|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 18, 2004 18:17:10 GMT -5
Mike...you have NOT ONCE explained WHY it is important (TO YOU only) it was reported BEFORE Paul died? I did,but you didn't accept it. Again,this was not common knowledge at the time. That article was a local article,and Eddie's quotes were not known on a national level. All the articles prior to Paul's death labeled his condition as EXAUSTION,just like when Otis missed shows when the atrery ruptured in his head.Why should there be a question on Paul's condition and not Otis' as to the way it was reported? You don't think that there were rumors as to Otis' condition? I'm quite sure that Otis knew what was really wrong with Paul. But that don't sell books. I don't know what makes you think that I'm the only one that it matters to as far as when people found out about Paul's condition,you are just as wrong in thinking that way as you are on this whole subject. Yes,it matters to people who care about Paul. I'm standing my ground on this and really don't care what you think my motives are. This has nothing to do with me looking at Paul as some kind of Icon,that's childish. But you don't know the truth,seems like you don't wanna know the truth and you got people trying to remember these things and offering no proof at all,just word of mouth. Like Hall & Oates...I can't go for that. My thing is,despite your constant denials,Otis' story is largely responsible for the way Paul is viewed today. It's crazy to think NOT! Again,did we need to know how many bottles did Paul alledgedly drank? Did the group record the song 99 bottles of beer on the wall? We didn't have to know that. All of the photos that Otis could have used in the book of Paul and he had to choose the one with the drink in his hand and the woman on his lap? No,unless he was trying to paint a picture,one that you brought hook,line and sinker. Last,but not least,he didn't bother to think about the affect that this could have on his family,if any. He didn't care about that and it seems very few on this board care about that FACT! They didn't start to talk about drinking until the man died. That's when it was reported. Then,who went into detail? Otis,for profit,not interview,or reflection....PROFIT! Get it now? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 18, 2004 18:33:15 GMT -5
Not only that Crella, but to continuosly say that Otis put the bad light on these people is just too far fetched for me. I had heard about David and Paul's probelms in DC from DJs on Wol/WOOK and Ebony and Jet magazines. The Temptations were the talk of my neighborhood and all over town. When you went to the record store downtown people were talking about the rumors of this rumors of that. Call it gossip but there was talk. Of course you didn't know if they were true or not but you heard it. Just like you don't know if all were are seeing and talking about now is true. But it was out there. And to say anybody around here is talking about Paul, Eddie or David in a negative way is also not correct. THese men had problems, all of them,Otis included. To talk about one without talking about the other is not right. I said over and over if you have something to add to the mix about Otis put it out here for us to discuss. But if all there is about Otis is bad business decisions, a book and a movie he had no control over.....we're just wasting time, spinning wheels. Why can't we discuss the so called faults of these men if we want to and not have it be construed as being negative?And if we can't talk about Paul Eddie and David, then why should we discuss Otis? And why is it one person's take on an article any less valid than another? This is what I don't get. And Elvis, Jimi, Paul and the rest aren't tragic stories? Are you kidding me? What were they then? Hell, Biography called every single one of them Tragic, except Paul and probably not him cause they didn't do one on him. But are you saying a man who allegedly took his own life is not a tragic story? And once again, if you go back to Otis being the main character in this story, then Melvin Franklin had to be the co-star. He can't be absolved of all cupabilty just because he was a nice man. But that seems to be the case. This story is no the sole fault of one man no matter how many ways you twist this story. Otis is just not that deceiving a person. Dig out those Ebnoy and Jet's ....reread