Quote
NWSooner

Quote
Nate
Evolution has been proven by science and it is science that searches and finds answers.
When I say I do not need to provide evidence and you should I am obviously referring to your statement saying that a creator exists.
If I claim to know that fairies and unicorns exist and then I challenge someone to disprove my theory then I would be considered to be mentally ill and rightfully so.
It is science that put man on the moon it is science that discovers new medical advances and it is science that will give us answers to many questions ahead.
When you have the head of the Catholic Church saying as he did that aids is bad but condoms are worse then that is evil.
I am not at all surprised when you say on this thread that it was Christian faith that helped Keith Richards kick his drug abuse habit because the religious love to hijack someone doing a good thing and claim it as the work of god but when something terrible happens for example a child with a terminal illness then we hear statements from the religious that say things like god works in mysterious ways and the child will have better luck in the afterlife.

You can not take religion a la carte

I would be happy to bump into you at a Stones gig and buy you a drink too.

Nate

Nate, one final point I'd like to make, you are certainly aware that there are plenty of well educated and respected scientists that don't believe science proves evolution, in fact quite the contrary, right? Believe me I know plenty of people and consider them friends that take a similar position as yours so I get it. Secondly, I'm a Presbyterian and generally speaking disagree with most everything coming out of the Roman Catholic Church, especially these days.

Lastly, I've only seen the boys 13 times, hopefully they make one more trip to the Pacific Northwest before they quit or pass on or perhaps Vegas, seen them twice there already, would be cool to meet and talk about things on which we agree, like our love for The Stones. You ever been to Portland/Seattle?

NWSooner

Quote
Redhotcarpet
He mainlined as well but mainly skinpopping.

Are those marks on his leg? He did inject between his toes. And there are some pic(s) of him with needle mark on a vein (arm). How did he get clean? Methadone in order too get and stay clean for the 1981 tour. He was the new Keith by 1981. It shows.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Looking at this picture, Keith's what, 37 years old and ravaged, just brings to mind what a miracle it is that Keith is still with us.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Various sources including his memoirs, Bockris, some interview from 1980 etc. The official story wasnt 1977 but 1978 with the black box. He did it in steps i guess. Starting with at least a serious attempt at Micks house in 1978. Users seldom just give up heroin. I bet the real kick in the arse was Mick having enough of Keiths habit and his partly new energy and ego from gradually quitting smack for good in 1979/1980. In some interviews like the famous bearded Mick from 1980 he sure seems to be on smack. He is a completely new person by 1981. And noone here knows how hard that relapse or dabble in 1997 was but i would think it was a little more than just a taste. "Just a taste" is almost never true. I dont know what Bockris knew but i guess he thinks it was a bit more than a sniff. I had a theory based on his appearence in 1997 but that was just a theory based on his admitted taste. I think he is more or less bound by contract to only talk about really hard drugs in his past and always portray himself as the survivour. PR.

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Various sources including his memoirs, Bockris, some interview from 1980 etc. The official story wasnt 1977 but 1978 with the black box. He did it in steps i guess. Starting with at least a serious attempt at Micks house in 1978. Users seldom just give up heroin. I bet the real kick in the arse was Mick having enough of Keiths habit and his partly new energy and ego from gradually quitting smack for good in 1979/1980. In some interviews like the famous bearded Mick from 1980 he sure seems to be on smack. He is a completely new person by 1981. And noone here knows how hard that relapse or dabble in 1997 was but i would think it was a little more than just a taste. "Just a taste" is almost never true. I dont know what Bockris knew but i guess he thinks it was a bit more than a sniff. I had a theory based on his appearence in 1997 but that was just a theory based on his admitted taste. I think he is more or less bound by contract to only talk about really hard drugs in his past and always portray himself as the survivour. PR.

Thanks for the info Redhotcarpet. Its fascinating isn't it, like you said, he only gave up Heroin, he still did Coke up to 06' and to this day he still drinks like a fish on and off. When he had the head injury and his life was in the balance, all i could think was damn if he dies from an accident we will never know if he got away with all his consumption. I know he hit the bottle bad in 07' it was clear to see, and thank god he got over his personal problems and Patti recovered brilliantly.
I read once that he had a near lethal bout of alcoholism around about 1980 but to this day i have never heard anything else about it, think that might have been in the Victor Bockris book, not sure.
The most chilling cryptic message from Keith was this story in Life when Mick was supposed to get hold of some coke for him and Keith just after Keith got clean from heroin in 78' 79' . Well Mick turns up with heroin because he can't get hold of any coke, so Keith goes like well that's no good to me is it. Humm.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Various sources including his memoirs, Bockris, some interview from 1980 etc. The official story wasnt 1977 but 1978 with the black box. He did it in steps i guess. Starting with at least a serious attempt at Micks house in 1978. Users seldom just give up heroin. I bet the real kick in the arse was Mick having enough of Keiths habit and his partly new energy and ego from gradually quitting smack for good in 1979/1980. In some interviews like the famous bearded Mick from 1980 he sure seems to be on smack. He is a completely new person by 1981. And noone here knows how hard that relapse or dabble in 1997 was but i would think it was a little more than just a taste. "Just a taste" is almost never true. I dont know what Bockris knew but i guess he thinks it was a bit more than a sniff. I had a theory based on his appearence in 1997 but that was just a theory based on his admitted taste. I think he is more or less bound by contract to only talk about really hard drugs in his past and always portray himself as the survivour. PR.

Thanks for the info Redhotcarpet. Its fascinating isn't it, like you said, he only gave up Heroin, he still did Coke up to 06' and to this day he still drinks like a fish on and off. When he had the head injury and his life was in the balance, all i could think was damn if he dies from an accident we will never know if he got away with all his consumption. I know he hit the bottle bad in 07' it was clear to see, and thank god he got over his personal problems and Patti recovered brilliantly.
I read once that he had a near lethal bout of alcoholism around about 1980 but to this day i have never heard anything else about it, think that might have been in the Victor Bockris book, not sure.
The most chilling cryptic message from Keith was this story in Life when Mick was supposed to get hold of some coke for him and Keith just after Keith got clean from heroin in 78' 79' . Well Mick turns up with heroin because he can't get hold of any coke, so Keith goes like well that's no good to me is it. Humm.

That heroin deal happened in 1980...

Quote
wonderboy
The story, according to Keith, is that Mick was supposed buy coke but really bought heroin. Sounds far-fetched on many levels.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Mick accidently bought heroin for them both when he was trying to buy coke. Keith tried the heroin.

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
wonderboy
The story, according to Keith, is that Mick was supposed buy coke but really bought heroin. Sounds far-fetched on many levels.

Why on earth would he make something up like that.

Quote
Bliss
The nose and ears grow throughout life, nothing to do with lifestyle, although drinkers are prone to rosacea, which can enlarge and redden the nose, eg, W C Fields.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/keith-richards-saved-charlie-watts-from-heroin-addiction/

Charlie says he used in 1977 but he was hooked in mid 80s. He looks pretty wasted on some pics from 1977/78.

Quote
jlowe
What gives?
Just don't take statements too literally. People have selective (and poor) memories at times.
Especially if they have 'done drugs'.

Quote
stonehearted
Bukowski aged himself well ahead of his time, but he looks smooth-skinned and healthy compared with this man, who, about the same age as when Bukowski died, looks like something out of J.J.Tolkien: