|
Post by ReallyReallyDead on May 24, 2005 10:52:47 GMT
I can't believe we have something like that representing James Paul. Bet he's turning over in his grave. Not just turning over, but rotating violently in mid air. Or is it revolving, or spinning on an axis? He's just like the cat and toast!
|
|
|
Post by cavendish on May 24, 2005 15:48:04 GMT
RRD, that is just TOO cool for words ;D
|
|
|
Post by goldberry on May 24, 2005 15:53:50 GMT
I still think he's simulating Paul.
And a person's sexual preference does not define them! Gay, straight, bi ... it's really no-ones business!
|
|
|
Post by Michelle66 on May 24, 2005 16:05:24 GMT
And a person's sexual preference does not define them! Gay, straight, bi ... it's really no-ones business! I agree with you about it. But it seems that a lot of people are interested in that kind of gossip. ... That's why you can easily find stories like this:
|
|
|
Post by abbey on May 24, 2005 16:13:11 GMT
That is true to a certain extent. However, he took the job of impersonating another man. A STRAIGHT man. It's degrading to his memory posing for photos like this: And this: And this: And this: And THIS And this: And this: And this: And this: And this: This one is PRICELESS Prancing around during the whole Fool on the Hill sequence in MMT: As I've stated, Bill's body language is TOTALLY different than Paul's was: Goldberry - look back over the photos of Paul that I've posted on this thread. I believe that you are mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by goldberry on May 24, 2005 16:18:23 GMT
sorry I should re-phrase that... what I mean't to say is who cares! More power to him! Oh and for gossip... Next time you happen to stroll into the London Museum, check out the framed first written draft of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" written by Paul and John is Jane Ashers basement: "oh please, say to me, you'll let me hold your thing"I kid you not
|
|
|
Post by Michelle66 on May 24, 2005 16:22:24 GMT
sorry I should re-phrase that... what I mean't to say is who cares! More power to him! Oh and for gossip... Next time you happen to stroll into the London Museum, check out the framed first written draft of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" written by Paul and John is Jane Ashers basement: "oh please, say to me, you'll let me hold your thing"I kid you not This makes me think of John and Brian.
|
|
|
Post by cavendish on May 24, 2005 16:40:35 GMT
Tee, Hee ! Now THAT was funny Michelle ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by goldberry on May 24, 2005 16:46:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by defhermit on May 24, 2005 16:58:33 GMT
OH MY GOD!
JPM WAS GAY!!!
Good post Gold...
|
|
madtitan125
Contributor
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 126
|
Post by madtitan125 on May 24, 2005 17:03:08 GMT
Good grief, Sister Mary!
That is horrible! What a weirdo.
And Goldberry, what do you mean "more power to him"? Do you think this is cool? Do you think this is OK?
If someone replaced me and started sashaying around all over the place with that faggy look on his face, I'd be pretty uspset.
James Paul was very much a man, not......................this!
Biologically, our bodies were designed to procreate. Apart from surviving, this is our main function.
"Be fruitful and multiply." Have you ever heard this phrase before?
I know, I know, Faul has his own children. Lots of 'em. That's not his crime.
The crime Faul, and Bowie, and all of these frootloops perpetrate is that they have been influencing generations of young men to abandon their masculinity in favor of...(shudder!)......this.
And that lifestyle has to be a horror story. All of this homo-ism (how about that for a new word!) is anti-life.
When a man embraces an ancient sun-worshipping religion under the guise of Christianity and abandons his natural function to reproduce, this is anti-life.
That's why the evil one loves it so much!
Not only are you stifling the reason you were even created in the first place (God growth), you are also denying the function the creator gave you, and actually breaking his design. He can't like that too much!
Of course everyone has the right to do as they please as long as they don't bother anyone else. But I don't think you can say that Faul's overt sissiness did not affect anyone.
It has affected me personally. After viewing The Sister's photo compilation, it's made me a little queasy!
|
|
madtitan125
Contributor
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 126
|
Post by madtitan125 on May 24, 2005 17:18:59 GMT
Oh, brother! I am fairly certain that the word gay was still untarnished when JPM was given that sign.
