|
Post by Red Lion on Feb 10, 2008 2:53:52 GMT -5
The disgust would still be there when I see him bragging about JPM's work...sorry can't help it... And what would you say if Paul collaborated with Bill all these years?
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Feb 10, 2008 2:54:29 GMT -5
As someone who always has been and probably will indefinitely be "on the fence" about the issue at large, I agree with Rita and chellebelle, more or less.
Part of that is just a matter of taste. I don't have very much interest in any of the Beatles post-Beatle material. Regardless of whether there was just one Paul or more than one Paul, as a group, they were greater than the sum of their combined parts, and nothing that any of them did afterwards, individually or in collaboration with others, could match it.
I'm freely willing to acknowledge that there is a lot of great post-1966 material attributed to "McCartney" -- but again, only that which he did as a Beatle. I don't care very much for anything that "Paul", whoever he is, did after the Beatles broke up.
But yeah, if Faul replaced Paul and if he used Paul's name to promote his own stuff, instead of letting his own stuff stand purely on its merit, that strikes me as despicable conduct and unfair to the memory -- if that is the case -- of the original Paul.
Granted, I'm saying that without knowing the circumstances. But whatever the circumstances might have been in the late 1960's, I doubt that they would be the same today.
If Paul is Faul, then he should have come out a long time ago. If Faul became Paul only to save the Beatles, then he should have shed that mask as soon as the Beatles broke up -- though again, I'm saying that without necessarily being aware of all of the circumstances. But on the surface, it strikes me as despicable to continue to impersonate another and usurp his name.
I don't like the occasional flip "cute" response that he would sometimes give in response to the principal question -- always something along the lines of, "As you can see, I'm not dead. I'm perfectly fine." Yeah, anyone can perceive that the individual addressing his audience isn't dead, but that begs the question of that individual's identity.
Whoever this man is, he deserves the scrutiny that he's getting because he's brought it on himself.
I actually don't care a whole lot for any of the Beatles as human beings post-1966, but that's worth an entirely different thread in an entirely different subject heading and category.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Feb 10, 2008 3:03:20 GMT -5
Wow, what a thread. I probably shouldn't share my views, being new and for some reason, an unactivated member. But what the heck, eh? I am one who has no respect for Bill/Faul. Do I believe he is talented, yes. He has talent without a doubt, and I have a lot of empathy for him and the situation. I have thought of this whole enigma and wrestled various emotions. I've cried over a man that I believe died 4 yrs before I was even born! I literally almost puked, and was nauseous for days after watching the video of Billy singing "I Lost My Little Girl" live and bragging about it being the first song 'he' ever wrote! I can't respect him....I and we needed to mourn JPM and have people take this seriously! WMGGW was wrote about us...the fans. JPM was a soul, not a commodity. I'm not trying to offend, it's just the main issue for me. I'm also not idolizing or pretending he was a choir boy. Anyways, I can't respect this impostor.....Maybe I've erroneous shifted more of the blame towards him than the system behind it. We all have our own sins to suffer the consequences for but I believe he has committed the ultimate sin and I need confession and repentance. Then I will respect him. I believe he wants this mess off his chest and will do so shortly before he dies or has something to be released when he dies. Of course my views would change some if PWR and knew Bill and approved of the switch.. . As far as JoJo and LR's discussion, I think it kinda got blown out of proportion? It's only a silly little discussion... ;D I liked "Say Say Say" and "Silly Love Songs" hehe I have never invested in any of his solo music though, only Lennon's. Even before I knew of PID/PWR, I always thought he was kinda weird for some reason... I wish LR would reconsider and stay. I don't post much but I enjoy reading everyone's thoughts. I think we should stick together since there aren't very many people who you can discuss these things with. We don't always have to agree to be friends. Let's stay together. In my opinion, everyone here should be at least a bit open to the possibility of Paul not being dead. If that proves to be the case, then a lot of your "disgust" over Bill taking credit will seem awfully silly, won't it? I'm certainly open to the possibility that he isn't dead. I'm open to the possibility that he was never replaced at all. But if he was replaced, I think that by far the most likely reason for it would be that he died. If he was replaced, then my inclination would be to take all of those references to death and car crashes on their face. Why give clues about a yet-undiscovered disappearance that are both surreptitious and false? If Paul was replaced, then it's hard for me to imagine a still-living Paul remaining dormant and in hiding for all of these years. But dead men can't sing and they can't grow restless and bored and they can't grow upset at someone borrowing their names.
