|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 14, 2004 18:22:07 GMT -5
[quote author=kalisa2 link=board=news&thread=1088652790&start=167#11 date=1089734452 You ask the question "Who knew about Paul's problems before he died?". I don't think that is the pertinent question. The correct question still is (in regards to whether Otis is the devil incarnate for talking about Paul's problems) "Who knew about Paul's problems before Otis published his book?".[/quote] The question is very pertinet to this discussion. Why? Simple,this was not common knowledge until Paul died. It was not "out there" as you say. Remember this was before tabloid journalism was in style.Look how long before the general public found out about Mickey Mantle. But Mickey told it,not a "third party". The statement you made about Otis being the "devil incarnate" sounds like something Ivory would say. Not KALISA ! But ,standing on the other side of the water cooler....seems like that's how David,Eddie,Paul & Dennis are viewed around here...the "devil incarnate". How else is one to look at some titles of threads like "Could Otis have saved Paul's life"," Looking At David Ruffin's Childhood" ,etc. Things like "Why should we have any more sympathy for Paul than we do a drunk/wineo in the street?" Looking at Paul as a "tragic figure"...Eddie was diffucult to work with. These notions came from the book and/or movie.No respect for these guys. None whatsoever. Saying that "these were grown men that made bad choices". Like what? Not sataying in an "ass-kissing situtation? Why would Eddie say to Jay that he wasn't gonna be treated like a kid like he was before? This doesn't seem logical for Ed to say something like that if the discussion was about David missing shows in Detroit. What was said to make Eddie react in that manner? Or, counting how many bottles Paul drank a day was more important and interesting? You don't even believe that....please be logical.  |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 14, 2004 19:35:09 GMT -5
Mike...you keep choosing to miss my point which is, I repeat: The information was "out there" before Otis published it in his book. 15 years before. Put "out there" at least in part by Eddie. Since we're not even discussing the same question, there's no point to keep wearing out the grass in this circle you want to keep going around in by going any further with it. Well,you keep missing MY point. It wasn't put out there BEFORE Paul died. Also,Eddie is never quoted as saying anything that you say he does concerning Paul. Last,but not least...whatever you get out of the reporter interpeting what HE belives Eddie said is not a direct quote. You have pointed this fact out to me in the past,how soon do we forget? :laughing |
|
|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Jul 14, 2004 20:41:41 GMT -5
Mike...this is a direct quote.
“We probably rang up more consecutive hit record in the middle and late Sixties than any other male group in history. But then things started to sour. None of us seemed to be getting out of the group as much as we were putting into it. Paul was drinking and running around. Suddenly, he didn’t have his moves anymore. We tried not to notice for a while, but it was too late: He was a sick man."
This is a direct quote from Eddie. Other than using the term "sick man" he in no way alluded to any health problem other than drinking...and the "sick man" could mean sick with his alcohol problem. If you CHOOSE to take it any other way, that's grabbing at straws, in the context of the quote.
And why is it pertinent whether the general public knew about Pauls "problems" before he died? The point in question, at least the point I care about, is that Eddie and Otis be painted with the same brush, for good or bad. Otis didn't say anything that wasn't out there already...put out there in part by Eddie or whoever interpreted what Eddie said if you want to go that route. It was there, published. Public knowledge.
Once more I say, if we're not discussing the same question, there's no point trying to find an answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 15, 2004 9:41:41 GMT -5
Mike...this is a direct quote. “We probably rang up more consecutive hit record in the middle and late Sixties than any other male group in history. But then things started to sour. None of us seemed to be getting out of the group as much as we were putting into it. Paul was drinking and running around. Suddenly, he didn’t have his moves anymore. We tried not to notice for a while, but it was too late: He was a sick man." This is a direct quote from Eddie. Other than using the term "sick man" he in no way alluded to any health problem other than drinking...and the "sick man" could mean sick with his alcohol problem. If you CHOOSE to take it any other way, that's grabbing at straws, in the context of the quote. OTHER THAN USING THE TERM "DRINKING ANd running around" HE in no way alluded to alcohol as a "PROBLEM".He said that Paul was a "sick man". Tell me,why do we have to go the alcohol route? The man was sick. Bottom line. Sickness can appear to be drunk,high. Ever witnessed someone going into a diabetic coma? You can't tell the difference.That's the point. What makes your straw any more secure than mine? We're both "grabbing"! I choose to take it as I understand it to be. Paul was a sick man. Why attach alcohol to it? Hell,I've seen Eddie drink does that mean that Eddie had a "problem"? No,it doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Jul 15, 2004 10:25:37 GMT -5