Just because someone is male does not mean they are automatically a man. Faul proves this.
What was the purpose of that post Goldberry? Were you trying to convince us that JPM was gay?
Not a nice try.
|
|
|
Post by beatled on May 24, 2005 19:10:19 GMT
What was the purpose of that post Goldberry? Were you trying to convince us that JPM was gay? I think GB was trying to point out that it may be a little uh.. what's the word.. silly perhaps to take a few pics out of context and then use at as a springboard to make accusations that may or may not be true. I think GB also wants you to see the irony, am I right? Two things are going on here: 1) Trying to use this theory as another evidence angle. Not a good strategy, sorry. Colorful polyester men's clothing was popular in the early seventies, mmkay? 2) Using the shaky premise that he's gay to bolster the opinion that he should be judged, and judged harshy. Why, because he's gay, or because he's a gay impersonator? I'm lost, sorry... With all due respect, isn't there a line about casting the first stone? (not my area of expertise, but that's a great line, isn't it?)
|
|
|
Post by abbey on May 24, 2005 19:55:21 GMT
No, the idea is that Paul was straight and this guy who is impersonating him is allowing himself to be photographed in campy poses and causing people to believe that Paul was not straight. JoJo, I am not talking about the 70's. Clothing styles and colors did change after the hippie movement. 1. The sign saying gay meant happy back then. And he was known as the "merry sunshine" of the group. 2. That was more like "kiss my ass". Nothing faggotey about that pose 3. Paul look bored and John and George were playing around. 4. The hearts were inserted in the picture by the magazine editor 5. It was a costume party for pete's sake. Many normal men will dress up like that for costume parties. It's a spoof. Did you see "Revenge of the Nerd"? They dress the football team up as cheerleaders as a joke. 6. What is the thing here? ?? John has the kettle on and Paul is waiting for his tea. How can that be gay. 7. It looks confrontational. John could easily get on Paul's nerves. But out in public, Paul would keep it low keyed. He was a gentleman. None of those poses are any where near as campy as the pictures I posted of Bill!
|
|
|
Post by defhermit on May 24, 2005 20:30:09 GMT
Sigh, another day, more "Faul is a big gaywad" conversation.
Great.
I can see that the "religious" people here are beginning to run things, so my time here might be short. Not that anyone cares.
Faul is not posing flamboyantly in order to make people think that JPM is/was gay. Why would he do that? You really think the replacement of McCartney has an agenda to make JPM look gay? Why? That's just stupid.
All of this is just a front so you close-minded jerks can call someone you don't like (Faul) a fag.
First off, NONE of those pictures of Faul posing flamboyantly proves that he is gay. Duh.
Second, a lack of pictures of JPM posing AS flamboyantly is not proof that he was straight!
Using this stuff to try to prove the replacement is f**king pointless.
Let's say he wasn't replaced and that Faul is the same guy as JPM. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that he simply became more willing to be "flamboyant" as he got older and more mature, not mention rich and famous? No, because gay people do that!
I don't mind if you have religious beliefs that tell you that homosexuality is wrong. I don't agree with you, but hey you can believe what you want. That doesn't, however, have any bearing on the man's identity! Why can't you get that! It is entirely possible if not likely that a man who had homosexual tendencies at that time would have hidden them until they got to a point of success where they no longer were afraid as much of being uncovered.
Jeez....
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on May 24, 2005 20:42:04 GMT
Sigh, another day, more "Faul is a big gaywad" conversation. Great. I can see that the "religious" people here are beginning to run things, so my time here might be short. Not that anyone cares. Faul is not posing flamboyantly in order to make people think that JPM is/was gay. Why would he do that? You really think the replacement of McCartney has an agenda to make JPM look gay? Why? That's just stupid. All of this is just a front so you close-minded jerks can call someone you don't like (Faul) a fag. First off, NONE of those pictures of Faul posing flamboyantly proves that he is gay. Duh. Second, a lack of pictures of JPM posing AS flamboyantly is not proof that he was straight! Using this stuff to try to prove the replacement is ****ing pointless. Let's say he wasn't replaced and that Faul is the same guy as JPM. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that he simply became more willing to be "flamboyant" as he got older and more mature, not mention rich and famous? No, because gay people do that! I don't mind if you have religious beliefs that tell you that homosexuality is wrong. I don't agree with you, but hey you can believe what you want. That doesn't, however, have any bearing on the man's identity! Why can't you get that! It is entirely possible if not likely that a man who had homosexual tendencies at that time would have hidden them until they got to a point of success where they no longer were afraid as much of being uncovered. Jeez.... Masterpiece! Interpreting still photos is an exercise in sheer folly.
