Quote
Hairball
Yet somehow you take the moral high ground and insinuate I was comparing Franken to Mick when it was quite clear I was not by stating "and on another note..." unless that part went over your head. Perhaps you owe me an apology?
And for the record, I'm well aware of what irony means, and please don't call me "son" again - it's patronizing, condescending, and flat out rude. Thanks in advance.

I didn't insinuate.
I grabbed your Franken post to illustrate how easy it was to quote someone who was intent on lumping Mick in with those accused of sexual assault and (one of) yours was right there. You spend almost the whole thread trashing Mick's "bizarre" behavior, yet claim innocence on the implication? Absurd.

I am sorry I called you "son" and implied you didn't know the meaning of "irony".
Caught up in the heat of the moment, and I tend to use sarcasm/rudeness.

Not sorry for challenging your perceived moral high ground.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-11-17 05:45 by MisterDDDD.

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
Hairball
Yet somehow you take the moral high ground and insinuate I was comparing Franken to Mick when it was quite clear I was not by stating "and on another note..." unless that part went over your head. Perhaps you owe me an apology?
And for the record, I'm well aware of what irony means, and please don't call me "son" again - it's patronizing, condescending, and flat out rude. Thanks in advance.

I didn't insinuate.
I grabbed your Franken post to illustrate how easy it was to quote someone who was intent on lumping Mick in with those accused of sexual assault and (one of) yours was right there. You spend almost the whole thread trashing Mick's "bizarre" behavior, yet claim innocence on the implication? Absurd.

I am sorry I called you "son" and implied you didn't know the meaning of "irony".
Caught up in the heat of the moment, and I tend to use sarcasm/rudeness.

Not sorry for challenging your perceived moral high ground.

Lets be clear on this - being puzzled with Micks love life with young women and strange behavior should not be equated with lumping him in with those accused of sexual assault. You mistakenly used my quote to suit your agenda and prove some point, while misinterpreting everything about my intentions. Posting the Franken link had nothing to do with Mick - as I've said several times I posted "and on another note" meaning a separate topic - there's been an ongoing sub-discussion in this thread, and I added to it. Obviuosly I don't equate him with those creeps, but in hindsight I shouldn't have posted the link as it doesn't belong here and I already admitted that.

At any rate, no harm no foul...moving right along...wondering who Micks next catch of the day will be?
Will she be even younger than the most recent?

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

It's just the decadent times in which we live. People authorise themselves to do whatever pleases them if they can. Hugh Hefner was 80 and lived with and shared a sexual r'ship with three of his bunnies, the youngest of whom was nearly 60 years younger than him. This was the subject of his reality show, The Girls Next Door, which ran for about 5 years, which clearly means people weren't too critical of his behaviour.

In any case, Mick seems to be a serial seducer, not a predator. But I suspect there must be at least a few who succumbed to his charms to keep their much-needed jobs.

Quote
Stoneage
Doxa: What I meant to put forward was the fact that there are two contrasting sets of moral here. One which (kind of...) implies that Sir Michaels's actions are immoral.
And another one claiming that it's immoral even to discuss the matter. In my view, both are equally moralistic.

I agree with you here. Both represent different kind of moral stances. And nothing wrong with either of them. It's good that people have set of values they stand for. Should be - hear the normative flavor here - actually more important than what we casually think of some rock and roll band. My moralism is simply easy to read off: I am totally liberal as far as two - or more - adults doing together go, when no harm is done. None of my - or anyone's - business (though, like I said, I don't see anything wrong people having moral opinions about someone's private life - no censorship for such a discourse). But then I am totally conservative if people are starting throwing charges or associations or ill gossips/speculations of criminal sort without any kind of factual base against someone. Goes without saying that I am a fan of strong censorship here (though that is just the last option - before that I wish people would more consult their own common sense and conscience).

I probably wouldn't suggest anyone to take Mick Jagger as their moral guide or role model as far as serious relationships go, but in the spirit of the guy who just 500 years ago stick those thesis into the door of some German church - and whose ideas your king, Stoneage, forced us Finns also to follow and to work our asses off since then - I think Jagger's work ethics is something we secular protestants might appreciate... 'Let's Work', haha...

