Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Apr 14, 2008 6:45:53 GMT -5
I mean, what relevance does it bring to the main discussion, it is more or less trivial and it has bloomed into something more because I'm just not seeing a clear case of a guy with 6 toes. Based on the light, shading and color that is in that picture, I still am not seeing a 6th toe. I'm open to the possibility that I am wrong, but for now, what else can I say. You think I'm a quack for thinking that way, I get it, loud and clear. Here is a pic from his Lonely Road video, iameye posted it... Don't know for sure that is his foot, but he was behind the wheel of the car. How about the Driving Rain album? Thats not Faul's (oh sorry, her majesties poodle Sir Paul) foot. Big toe is not grossly mis-shapen as in the other photo! Faul....say it slowly......FAUL. Do you realize how incredibly stupid you sound? How can you take yourself seriously when, bad as it is that you're talking about a famous musician have died and been replaced, you're actually accustomed to calling him a stupid nickname that was made up by someone with far too much time on there hands? Or do you actually believe all of that 60IF BS? I truly pity you if you do. The man's name is Paul McCartney. If you were to steal his wallet, you'd see that on all his credit cards and his driver's license: PAUL FUCKING MCCARTNEY. He was never called "Faul" by anyone, and the whole stupid idea behind that name originated in the crazy mind of---dare I say his name---Sun King.
|
|
|
Post by pauliedied on Apr 14, 2008 8:08:08 GMT -5
Thats not Faul's (oh sorry, her majesties poodle Sir Paul) foot. Big toe is not grossly mis-shapen as in the other photo! Faul....say it slowly......FAUL. Do you realize how incredibly stupid you sound? How can you take yourself seriously when, bad as it is that you're talking about a famous musician have died and been replaced, you're actually accustomed to calling him a stupid nickname that was made up by someone with far too much time on there hands? Or do you actually believe all of that 60IF BS? I truly pity you if you do. The man's name is Paul McCartney. If you were to steal his wallet, you'd see that on all his credit cards and his driver's license: PAUL FUCKING MCCARTNEY. He was never called "Faul" by anyone, and the whole stupid idea behind that name originated in the crazy mind of---dare I say his name---Sun King. THANK YOU JUDE!
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Apr 14, 2008 8:36:55 GMT -5
Jude, don't you think you are taking too much care of this matter?
I sometime use Faul, sometime Sir Paul..
If I use "Faul", this doesn't mean that I subscribe "60if". It simply means that I like the calembour "false Paul-Faul", even if it was invented by sun king. If you don't like to read it, that's not my problem (and, to be sincere, I don't think it's a problem at all.)
As we are in democracy, I think that we are free to refer to the man actually known as Paul McCartney as we like. The only thing that is important is to be polite and not use rude words, not call a guy Faul or Paul. And in your last post you were not so polite...
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Apr 14, 2008 8:51:57 GMT -5
It's actually used to distinguish between the original James Paul McCartney and any incarnation of him post 1966 if he was indeed killed and/or replaced and IMO it makes sense to have different names for "him"
|
|
|
Post by jarvitronics on Apr 14, 2008 10:14:34 GMT -5
Confusesus say, "Him who strain at gnat surely swallow whole camel."
-j
|
|
|
Post by skyward on Apr 14, 2008 11:21:04 GMT -5
Thats not Faul's (oh sorry, her majesties poodle Sir Paul) foot. Big toe is not grossly mis-shapen as in the other photo! You targeted the "proper moniker" topic when I chose to use SirPaul, as if I knighted the guy myself. That is not the case, and I explained why, I don't understand why you opt to turn to sniping, e.g. I can't count 5 fingers, rather than explaining and understanding. In the first photo, Bill is flexing his toes upward and that is not as natural a state compared to a lax foot on a gas pedal. There will be differences. I don't know if that is his foot or not, it was implied in the video that it is his foot. The angle and lighting of the shot, in the first pic where "you see" 6 toes, combined with the flexing of his toes upward makes it appear that he might have something unusual going on. I don't see it, I don't agree. We don't see a 6th toe flexing upward like the other 5, there is no ligament leading to this 6th toe. It is the joint of his 5th toe. I don't want to go search for similar images where we see similar cases, but this is not unusual. If you can bring up another picture of Bill's feet, then that would help support your belief and I might change my mind. Or, you can go back to the belittlement approach, but for now, I don't see what you are seeing.
