OT-Keith Richards snorted his father

by **NealIsGod** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:52 am

conversationpc wrote:If glorifying his drug use for financial gain doesn't make someone a scumbag, I'm not sure what your definition of the term would include.

I'm against drug use, but that's just rock and roll.

by **conversationpc** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:55 am

NealIsGod wrote:
conversationpc wrote:If glorifying his drug use for financial gain doesn't make someone a scumbag, I'm not sure what your definition of the term would include.

I'm against drug use, but that's just rock and roll.

Unfortunately, yes, some see it that way and it's the reason that a lot of rock stars get away with their behavior that would land otherwise normal people in jail. I remember a member of Marilyn Manson's band saying something to the effect that he could get away with using drugs because he was a rock star.

by **Red13JoePa** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:09 am

conversationpc wrote:If glorifying his drug use for financial gain doesn't make someone a scumbag, I'm not sure what your definition of the term would include.

#1) How has Richards prospered from his purported drug use? Completely asinine. If ANYTHING drug habits DRAIN you wallet. He has money because he's a guitarist in a successful band.

#2) How completely hypocritical of you to single HIM out for drugs when you frequent a place like this that is in honor a business where they're as rampant as they are. It just doesn't add up, pal. You'd have more credibility if you just said "their politics and their satanic references go against my ultra right wing holy roller code of conduct."

by **conversationpc** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:36 am

Red13JoePa wrote:#1) How has Richards prospered from his purported drug use? Completely asinine. If ANYTHING drug habits DRAIN you wallet. He has money because he's a guitarist in a successful band.

#2) How completely hypocritical of you to single HIM out for drugs when you frequent a place like this that is in honor a business where they're as rampant as they are. It just doesn't add up, pal. You'd have more credibility if you just said "their politics and their satanic references go against my ultra right wing holy roller code of conduct."

If you can't see that The Stones have used their decadent lifestyle to sell their music, then you're a complete moron. Motley Crue has done the exact same thing. That stuff sells and they're good at it. That being said, there are a few songs by both bands that I like. I'm not a big fan of either but that doesn't mean an occasional good tune doesn't come out of the mix.

As far as your strawman accusation of hypocrisy goes, give me a break. Jesus himself frequented places where "sinners" hung out. Was he a hypocrite? I'm certainly not up to Jesus' standards of behavior, far from it, but just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean that I'm supposed to just hang out in a church all day long with a pious woe-is-me look on my face all day long.

Fess up and admit that you just don't like people who aren't afraid to admit that they're a Christian or go to church more than twice a year. It's funny how people here can get so upset over Augeri lip-synching and it's okay to say how wrong that is but when it comes to questioning the behavior of other people's heroes, then all of a sudden you're an "ultra right wing holy roller". :lol:

by **NealIsGod** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:50 am

conversationpc wrote:If you can't see that The Stones have used their decadent lifestyle to sell their music, then you're a complete moron. Motley Crue has done the exact same thing. That stuff sells and they're good at it.

Too extreme for me. I don't think people buy music based on how visible an artist's drug use is.

by **conversationpc** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:52 am

NealIsGod wrote:
conversationpc wrote:If you can't see that The Stones have used their decadent lifestyle to sell their music, then you're a complete moron. Motley Crue has done the exact same thing. That stuff sells and they're good at it.

Too extreme for me. I don't think people buy music based on how visible an artist's drug use is.

Not saying that. It's just part of the overall image of being "bad boys".

by **NealIsGod** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:57 am

conversationpc wrote:
NealIsGod wrote:
conversationpc wrote:If you can't see that The Stones have used their decadent lifestyle to sell their music, then you're a complete moron. Motley Crue has done the exact same thing. That stuff sells and they're good at it.

Too extreme for me. I don't think people buy music based on how visible an artist's drug use is.

Not saying that. It's just part of the overall image of being "bad boys".

If you don't like "bad boys", maybe you should listen to Menudo? :wink:

I think 13 is fishing for specific examples of Richardian scumbaggery, not generalized "rock and roll bad boys" stuff.

by **Red13JoePa** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:57 am

conversationpc wrote:Fess up and admit that you just don't like people who aren't afraid to admit that they're a Christian or go to church more than twice a year.

When you fess up and admit that you don't know Keith Richards from Keith Hernandez to label him a scumbag.

You know nothing of my religious practices because unlike you I don't jam it down peoples' throats on message boards.

Jesus also said to beware of those who make their religious habits a spectacle for all to see.

by **piecesofeight** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:57 am

It's not true. Never happened. I can't believe anyone ever believed this, even if/because Keith was involved.

by **squirt1** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:05 am

On the news yesterday Keith said it was April fools for anyone that believed it happened.

by **NealIsGod** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:07 am

squirt1 wrote:On the news yesterday Keith said it was April fools for anyone that believed it happened.