|
|
|
Post by chellebelle37 on Feb 10, 2008 3:04:50 GMT -5
The disgust would still be there when I see him bragging about JPM's work...sorry can't help it... And what would you say if Paul collaborated with Bill all these years? Then I'd feel silly for falling for their game and sitting in a bubble bath crying my eyes out for an hour over JPM's unrecognized death.
|
|
|
Post by chellebelle37 on Feb 10, 2008 3:08:21 GMT -5
As someone who always has been and probably will indefinitely be "on the fence" about the issue at large, I agree with Rita and chellebelle, more or less. Part of that is just a matter of taste. I don't have very much interest in any of the Beatles post-Beatle material. Regardless of whether there was just one Paul or more than one Paul, as a group, they were greater than the sum of their combined parts, and nothing that any of them did afterwards, individually or in collaboration with others, could match it. I'm freely willing to acknowledge that there is a lot of great post-1966 material attributed to "McCartney" -- but again, only that which he did as a Beatle. I don't care very much for anything that "Paul", whoever he is, did after the Beatles broke up. But yeah, if Faul replaced Paul and if he used Paul's name to promote his own stuff, instead of letting his own stuff stand purely on its merit, that strikes me as despicable conduct and unfair to the memory -- if that is the case -- of the original Paul. Granted, I'm saying that without knowing the circumstances. But whatever the circumstances might have been in the late 1960's, I doubt that they would be the same today. If Paul is Faul, then he should have come out a long time ago. If Faul became Paul only to save the Beatles, then he should have shed that mask as soon as the Beatles broke up -- though again, I'm saying that without necessarily being aware of all of the circumstances. But on the surface, it strikes me as despicable to continue to impersonate another and usurp his name. I don't like the occasional flip "cute" response that he would sometimes give in response to the principal question -- always something along the lines of, "As you can see, I'm not dead. I'm perfectly fine." Yeah, anyone can perceive that the individual addressing his audience isn't dead, but that begs the question of that individual's identity. Whoever this man is, he deserves the scrutiny that he's getting because he's brought it on himself. I actually don't care a whole lot for any of the Beatles as human beings post-1966, but that's worth an entirely different thread in an entirely different subject heading and category. Well said!
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Feb 10, 2008 3:19:58 GMT -5
As someone who always has been and probably will indefinitely be "on the fence" about the issue at large, I agree with Rita and chellebelle, more or less. Part of that is just a matter of taste. I don't have very much interest in any of the Beatles post-Beatle material. Regardless of whether there was just one Paul or more than one Paul, as a group, they were greater than the sum of their combined parts, and nothing that any of them did afterwards, individually or in collaboration with others, could match it. I'm freely willing to acknowledge that there is a lot of great post-1966 material attributed to "McCartney" -- but again, only that which he did as a Beatle. I don't care very much for anything that "Paul", whoever he is, did after the Beatles broke up. But yeah, if Faul replaced Paul and if he used Paul's name to promote his own stuff, instead of letting his own stuff stand purely on its merit, that strikes me as despicable conduct and unfair to the memory -- if that is the case -- of the original Paul. Granted, I'm saying that without knowing the circumstances. But whatever the circumstances might have been in the late 1960's, I doubt that they would be the same today. If Paul is Faul, then he should have come out a long time ago. If Faul became Paul only to save the Beatles, then he should have shed that mask as soon as the Beatles broke up -- though again, I'm saying that without necessarily being aware of all of the circumstances. But on the surface, it strikes me as despicable to continue to impersonate another and usurp his name. I don't like the occasional flip "cute" response that he would sometimes give in response to the principal question -- always something along the lines of, "As you can see, I'm not dead. I'm perfectly fine." Yeah, anyone can perceive that the individual addressing his audience isn't dead, but that begs the question of that individual's identity. Whoever this man is, he deserves the scrutiny that he's getting because he's brought it on himself. I actually don't care a whole lot for any of the Beatles as human beings post-1966, but that's worth an entirely different thread in an entirely different subject heading and category. Well said! Thank you very much. And I meant to also say that even if it really always has been the same Paul all along, I still think lowly of him. I think lowly of him and the other Beatles for dropping clues (or allowing them to be dropped) concerning his death (for reasons yet unexplained) and then denying that they had done anything of the sort.
|
|
|
Post by chellebelle37 on Feb 10, 2008 3:25:17 GMT -5
Thank you very much. And I meant to also say that even if it really always has been the same Paul all along, I still think lowly of him. I think lowly of him and the other Beatles for dropping clues (or allowing them to be dropped) concerning his death (for reasons yet unexplained) and then denying that they had done anything of the sort. Well, I'd have to agree to that. But I am convinced of PWR, and I'll be really surprised if he's alive.