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Apr 14, 2008 16:02:03 GMT -5
It's actually used to distinguish between the original James Paul McCartney and any incarnation of him post 1966 if he was indeed killed and/or replaced and IMO it makes sense to have different names for "him" Right. Except Bill is a real name, and it is considered by many to be Sir Paul's original name. But whether Paul is dead or not, there's no changing the fact that the man is named Paul McCartney. One of the reasons that Sir Paul is so often villainised by newcomers to this community is because we make it so damn easy to do so. When you stop calling the man Paul McCartney---or some variation thereof, such as Macca, or Sir Paul---whether you mean to or not you're stripping that man of all dignity and respect. You're calling him a Fake Paul, as if he had done nothing worth mentioning during the 41 years he has now been Paul. He's been Paul longer than JPM was himself! But there's this really nasty-sounding name that we all call him: "Faul". It's not even a real name, it's made-up, which makes it all the more easy to target Macca and blame him for all sorts of rubbish. I think most of you who have been in this scene for a while know what I'm talking about. Il ras, go on and stick to the out-dated nickname of "Faul"....stick to a name that was born in the minds of people who were always prejudiced against Paul to begin with. As for me, I'll continue to give Sir Paul the same respect I'd show anyone else by referring to him by his actual name, or at least with a nickname that isn't tasteless/insulting. For being so rude, but that's just how I feel about this silly issue.
|
|
|
Post by CoconutFudge on Apr 14, 2008 16:34:44 GMT -5
I don't want to step on anybody's toes, but I just don't know how I should refer to the replacement... I don't even know if that's okay to say! I don't want to have to worry about causing fights over something like that so, just for my reference and maybe others', how can we refer to the Paul McCartney of today to ensure absolute clarity when we are discussing him? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by jarvitronics on Apr 14, 2008 16:44:36 GMT -5
I don't want to step on anybody's toes, but I just don't know how I should refer to the replacement... I don't even know if that's okay to say! I don't want to have to worry about causing fights over something like that so, just for my reference and maybe others', how can we refer to the Paul McCartney of today to ensure absolute clarity when we are discussing him? Refer to him any way you want to. Don't let others micromanage you with their silly rules. -j
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Apr 14, 2008 16:45:17 GMT -5
Thats not Faul's (oh sorry, her majesties poodle Sir Paul) foot. Big toe is not grossly mis-shapen as in the other photo! Faul....say it slowly......FAUL. Do you realize how incredibly stupid you sound? How can you take yourself seriously when, bad as it is that you're talking about a famous musician have died and been replaced, you're actually accustomed to calling him a stupid nickname that was made up by someone with far too much time on there hands? Or do you actually believe all of that 60IF BS? I truly pity you if you do. The man's name is Paul McCartney. If you were to steal his wallet, you'd see that on all his credit cards and his driver's license: PAUL FUCKING MCCARTNEY. He was never called "Faul" by anyone, and the whole stupid idea behind that name originated in the crazy mind of---dare I say his name---Sun King. I just don't understand your reasoning at all, Jude. You object to the appellation "Faul" because the man doesn't have it on any of the ID that he carries in his wallet. But you say, on the other hand, that it's OK to call him "Bill". Yet he probably doesn't have anything in his wallet that identifies him as "Bill" either. If the man is NOT the original Paul McCartney, then he's a "Faux Paul" or a "False Paul", regardless of how you think he's conducted himself since acquiring the name. "Faul" is therefore not an inappropriate moniker, regardless of its origins. Anyway, you are a big Iamaphoney supporter, and Iamaphoney barely gives the man credit for being a member of the human race. I just don't understand what the triggers are that turn your moral outrage on and off.
