "rules."
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-05 02:33 by hbwriter.
oh--and busted -i was thinking - sorry to get pulled back in - but ya got me thinking - because I think you've had some some fine posts in this thread - no, the conversation the way you suggest is silly and i know you intended it that way- I imagine something far more subtle - look at it like this --that is one of just a handful of passages Marlon actually wrote - which gives it real weight - there had to have been at least a little back and forth on it
in it Marlon says - ""I remember the date, July 20,1979, vividly, because it was the tenth anniversary of the moon landing."
Detail like this from a nine year old?? That doesn't seem a little bit odd to you?
There is so much about his recollection that seems unbelievable, that I seriously question how it was put together--Perhaps J. Fox wove it into something that fit the narrative - I don't know- but I do think it is orchestrated - it defies reason on several key levels - did anyone challenge it or look to corroborate it - you're accusing a dead teen of making constant death threats - if you can't back that up, editorially, I'd keep it out.
But however it happened, obviously it was editorially decided that in the Keith/Marlon version, that Scott Cantrell was an "absolute prick" who made loads of death threats that nobody but Marlon heard. You can buy that if you'd like - I don't - but who cares? My original post had nothing to do with that - it was in answer simply to Keith's attitude toward Cantrell and why he'd choose to present it as such - some others have twisted this into making me the issue with veiled accusations (addicted) and outright stupidity (LeonidP accusing me of harboring a vendetta for 30 years) - so if what you say is true ("Your coming across to many of us as..." ) then I'm curious how people like addicted and leonidP are coming across to you as, as well. I think what they have done is far more egregious than anything I've done here - what they've done is akin to slander.
--and as for the signed book comment you made - you know what?- I submitted an honest entry that I still stand by - the fact that addicted threw it back at me publicly in this thread as if I was not able to write a sincere entry while still asking an objective question about Keith Richards - then passionately defending my point of view - well, I think that tells you all you need to know about the "rules."
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-05 02:33 by hbwriter.
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
sweetcharmedlife
()
Date: December 5, 2010 03:27
I'll touch that 3rd rail. Lighten up Addicted.Quote
hbwriter
just curious--any comment on addicted's post?
Respectfully
Ce
"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-05 03:58 by sweetcharmedlife.
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
hbwriter
()
Date: December 5, 2010 03:47
Quote
sweetcharmedlifeLOL,finally common ground...We do have a way of beating things into the ground around here.Quote
hbwriter
sweet--it may shock you - I'D rather watch this than read this thread anymore
that's okay, man - and yeah, finally common ground - very cool
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: December 5, 2010 04:23
Quote
hbwriter
... one of just a handful of passages Marlon actually wrote - which gives it real weight - there had to have been at least a little back and forth on it
in it Marlon says - ""I remember the date, July 20,1979, vividly, because it was the tenth anniversary of the moon landing."
Detail like this from a nine year old?? That doesn't seem a little bit odd to you?
Don't want to really get into another back-and-forth (since it's obvious neither side is budging), but you are leaving out the part about why he remembers this date -- because he was watching a special on the tenth anniversary of the moon landing on TV when he heard the shot. Probably you innocently left that detail out ... surely you wouldn't misrepresent the facts to sway others in any way.
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
hbwriter
()
Date: December 5, 2010 04:53
Quote
LeonidPQuote
hbwriter
... one of just a handful of passages Marlon actually wrote - which gives it real weight - there had to have been at least a little back and forth on it
in it Marlon says - ""I remember the date, July 20,1979, vividly, because it was the tenth anniversary of the moon landing."
Detail like this from a nine year old?? That doesn't seem a little bit odd to you?
Don't want to really get into another back-and-forth (since it's obvious neither side is budging), but you are leaving out the part about why he remembers this date -- because he was watching a special on the tenth anniversary of the moon landing on TV when he heard the shot. Probably you innocently left that detail out ... surely you wouldn't misrepresent the facts to sway others in any way.
Since you referred to it, here ya go -
"I remember the date, July 20,1979, vividly, because it was the tenth anniversary of the moon landing. I remember he was only around for a few months, but Anita was being very self-destructive. This was the time Keith was off with Lil, so Anita was like, right, I'm gonna show him, get her own back so to speak. So she flaunted him quite blatantly; Keith met him, actually. I was watching the anniversary of the lunar landings and I heard one pop."