OTHER THAN USING THE TERM "DRINKING ANd running around" HE in no way alluded to alcohol as a "PROBLEM".He said that Paul was a "sick man". Tell me,why do we have to go the alcohol route? The man was sick. Bottom line. Sickness can appear to be drunk,high. Ever witnessed someone going into a diabetic coma? You can't tell the difference.That's the point. What maskes your straw any more secure than mine? We're both "grabbing"! I choose to take it as I understand it to be. Paul was a sick man. Why attach alcohol to it? Hell,I've seen Eddie drink does that mean that Eddie had a "problem"? No,it doesn't. Eddie said "He was drinking and running around. He'd lost his moves" What do you think the quote indicated that Paul was drinking, 7-up? Please. Eddie IN SOME WAY indicated to the reporter that Paul had "overcome his drinking problem", whether he used those exact words (direct quote) or said it in some way that the report felt he could say "he said that Paul had apparently overcome his drinking problem" (indirect quote). Drinking 7-up again? Was that throwing Paul into diabetic comas, in your scenario? The bottom line, once more, is that Eddie is quoted in such a way as to put it out to the general public that Paul suffered from a drinking problem. Before Otis ever mentioned it. Twist it any way you want, that's what anybody reading that article would take it as, unless they chose to put blinders on...and it was out there before Otis wrote his book. NB: I am not, and refuse to, argue with you whether in fact Paul had "a drinking problem". I am not a doctor (and I don't play one on TV  ) nor was I there at the time. My argument has been and will remain to be whether Otis is more culpable than Eddie, or anyone else who was interviewed for this article, in disseminating the information (whether correct or not) that Paul had a drinking problem. Otis said it in his book 15 years after it was already out there. Period. |
|
|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Jul 15, 2004 11:02:50 GMT -5
and p.s. Eddie also, in his direct quote, used the term "running around", which most people (not you, of course  ) would take as indicating "...with other woman/women". This is personal private business not affecting the group, IMO. Yes, Otis elaborated a bit in his book (unnecessarily)...but some of the information was already 'out there' by Eddie. Otis wasn't the first to bring it up, he merely elaborated. |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 15, 2004 13:21:10 GMT -5
OTHER THAN USING THE TERM "DRINKING ANd running around" HE in no way alluded to alcohol as a "PROBLEM".Eddie said "He was drinking and running around. He'd lost his moves" What do you think the quote indicated that Paul was drinking, 7-up? Please. Eddie IN SOME WAY indicated to the reporter that Paul had "overcome his drinking problem", whether he used those exact words (direct quote) or said it in some way that the report felt he could say "he said that Paul had apparently overcome his drinking problem" (indirect quote). Drinking 7-up again? Was that throwing Paul into diabetic comas, in your scenario? The bottom line, once more, is that Eddie is quoted in such a way as to put it out to the general public that Paul suffered from a drinking problem. Before Otis ever mentioned it. Twist it any way you want, that's what anybody reading that article would take it as, unless they chose to put blinders on...and it was out there before Otis wrote his book. NB: I am not, and refuse to, argue with you whether in fact Paul had "a drinking problem". I am not a doctor (and I don't play one on TV ) nor was I there at the time. My argument has been and will remain to be whether Otis is more culpable than Eddie, or anyone else who was interviewed for this article, in disseminating the information (whether correct or not) that Paul had a drinking problem. Otis said it in his book 15 years after it was already out there. Period. I thought we were having a discussion..and not a one way discussion. They say that first impressions are the one's that last. Paul was not presented to me as a "tragic figure" like he was to those who discovered the group by the movie or Otis' book. That's why I ask about Paul's alledged problems as being "out there" while Paul was alive. It wasn't.Thanls to the way Paul was portrayed in the movie and Otis' book,Paul was often viewed in a tragic light. Eddie had nothing to do with it,and I don't see where a local article thaT WAS NOT PICKED UP NATIONally CAN BE VIEWED AS "PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE> PERIOD |
|
|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Jul 15, 2004 13:46:09 GMT -5
Mike...how do you know that it was not picked up nationally? What proof do you have?
My proof that it WAS picked up nationally from someplace is that at least two members (maybe more) of the miniscule microcosm of Tempts fans who inhabit this board knew about "Pauls problems" before Otis wrote his book...two that did not read Detroit papers. (McRibs mom, and Aba21...I think Crella also said the same but I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth.)
Since all published reports indicated that Paul's death was a suicide (regardless of what anybody personally believes), how could anybody in the general public who was aware who Paul Williams was view him as anything BUT a tragic figure after his death? Death at age 34, regardless of means, is tragic...but the sadness implied in a suicide is double tragic.
You keep wanting to go back before his death and that simply doesn't pertain to the question.
