|
|
Post by ZeldaFScott on Jul 7, 2004 13:59:07 GMT -5
Mike: My mother does not remember exactly where she heard about Paul's drinking, but she TEXT about it. She has never been to Detroit, in fact, she has never been north of NJ. She reads alot but never out of town newspapers. She said it may well have been the announcement of his death, but she said that she doesn't think that it was an interview with one of the Tempts, it was more like an AP article. She said that she remembered it because she already knew about David and she figured that if one of them died prematurely due to substance abuse, it would have been David. McRibs, I see the point you make. The only thing I feel uncomfortable with is why O. had to rehash the whole thing again. At some point of time, things should simply be left alone. That's my opinion.  |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 7, 2004 14:27:10 GMT -5
 Well done, Kalisa. You'd think Mike would get TIRED of dodging the issue.  Mike ain't dodging nothing. Y'all the ones that dodge...I stand my ground! And will continue to do so.  |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 7, 2004 14:33:02 GMT -5
I said,and I quote so yes it was common knowledge among Tempts fans at the time.i.e. people who were Tempts fans at the time knew some of the stories, and yes who Paul Williams was. Aba...? McRibs? Do you have answers to Mike's questions? I asked first, about whether the article went further than Detroit Free Press, or even if that was the origin of the article. I don't know that for sure. Kalisa,I'm well aware of what you wrote,that's why I asked you the question that I did. I'll tell you right now that they don't have the answers to my question. Like I said I was aTempts fan at the time...that's how I can say that it was not common knowledge among Tempts fans,or any other fans.  |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 7, 2004 14:39:47 GMT -5
Mike: My mother does not remember exactly where she heard about Paul's drinking, but she read about it. She has never been to Detroit, in fact, she has never been north of NJ. She reads alot but never out of town newspapers. She said it may well have been the announcement of his death, but she said that she doesn't think that it was an interview with one of the Tempts, it was more like an AP article. She said that she remembered it because she already knew about David and she figured that if one of them died prematurely due to substance abuse, it would have been David. Thank you ,McRibs...that's what I thought. It "may" have been an announcement of his death. I'm not that far off. I was reading the coverage of David's passing and they refer to his drug use as "RUMOR" in the Amsterdam News,Newsweek,and People. He was arrested for possession of drugs with intent to distribute...that's public record.Nobody that I've talked to can say for sure that they knew of Paul's "alledged " problems while he was alive. |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 7, 2004 14:44:32 GMT -5
McRibs, I see the point you make. The only thing I feel uncomfortable with is why O. had to rehash the whole thing again. At some point of time, things should simply be left alone. That's my opinion. Did not need to go into those subject unless his intent was to TRASH ! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by mcribs on Jul 7, 2004 14:52:48 GMT -5
Did not need to go into those subject unless his intent was to TRASH ! ;D Now see, I don't see it that way. I know that when a person (Otis) writes a book to tell their perspective on a story that happens to a group of people, the publishing company is very clear about what will sell. I am quite sure that if Otis had gone to the publisher with a book that did not address Paul and David's problems, he never would have gotten it published. I don't think what Otis did was "trashing" David and Paul, I think he would have NO credibility if these issues were not mentioned. |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 7, 2004 14:55:45 GMT -5
You can say what he should have wrote or how he should have wrote it or what he should have said or what he shouldn't have said, or what he should have done or whatever you want. Life is full of woulda coulda shouldas and if its your lifes work to stand in judgement of Otis Williams, go for it my friend. You nor I ever walked a foot in his shoes. I don't say he was right...but I don't know for a fact he was all wrong, either. Thank you for letting me say what's on my mind,for a moment there I thought that speaking against Otis' book & movie was against the law..... Contrary to popular belief,my life's work is not to stand in judgement of Otis Williams,just like it's not my life's work to listen to untruths and garbage that otis was GOD'S gift to the Temptations,he wasn't. I will alwasy speak up on this subject because Otis had no right to tell other people's business. It was done for the sole purpose to TRASH. If this was not the case,why did he write that he was gonna say more now ,since David & Eddie were dead,than he did in the hardcover edition,if trashing wasn't the first thing on the agenda? I've only asked this question quite a few times. Why dodge the issue? And this type of action is accepted? Shame! It just shows the lack of respect for those members that were no longer alive. Spitting on their graves.  It sucks. |
|
|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Jul 7, 2004 15:02:53 GMT -5
Mike...other than his groupmates...it isn't the point whether anybody knew about them while he was alive. The point I've tried to make over and over is that people...many people...knew about it before Otis ever put pen to paper or voice to recorder or however he 'wrote' his book...the information was out there. Period. BEFORE Otis said it.
I have to second McRibs in her comments that ignoring or not mentioning David's or Paul's problems in his book would have made the book a difficult 'sell' to publishers.