He doesn't say he remembers the date because of a TV show he was watching - he says he remembers it *vividly* BECAUSE (my emphasis) it was the 10th anniversary* -
that seems like TOTAL BS to me - that's not why he would remember it - and it is a very deliberate statement and so the whole story gets suspicious - also - (I feel like Felix Unger playing lawyer in a g'damnned Odd Couple episode)
--look how Marlon's version of Anita flaunting Scott to tick Keith off - hey, how weird, that's EXACTLY Keith's version too! So this 9 year old with the amazing memory also had a bead on his mother's motivation to tempt Keith? And it totally corresponds with Dad's? And he's aware back then of his father's affair with Lil? SO - let's say that really happened--maybe Marlon was that smart - but if both he and Keith believed she was doing that to this unsuspecting kid -
THEN WHY BASH HIM THIS HEARTLESS MANNER- why not simply pity him since they both thought (or claim to think) he was a pawn?
Do you start to see my point that I think this attitude toward Cantrell is concocted - or at least highly suspect? And that I base that on THEIR words - not MY feelings?
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-05 05:08 by hbwriter.
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
hbwriter
()
Date: December 5, 2010 04:53
(deleted double post)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-05 04:54 by hbwriter.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-05 04:54 by hbwriter.
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: December 5, 2010 05:07
Quote
hbwriterQuote
LeonidPQuote
hbwriter
... one of just a handful of passages Marlon actually wrote - which gives it real weight - there had to have been at least a little back and forth on it
in it Marlon says - ""I remember the date, July 20,1979, vividly, because it was the tenth anniversary of the moon landing."
Detail like this from a nine year old?? That doesn't seem a little bit odd to you?
Don't want to really get into another back-and-forth (since it's obvious neither side is budging), but you are leaving out the part about why he remembers this date -- because he was watching a special on the tenth anniversary of the moon landing on TV when he heard the shot. Probably you innocently left that detail out ... surely you wouldn't misrepresent the facts to sway others in any way.
Since you referred to it, here ya go -
"I remember the date, July 20,1979, vividly, because it was the tenth anniversary of the moon landing. I remember he was only around for a few months, but Anita was being very self-destructive. This was the time Keith was off with Lil, so Anita was like, right, I'm gonna show him, get her own back so to speak. So she flaunted him quite blatantly; Keith met him, actually. I was watching the anniversary of the lunar landings and I heard one pop."
He doesn't say he remembers the date because of a TV show he was watching - he says he remembers it *vividly BECAUSE (my emphasis) it was the 10th anniversary* -
that seems like TOTAL BS to me - and so the whole story gets suspicious - also - (I feel like Felix Unger playing lawyer in a g'damnned Odd Couple episode)
--look how Marlon's version of Anita flaunting Scott to tick Keith off - hey, how weird, that's Keith's version too! So this 9 year old with the amazing memory also had a bead on his mother's motivation to tempt Keith? And it totally corresponds with Dad's. SO - let's say that really happened--maybe Marlon was that smart - if both he and Keith believed she was doing that to this unsuspecting kid -
THEN WHY BASH HIM THIS HEARTLESS MANNER- why not simply pity him since they both thought (or claim to think) he was a pawn?
Do you start to see my point that I think this attitude toward Cantrell is concocted - and that I base that on their words - not my feelings?
Yes, he remembers it because of the tv show! Jesus Christ, does he actually have to write "I wouldn't normally have remembered the date but there was a tv special on at the time". Some things are pretty obvious, unless of course someone is refusing to see them. He states he remembers the date because of the moon landing anniversary ... then later states he was watching a program on it. Some things aren't that hard to put together. Either way, it was convenient how you left out the part about him watching the program when trying to convey your astonishment at him remembering the date.
And you keep saying they concocted the story, without considering the fact that it seems so absurd for them to even care enough to do such a thing. How did this come to be? Keith decided to call him a prick ... then considered "wait, the reader is gonna see this and think lesser of me (like he really cares that much), so let me get Marlon to give his take on this ... oh and while we're at it, let me tell Marlon to make up stuff ... oh and wait, let's also make up that Marlon remembered the date due to the moon landing -- let's take out the part that he watched a program on tv to remember that so it seems like he's so smart ... nah, better leave it in so it seems more realistic ... still, Marlon really admired this boy when he was younger but I'm sure he won't mind making shit up to make him look bad now ... why don't we throw in that this kid ass-raped him, that will really help our story ... damn this part got edited out of the book, oh well".