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 15, 2004 14:24:47 GMT -5
Mike...how do you know that it was not picked up nationally? What proof do you have? My proof that it WAS picked up nationally from someplace is that at least two members (maybe more) of the miniscule microcosm of Tempts fans who inhabit this board knew about "Pauls problems" before Otis wrote his book...two that did not read Detroit papers. (McRibs mom, and Aba21...I think Crella also said the same but I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth.) Since all published reports indicated that Paul's death was a suicide (regardless of what anybody personally believes), how could anybody in the general public who was aware who Paul Williams was view him as anything BUT a tragic figure after his death? Death at age 34, regardless of means, is tragic...but the sadness implied in a suicide is double tragic. You keep wanting to go back before his death and that simply doesn't pertain to the question. The same proof that you have that it was! Besides,none of the names that you mentioned ever said that they read the article that you posted did they? I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth,either. None of them said that they read about Paul's alledged "problem" while Paul was alive did they? NO,they didn't,so what proof do YOU have that they did? Yes,it does pertain to the question. Like I said Paul Williams was NOT a tragic figure and how can anybody in the general public not view him as tragic? They knew better,just like nobody views Elvis as TRAGIC,John Lennon,Jimi Hendrix,Janis Joplin,Sam Cooke. This story was not picked up nationally. Reports of Paul's alledged problems didn't surface until his death. The "Tragic figure" didn't attach itself until Otis' book and the movie. But if you didn't know who Paul Williams was during his lifetime,how can you declare him "TRAGIC" 30 years after he dies? Bottom line...you can't. To try to attach Eddie to this is insane. Especially since this story was not picked up nationally.Which,it wasn't. It was not in any of the New York papers . That's the point that I'm making,Paul's "problem is blown way out of of the way it really was. That's the only tragic thing about this. This tragic tag came from only Otis' book and the movie. Every time this subject is brought up,or Paul is talked about in a negative light,you can rest assure that I will speak up and tell it the way it really was. Not Hollywood's version,or to go along with what Otis said. His account is the reason why Paul is viewed in a negative way...It sucks. No matter how hard you try to attach Eddie to this,you know what I'm saying is right. At least it makes for a good discussion...and not a one way discussion. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by mcribs on Jul 15, 2004 14:41:11 GMT -5
and I don't see where a local article thaT WAS NOT PICKED UP NATIONally CAN BE VIEWED AS "PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE> PERIOD Mike--the only my mother could have heard about this is if it was PUBLIC knowledge. The only Temptation she paid any attention to was David and when she heard that one of them had died she was certain it was him. She has never been to Detroit, so for her to know it had to be OUT THERE. You callin' my mama a liar? :bonk: :bonk: ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Peach on Jul 15, 2004 14:42:05 GMT -5
Like I said Paul Williams was NOT a tragic figure and how can anybody in the general public not view him as tragic? They knew better, just like nobody views Elvis as TRAGIC, John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Sam Cooke. None of those deaths were tragic?  Let's see....I would call it a tragedy when a great person is destined through a flaw of character or conflict with some overpowering force, as fate or society, to downfall or destruction. And I would say all of those fit the bill. An early death..... preventable..... seems pretty tragic to me. Peach |
|
|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Jul 15, 2004 17:33:57 GMT -5
I don't know and I DON'T CARE who knew about it before Paul's death. I haven't asked and no-one has answered about before Paul's death.
We have (at least) two who knew shortly AFTER Paul's death, before Otis's book, whether they read this exact article or not...the information was out there to the public by some means or other. I'm really tired of the twisting back and forth on this. Either you're calling Aba21 and McRib's Mom liars, or you need to admit that the information was out there. Eddie put it out there for publication. By either direct or indirect quotes. "Other friends" also put it out there, by indirect quotes.
|
|
|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Jul 15, 2004 17:36:48 GMT -5
And yes you're absolutely right, I am and continue to be completely missing your point as to why it matters a whit whether the general public knew of his problems before Paul's death.
*general public = Tempts fans at the time of his death, people who knew who Paul Williams of the Temptations was.
|
|
|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Jul 15, 2004 17:48:33 GMT -5
No, I don't know that what you're saying is right, or I wouldn't be bothering. Eddie (among others, NOT Otis) put it out there...if you refuse to see it on page 1, then that's your bad, my friend. Where did this "one way discussion"  arise? Not me. |
|
|
|
Post by crella25 on Jul 16, 2004 2:14:59 GMT -5
Yes, Kalista2, just as Sly Stones and Jimi Hendrix's drug use was known. I read Soul, Tan, Right On Ebony & Jet and a couple of other small publications. I remember his death being a shock, the drinking thing was already out. We certainly didn't have the kind of access we have now, but we were not in Occupied China. Our "Stars" were important to us, it was a new era as far as the black community was concerned, we kept up with the folk out there in the limelight as best we could. I don't remember reading a publication blaming his death on the drinking, but I know I heard about the drinking way before he stopped singing. I wish I could find those old articles about this group. Considering their place at the time, of course there would be news about them, some of it released from the PR at Motown, and some from those who wanted to know but couldn't or wouldn't go through Motown. Maybe that's the only way to cool this "hot topic" down.
|
|
) would take as indicating "...with other woman/women". This is personal private business not affecting the group, IMO. Yes, Otis elaborated a bit in his book (unnecessarily)...but some of the information was already 'out there' by Eddie. Otis wasn't the first to bring it up, he merely elaborated.