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Apr 14, 2008 16:46:16 GMT -5
Jude, I don't think that "the rock" is a real name but I know an actor that likes to be called in that way.... Here in the forum everybody has a nickname. Why shouldn't we give one to "him" too?
I don't think that the name "faul" is tasteless/insulting (while calling someone "stupid" is). I don't think Sir Paul is offended by that, he's much more intelligent than that.
I really don't understand why you are, on the one hand, so sensible (feeling offended instead of Sir Paul), and, on the other hand, able to write rude words to some of the members of this forum.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 14, 2008 16:52:18 GMT -5
I usually just go with Sir Paul or Bill, but the context of the matter under discussion should make it clear in a sentence or two, e.g. "Paul McCartney was spotted in the Bahamas with a new lady friend, or Paul McCartney's Fireman album".
I think Faul is OK to use as shorthand for an (alleged) false Paul, such as "The Strawberry Fields Faul". (especially since some are of the opinion that he isn't even the current man known as Paul McCartney) But I agree that there is no point in addressing Sir Paul as "Faul", and getting back to TKIN.. never mind the "secret document" business, it was the constant berating of posters who slipped and said "Paul" when they should have said "Faul" according to their dictatorial moderating style. Buzz off, thanks..
I know some will insist on using "Faul" and will continue to do so.. I don't like it, but I accept it..
|
|
|
Post by skyward on Apr 14, 2008 17:48:41 GMT -5
This discussion was triggered because Thisone insinuated that I am sitting at Sir Paul's round table because I called him Sir Paul.
I explained why I prefer to use that term, or others like Bill or Macca.
We had a discussion like this a few months ago, and Jude's sentiment was:
"What if we are all wrong about the scenario, what if this guy really is JPM?"
It is that sliver of doubt that makes me feel more comfortable calling the guy by something other than 'Fake Paul or Faux Paul'.
That is it.
I didn't think it was necessary to have to defend or explain my decision to use the term Sir Paul, especially in a discussion about whether or not the guy has 6 toes.
If it is revealed with certainty that he is a Faux Paul, then I will use the name, Faul.
If the context is a discussion of a variety of look-alikes or doubles from the 60s, then I might be apt to use Faul, as well. They did have doubles, right?
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Apr 14, 2008 17:52:27 GMT -5
Faul....say it slowly......FAUL. Do you realize how incredibly stupid you sound? How can you take yourself seriously when, bad as it is that you're talking about a famous musician have died and been replaced, you're actually accustomed to calling him a stupid nickname that was made up by someone with far too much time on there hands? Or do you actually believe all of that 60IF BS? I truly pity you if you do. The man's name is Paul McCartney. If you were to steal his wallet, you'd see that on all his credit cards and his driver's license: PAUL FUCKING MCCARTNEY. He was never called "Faul" by anyone, and the whole stupid idea behind that name originated in the crazy mind of---dare I say his name---Sun King. I just don't understand your reasoning at all, Jude. You object to the appellation "Faul" because the man doesn't have it on any of the ID that he carries in his wallet. But you say, on the other hand, that it's OK to call him "Bill". Yet he probably doesn't have anything in his wallet that identifies him as "Bill" either. If the man is NOT the original Paul McCartney, then he's a "Faux Paul" or a "False Paul", regardless of how you think he's conducted himself since acquiring the name. "Faul" is therefore not an inappropriate moniker, regardless of its origins. Anyway, you are a big Iamaphoney supporter, and Iamaphoney barely gives the man credit for being a member of the human race. I just don't understand what the triggers are that turn your moral outrage on and off. Read my last post. I simply feel that the name "Faul" has a kind of stigma attached to it. It's like oh he's not Paul, he's "Faul"--a cheap imitation of the original. Plus, it's a lot easier to pick on and hate a celebrity when you don't even have to refer to them by their actual name, i.e. Jacko instead of Michael Jackson, or Dubya instead of George Bush. I just think that, like the man or not we should be a little more respectful of him because when all is said and done this a Beatles forum---one that focuses on the alleged death and replacement of Paul McCartney---but still a Beatles forum, and Sir Paul was a Beatle. Anyway, JoJo doesn't like it, and that's reason enough for me use other, more suitable alternatives.