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
hbwriter
()
Date: December 5, 2010 05:30
Leonid-let's stop the exchanges on this because you clearly do not get the points I am attempting to make - why not? Well, anyone who can say with a straight face - "The more I read about him, the more I love it! Keith called a kid that killed himself a 'prick' ... for some reason it doesn't bother me in the least."
as you did earlier in this thread- I'm sorry - you're not exactly a model of objectivity based on that quote - (which you continued to support after I asked if you were serious).
To the rest of you - I'm sure I've inspired plenty of groans and eye-rolling with this one, but I'll take 'em - I think this point was/is important because of how bizarre I found Keith's comments on Cantrell to be.
I'll leave you with this - for what it's worth - as it might help explain my frustration. I'm a non fiction writer - it's how I make my living - through books and articles. I live in world with fact checkers and editors that, thankfully, ride a writer's ass to make sure the story is right. That chronology matches. That slander is avoided. That facts add up. That sources are provided.
So when I see things like this, generally, I'm curious. How did that get through? WHY did that get through? Had I never met Cantrell, and if he didn't seem like a good guy, would i have jumped to protect his name? Impossible to say - but I have a 17 year old son myself - and as big a stones freak as i am - I still want to believe I would have been almost as equally offended by that line - because this is the Richards machine/family against some gullible kid who, in my opinion, got wasted in their buzzsaw.
This thread has exposed a few other things though that really make me wonder on LIFE now - the Muddy Waters story. The fact that Keith's chronology varies often with Bill German's - and I'd trust Bill's in the blink of an eye. That Keith's Gram Parsons history doesn't come close to aligning with David Meyer's excellent "Twenty Thousand Roads" - look, I think there's some wonderful story telling in LIFE - there's also doses of rich guy/tough guy hyperbolic swagger b.s.- but the more you look, the more it seems like it may be incredibly sloppy and loose - which perhaps befits the style of Keith Richards - isn't that why we love him in the first place? Or maybe he just bullied this stuff through - "his way or the high way" - I'm nobody special so i could never get away with that as a writer - but an editor friend of mine who works the celeb beat says fear can play a big part with big ego - and so basic rules are oft overlooked for the sake of a star.
Anyway, I respect the non fiction process so much that I guess these things (especially the Waters story!) really bug me. Now, Keith may really believe that - but a good editor might say "Keith, you believe the Muddy Waters story - but so many others don't - and it can sort of be debunked- so let's just leave it out, okay mate?--doesn't mean it didn't happen- but you invoke Wyman on it and even he denies it!"
And risk getting a knife at the throat, right ?
Or getting called an "absolute prick" after killing yourself with Keith's gun in Keith's bed next to Keith's wife - who is twenty years more than your 17.
good night
sleep tight
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-05 06:56 by hbwriter.
as you did earlier in this thread- I'm sorry - you're not exactly a model of objectivity based on that quote - (which you continued to support after I asked if you were serious).
To the rest of you - I'm sure I've inspired plenty of groans and eye-rolling with this one, but I'll take 'em - I think this point was/is important because of how bizarre I found Keith's comments on Cantrell to be.
I'll leave you with this - for what it's worth - as it might help explain my frustration. I'm a non fiction writer - it's how I make my living - through books and articles. I live in world with fact checkers and editors that, thankfully, ride a writer's ass to make sure the story is right. That chronology matches. That slander is avoided. That facts add up. That sources are provided.
So when I see things like this, generally, I'm curious. How did that get through? WHY did that get through? Had I never met Cantrell, and if he didn't seem like a good guy, would i have jumped to protect his name? Impossible to say - but I have a 17 year old son myself - and as big a stones freak as i am - I still want to believe I would have been almost as equally offended by that line - because this is the Richards machine/family against some gullible kid who, in my opinion, got wasted in their buzzsaw.
This thread has exposed a few other things though that really make me wonder on LIFE now - the Muddy Waters story. The fact that Keith's chronology varies often with Bill German's - and I'd trust Bill's in the blink of an eye. That Keith's Gram Parsons history doesn't come close to aligning with David Meyer's excellent "Twenty Thousand Roads" - look, I think there's some wonderful story telling in LIFE - there's also doses of rich guy/tough guy hyperbolic swagger b.s.- but the more you look, the more it seems like it may be incredibly sloppy and loose - which perhaps befits the style of Keith Richards - isn't that why we love him in the first place? Or maybe he just bullied this stuff through - "his way or the high way" - I'm nobody special so i could never get away with that as a writer - but an editor friend of mine who works the celeb beat says fear can play a big part with big ego - and so basic rules are oft overlooked for the sake of a star.
