|
|
Post by Aba21 on Jan 29, 2004 14:40:17 GMT -5
I sent an email to Mr. Pullen regarding his "misinformation" concering Dennis' last stand in 1982. He responded, kindly, and stated he pulled the information from various web sites and one fan site in particular with a listing of past and present members. I invited him to our message board and to TEMPSINFO.COM as well, where he can gather all pertinent information he requires. That's what I'm talking bout!!!!! ;D If you gon do something.....get it right........... |
|
|
|
Post by Aba21 on Jan 29, 2004 14:44:55 GMT -5
I was clearly talking about the slant of the article. I don't believe too much of what O. says anyway ... after the book and the movie. And I think the white house "incident" was not an accident at all ... They hired The Review because they liked them better than Otis' group ;D They may have liked them but the President didn't!!!!! And he's paying the water bill.......... ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Peach on Jan 29, 2004 14:51:45 GMT -5
Do you think the White House staffer was fired for not being able to tell the difference.............you know we all look alike..... ;D ;D ;D ;D  Yea, must have been my Mama working for the White House. :laughing Peach |
|
|
|
Post by Peach on Jan 29, 2004 14:54:46 GMT -5
They may have liked them but the President didn't!!!!! And he's paying the water bill.......... ;D ;D ;D No disrespect to our President OR Mr. Williams.... but I have this feeling George doesn't even know who Otis is. ;D ;D Peach |
|
|
|
Post by AnnaKonda on Jan 29, 2004 14:55:07 GMT -5
Well ... I'm not so sure of the president's paying any bills ... the way it looks right now, we are the ones to do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aba21 on Jan 29, 2004 15:13:44 GMT -5
No disrespect to our President OR Mr. Williams.... but I have this feeling George doesn't even know who Otis is. ;D ;D Peach I agree...that's why I don't put too much stock in the article.................... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Ivory Fair on Jan 29, 2004 15:13:52 GMT -5
You may have been talking about the article, but it wasn't all that clear.  Thanks Joe, I can't imagine what site he could be referring to. |
|
|
|
Post by k2 on Jan 29, 2004 15:31:54 GMT -5
They may have liked them but the President didn't!!!!! And he's paying the water bill.......... ;D ;D ;D Well, since Otis's Group was NOT there, one would suppose that Shelly also was NOT there, so what is the source of this third or fourth or fifth hand information that Mr. Bush "went off" when he saw that Otis wasn't there? :bs: :bs: :bs: :bs: :bs: :bs: :bs: :bs: :bs: :bs: is what it sounds like to me, somebody sucking up to Otis trying to make him feel better about NOT having been there. and yes, I noticed that the "cheaper" and "faux Tempts" remarks were not direct quotes, so we can't hang THAT part of the slant on Otis. Still not a good thing for Otis to have discussed the Review disparagingly in public, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Ivory Fair on Jan 29, 2004 15:39:02 GMT -5
What exactly did he say disparagingly about the Review? I'm not seeing it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Aba21 on Jan 29, 2004 15:42:18 GMT -5
If you're not taking Shelly's quotes as truth then why take Otis'? See this is just what I mean....everyone makes the thing fit what they want to believe..........No one has a concrete definitive answer on any of it.....it's just an article by a writer none of us know, nor do we know his motive for writing said article and this is a waste of time breaking it down this way. But I guess we have to talk about something.....You need to talk the writer....like Curet30 did........before you assume anything..........I hate reporters anyway....they never get the story right as far as I'm concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by AnnaKonda on Jan 29, 2004 15:47:39 GMT -5
I am really more upset about the way the article was written ... it "feels" kind of slimy to me. As if the author were saying "Yesssssirrrr Otis Williams" between two deep bows. Mr. Pullman's (?) article completely lacks any journalistic quality. In my opinion, the article might as well have been a paid advertisement. In short, I consider this article a disgrace to journalism! CHEAP!!! FAUX REPORTING! EDITOR SANCTIONED :bs:
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jan 29, 2004 16:48:12 GMT -5
Well news flash Anna, the Review is not the Tempts, so that would make them the faux Temptations. Anyway, Otis didn't call the review "cheaper," the reporter did. (Not sure who you're upset with.) Newsflash: Otis' group is not the Tempts,either. You know that the White House did the background checks on the Review members.....so I don't know where Otis is going with this...sounds jeleous to me. As far as the cheaper statement goes...Otis has to charge more in order to pay the lawyers. This was the biggest display of EGO that I've ever seen...plus the Review will wipe Otis' group right off the stage...at any weight,at any time. He was just as upset when David,Eddie&Dennis did the SuperBowl pre-game in 91.People want the VOICES,not the imposters! |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jan 29, 2004 16:51:12 GMT -5
What exactly did he say disparagingly about the Review? I'm not seeing it. Somehow...you never do! Maybe if you open your eyes...you'll see! |
|
|
|
Post by AnnaKonda on Jan 29, 2004 16:53:09 GMT -5
I disagree Ivory; they are The Temptations Review. That has nothing to do with faux. The article was simply strewn with derogative and incompetent remarks. It didn't help The Temptations' case a bit; it made them look pretty childish in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jan 29, 2004 16:53:35 GMT -5
I sent an email to Mr. Pullen regarding his "misinformation" concering Dennis' last stand in 1982. He responded, kindly, and stated he pulled the information from various web sites and one fan site in particular with a listing of past and present members. I invited him to our message board and to TEMPSINFO.COM as well, where he can gather all pertinent information he requires. Good,leave him all to me!!!  |
|