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Apr 14, 2008 18:05:12 GMT -5
I didn't think it was necessary to have to defend or explain my decision to use the term Sir Paul, especially in a discussion about whether or not the guy has 6 toes. I agree. It makes me cringe whenever I see someone get their knickers in a twist over calling the man "Paul" instead of "Faul" (as if there were some government mandate that we should all call him that name). I know that's exactly what I've been doing, but I was kind of dragged into this (no offense, skyward) when my name was mentioned. Thisone really got this whole thing started when he accused skyward of anti-PID sentiments just because he had used the title "Sir Paul" rather than Faul.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Apr 14, 2008 18:10:27 GMT -5
I don't want to step on anybody's toes, but I just don't know how I should refer to the replacement... I don't even know if that's okay to say! I don't want to have to worry about causing fights over something like that so, just for my reference and maybe others', how can we refer to the Paul McCartney of today to ensure absolute clarity when we are discussing him? Thanks. Yes, call him whatever you like. This just seems a bit silly to me. So what if "faul" originated with Sunking? Faul may not show all that much respect for the guy but damn, he's livin' a lie in front of the whole world. He is NOT Paul McCartney. He isn't deserving of any mandatory respect.... only voluntary. I used to use Faul regularly until I became a bigger fan thru his side projects like the Fireman, Twin Freaks, & LSC. Then I voluntarily decided to switch to "Sir Paul" & "James Paul" to differentiate the 2 guys. But nobody can convince me that "faul" in inappropriate.
|
|
|
Post by fubarchad on Apr 14, 2008 18:23:24 GMT -5
I myself refer to him as Faul. I can't say I am a extremely smart person ;D but I do not think I'm "Stupid" oh well..
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Apr 14, 2008 18:51:15 GMT -5
I don't want to step on anybody's toes, but I just don't know how I should refer to the replacement... I don't even know if that's okay to say! I don't want to have to worry about causing fights over something like that so, just for my reference and maybe others', how can we refer to the Paul McCartney of today to ensure absolute clarity when we are discussing him? Thanks. Yes, call him whatever you like. This just seems a bit silly to me. So what if "faul" originated with Sunking? Faul may not show all that much respect for the guy but damn, he's livin' a lie in front of the whole world. He is NOT Paul McCartney. He isn't deserving of any mandatory respect.... only voluntary. I used to use Faul regularly until I became a bigger fan thru his side projects like the Fireman, Twin Freaks, & LSC. Then I voluntarily decided to switch to "Sir Paul" & "James Paul" to differentiate the 2 guys. But nobody can convince me that "faul" in inappropriate. I didn't say that he is deserving of mandatory respect. But what has he done to deserve the disrespect that comes with calling him a fake Paul? Not all of us are as gung-ho about PID as you are, eyesbleed. Sir Paul doesn't show much respect for Paul? What? No offense, but that's quite possibly the most absurd thing I've heard all day. You're actually so convinced that you're right and that Sir Paul isn't Paul that you feel comfortable with judging how well he performs that role, how much "respect" he shows the man he claims to be? All I can say is, when Sir Paul dies he's going receive a really well-deserved eulogy in which he will undoubtedly be referred to by the name he has spent more of his life living by than the person you claim he's not showing much respect for.