Anyway, I respect the non fiction process so much that I guess these things (especially the Waters story!) really bug me. Now, Keith may really believe that - but a good editor might say "Keith, you believe the Muddy Waters story - but so many others don't - and it can sort of be debunked- so let's just leave it out, okay mate?--doesn't mean it didn't happen- but you invoke Wyman on it and even he denies it!"
And risk getting a knife at the throat, right ?
Or getting called an "absolute prick" after killing yourself with Keith's gun in Keith's bed next to Keith's wife - who is twenty years more than your 17.
good night
sleep tight
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-05 06:56 by hbwriter.
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: December 5, 2010 05:41
Ok, let's stop as you're clearly not getting the points I am also attempting to make -- and failing to comprehend that I actually don't think you even know the point you are trying to make yourself (one more try maybe ... they are in cahoots, concocting a story about something absurd and with nothing to gain from doing so).Quote
hbwriter
Leonid-let's stop the exchanges on this because you clearly do not get the points I am attempting to make
Quote
- why not? Well, anyone who can say with a straight face - "The more I read about him, the more I love it! Keith called a kid that killed himself a 'prick' ... for some reason it doesn't bother me in the least."
as you did earlier in this thread- I'm sorry - you're not exactly a model of objectivity based on that quote - (which you continued to support after I asked if you were serious).
Actually I think it makes me much more objective, but I can see how you wouldn't be able to realize this (considering how taken aback you are from such a comment, it must make you somewhat biased).
Quote
To the rest of you - I'm sure I've inspired plenty of groans and eye-rolling with this one, but I'll take 'em - I think this point was/is important because of how bizarre I found Keith's comments on Cantrell to be.
Again, wow! I am still not getting how you find this so bizarre. But you didn't address this part to me, so sorry!
Re: Scott Cantrell - Just a Shot Away
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: December 5, 2010 09:37
HB, I am going to try to address this so you understand.
Keith is not a writer. James Fox is the writer, hired to put Keith's verbal recollections in print. Keith is an autocratic alcoholic who had ultimate say in what goes into the book. Neither Fox nor the editor would have been able to override him. Having seen so many of Keith's interviews, where he was often drunk or stoned, it is not hard to imagine him telling this story, very likely drinking while he told it.
Everything comes down to perspective, point of view. From Keith's point of view, Scott Cantrell was not some tragic innocent who got caught up with the corrupt Anita and lost his life. He was a bold young man who humiliated Keith by publicly having an affair with Keith's common law wife. Maybe she rubbed his nose in it, telling him what a great stud he was. If you read Charone's bio, you can see how Anita taunted Keith sexually.
When I was young, I was taught the difference between 'indoor thoughts' which are not expressed out loud, and 'outdoor thoughts', what we say to others. Keith, for whatever reason..maybe he really thinks he can say whatever he pleases, maybe he was drunk, who knows..has included many 'indoor thoughts' in his memoirs. And even if, unlike Keith, I do see the tragic side of this and feel sympathy for Scott Cantrell and his family, I have no trouble seeing why Keith might not. If my husband was so unwise as to have an affair and his mistress came to a bad end, I seriously doubt I would shed too many tears.
Keith is not a writer. James Fox is the writer, hired to put Keith's verbal recollections in print. Keith is an autocratic alcoholic who had ultimate say in what goes into the book. Neither Fox nor the editor would have been able to override him. Having seen so many of Keith's interviews, where he was often drunk or stoned, it is not hard to imagine him telling this story, very likely drinking while he told it.
Everything comes down to perspective, point of view. From Keith's point of view, Scott Cantrell was not some tragic innocent who got caught up with the corrupt Anita and lost his life. He was a bold young man who humiliated Keith by publicly having an affair with Keith's common law wife. Maybe she rubbed his nose in it, telling him what a great stud he was. If you read Charone's bio, you can see how Anita taunted Keith sexually.
When I was young, I was taught the difference between 'indoor thoughts' which are not expressed out loud, and 'outdoor thoughts', what we say to others. Keith, for whatever reason..maybe he really thinks he can say whatever he pleases, maybe he was drunk, who knows..has included many 'indoor thoughts' in his memoirs. And even if, unlike Keith, I do see the tragic side of this and feel sympathy for Scott Cantrell and his family, I have no trouble seeing why Keith might not. If my husband was so unwise as to have an affair and his mistress came to a bad end, I seriously doubt I would shed too many tears.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
BeastyBurdeny , damerefugio , llsbsk , ManuelStones , Purplevienna1 , RollingStonesFan , Slop , snarf2014
Guests:
1597
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10