Quote
Dreamer

Quote
Bliss

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
DandelionPowderman
@ proudmary:

That's why merely spreading unsubstantial rumours is not appropriate, shortly after someone died, imo.

I can't fathom that people think otherwise, but I'm gonna have to accept that, obviously - since it looks like the majority on IORR agree with this appraoch...

I don't know...proud or not, mary has essentially convinced me this is all Keith's fault...

Keith had a problem with Bianca and Jerry too.

Every once in a while Keith's biggest problem is Keith.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
Bliss

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
DandelionPowderman
@ proudmary:

That's why merely spreading unsubstantial rumours is not appropriate, shortly after someone died, imo.

I can't fathom that people think otherwise, but I'm gonna have to accept that, obviously - since it looks like the majority on IORR agree with this appraoch...

I don't know...proud or not, mary has essentially convinced me this is all Keith's fault...

Keith had a problem with Bianca and Jerry too.

Every once in a while Keith's biggest problem is Keith.

Ultimately in life, we're all our own worst enemy.

I'm still trying hard to figure out how to avoid that eventuality.

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
Bliss

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
DandelionPowderman
@ proudmary:

That's why merely spreading unsubstantial rumours is not appropriate, shortly after someone died, imo.

I can't fathom that people think otherwise, but I'm gonna have to accept that, obviously - since it looks like the majority on IORR agree with this appraoch...

I don't know...proud or not, mary has essentially convinced me this is all Keith's fault...

Keith had a problem with Bianca and Jerry too.

Every once in a while Keith's biggest problem is Keith.

Ultimately in life, we're all our own worst enemy.

I'm still trying hard to figure out how to avoid that eventuality.

Try a split personality and blame treaclefingers2!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
Bliss

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
DandelionPowderman
@ proudmary:

That's why merely spreading unsubstantial rumours is not appropriate, shortly after someone died, imo.

I can't fathom that people think otherwise, but I'm gonna have to accept that, obviously - since it looks like the majority on IORR agree with this appraoch...

I don't know...proud or not, mary has essentially convinced me this is all Keith's fault...

Keith had a problem with Bianca and Jerry too.

Every once in a while Keith's biggest problem is Keith.

Ultimately in life, we're all our own worst enemy.

I'm still trying hard to figure out how to avoid that eventuality.

Try a split personality and blame treaclefingers2!

I already have that issue...what you're suggesting is bisecting again, which would give you treaclefingers 3 and 4.

I think there could be some issues with that.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's getting sticky here...

Quote
Rokyfan
Stop the PR bullshit and give us the truth.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
paulm
Guys, I'm acknowledging criticism here, in saying I'm sorry for trying to interpret this tragedy. I got caught up in reading too much, and in trying to make sense out of something that is beyond understanding.

Thanks very much for saying this.

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
Rokyfan
Kill the messenger

I agree.
I don't mind if paulm is banned for suggestions like this "but I also think some of the wording is legal-ese, as in damage control, as in preventive measure to deflect potential civil suits. Before I get flamed, step outside the emotional and consider the implications: this is big business." in a place and at a time like this it's not about our opinions but about the decency to step back.

When someone died like this it's not about free speech or something. There is lots of personal grief and shock and even more just because of publications like this. People who insist that the RS are public property, even when a close friend or relative dies in the most shocking circumstances are bullying, not the other people who react to that by saying 'get out of here!' or 'shut up.'

It's more than tasteless to speculate about why LS has taken her life, about the relationship she had with MJ, about everything actually; people who are doing that just with the argument of freedom of speech are wrongfully using it and are intruders of the worst kind.

No you don't agree.

The phrase "kill the messenger" is sarcastic -- it means you don't like what the messenger is saying but instead of responding to the argument, you kill the messenger.

That's the tone of a lot of these messages, including yours. "We don't want to think that Mick left his long time lover before she killed herself so we sill castigate people who point it out."

You have the right to think something is tasteless, I just think it is silly to complain about people making what you see as tasteless comment on the internet. Tasteless is allowed.

Above all I am fan of Lennon: Gimme some Truth. The truth has a value all its own. It is good for the truth to be told and bad when things are covered up. That's my view. Stop the PR bullshit and give us the truth.

(the phrase apparently comes from an ancient practice -- when a messenger arrived with bad news, the messenger was killed. Today we call it banning [metaphorically]).

You call for banning someone is the MOST offensive and tasteless thing (to me) I have read on this thread.

Thanks for explaining, professor Sarcasm, however you missed something...

"...responding to the argument..."
When michaelsavage in reaction to some poster in this thread wrote:
"Yes, poor Mick needs to think about himself, not the tour", CindyC gave a 4 word reaction "You make me sick."

michaelsavage was giving an argument, CindyC wasn't.