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Feb 10, 2008 11:36:46 GMT -5
The reason I don't take Paul's death very seriously (that is to say, mourning over the loss of this talented individual's life and such), is that it has yet to be proven that he is, in fact, dead. It's one thing to get hung up over someone who died 42 years ago---and it's quite another to get hung up over some who isn't even proven to be dead yet. I'm amazed how some people take this so personally that they demonise "Bill". Much indignance will have been for naught if it is one day proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bill is Paul.
|
|
|
Post by fireman on Feb 10, 2008 13:06:33 GMT -5
The reason I don't take Paul's death very seriously (that is to say, mourning over the loss of this talented individual's life and such), is that it has yet to be proven that he is, in fact, dead. It's one thing to get hung up over someone who died 42 years ago---and it's quite another to get hung up over some who isn't even proven to be dead yet. I'm amazed how some people take this so personally that they demonise "Bill". Much indignance will have been for naught if it is one day proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bill is Paul. You do take it seriously! ;D ... Or rather at least this whole PWR/PID phenomenon!
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Feb 10, 2008 13:15:55 GMT -5
The reason I don't take Paul's death very seriously (that is to say, mourning over the loss of this talented individual's life and such), is that it has yet to be proven that he is, in fact, dead. It's one thing to get hung up over someone who died 42 years ago---and it's quite another to get hung up over some who isn't even proven to be dead yet. I'm amazed how some people take this so personally that they demonise "Bill". Much indignance will have been for naught if it is one day proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bill is Paul. Well again, I don't like him whether he's Paul or Bill. I don't like him on general principles that have nothing to do with PID. And if he's always been the same Paul, then I resent the joke that he played -- that all of them played -- without explanation and without ever owning up to it later. If he's always been the same Paul, then his personality changed after 1966 and the change has not been for the better.
|
|
|
Post by chellebelle37 on Feb 10, 2008 13:16:41 GMT -5
The reason I don't take Paul's death very seriously (that is to say, mourning over the loss of this talented individual's life and such), is that it has yet to be proven that he is, in fact, dead. It's one thing to get hung up over someone who died 42 years ago---and it's quite another to get hung up over some who isn't even proven to be dead yet. I'm amazed how some people take this so personally that they demonise "Bill". Much indignance will have been for naught if it is one day proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bill is Paul. Well, I was convinced on my own before I ever knew of this forum or phoney's videos. So I believe that will never happen. ;D
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Feb 10, 2008 13:21:19 GMT -5
65if2007, may I ask what it is you don't like about him? You admitted that there was some great post-1966 McCartney music, but obviously you don't care for a lot of it. There seems to be something more to your dislike of the second Paul, however. What is it about him as a human being that you find so distasteful?
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Feb 10, 2008 13:57:44 GMT -5
65if2007, may I ask what it is you don't like about him? You admitted that there was some great post-1966 McCartney music There was some great post-1966 McCartney Beatles music: Hey Jude, Let it Be, Rocky Raccoon and the like. As far as I'm concerned, whoever he is lost a lot of his creativity when the Beatles broke up. but obviously you don't care for a lot of it. There seems to be something more to your dislike of the second Paul, however. What is it about him as a human being that you find so distasteful? If he's a replacement Paul, then he's living a lie. If he's the same Paul, then he played a cruel joke by suggesting otherwise. Apart from that, the answer to your question is that it's the same resentment that I have against the post-1966 Beatles as a whole and the same resentment that I have against the general direction that rock and roll took at that point. The drugs, the shift away from entertainment and towards "shock value", just for the purpose of bugging the "squares". The preachiness. The mouthing of pieties about "freedom" when really, the hipster lifestyle that consumers are encouraged to admire and imitate just imposes its own straitjacket. Those are universally applicable to the post-1966 Beatles and to post-1966 rock and roll as a whole, and they're especially applicable to the individual who is the most pre-eminent representative of that fashion. In 1967, a very un-Paul-like McCartney got on TV (I believe this was before the LSD interview) without the benefit of the boyish charm attributed to Paul and snarled about how rules just didn't matter any more and about how people shouldn't be judged for making choices different from those that others would make for them. And then later, after he built his own empire, he fired employees for eating meat. Mysteriously enough, freedom and choice didn't matter to him anymore, once he acquired control over others. And now that I've answered your question, what about you, Jude? As RockXLight, you seem pretty certain that this Paul is Faul and that the old Paul was replaced and is probably dead. Your videos (very well produced) and your cheerleading for Iamaphoney don't seem to leave any doubt on those scores. And yet, here you demur that you're not really sure about any of that. How can this be?