Yeah, but the interviewer said he seemed serious when he said it. Who knows? I think it adds to his legend.

by **conversationpc** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:18 am

Red13JoePa wrote:
conversationpc wrote:Fess up and admit that you just don't like people who aren't afraid to admit that they're a Christian or go to church more than twice a year.

When you fess up and admit that you don't know Keith Richards from Keith Hernandez to label him a scumbag.

You know nothing of my religious practices because unlike you I don't jam it down peoples' throats on message boards.

Jesus also said to beware of those who make their religious habits a spectacle for all to see.

Keith Hernandez...Good ballplayer and I love the Seinfeld episode with him, the "spitting" incident. :lol:

Hmmm...I don't see where I've jammed my "religious practices" down anyone's throat here. Seems to me we are just discussing our opinions but you seem to be offended enough about something to think I'm ramming it down your throat.

Please show me where I've made any of my religious habits a "spectacle for all to see". I've got nothing to brag about because there's always someone who's got it more together than I do, that's for darn sure.

by **Red13JoePa** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:41 am

conversationpc wrote:Please show me where I've made any of my religious habits a "spectacle for all to see". I've got nothing to brag about because there's always someone who's got it more together than I do, that's for darn sure.

It's peppered throughout the boards for all to see anytime a political or religious topic comes up starting a while back with your motherly rebuke of me for "taking the Lord's name in vain."
You're a holier-than-thou judgemental little weasel hiding behind false modesties about your lack of braggadocio regarding your character.

I say that knowing full well I've set myself up as "the bad guy" in this discussion now but I've said what's obvious to close readers.

by **Deb** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:53 am

Red13JoePa wrote:You're a holier-than-thou judgemental little weasel hiding behind false modesties about your lack of braggadocio regarding your character.

LOL, after your posts like this and with that AV..............I always find myself adding a "So There!!" :twisted:

by **conversationpc** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:56 am

Red13JoePa wrote:It's peppered throughout the boards for all to see anytime a political or religious topic comes up starting a while back with your motherly rebuke of me for "taking the Lord's name in vain."

I apologized to you for doing that, if you remember correctly and, yes, it does bother me when people take the Lord's name in vain. It doesn't have anything to do with my lording my "religious practices" over people but it also wasn't my place to do so. Others here have voiced their disapproval on many things other than that yet I get singled out for voicing my displeasure over something like that. :roll:

You're a holier-than-thou judgemental little weasel hiding behind false modesties about your lack of braggadocio regarding your character.

Physician heal thyself. If I'm judgemental, then you appear to be the poster boy for it. As far as braggadocio goes, I'm not the one with the over-the-top reaction to someone else's opinions. Remove the freakin' corncob from your anus before you require the help of a proctologist.

I say that knowing full well I've set myself up as "the bad guy" in this discussion now but I've said what's obvious to close readers.

The only obvious thing is that you're offended that someone may hold a different opinion about one of your heroes that you're, for some reason, not comfortable with hearing about without flying off the handle.

by **Red13JoePa** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:07 am

No the comment offended me, you pretentious little windbag, because it's clear you didn't know what in hell you were talking about and despite a few requests for backup have only been able to come up with something like "because he does drugs."
Something which would make 90% of the musicians we talk about here "scumbags" in your myopic little hamlet.

by **conversationpc** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:12 am

Red13JoePa wrote:No the comment offended me, you pretentious little windbag, because it's clear you didn't know what in hell you were talking about and despite a few requests for backup have only been able to come up with something like "because he does drugs."
Something which would make 90% of the musicians we talk about here "scumbags" in your myopic little hamlet.

It's not the fact that he does drugs. I know lots of people who used to do drugs who cleaned up their act. With him, it's that it seems like he revels in it, uses it to appear to be a bad boy, and that kind of thing. It's the same kind of thing, though not to the ridiculous degree that a lot of rap stars do it.

by **Matthew** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:52 am

conversationpc wrote:It's not the fact that he does drugs. I know lots of people who used to do drugs who cleaned up their act. With him, it's that it seems like he revels in it

Exactly. The guy might not be a scumbag but he is a terrible old bore.

by **conversationpc** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:11 am

Matthew wrote:
conversationpc wrote:It's not the fact that he does drugs. I know lots of people who used to do drugs who cleaned up their act. With him, it's that it seems like he revels in it

Exactly. The guy might not be a scumbag but he is a terrible old bore.

Now THAT'S something I've never heard him called before. :lol:

MR

OT-Keith Richards snorted his father

Who is online