Another post of CindyC was full of suggestions, speculation and not very well hidden accusations. Some quotes: "I do feel badly for Mick, but at the same time I'm thinking that this is his second girlfriend who attempted suicide (with one unfortunately succeeding).

I think having one partner attempting suicide would be cause to change my actions. Now again, completely speculating here, but I don't think he ever did after Marianne's attempt. He has always been "I'm Mick Jagger and I can do what I want, proceed at your own risk". I just don't think that's the way you should treat someone you care about. Especially if that person is obviously fragile.

L'wren did seem to be a strong woman, but Mick will ALWAYS have the upper-hand in the relationship. He is Mick Jagger after all. She may have started out thinking she could handle that and his dalliances, but it's got to wear you down after a while.

When your messages don't have one single argument but are just full of that kind of speculation and offensive and gossip-like suggestions you're not a "messenger".
So spare me your drama queen lyrics about "pr bullshit" and how you want "the truth"; go fight your freedom of speech war where it's necessary (and I will support you).

And since you say "Tasteless is allowed" and "You call for banning someone is the MOST offensive and tasteless thing (to me) I have read on this thread." I will seriously think about doing something you allow me to do, thank you!

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
Rokyfan
Kill the messenger

I agree.
I don't mind if paulm is banned for suggestions like this "but I also think some of the wording is legal-ese, as in damage control, as in preventive measure to deflect potential civil suits. Before I get flamed, step outside the emotional and consider the implications: this is big business." in a place and at a time like this it's not about our opinions but about the decency to step back.

When someone died like this it's not about free speech or something. There is lots of personal grief and shock and even more just because of publications like this. People who insist that the RS are public property, even when a close friend or relative dies in the most shocking circumstances are bullying, not the other people who react to that by saying 'get out of here!' or 'shut up.'

It's more than tasteless to speculate about why LS has taken her life, about the relationship she had with MJ, about everything actually; people who are doing that just with the argument of freedom of speech are wrongfully using it and are intruders of the worst kind.

No you don't agree.

The phrase "kill the messenger" is sarcastic -- it means you don't like what the messenger is saying but instead of responding to the argument, you kill the messenger.

That's the tone of a lot of these messages, including yours. "We don't want to think that Mick left his long time lover before she killed herself so we sill castigate people who point it out."

You have the right to think something is tasteless, I just think it is silly to complain about people making what you see as tasteless comment on the internet. Tasteless is allowed.

Above all I am fan of Lennon: Gimme some Truth. The truth has a value all its own. It is good for the truth to be told and bad when things are covered up. That's my view. Stop the PR bullshit and give us the truth.

(the phrase apparently comes from an ancient practice -- when a messenger arrived with bad news, the messenger was killed. Today we call it banning [metaphorically]).

You call for banning someone is the MOST offensive and tasteless thing (to me) I have read on this thread.

Thanks for explaining, professor Sarcasm, however you missed something...

"...responding to the argument..."
When michaelsavage in reaction to some poster in this thread wrote:
"Yes, poor Mick needs to think about himself, not the tour", CindyC gave a 4 word reaction "You make me sick."

michaelsavage was giving an argument, CindyC wasn't.

Another post of CindyC was full of suggestions, speculation and not very well hidden accusations. Some quotes: "I do feel badly for Mick, but at the same time I'm thinking that this is his second girlfriend who attempted suicide (with one unfortunately succeeding).

I think having one partner attempting suicide would be cause to change my actions. Now again, completely speculating here, but I don't think he ever did after Marianne's attempt. He has always been "I'm Mick Jagger and I can do what I want, proceed at your own risk". I just don't think that's the way you should treat someone you care about. Especially if that person is obviously fragile.

L'wren did seem to be a strong woman, but Mick will ALWAYS have the upper-hand in the relationship. He is Mick Jagger after all. She may have started out thinking she could handle that and his dalliances, but it's got to wear you down after a while.

When your messages don't have one single argument but are just full of that kind of speculation and offensive and gossip-like suggestions you're not a "messenger".
So spare me your drama queen lyrics about "pr bullshit" and how you want "the truth"; go fight your freedom of speech war where it's necessary (and I will support you).

And since you say "Tasteless is allowed" and "You call for banning someone is the MOST offensive and tasteless thing (to me) I have read on this thread." I will seriously think about doing something you allow me to do, thank you!