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Feb 10, 2008 17:21:54 GMT -5
To answer your question, I don't believe I ever stated on my YouTube channel that I seriously believe Paul is dead. I always leave room for doubt, because when you look at the big picture, how can you not have doubts? As for why I am so quick to defend "Faul" (I hate that name, by the way; surely you've noticed by now that I always call him Bill, Macca, or Sir Paul), I don't know whether it is out of some deep, personal loyalty to him that has been instilled in me over the years, or simply that I am admirer and a fan of his music. However, unless one really knows the exact circumstances which led to this grand conspiracy being born, is it really just to condemn Sir Paul for the continuing the legacy of James Paul? What do you know about all of this, 65if2007? Do you know that it wasn't JPM's will for this to happen? Do you know that Bill isn't Paul's own brother? Do you know that he isn't alive today, perfectly content with living a normal, quiet life, away from the throngs of adoring fans?
A lack of solid answers is why I appear to have such a neutral stance on these issues.
My YouTube channel serves two purposes: (1), to share with the world what I have uncovered, and (2), to entertain, with a slightly larger emphasis on the second purpose. I'm sorry if I look like a hypocrite because I profess my doubts here and yet operate a PID-themed YouTube channel. I only share with people what may be the truth that I've learned of/uncovered myself---what the truth is for them to decided themselves, and anyone interested in learning my true convictions will learn them through private messages only.
|
|
|
Post by tafultong on Feb 10, 2008 18:20:22 GMT -5
65if2007, may I ask what it is you don't like about him? You admitted that there was some great post-1966 McCartney music, but obviously you don't care for a lot of it. There seems to be something more to your dislike of the second Paul, however. What is it about him as a human being that you find so distasteful? Yes, Jude. I'm a little bewildered by that attitude as well. If you watch the Beatles 1st U.S. visit, I think there is a telling scene in there about each of the Beatles. I am operating from memory, so I am not claiming absolute accuracy on the dialog, but I think I can describe the spirit of what happened. There is a scene when the Beatles are leaving a hotel room. John and George simply walk out the door. Ringo glances back at the crew on his way out and says something like "Bye fellas." Paul is the one who, as he exits, looks back at each individual member of the crew and says something like "Bye Jack. So long Bob. Take care, Mary." Again that's not exactly it, but it's very much like that. If you have ever seen raw footage of post 1966 Paul McCartney chatting with interviewers and fans during breaks etc., you'll see that he is still very much like that. He is still the guy who will get down on the floor and play with your kid. So, even if he is a "replacement" he shares that in common with the pre 1966 Paul McCartney and I just find him impossible to dislike, unless of course he really is the beast of Revelation in which case, I will have to re-think my position. Edit: Yes, I am aware of today's news story about him slapping a photographer, but I would attribute that to the pressure of the divorce proceedings and also how nasty things have gotten since the Princess Diana tragedy.
|
|
|
Post by B on Feb 10, 2008 19:20:19 GMT -5
Say what?!!!!!!! Please post a link to that story ASAP!
|
|
|
Post by B on Feb 10, 2008 19:22:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tafultong on Feb 10, 2008 19:29:27 GMT -5
Say what?!!!!!!! Please post a link to that story ASAP! Your url extended beyond the link. This one should work. tinyurl.com/2kkf99
|
|
|
Post by MikeNL on Feb 10, 2008 19:48:11 GMT -5
VIDEO we want video of mccartney brutally giving a punch to a reporter! ;D okay, slap/punch... what's the difference
|
|
|
Post by B on Feb 10, 2008 20:02:57 GMT -5
He's probably upset because he knows Iamaphoney has Mal's briefcase; not because of Heather! ;D
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Feb 10, 2008 20:53:20 GMT -5
OMG I know him! Edit: Yes, I am aware of today's news story about him slapping a photographer, but I would attribute that to the pressure of the divorce proceedings and also how nasty things have gotten since the Princess Diana tragedy. When I read that I laughed to myself "wouldn't it be funny if it was James?" Then I saw the picture and thought "Is that him?" Then I clicked the link and said "OMG it is as well!!!" Can't wait to tell my mates in the morning!
