|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 20, 2003 14:23:34 GMT
Went to breakfast with my dad yesterday, and in passing waiting for the food to arrive I asked him if he had skipped onto the 'Paul in red square' concert which was on A&E two nights ago. My dad is no Beatles fan, and his comment was right up our alley! He said, "no, but I did see the commercial for that, and that guy didn't look like PAUL McCARTNEY at all!" So even someone completely removed from the PID world readily observed that Paul is being impersonated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 20, 2003 14:27:11 GMT
The king is naked! |
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Sept 20, 2003 14:31:06 GMT
For f**k's sake.
Comments such as 'my Dad thought' have no credibility whatsoever.
If you really want to 'prove' this fallacy, please use witnesses with more credibility than 'my dad'
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Sept 20, 2003 14:35:20 GMT
Ed how very eloquent you are...  if you had left out the first sentence I may have taken you serious... |
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Sept 20, 2003 14:58:14 GMT
Ed how very eloquent you are... if you had left out the first sentence I may have taken you serious... Leave out the first sentence then. I don't see how my annoyance invalidates my point. |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 20, 2003 15:00:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Sept 20, 2003 15:03:16 GMT
it doesn't invalidate your point but bad language is totally unnecessary. If you have read this board you will see that we have formed friendships here and tend to share little observations or experiences. They don't always have to be scientific but everyone is welcome to share. I posted something last night about my father, far from scientific, just personal experience thats all...  |
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Sept 20, 2003 15:05:51 GMT
Good point Spanky! |
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Sept 20, 2003 15:07:50 GMT
Ian, good post despite what others have said. Did your dad think 'Paul' had a large forehead with eyes that are close together?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Sept 20, 2003 15:08:33 GMT
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. Can you explain a bit more? As far as I can see, Paul is wanting to release the album as he would have liked it to be. He also wants to make more money. I have some difficulty in thinking that this provides evidence that Paul is actually dead. |
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Sept 20, 2003 15:10:03 GMT
Good point Spanky! hey DH.. you have power again... Isabel wasn't too hard on you then?... |
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 20, 2003 16:24:41 GMT
HEY ED-
It's OK my shared observation from my Dad was completely lost on you; went right over your head. Unfortunately, I think you're ignorant and there is no place for you here in the PID symposium.
The whole point behind what my Dad said was simply common grass-roots observation from a person who has no vested interest in Faul, Paul, or Beatles. Therefore, his succinct comment that "it didn't even look like Paul McCartney" reinforces what we are about here.
I never alluded to 'scientific' ramifications; it was a spot-on observation from a pedestrian who really knows nothing of PID yet bolsters what we suspect, quite excellently. In essence, it carried much weight from a subjective point of view.
Ed, if you are that thick-headed you couldn't make that correlation, then you are a troll bent on dissing everything and anything we hypothisize. I welcome and enjoy the influx of new people here at 60IF, but this new strain of rude, crude, dissident and wholeheartedly negative posters is a drag...a well known drag.
Show some common, superficial respect ED and you may get some in return. If unable, you should move on to someplace else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Sept 20, 2003 16:28:40 GMT
Ian, VERY well said.
|
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 20, 2003 16:30:28 GMT
Darkhorse,
He didn't elucidate details, just when I casually asked if he saw the concert as he channel surfed, he said, "no, but I saw the commercial for that, that guy didn't even look like Paul McCartney!" So I let it go at that. He said it all, anyway.
This from the guy who used to take my Alice Cooper records away from me in the 70's when I was in grade school!
For sure, Faul's road-mapped face, raccoon eyes and such made a ghastly sight. As SUNNY said, 'THE KING IS NAKED."
|
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 20, 2003 16:33:03 GMT
FURTHERMORE ED,
WITHIN THESE PAGES, YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY.
HOW DOES THAT FEEL?
WHAT GOES AROUND, COMES AROUND....HOW 'SCIENTIFIC' IS THAT FOR YA?
|
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 20, 2003 16:38:57 GMT
THANX DARKY ;D
They mess with The Bull, they get the horns.
Wish more newbies would heed the qualifier at the helm of the threads: This is for INTELLIGENT discourse.
We're sincere, and expect that in return.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Sept 20, 2003 16:47:12 GMT
You're welcome. Your dad's comment was very similar to the innocent child's response in the King is Naked story. |
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 20, 2003 23:04:21 GMT
THANX DARKY ;D They mess with The Bull, they get the horns. Wish more newbies would heed the qualifier at the helm of the threads: This is for INTELLIGENT discourse. We're sincere, and expect that in return. True. I wish newbies would actually read the story, physical evidence and FAQ, and some other sites Sun King said. PLEASE!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Sept 20, 2003 23:29:48 GMT
Wish more newbies would heed the qualifier at the helm of the threads: This is for INTELLIGENT discourse.