What those people are doing is repeating here what has been reported elsewhere. I understand that people think the NY Post, for example, is a rag, whatever, but what is being written about Mick or the Stones in the press is a valid topic here. People that respond by casting doubt on the source, saying they don't believe it and why, whatever, I get. People that say that those topics should not be discussed here I don't get. It is what is being written about the Rolling Stones so it should be discussed here (with the one proviso that it is BV's board and he, and only he, is entitled to decide that something is off limits, which he has obviously not done with respect to this topic).

The truth is an offense. Some wise man once said that

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
andrewt

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
andrewt

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Stop the witch-hunting and attempts to purge people who are not falling in line with the prescribed groupthink.>

It was never a question about that, that's hilarious.

If someone you knew died, and I sent you an e-mail minutes after that, saying that you pulled the plug - and that I don't feel any pity for you - would you thank me for "thinking out of the box"?

Christ!

Who sent an e-mail to Mick? That's reductio ad absurdum.
If someone got too caught up in things and made a foolish comment without thinking it through, I suggest letting them know and guiding them back to reason in a spirit of friendliness and co-operation.
Banning a long time contributor over something like that is also an emotional overreaction.

Talking about reduction ad absurdum...you had a pretty good one yerself:

<Stop the witch-hunting and attempts to purge people who are not falling in line with the prescribed groupthink.>

I think pretty much everyone is dismayed at the banning, but what the hell has that got to do with Dandelion, or the price of tea in China?

Stay on topic Andrew.

Hooray, the system works! Duly noted, treacle.

I started celebrating but caught myself...damn, you were being sarcastic!

Quote
andrewt

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
andrewt

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
andrewt

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Stop the witch-hunting and attempts to purge people who are not falling in line with the prescribed groupthink.>

It was never a question about that, that's hilarious.

If someone you knew died, and I sent you an e-mail minutes after that, saying that you pulled the plug - and that I don't feel any pity for you - would you thank me for "thinking out of the box"?

Christ!

Who sent an e-mail to Mick? That's reductio ad absurdum.
If someone got too caught up in things and made a foolish comment without thinking it through, I suggest letting them know and guiding them back to reason in a spirit of friendliness and co-operation.
Banning a long time contributor over something like that is also an emotional overreaction.

Talking about reduction ad absurdum...you had a pretty good one yerself:

<Stop the witch-hunting and attempts to purge people who are not falling in line with the prescribed groupthink.>

I think pretty much everyone is dismayed at the banning, but what the hell has that got to do with Dandelion, or the price of tea in China?

Stay on topic Andrew.

Hooray, the system works! Duly noted, treacle.

I started celebrating but caught myself...damn, you were being sarcastic!

First part was tongue in cheek. Second part was sincere.

Quote
tumbled
That is a very good poem you wrote on page 27 DoomandGlooom

Quote
Bliss

Quote
proudmary

Quote
StonedInTokyo

Quote
Bliss
Ok. What's bothering me is that this smells like a PR spin to deflect attention away from the truth. Out of seven long term r'ships that we know of, three of the women have made serious suicide attempts, one successfully. Now perhaps all these women were unstable to begin with. Or perhaps not.

Postponing a massive tour to fly half-way around the world to attend to this unfortunate matter and mourn her loss is not a PR-spin. Regardless of what you may think of him, it is wholly inappropriate to make judgmental pronouncements on Mick's relationship with L'Wren, particularly at this time.

I totally agree StonedInTokyo
To Bliss - the relationships are not the life imprisonment.
You do not stay in them for fear that your partner will commit suicide in case of breakup. And we have no evidence to support this theory - Mick's separation from L'Wren - except for tabloid gossip.
However, I find it strange that CindyC with her respectful desire to understand what happened was ostracized and banned while this puritanical finger-pointing does not cause any ill feeling

To PM - I agree completely. Apart from not yielding to L'Wren's reported desire for marriage and family, there is no evidence to suggest that Mick ever treated L'Wren badly. There are reports that he bailed her out financially numerous times. They always looked extremely happy together and it really seemed as if Mick had found contentment at last. It is quite certain that Mick would never have wished her any harm and definitely not this tragic end. But you are correct, a r'ship should not be a prison sentence, and when only one person wants to leave, the other often suffers.

Let us be clear - no one is blaming Mick for L'Wren's death.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
andrewt

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Stop the witch-hunting and attempts to purge people who are not falling in line with the prescribed groupthink.>

It was never a question about that, that's hilarious.

If someone you knew died, and I sent you an e-mail minutes after that, saying that you pulled the plug - and that I don't feel any pity for you - would you thank me for "thinking out of the box"?

Christ!

Who sent an e-mail to Mick? That's reductio ad absurdum.
If someone got too caught up in things and made a foolish comment without thinking it through, let them know, guide them back to reason.
Banning a long time contributor over something like that is also an emotional overreaction.

