Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous123Next
Current Page: 2 of 3
Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: May 8, 2013 21:56

Quote
GravityBoy
EIIIIAAAAOOOOWW!!!!


smiling smiley

I've been searching for the pic of Keith in the karate fighting pose, but can't find it anywhere.
Anyboduy have it?

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: mnewman505 ()
Date: May 8, 2013 23:16

John Lennon chose to live that way and Paul still does move about without security when not on tour. I think it's stupid, but it's their choice.

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: May 8, 2013 23:23

Quote
GravityBoy
EIIIIAAAAOOOOWW!!!!


Wow, was that seconds before he fell??!

I guess it was Mick's fault...derty bastid!

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: claudine ()
Date: May 8, 2013 23:35

Quote
Hairball
Quote
GravityBoy
EIIIIAAAAOOOOWW!!!!


smiling smiley

I've been searching for the pic of Keith in the karate fighting pose, but can't find it anywhere.
Anyboduy have it?


[www.billwymanarchive.co.uk]

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: May 8, 2013 23:38

Thanks claudine! >grinning smiley<

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: cn854 ()
Date: May 9, 2013 00:34

The photographer didn't knock him down, Jerry Hall did! After she found out that Micky wasn't exactly faithful all those years they were married......

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: May 9, 2013 00:40

Quote
cn854
The photographer didn't knock him down, Jerry Hall did! After she found out that Micky wasn't exactly faithful all those years they were married......

HA! GOOD ONE!

Actually, upon further reflection that was a bit weak.

The effort was appreciated nonetheless.

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: zumabitch ()
Date: May 9, 2013 04:38

The first time I saw these pictures, I might have been pervaded by a feeling of strong indignation, but you are forgetting a crucial detail: white socks are not defendable (maybe on a tennis court). If you see someone wearing white socks, you have the right to take him down

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: nick ()
Date: May 9, 2013 04:48

All these years gone by and the photographer has not been public with it.....

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: U2Stonesfan ()
Date: May 9, 2013 06:16

Quote
claudine
Quote
Hairball
Quote
GravityBoy
EIIIIAAAAOOOOWW!!!!


smiling smiley

I've been searching for the pic of Keith in the karate fighting pose, but can't find it anywhere.
Anyboduy have it?


[www.billwymanarchive.co.uk]


Those are some tough looking karate fighterseye popping smiley

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: GravityBoy ()
Date: May 9, 2013 07:55

Quote
zumabitch
The first time I saw these pictures, I might have been pervaded by a feeling of strong indignation, but you are forgetting a crucial detail: white socks are not defendable (maybe on a tennis court). If you see someone wearing white socks, you have the right to take him down

This is true.

When I was at school, wearing white socks meant you just got laid.

I never got to wear white socks.

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: Max'sKansasCity ()
Date: May 9, 2013 08:03

Look at Mick drinking a Budweiser.... and ya gotta love that Mick smile grinning smiley

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: Max'sKansasCity ()
Date: May 9, 2013 08:06

Quote
GravityBoy
Quote
zumabitch
The first time I saw these pictures, I might have been pervaded by a feeling of strong indignation, but you are forgetting a crucial detail: white socks are not defendable (maybe on a tennis court). If you see someone wearing white socks, you have the right to take him down

This is true.

When I was at school, wearing white socks meant you just got laid.

I never got to wear white socks.

You guys wore/wear black socks with white deck shoes?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-09 08:23 by Max'sKansasCity.

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: onestep ()
Date: May 9, 2013 15:49

Saw these photographs years ago. I think the paparazzi go way to far, and to push Mick down is shit. Mick doesn't get in anyones face anymore, it's just not worth it, a lesson learned. I hope the photographers claim to fame is his work, not the paltry action of pushing Mick Jagger down on the ground.

We all have embarrassing lessons taught to us in our lives, it is just most of us don't have that recorded on film, and that is the unfortunate price that Sir Mick has to pay for his fame. If that is the most embarrassing photograph caught on film after 50 years of being in the limelight, I would say he has done much better than most of us. Cheers to Mick Jagger.

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: Rocky Dijon ()
Date: April 4, 2018 08:00

If I remember right, Mick asked for the film. It may be because his divorce was not yet final or maybe he just didn't want his picture taken, but words were exchanged over whether the photographer would hand over the film and it ended badly. Quite likely for both of them when all was said and done.

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: Leonioid ()
Date: April 4, 2018 08:26

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-04 08:28 by Leonioid.