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Feb 10, 2008 20:54:14 GMT -5
65if2007, may I ask what it is you don't like about him? You admitted that there was some great post-1966 McCartney music, but obviously you don't care for a lot of it. There seems to be something more to your dislike of the second Paul, however. What is it about him as a human being that you find so distasteful? Yes, Jude. I'm a little bewildered by that attitude as well. Then I guess that you need to read my response to Jude, which deals with larger issues than whether or not the individual in question will get down on the floor and play with your kid. So would Bill Clinton. So would George W. Bush. And a host of other politicians. Politicians are scoundrels, but not all scoundrels are politicians. And kissing babies is one of the things that scoundrels do in order to endear themselves to others and in order to disguise the fact that they ARE scoundrels. The argument that the individual in question must really be a nice guy because many perceive him as having a winning personality strikes me as quite naive.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Feb 10, 2008 21:28:22 GMT -5
To answer your question, I don't believe I ever stated on my YouTube channel that I seriously believe Paul is dead. I always leave room for doubt, because when you look at the big picture, how can you not have doubts? I agree with your last observation. How can you not have doubts? But I disagree with your statement that you have never stated that you seriously believe that Paul is dead. I recall a video of JPM metamorphosing into a death's head. The short answer is "yes", for reasons that I've already explained, some of which have nothing to do with James Paul -- have nothing to do with whether or not he IS James Paul. If you find a stranger in your home or with his hand in your pocket clasping your wallet, your first instinct is to treat him as a burglar or a thief. Maybe you don't know all the circumstances. Maybe, given enough time, the stranger can explain himself and place his actions in a more favorable context than appearances have it. Until he does that, it's not unreasonable, is it, to regard him with suspicion? Let Sir Paul explain himself. But he's never sought an opportunity to do that. You're talking as if I'm attempting to silence him. Nothing. Not a blessed thing. I am the first to admit that. Double negatives are very good for expanding the parameters of the possible. I don't even "know" that "Bill" isn't JPM and that there was never a substitution. I'm very open to that possibility. On the other hand, if there was a substitution, I don't "know" that it wasn't JPM's will for this to happen. I also don't "know" that the REALLY nutty scenarios about Sir Paul being a Satanic shape-shifting reptile aren't true. I don't "know" any of that. But some things strike me as less probable than others, and in the absence of further explanation, I'm inclined to follow the curve of maximum probability. That curve leads me to two likely alternative conclusions: either Paul was never replaced or Paul is dead. Without further knowledge/explanation, the other possible conclusions strike me as extremely improbable. I may have been the first one to publicly suggest it -- except for Iamaphoney's background music that plays "He was my brother..." I think that you privately commended me for having suggested it. Yes, as I've said before, that strikes me as more probable than the notion that the Beatles were lucky enough to find a talented substitute from a pool of strangers. So Bill -- if he's Bill -- might be JPM's brother. So? Another double negative. No, I don't "know" that, at all. But I don't believe it. Not for a second. I respect your opinion, but as for me, I have (metaphorically speaking) a gun pointed at the stranger in my home until he explains himself. Because right now, he looks like a burglar to me. And right now, without further explanation "McCartney" looks to me like either an identity thief or the purveyor of a cruel joke. And then again, there are my other issues with him that have nothing to do with the "replacement" issue. I did not say that I thought that you were a hypocrite, only that I thought that there was an incongruity between your posture on YouTube and your posture here and that I did not understand the incongruity. I'm still not quite sure that I understand it, but I did not mean to suggest that I was offended by it.
|
|
|
Post by CoconutFudge on Feb 10, 2008 21:42:08 GMT -5
Whoa. This is somewhat intense (aside from the hilarity that lies within that photo, of course!). I cannot be 100% sure about absolutely ANYTHING that I infer from the bits that I take to be clues, but I also have not found anything that makes me 100% sure that I'm wrong about what I believe either. I think it's a little bit crazy for anyone to say that they are able to be 100%, without a doubt, absolutely certain of pretty much any conclusion, including Paul is Alive, Paul is Dead, Paul Was Replaced... whatever. I think that we all should be able to believe whatever we believe without too many hasty judgments about others, at least until anything is proven indefinitely (if it ever is).
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Feb 10, 2008 22:04:30 GMT -5
Those are great points, CoconutFudge. I find that photo very strange. It looks like Sir Paul is smiling & like the phoographer was waiting for the slap. I know that doesn't fit in with the story. Weird...
|
|