|
|
|
Post by jarvitronics on Apr 14, 2008 19:04:17 GMT -5
<snip> what has he done to deserve the disrespect that comes with calling him a fake Paul? <snip> How about faking being Paul? I know it's only a literal qualification (allegedly, of course), but if the boots fit... -j
|
|
|
Post by B on Apr 14, 2008 19:28:07 GMT -5
I have used Faul as opposed to Paul just to distinguish between the two. I intend to continue using the name Faul that way, with no disrespect intended towards Faul by the use of it. If I wish to convey the idea that I think Faul is a lesser person than Paul, I will do so in the context of my remarks, not by 'name-calling'. I do tend to feel that Faul should not be called 'Paul McCartney', because that leaves room for confusion about who, specifically, is being refererenced, imo. Jude can accuse me of "name calling" for using the name Faul all he wants, and I won't care because in my mind I am not using it to insult the person who is (obviously) not the individual who was born James Paul McCartney. But I will go a step further, and say that if the spirit of JPM now abides in the body of Faul, along with the spirit of the original person who was born in the body of Faul, I will still, most likely, refer to the physical body of Faul as Faul. Now here's something to consider: If the trip to India was supposed to have been for the implantation of Paul's spirit into Faul, was it a failure? And if that was the purpose, why did the other Beatles even bother to go? I suspect that the technique for "soul implanting" would have been learned by the people who went, not only for the sake of Paul, but for any of the Beatles who might already have been dead, or who might run the risk of being dead later on. What I am saying is that perhaps Ringo was dead too, or John, etc. And even if they weren't, the crew that went to India may have been doubles who intended to learn to channel the original Beatles so that the show could go on unabated. Now I realize that it was TKIN that described the mission to India in the words I have used above, but it is not likely that the purpose of the mission would have been to plant Paul's spirit into Faul. A human body is intended to house one owner, but a better definition of what was intended for those going to India might have been that Faul and the others were to learn to channel the spiritual energy of Paul (et al). This is where, imo, the "I am he as you are he" etc. becomes significant. It's not the repeating of the phrase backwards that matters; it is understanding that we are all each other empathetically which is what matters. And it is this understanding: that what we do individually affects, and is reflected back to us, in what others do, that is the key to acting with wisdom. You and I can be as much "Paul" or "John" or "George" or even "Ringo" as we allow ourselves to be. You reading this can be more Paul than Faul is, with some discipline and training. Imo. The degree to which you open up to, and acclimate yourself to, the spirit of Paul is up to you. No doubt what the Maharishi was supposed to do was to teach his students the techniques that would allow them to have the kind of sensitivity and receptivity that would allow them to be open to the promptings, and even possession by, the spirits of the disincarnate Beatles, in the event there were any at that time, or in time to come later. That is, if, in fact, they went to India for that purpose. They may have just gone to learn Trancendental Meditation.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Apr 14, 2008 19:35:59 GMT -5
I didn't say that he is deserving of mandatory respect. But what has he done to deserve the disrespect that comes with calling him a fake Paul? Not all of us are as gung-ho about PID as you are, eyesbleed. Sir Paul doesn't show much respect for Paul? What? No offense, but that's quite possibly the most absurd thing I've heard all day. You're actually so convinced that you're right and that Sir Paul isn't Paul that you feel comfortable with judging how well he performs that role, how much "respect" he shows the man he claims to be? Well, no I don't think he showed James Paul any respect at all while he was releasing all that worthless fluff... or so-called "music" during the 80's. Releasing crap like Silly Love Songs certainly isn't doin' James Paul any favors. Granted, I give him credit for correcting this, for the most part, in recent years, but I would sure hate to have my name on a lot of that 80's "music"... So yes... obviously I do feel comfortable judging how well he performs that role. Actually Jude, my gung-ho has shifted completely over to PWR. I'm just not so sure of the PID part of it any longer, for what it's worth. Faul....say it slowly......FAUL. Do you realize how incredibly stupid you sound? The man's name is Paul McCartney. So basically I disagree Jude. Faul doesn't sound stupid & no... his name isn't Paul McCartney.... that's his "stage" name. Granted there are more Paul McCartney's out there & that's their name, but Sir Paul uses it in the context that he is the James Paul Mcartney. In that context... no he is not Paul McCartney.
|
|
|
Post by skyward on Apr 14, 2008 20:00:03 GMT -5
At first, I didn't give much thought into using Faul to represent the guy we see now, but, later on, after reading the forum here and thinking about it, I felt more comfortable using other terms.
edit to add-- I was primarily influenced by reading Jude's sentiments regarding the subject a few months back.