them. When they talk about Paul,they use the term EXAUSTION. Unless you read one AFTER Paul died. While you're at it ,just look at the way Paul's been talked about,compaired to a "drunk in the street and a wineo" ,which you were upset about. Remember? I do! Rodney Dangerfield gets more respect that Paul. Melvin Franklin? Costar? He wasn't the costar to writting the book,hell he didn't even get a dime for the use of the name on Otis' book. Never publically commented on the book and most likely didn't want Otis to write the book. You know that. I don't see why you fool yourself by saying Otis had no control over a book and movie. That is crazy,hell when the network sent Tony Turner a letter requesting permission to use his book for the movie,Otis did not want that,saying if they used it he was pulling out,his book with him. Therefore Tony's book was not credited as being one of the books that the movie was based on. Come on with that Otis dodn't have no control over the book and movie stuff. It's simply not true.So let's be real,here. |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 18, 2004 18:39:02 GMT -5
Thanks, Crella!  . So there is an answer to both questions, now we can focus on why it was worse for Otis to talk about it than anybody else who had already let it out to the general public, including Eddie in the lead article here. Otis was't revealing never-before-known 'family secrets', merely putting the information into the context of "what happened" to the Classic 5. *IMO. Me too glad he wrote the book  . I don't feel it is our place to say "how" someone should write a book. I'm just glad we have SOME basis for information inside the group, one man's perspective. As Otis said, Berry Gordy told him "Nobody wants to read a "nice" book...make it a GOOD book". Since we're still talking about it, he must've done that job, whether we like what he said or how he said it, or not . They read Smokey's,Gladys'& Martha's. They didn't tell other members business. Yes,I can and will say Otis had no right in telling other people's business. I'll keep on saying this as long as the subject keeps coming up! Plus,what the hell does Berry Gordy know about writting a book? Did you read his? There are no answers to both questions. Those answers are wrong. When they go back,they will tell you that they made a mistake.  Trust me. I never told you anything wrong. :nono |
|
|
|
Post by crella25 on Jul 18, 2004 19:14:42 GMT -5
I agree with you Mike that Otis had no business telling others business. I still say, that I didn't learn of other members issues in O's book I still hold the position that I learned of a lot of the information 'back in the day'.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoAnne on Jul 18, 2004 23:05:53 GMT -5
They read Smokey's,Gladys'& Martha's. They didn't tell other members business. Yes,I can and will say Otis had no right in telling other people's business. I'll keep on saying this as long as the subject keeps coming up! Plus,what the hell does Berry Gordy know about writting a book? Did you read his? There are no answers to both questions. Those answers are wrong. When they go back,they will tell you that they made a mistake. Trust me. I never told you anything wrong.  :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: |
|
|
|
Post by Aba21 on Jul 19, 2004 9:48:40 GMT -5
I agree with the fact that Otis should not have told other people's business but what he told is still a matter of conjection to me. I respect the opinions of others and want mine respected as well which is why I continue to argue my point. Am I completely right in my opinions.....probably not since I was not there and neither were none of you so I can surmise anything I want and no one can tell me what i THINK IS COMPLETELY WRONG AND WHAT THEY SAY IS COMPLETELY RIGHT!!!!!! It is possible in a discussion to believe whatever you want and hope to learnanything you can. I have never disrespected any member of this group so I won't be held accountable for speaking negative about Paul Eddie and David. I don't care what was wriiten any any article or magazine because as you can see from this thread alone....everybody reads something different from the same group of words...........so if you want respect for what you write then give others the same respect for thier opinions.........we all care about the Temptations and want to learn the truth...................