Intelligent discourse accepts other viewpoints. The majority of what I've read here suggests otherwise.
If you post some spurious, and entirely unsubstantiated, theory based on nothing more than throw away lyrics, or the fact that Paul is looking away from the other 3 Beatles in a certain picture, you are deemed to have done 'good research'
If however, you start to question the 60IF document, you are told that you are a troll.
A nice even handed approach
|
|
|
|
Post by OceanChild on Sept 20, 2003 23:53:39 GMT
FURTHERMORE ED, WITHIN THESE PAGES, YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY. HOW DOES THAT FEEL? WHAT GOES AROUND, COMES AROUND....HOW 'SCIENTIFIC' IS THAT FOR YA? Wish more newbies would heed the qualifier at the helm of the threads: This is for INTELLIGENT discourse. We're sincere, and expect that in return. Hmmmmm…. I understand the second statement – the wish for intelligent conversation is probably the desire of most people who come here. Do you, however, equate ‘intelligent’ with ‘believing everything I believe’? Who then is right and who then is wrong if we are only talking about ‘belief’? Then, Ian, you blew it with the first statement. Can you, please, tell me in an intelligent way (for that is the kind of discussion you desire), how exactly that comment is ‘intelligent’? You all know I’m not a troll… but, man, you guys are really starting to rile me. Ed, seems to just have been pounced on from the moment he came here. He’s interested in the subject matter, but he doesn’t think the information you guys have presented is convincing enough. Your job is not to get rid of him so that you can just be surrounded by sycophants, preaching to the converted – your job is to convince the sceptics. Can anyone tell me why this behaviour makes your case more convincing? |
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Sept 21, 2003 0:43:46 GMT
We don't have to convince the skeptics. Our time is too valuable to bother trying to convince someone who has already seen(supposedly) the best evidence available. Do you see what I am talking about? If they don't get it after viewing Uberkinder's and Sun King's sites, then they probably never will, hence the reason it is a waste of time.
Plus the person's posts are obnoxious and I, for one, don't even wanna bother with them....
|
|
|
|
Post by OceanChild on Sept 21, 2003 8:55:15 GMT
We don't have to convince the skeptics. Our time is too valuable to bother trying to convince someone who has already seen(supposedly) the best evidence available. Do you see what I am talking about? If they don't get it after viewing Uberkinder's and Sun King's sites, then they probably never will, hence the reason it is a waste of time. Then why are you doing it? If you want the world to know the truth then you are going to have to convince a *huge* number of sceptics - somehere nearing the 6 billion mark - give or take the handful of people here and the people who've never heard of the Beatles in the Amazon. Trying to convince sceptics is *exactly* what you are trying to do, Darkhorse... If you only want to talk amongst yourselves then go ahead, make it a closed forum and don't try and get any outsiders in. The attitude that many of you take here is not dissimilar to, oh let's just be really controversial here and say, the Taliban. “This is what we believe. You must believe it, too. Any other viewpoint or way of thinking is absolutely banned. If you don’t believe it we are going to nix you.” You profess to be fans of the Beatles, but then throw out the greatest things they brought to the world ‘Give peace a chance’ ‘All we need is love’ ‘The love you take is equal to the love you make’ If you really, really know the truth, then why the hostility when you are challenged? |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 21, 2003 9:06:19 GMT
Ocean,
we have ALREADY convinced SO MANY people.
The proof?
A year ago we were just only...two!
Me and Paul Bearer.
Now many otherS are here.
It was said:
"He who has ears, let him hear."
More:
"He who has eyes, let him see".
The evidences talk for themselves.
The king is naked!
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 21, 2003 9:08:59 GMT
True. I wish newbies would actually read the story, physical evidence and FAQ, and some other sites Sun King said. PLEASE!!!!!!!!! Mike, are you the "MYTHICAL MIKE" I guess you are? [glow=red,2,300]WELCOME!!![/glow] |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Sept 21, 2003 9:16:35 GMT
The problem is simply this. I do not think any even slightly intelligent person with even a smidgeon of reasoning could not at least have some serious doubts about whether the Paul today is the same as before the mid-sixties after viewing the evidence presented here. They are either in extreme denial or deliberately out to cause trouble. In either case, we can't waste time with them. As has always been said, if the overwhelming evidence already presented on this site doesn't challenge their own view of reality even a little bit, we will never persuade them with words. We're not here to persuade stubborn unbelievers in denial; we're here to continue research and continue to develop on what we already know. But there has been an orchestrated campaign to deliberately waste our time which has come in one form or another. This is Faul's way to try to "take care of us". At least some of these trolls must have been assigned to do a job. I simply cannot believe anyone could not come here and remain adamant 100% that Paul is still alive - that is simply not the stand of sane reasoning.
|
|