|
|
|
Post by goldberry on May 25, 2005 0:22:22 GMT
And that lifestyle has to be a horror story. All of this homo-ism (how about that for a new word!) is anti-life. When a man embraces an ancient sun-worshipping religion under the guise of Christianity and abandons his natural function to reproduce, this is anti-life. That's why the evil one loves it so much! Not only are you stifling the reason you were even created in the first place (God growth), you are also denying the function the creator gave you, and actually breaking his design. He can't like that too much! Don't put your christianity crap on me ok. That makes me queezy! And Goldberry, what do you mean "more power to him"? Do you think this is cool? Do you think this is OK? Yes I do actually. Interpreting still photos is an exercise in sheer folly. My point exactly!
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on May 25, 2005 0:51:28 GMT
Michelle was that a piece of info that said brian had an affair with Ringo?
Obviously i assume this claim is bullsh*t but where did you get it from and how recently?
As for the paul/faul "gay thing" look people are entitled to their opinions and the comparision between paul and faul posing/body language should be taken as a big pointer to the differences between the two men, BUT......
BUT........ the topic about whether it is right or wrong has no place in this area of the forum, this is why the "gay talk" is becoming tedious.
Fauls body language is different to pauls, faul sometimes appears camp, paul never seemed to, but we have no evidence that faul actually swings both ways, he may, he may not it has no relevance to the point at hand.
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on May 25, 2005 2:25:54 GMT
Just my two cents. Paul was straight, Bill is straight, John was straight, Ringo is straight, George was straight, Epstein was gay, but, Frian looks and seems in videos, straight.....just my opinion.
I dont think there was any philandering amongst the group. Maybe Epstein had a romantic pre-occupation with John. Thatæs their business. Even if it were true, its of little consequence to our interests here. And even if a stray moment happened, I dont really care. I think that is possible, but I think if it did, it was transient and brief and not beneficial to Epsteins freindship to John. I am not convinced Epstien had that kind of interest in John or any Beatle.
Just my opinions.
|
|
madtitan125
Contributor
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 126
|
Post by madtitan125 on May 25, 2005 5:42:03 GMT
Goldberry,
I never said I was a Christian! Not that it's any of your business, but I don't have a religion.
I was only referring to the continuing existence of an ancient religion that I know still exists 6000 years after the fact. It's been in the news a lot lately.
But as far as me telling you what religion to believe in... I don't think so! That must be someone else's job!
I have never told anyone what to believe in, or that I'm part of any organized religious group. I am not.
But when I see a design, I see a designer as well. And having love for one another can't be a bad thing.
No need to get huffy! I'm not out of line to think that we have our reproductive equipment not by accident.
Lots of people have shared this belief through the millenia, and for good reason.
And if there are others here who think that Faul is a little light in the boots, I would be inclined to agree.
We just don't feel that Faul's performance did justice to the memory of James Paul.
Presenting a preening, fey version of one of the greatest musical geniuses of all time just is not cool! Sorry, Charlie!
But then again, neither is gay-bashing, either!
I don't think that certain members' offense to Faul's sometime (OK, all the time!) effeminate mannerisms would qualify as that, would it? Well, I hope not.
And no hatred to Faul or anything like that. Even though he was probably shouldn't have put forth this version of the image of JPM, I still think everyone involved in this investigation would welcome him with open arms if he ever wanted to be honest.
As a matter of fact, I think I read this somewhere on the site today!