Funny thing about Jagger is the relationship of his 'work' to his private life. Jagger has always been careful not to confuse those two things - or better: keep his private life secret (though he surely knows how much there is to be gained people being interested in knowing more of that - any publicity is good publicity, right?). A long time ago people started to think that what Jagger does is a 'performance', a certain role he acts as fronting a rock and roll band (at the same time, Keith Richards, by contrast, started to be seen more 'authentic' - his 'rock and roll' life style was in coherence with his public self.) And then he goes laughing all the way to bank to live his private 'charmed life'. Nowadays this kind of dualistic thinking - that what he does, 'honey, it's just a rock and roll show' - allows Jagger and the Stones 'to never grow up'- doing stuff they did at their twenties and thirties. But it contains an assumption that in 'real life' they actually are like people at their age should be like. With Keith Richards this seems to work perfectly. He goes on stage (or to interview, which, of course, is a part of the act), adapts to his old pirate role, gives us the eternal representation of what the legendary, mythical Keef Richards, with a smoke and a drink, is all about. But then he flies back to his country Connecticut home and lives his life as a good husband and a loving father/grandfather - like any of us. Sweet. Even Ronnie Wood has joined to this normal, respected way of life lately. It is like in the old sixties fanzines in which - against the tabloid stories told of them as bad boys - they were presented to the fans as a very nice bunch of guys. Now the relief is that they actually have grown up gracefully - no matter how juvenile they act 'at work'.

But that Jagger dude... With him the gap between 'performance' and his 'real life' just doesn't seem to exist - which, rightfully I guess, presents some sort of moral dilemma for us Stones fans. There doesn't seem to be a 'normal' person behind the curtain. His private life seems to be as wild and energetic as his performances are. In his own funny way, he seems to oddily authentic in what he does. If we actually look what he does in his performances that's alone something beyond any 'normal' or even sane people do or act. It could be that from the day one what he has done is abnormal for any of us 'lesser mortals' but especially now, years after normal pension age, the guy is still over there moving his thin ass to cheering audiences like he did in his twenties. For us Stones fans that's normal - the sun, the air and blah blah - something we have used to for the most of our lives, but outside that 'bubble', isn't that at least as absurd as his private life seems to be like? (Though, as a performer, Jagger seems to get away with it - being a kind of freak of nature.) Probably we could set the dilemma aside if we just explain it by 'honey, it's just a rock and roll show', but unfortunately it starts to look more like that, as he once actually phrased it, 'honey, it's no rock and roll show'. Jagger actually is like that. Jagger, the public performer, is another side of the coin of which the other side is his private life. There is a saying by his old pal Keith that he is 'a nice bunch of guys' (originally directed towards Brian Jones, but then transformed to describe Mick), but my picture starts to be more like that there is only one guy, one 'wandering spirit'.

But I don't mind if any of what I above described has any truth value or not. It is beyond my grasp and imagination what makes that guy 'click' - from where all that drive derives from. I just enjoy the outcome. No matter how absurd it sometimes look like.

I think - If we leave all this moral blah blah aside, and start talking business - there are two elementary forces behind the Stones creative success. That of the 'feel' laid by Keith Richards. And the 'drive' by Mick Jagger. When those two elements overlap and match, the results are usually incredible. It's Only Rock and Roll But I Like It.

- Doxa

<I think - If we leave all this moral blah blah aside, and start talking business - there are two elementary forces behind the Stones creative success. That of the 'feel' laid by Keith Richards. And the 'drive' by Mick Jagger. When those two elements overlap and match, the results are usually incredible. It's Only Rock and Roll But I Like It.>

That's spot on, and we should never forget that

Although both being moralistic I would say the second one is worse since it calls for superiority and censorship. The first set of morals at least allows different opinions. The second one doesn't.

If we leave all this moral blah blah aside, and start talking business - there are two elementary forces behind the Stones creative success. That of the 'feel' laid by Keith Richards. And the 'drive' by Mick Jagger. When those two elements overlap and match, the results are usually incredible. It's Only Rock and Roll But I Like It.