My point is that people took offense by remarks like that here, MINUTES after L'Wren was reported dead. Guiding them back to reason was exactly what we did.

When they insisted on making such comments - after people said they took offense - a few posters started attacking, and that's not a good thing, imo.

However, you don't need to be Einstein to see that one coming - over and out..

Really? The gossip was posted before Scott died and it was already posted on other forums and blogs. To post this on iorr wasnt allowed and thus she was singled out. When Cindy then started a new thread, to avid being OT on this thread, after Scott died, a bunch of iorrians followed there (WHY one might ask) and started bullying her in that thread. One told her to F--- o--.

I dont belive for a moment these fans are hurt by some rumour, they just see an oppurtunity to get away with collective fanatism.

Cindy was offended and foolishly responded. And got banned.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You're wrong this time, Carpet.

Quote
MKjan

Quote
Bliss

Quote
proudmary

Quote
StonedInTokyo

Quote
Bliss
Ok. What's bothering me is that this smells like a PR spin to deflect attention away from the truth. Out of seven long term r'ships that we know of, three of the women have made serious suicide attempts, one successfully. Now perhaps all these women were unstable to begin with. Or perhaps not.

Postponing a massive tour to fly half-way around the world to attend to this unfortunate matter and mourn her loss is not a PR-spin. Regardless of what you may think of him, it is wholly inappropriate to make judgmental pronouncements on Mick's relationship with L'Wren, particularly at this time.

I totally agree StonedInTokyo
To Bliss - the relationships are not the life imprisonment.
You do not stay in them for fear that your partner will commit suicide in case of breakup. And we have no evidence to support this theory - Mick's separation from L'Wren - except for tabloid gossip.
However, I find it strange that CindyC with her respectful desire to understand what happened was ostracized and banned while this puritanical finger-pointing does not cause any ill feeling

To PM - I agree completely. Apart from not yielding to L'Wren's reported desire for marriage and family, there is no evidence to suggest that Mick ever treated L'Wren badly. There are reports that he bailed her out financially numerous times. They always looked extremely happy together and it really seemed as if Mick had found contentment at last. It is quite certain that Mick would never have wished her any harm and definitely not this tragic end. But you are correct, a r'ship should not be a prison sentence, and when only one person wants to leave, the other often suffers.

Let us be clear - no one is blaming Mick for L'Wren's death.

Are you suggesting MJ treated L'Wren Scott badly by simply not yielding to her wish?
Seems he would be entirely within his rights here, and this would not be seen as mistreatment, but a normal relationship issue. I apologize if I read this wrong.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's very hard to accept that other people think they can dictate what I find offensive, but you're right, latebloomer, I'm outta this thread.

Quote
Bliss

Quote
MKjan

Quote
Bliss

Quote
proudmary

Quote
StonedInTokyo

Quote
Bliss
Ok. What's bothering me is that this smells like a PR spin to deflect attention away from the truth. Out of seven long term r'ships that we know of, three of the women have made serious suicide attempts, one successfully. Now perhaps all these women were unstable to begin with. Or perhaps not.

Postponing a massive tour to fly half-way around the world to attend to this unfortunate matter and mourn her loss is not a PR-spin. Regardless of what you may think of him, it is wholly inappropriate to make judgmental pronouncements on Mick's relationship with L'Wren, particularly at this time.

I totally agree StonedInTokyo
To Bliss - the relationships are not the life imprisonment.
You do not stay in them for fear that your partner will commit suicide in case of breakup. And we have no evidence to support this theory - Mick's separation from L'Wren - except for tabloid gossip.
However, I find it strange that CindyC with her respectful desire to understand what happened was ostracized and banned while this puritanical finger-pointing does not cause any ill feeling

To PM - I agree completely. Apart from not yielding to L'Wren's reported desire for marriage and family, there is no evidence to suggest that Mick ever treated L'Wren badly. There are reports that he bailed her out financially numerous times. They always looked extremely happy together and it really seemed as if Mick had found contentment at last. It is quite certain that Mick would never have wished her any harm and definitely not this tragic end. But you are correct, a r'ship should not be a prison sentence, and when only one person wants to leave, the other often suffers.

Let us be clear - no one is blaming Mick for L'Wren's death.

Are you suggesting MJ treated L'Wren Scott badly by simply not yielding to her wish?
Seems he would be entirely within his rights here, and this would not be seen as mistreatment, but a normal relationship issue. I apologize if I read this wrong.

Not at all. But from the interview with her sister and her former long time maid, it appears she very much wanted marriage and a family. I also read an account of how she and Mick tried to conceive, with no success. By the age of nearly 50, that ship would have sailed, at least as far as having a child. It would have been a great disappointment.