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 7, 2004 15:05:33 GMT -5
could people who went to concerts tell whether paul was drunk or not? Good question. I remember the last time I saw Paul alive,he was having trouble with some of the steps. He still sang his ass off. Now ,can one honestly say that the man was missing steps because he was drunk,or sick? I've seen people that are sick and they look like they are on drugs,or drunk. Ever seen anyone go into a diabetic coma? I have and you can't tell if they are drunk,having a stroke,or going into a diabetic coma. You don't know,unless you're a doctor. |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 7, 2004 15:13:58 GMT -5
Mike...other than his groupmates...it isn't the point whether anybody knew about them while he was alive. The point I've tried to make over and over is that people...many people...knew about it before Otis ever put pen to paper or voice to recorder or however he 'wrote' his book...the information was out there. Period. BEFORE Otis said it. I have to second McRibs in her comments that ignoring or not mentioning David's or Paul's problems in his book would have made the book a difficult 'sell' to publishers. That didn't make Gladys',Smokey's or Martha's books diffucult to sell to publishers.. I just can't go along with that "logic". It's not true. As far as the point that you were trying to make....Many people DID NOT know these things that you claim that they did before Otis' book came out. And fewer people knew about it while Paul was alive. This is as wrong as thinking that someone heard a song because someone that they know heard it. Ain't necessarily so....they tell all the children that David,Paul,Eddie & Dennis were the villians...but it ain't necessarily so!  |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 7, 2004 15:18:47 GMT -5
Now see, I don't see it that way. I know that when a person (Otis) writes a book to tell their perspective on a story that happens to a group of people, the publishing company is very clear about what will sell. I am quite sure that if Otis had gone to the publisher with a book that did not address Paul and David's problems, he never would have gotten it published. I don't think what Otis did was "trashing" David and Paul, I think he would have NO credibility if these issues were not mentioned. The publisher's had no problem with Smokey's,Gladys' or Martha's. Why would they have a problem with Otis? Sorry,I just don't think that's logical. Again,why would Otis wthat he 's writting about things that he didn't say now that David and Eddie are dead? Please ,don't try to make like that's not what the man wrote? Why dodge this question? |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 7, 2004 15:29:34 GMT -5
Mike...other than his groupmates...it isn't the point whether anybody knew about them while he was alive. The point I've tried to make over and over is that people...many people...knew about it before Otis ever put pen to paper or voice to recorder or however he 'wrote' his book...the information was out there. Period. BEFORE Otis said it. Maybe not to you it's not the point weather anybody knew about them while he was alive...but it is to me. This was not common knowledge while Paul was alive. It was Paul's story to tell...not Otis' PERIOD ! It was a low blow and just plain disrespectful. Without Paul's imput...Otis wouldn't have SQUAT to work with. The man didn't deserved to be trashed like that. Especially since he was not alive to defend himself. But,going on the revised edition,seems like that's when the author is most comfortable trashing people that are not around to defend themselves. Hey,McRibs,you wanted me to list Otis' faults and we'd talk about them. I just pointed out a huge one. Ain't nobody gonna touch this one! They can't say it's not documented....All they have to do is look in Otis' revised book and ...TALK! What you think? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by mcribs on Jul 7, 2004 16:07:22 GMT -5
The publisher's had no problem with Smokey's,Gladys' or Martha's. Why would they have a problem with Otis? That's funny. When I read Martha's book, I thought, "Boy, she SURE doesn't like Diana Ross!" Not that I am a fan of Diana's, but I think Martha using her story to trash Diana and Berry Gordy is much more out of line. At least Otis was in a group with Paul and David! I did not read Smokey's or Gladys' book, but I think they are more positive people to begin with. I'm not saying that it was the best decision, but to say that Otis doesn't have the RIGHT to write about what happened in the group, is a little harsh. I think we all understand that it is your opinion that Otis should be flogged for doing it, but some of us disagree with you. |
|
|
|
Post by Aba21 on Jul 7, 2004 17:11:26 GMT -5
The only fault that Otis had that seems to be the most talked about is wether he should have wrote it and what he wrote. The fact is he was a Temptation, and that gives him the right to write his version of the events as he saw them. I don't care how you break it down and what you think he did wrong. It is still his version and he had a write to write it. YOu can't tell him what he could and could not write, that;s crazy. If it means he gets flogged every day for the rest of his life, he still can write what he wants.
The common every day person may not have known about the troubles of the group but arrests and newspapers accounts at the time of Paul's death made it common knowledge. Are you saying Paul didn't drink? That's all I want to know. I don't care to what extent he drank, did he drink.? And if he was sick, he shouldn't have been drinking. We know alcohol can have an adverse affect on someone who is sick. Otis didn't make him sick and he didn't make him drink. Those are facts. We can hollar til we're blue in the face about how much but nobody knows who wasn't there.
But the main thing is, it is okay to have a different opinon. Just because one doesn't agree doesn't mean they don't have any validity to their thoughts. It ceases to be a discussion when there is no two way. I don't think anyone is trying to change the other's mind about the events cause I don't care what you write, none of us were there when it happened so that means no one person's belief carries more weight than another one.
In turn it also means that what Otis wrote ain't the last word and shouldn't be treated as such. No by those who are for it and not by those against it as well.
This thread started out as a discussion about an article in the newspaper in which people talked about the death od PAul. In it people said a number of things about Pau'ls health and welfare and not one quote was from Otis. Between the time of Paul's death and Otis book, much has been said about David and Paul. By the time Otis wrote his book not only did he feel it was ok to say it, Motown ok'd it for the movie.
But is it really important in the grand scheme. Not to me. It doesn't change the way I feel about any of the members of the Temptations. So what they had faults......so do I and so do everybody else who reads this. It just don't matter. You ain't ever gonna get everybody on the same page on this subject, simple as that. I got a knot onmy forehead from :banghead ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by ZeldaFScott on Jul 7, 2004 17:16:44 GMT -5
Fact is, though, that he managed to draw a lot of attention to the flaws of the other guys ...
|
|