Yeah thats all we need to know 'cause the rest of this thread is
like readin' Eleanor's ideas on life and they will turn a girl into
a granny with-in minutes .... believe me I've watched it happen ... SAD STUFF



ROCKMAN

Sir Mick looking happy and loved up

Mick and Mel

Could be the angle or the particular moment, but she doesn't look very happy in those pics - head turned away from Mick and looking down.

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

Maybe she hates the press.
Maybe Mick’s ready to settle down.
Maybe they had a wonderful stay at that wonderful hotel and he watched the baby while she worked.
Maybe maybe maybe.

Maybe baby >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [www.youtube.com]



ROCKMAN

Quote
Hairball
Could be the angle or the particular moment, but she doesn't look very happy in those pics - head turned away from Mick and looking down.

Come now, you can't glean anything from two isolated shots. Hell, she could have been in the process of turning her head to kiss him seconds later.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but paparazzi photos can show whatever they want...they're snapped so fast they can almost go frame-by-frame to evoke the impression they want.

They catch people in mid-blink and it's evidence that they're spiraling out of control on drugs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-12-16 03:39 by keefriff99.

Yes keefriff - I did say "Could be the angle or the particular moment"...


PS - I didn't look at whole article first time around, but if you scroll down a bit there's a pic of Mick that's not very flattering imo - could just be the angle or that particular moment mid-performnace.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-12-16 03:51 by Hairball.

Quote
Hairball
Yes keefriff - I did say "Could be the angle or the particular moment"...


PS - I didn't look at whole article first time around, but if you scroll down a bit there's a pic of Mick that's not very flattering imo - could just be the angle or that particular moment mid-performnace.

Sorry, got a little over-heated there, lol.

Oh No, Not This Thread Again... Irrenhaus-Forum!

Dear Herr Monsoon Ragoon,

if this Forum is a "Irrenhaus" in your opinion, why do you come back again and again?

It`s nice to be here, .....

Quote
witterings
Dear Herr Monsoon Ragoon,

if this Forum is a "Irrenhaus" in your opinion, why do you come back again and again?

Because I have too much time to kill. But I'm pretty sure many people here should see the psychiatrist. I do.

The west has a fixation on agism... where we often label relationships as inappropriate based on age. These are two consenting adults and they dig each other. Good for them! And good for Mick. Go for it you randy ole' geezer!

Quote
SomeTorontoGirl

Quote
Doxa
...But that Jagger dude... With him the gap between 'performance' and his 'real life' just doesn't seem to exist...

Interesting translation of “Performance,” plus I never noticed the misspelling of Anita’s name before.

Mick keeps following the river ... never let anyone get their hooks into him ... never stayed long at grandma's house ....



ROCKMAN

Who Jagger dates and the age of the female should not even be discussed on this message board.It is no ones business other than Mick's and his GF.

This thread sounds like an article in the National Enquirer.

Quote
matxil
I know I am gonna be flamed for this, but hell, someone has to say it: sick.

Not only that, it is told that he now and then travels around and sings and dances on stages of stadia and arenas, while some other persons of his own advanced age play on their music instruments. I have even read that quite many people of all ages meet up to attend to these guys playing some music from their youth.

It is strange. What has the world come to, one might wonder.

YEAH YEAH!!!

Good on Mick & Stones .... better than hangin' around dancin' with the in-laws ... you know growin' old real quick ...



ROCKMAN

Has Mick dated this young lady any where other than Paris?

Mick Jagger is dating a 22-year-old chick and Jerry Hall is married to an 86-year-old dude. Pretty hilarious stuff....

I don't know how long this thread is running.....by now she is probably 23 or 24

__________________________

You can that again...

I don't know how long this thread is running.....by now she is probably a Grandmother

... but... some people just love to gossip, hen cluck and finger wag

Quote
whitem8
The west has a fixation on agism... where we often label relationships as inappropriate based on age. These are two consenting adults and they dig each other. Good for them! And good for Mick. Go for it you randy ole' geezer!

I'm guessing you either belong to Nambla or regularly vacation in thailand. Just a guess