|
|
|
|
Post by crella25 on Jul 19, 2004 17:28:04 GMT -5
I agree with the fact that Otis should not have told other people's business but what he told is still a matter of conjection to me. I respect the opinions of others and want mine respected as well which is why I continue to argue my point. Am I completely right in my opinions.....probably not since I was not there and neither were none of you so I can surmise anything I want and no one can tell me what i THINK IS COMPLETELY WRONG AND WHAT THEY SAY IS COMPLETELY RIGHT!!!!!! It is possible in a discussion to believe whatever you want and hope to learnanything you can. I have never disrespected any member of this group so I won't be held accountable for speaking negative about Paul Eddie and David. I don't care what was wriiten any any article or magazine because as you can see from this thread alone....everybody reads something different from the same group of words...........so if you want respect for what you write then give others the same respect for thier opinions.........we all care about the Temptations and want to learn the truth................... THANK YOU ABA, I COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT BETTER!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Coey on Jul 19, 2004 18:57:47 GMT -5
3 cheers, Aba! *S*
|
|
|
|
Post by Davidfan on Jul 19, 2004 22:22:36 GMT -5
I am just gonna follow the crowd here: YAY ABA! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 20, 2004 11:40:11 GMT -5
I agree with the fact that Otis should not have told other people's business but what he told is still a matter of conjection to me. I respect the opinions of others and want mine respected as well which is why I continue to argue my point. Am I completely right in my opinions.....probably not since I was not there and neither were none of you so I can surmise anything I want and no one can tell me what i THINK IS COMPLETELY WRONG AND WHAT THEY SAY IS COMPLETELY RIGHT!!!!!! It is possible in a discussion to believe whatever you want and hope to learnanything you can. I have never disrespected any member of this group so I won't be held accountable for speaking negative about Paul Eddie and David. I don't care what was wriiten any any article or magazine because as you can see from this thread alone....everybody reads something different from the same group of words...........so if you want respect for what you write then give others the same respect for thier opinions.........we all care about the Temptations and want to learn the truth................... Now,we're getting somewhere. First of all,I agree with you about opinions being respected. I never disrespected your opinions,just challenged them. I never said that these men were angels I'm just tired of the way some members faults are always talked about ,while other's are put up with and excused...NO GOOD. All the publications that were written about Paul during his lifetime addressed his problems as EXAUSTION. Not what we heard thru the grapevine,that's a whole 'nother thread. We can start that one. Like Mary-Kate Olsen's troubles are subject to question...so are Paul's. I will stand behind what I say,I'm not enlisting anyone to join me if you don't believe what's being said,just let me see the look on your faces when you dig up those old articles and find that Paul's condition was described as EXAUSTION. In fact Paul talks about it in his interview in SOUL. It seems like when the other members say something,it's gospel. HArdly anyone pays attention to what Glenn said in his interview with Maurice Watts,Dennis' interview was the biggest seceret on the board. The things that Eddie and Dennis said on Donnie Simpson said was blocked out due to the attention paid to their SOCKS! Only a few took time to get past the socks and listen to what was said. Richard said some things in that article that was IGNORED. I've read Otis' book,didn't IGNORE any of it...and I'm well aware of the things that he said,and didn't say. I don't understand why some think that I'm trying not to acknowledge the guys "problems",I just say the problems wERE OVERBLOWN I STILL SAy that. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Aba21 on Jul 20, 2004 17:18:46 GMT -5
Overblown they may well have been. But did they have problems..........yes! We don't know how much any of them indulged in their secret lives. It is not important..........just to agree that the probelms existed is all I look for. I think if we can all agree to that...........then we can move on to more important matters about these men......................like the music! |
|
|
|
Post by Coey on Jul 20, 2004 17:27:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Temptress on Jul 20, 2004 18:10:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by crella25 on Jul 20, 2004 21:58:51 GMT -5
Overblown they may well have been. But did they have problems..........yes! We don't know how much any of them indulged in their secret lives. It is not important..........just to agree that the probelms existed is all I look for. I think if we can all agree to that...........then we can move on to more important matters about these men......................like the music!  - CAN WE PUT YOU ON THE TICKET INSTEAD OF KERRY. |
|
|
|
Post by Aba21 on Jul 20, 2004 22:08:40 GMT -5
- CAN WE PUT YOU ON THE TICKET INSTEAD OF KERRY. Uh...no dear! Way too many skeletons in this here closet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D |
|
. I don't feel it is our place to say "how" someone should write a book. I'm just glad we have SOME basis for information inside the group, one man's perspective. As Otis said, Berry Gordy told him "Nobody wants to read a "nice" book...make it a GOOD book". Since we're still talking about it, he must've done that job, whether we like what he said or how he said it, or not 