I suspect many people use Faul just because that seems to be the norm, and it has nothing to do with TKIN.
I don't question why other people choose to use Faul, Macca, Sir Paul, or Bill. It doesn't bother me one way or the other, it isn't terribly important, but... To slap the scarlet letter on someone (to call them out) because they opt to use Sir Paul is a bit much, I think. That is what happened to spawn this debate/discussion, i.e. my opinion was deemed invalid because I chose to use Sir Paul.
|
|
|
Post by rbbrsoul on Apr 14, 2008 20:32:36 GMT -5
My preference is to refer to the original as James Paul or JPM while "Sir Paul/Faul" is simply referred to as "Bill." I think the turning point for me was the Rotten Apple where it shows him in the Liverpool pub, and the old lady says "Hello, Billy!"
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 14, 2008 21:12:35 GMT -5
I prefer Macca, in the sense that it is an affectionate nickname, and for me Macca doesn't seem to fit James Paul, or whatever my concept of James Paul might be; it speaks to his overall career, musical and otherwise, and his entrepreneurial gifts and efforts. It's the person Lennon had a deep respect for. I wonder if it is really more appropriate for someone who actually knew him, as I don't maybe it isn't appropriate for me.
Bill is just the name reflected in so many of our pet "evidences" around here. Like "There is still a chance that they may see, Bill", and "Have you met Bill?" from "Give My Regards to Broadstreet", and "Bungalow Bill." Same for Billy as in Shears, and William as in the Pablo Fanque references and et cetera et al.
Sir Paul IS who he really is, end of story, close book, black out and curtain. He is Sir Paul McCartney, at least, this is who he has genuinely become. But he wasn't always knighted, so I wouldn't say Sir Paul of 1980's Paul.
"Faul" is campy and I suppose a little bit rude sounding, but it also sounds like the kind of thing Lennon would have said, and in his own bizarre way, I am sure the handful of times he may have said it in front of Bill, he meant it affectionatlely.
I think "Faul" mainly applies to the early days, the first flapping of his wings as Paul. Paul-in training." (Which would be PIT.)
Face it, Christmas '66 through like May of '67, well, the formula was not yet complete. It's those early forays out as Paul that I suspect, to most of us, look so surreal. This is Paul? This is not Paul! It's Faul! Gradually he looks more and more like him until one says, ah, this is, or could be, Paul.
I was shy about using it 4 or 5 years ago. It seemed brash. Sadly, I have become more accustomed to it as to me it's not meant out of disrespect, but just as a sort of campy reminder of the situation as a whole, not the person. Faul isn't a real name; nobody is named Faul anywhere. It's never been a name (in English speaking lands) , it's not his name. It's a reference.
Jojo pointed out--it's quick shorthand. It delineates when discussing who and what. You don't have to keep saying, "the person whoever he is that took Paul's place", etc.
How about Raul, Replacement Paul? or Naul? New Paul? or P2, or Paul:Re-Issued, Paul's Twin, Dopplegang Paul.
If the "F" word becomes to offensive to the group as a whole, I will eliminate my use of it altogether.
We all know that he is a not just a model who was engaged to stand long term in front of the cameras----rather, he is the complete musical package-----with or without our early Beatle memories.
Thanks for your indulgence.
Fonald Feverly.
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Apr 14, 2008 21:46:35 GMT -5
I use Faul, but it's pronounced 'throat warbler mangrove'
(see vid)
|
|