Life can't be easy for Billy, so maybe we should go easy on him after all. Maybe!
|
|
TheDZ
Provocative Operator
Posts: 435
|
Post by TheDZ on May 25, 2005 5:53:22 GMT
I thinks Billy's flouncy mannerisms are just his Vivian Stanshall/vaudville act bleeding through...
Bill's telling us the only way he can.
|
|
|
Post by Michelle66 on May 25, 2005 6:04:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by goldberry on May 25, 2005 6:47:13 GMT
But then again, neither is gay-bashing, either! I don't think that certain members' offense to Faul's sometime (OK, all the time!) effeminate mannerisms would qualify as that, would it? Well, I hope not. I feel it does. And I am offended by it. I don't give a sh*t what the Beatles sexual preferences are. If they were gay.. that's there business. Life can't be easy for Billy, so maybe we should go easy on him after all. Maybe! Thankyou!
|
|
|
Post by Yer Blues on May 25, 2005 6:51:27 GMT
From what I've heard over the years, Brian Epstein "liked" John Lennon and JL used this to his advantage. It's pretty easy for a straight guy, who knows a gay gay has a crush on him, to get things like money and having personal business taken care of. Of course a "friendship" is needed in order for this to happen. Whether or not Lennon actually engaged in some sort of thing with Epstein has been speculation for decades. If it did happen, I highly doubt the young Lennon took a liking to it and it would not have continued. Sister Mary Abbey has pointed out Faul's poses and choices in clothing. Lennon rarely, if ever, acted or dressed like that. Stu Sutcliffe's widow, Astrid Kirchherr, has reported that her and John reportedly had unfulfilled romantic feelings for one another. She has admitted this in recent years. Their insatiable relationship is revealed in the movie, Backbeat, a film which Astrid publicly endorsed as a realistic depiction of the Beatles’ during their time in Hamburg, her relationship with Stu Sutcliffe and John Lennon. In an upcoming book, There's a Beatle In My Closet by Epstein's personal aide Joanne Peterson, it's alleged one of The Beatles had an affair with Epstein. Whomever it was Epstein may have had this affair with, it's what it is, an allegation from a 3rd party. If we consider the propaganda aspects involving the latter days of the Beatles and throughout the 70's, we must recognize that propaganda's chief weapon is to point the finger at someone or something innocent, while covering up and protecting someone or something that is guilty of the very thing the innocent is being accused of. What better way to protect the sissy-posing Faul, who obviously enjoys the company of Elton John and Michael Jackson, and having him pose with his children for publicity photos, which by the way is not common for rock stars to do, while at the same time introduce heresay and innuendo about a person who can't defend himself (John Lennon).
|
|
madtitan125
Contributor
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 126
|
Post by madtitan125 on May 25, 2005 7:30:46 GMT
Dear Goldberry,
Sometimes it's easy to get mad at stuff you don't necessarily personally agree with. But I hate to be mad.
And I hate it even more that something I said offended you. That's no good.
Trust me, I have many friends who are like that and I love them all. I wouldn't necessarily choose that for my son, but that doesn't mean I don't love my friends. I know they love me.
The issue - for me - was never if it was OK or not to be gay. I don't think anyone has the right to tell anyone else how they should behave. We have to behave as we feel and be true to our real selves.
I guess what the issue was is it cool for an impostor to present a sometimes flaming (you have to admit that!) version of "Paul", reminiscent of Ziggy Stardust (complete with spikey hair!) & a sleazy Lou Reed.
I think it would be fine for Faul, or any other artist, who is really that way to act that way, if that's how they really are. Why not?
I just think maybe it isn't ethically cool to tag someone with an image that wasn't existent beforehand. It could be seen as deceptive (as if the whole concept of a Faul in the first place isn't deceptive)!
You say yes, I say heck no. We have a difference of opinion. Not much we can do about that except be cordial about it.
All I'm saying (and I think I can speak for some of the other) is why did he have choose that for his personal touch on his version of "Paul"? It is definitely upsetting the ladies in the audience! ha ha
Once again, Goldberry, just want to say I truly didn't mean to offend you. If I did, please accept my apology. Sam
|
|