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: harlem shuffle ()
Date: April 4, 2018 12:03

Keith youre big hero.What could he do hete.Absolutely nothing.More and more stupid comments about Keith here.Some people here have a vet dream about Keith.Keith is for these people Rambo

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: ouroux58 ()
Date: April 4, 2018 12:09

Quote
Turning To Gold
Seems odd that Jerry Hall (?) ditches Mick and is absent in the last photos. Did she go with the photographer, I wonder?

Jerry always goes with the richest, not the strongest, the richest! Muscles are not her priority but bank notes they are!

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: ouroux58 ()
Date: April 4, 2018 12:14

Mick had his 2 hands free but not the paparazzi with all his cameras and he won the the fight. The guy was just stronger than Mick that's all.
Just hope there wasn't dog shit on the ground! smoking smiley

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: triceratops ()
Date: April 4, 2018 13:28

Quote
ouroux58
Quote
Turning To Gold
Seems odd that Jerry Hall (?) ditches Mick and is absent in the last photos. Did she go with the photographer, I wonder?

Jerry always goes with the richest, not the strongest, the richest! Muscles are not her priority but bank notes they are!


"First I look at the purse" --- Sung by J Geils Band

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Date: April 4, 2018 13:30

Didn't this happen in Stockholm in 1987 as well? If memory serves, Jagger had a go at the paparazzi, but was beaten to the ground..

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: Rockman ()
Date: April 4, 2018 13:42





ROCKMAN

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: keefriff99 ()
Date: April 4, 2018 15:37

Last known photo of Mick not wearing sneakers?

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: Rocky Dijon ()
Date: April 4, 2018 16:57

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Didn't this happen in Stockholm in 1987 as well? If memory serves, Jagger had a go at the paparazzi, but was beaten to the ground..

Was that true? I think I remember it reported, but I thought it was dismissed as a tabloid recycling an old story (this one). If I'm remembering right, Mick wasn't even there at the time the incident allegedly occurred. Someone will know. Likely Terry.

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Date: April 4, 2018 17:03

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Didn't this happen in Stockholm in 1987 as well? If memory serves, Jagger had a go at the paparazzi, but was beaten to the ground..

Was that true? I think I remember it reported, but I thought it was dismissed as a tabloid recycling an old story (this one). If I'm remembering right, Mick wasn't even there at the time the incident allegedly occurred. Someone will know. Likely Terry.

He was indeed in Stockholm in 1987 for promo interviews, and there was an incident reported in norwegian papers. Some pictures, too, but not any of Mick on the sidewalk smiling smiley

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: stanlove ()
Date: April 4, 2018 17:29

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
These are from a book of photographs by Daniel Angeli and Jean-Paul Dousset entitled "Private Pictures".



Glass Jaw. The guy at Altamonte put him down also. Story has it that Charlie did too.

Jagger's record is at least 0-4.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-04 17:30 by stanlove.

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: Rocky Dijon ()
Date: April 4, 2018 17:44

At least Mick getting punched at Altamont relieves the tedium of sitting through GIMME SHELTER. Apologies to those who find Melvin Belli phone conversations riveting (though I do chuckle when Melvin admits to not knowing "Mr. Jagger"). Say, stanlove, are you really Stan Love of Beach Boys fame? Perhaps a silly question from someone who posts as Rocky Dijon.

You're right, of course, Bard. Mick was there for a TV appearance for "Let's Work" and "Say You Will" I think. I'd say I'm getting old, but it's simply your mind is sharper than mine. It doesn't help we're the same age.

So, are the photos from 1979 or 1987? I was thinking the former because of Mick and the photographer's clothes, but I look at Jerry and now think the latter is possible.

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Date: April 4, 2018 18:11

I'm pretty sure the photos are from 1979, Bill.

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: LiveAtHidepark ()
Date: April 4, 2018 19:20

These are from a book of photographs by Daniel Angeli and Jean-Paul Dousset entitled "Private Pictures".






Mick Jagger is not perfect (who is perfect ?).

But he is not agressive or a violent person if you don't harass him.

Probably he didn't wanted to be bothered by flashes from that paparazzo in a private moment.

To me, that photographer is an @#$%&.

Re: Jagger vs. Paparazzi. Jagger loses.
Posted by: jlowe ()
Date: April 4, 2018 21:19

No Mick is not aggressive by nature, BUT, if you believe comments on another thread he has had his fair share of drugs which might not be beneficial to his nature at times like this.
Also, according to Keith, Mick can't handle his alcohol very well. Which won't help matters.

Goto Page: Previous123Next
Current Page: 2 of 3


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 1855
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home