|
|
Post by 65if2007 on May 3, 2009 17:32:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Girl on May 27, 2009 19:08:13 GMT -5
 "and only one of them is left alive now to tell the story?" Curious. Some may conclude that in this sense you don't count Ringo, but I disagree. The person replacing someone would obviously know what's up. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on May 27, 2009 20:28:34 GMT -5
"and only one of them is left alive now to tell the story?" Curious. Some may conclude that in this sense you don't count Ringo, but I disagree. The person replacing someone would obviously know what's up. do you mean, i.e., William wasn't there. If Pete says that he and McCartney have never spoken since 1962, then Sir Paul and Pete have never met. They can't speak as former friends. They aren't even acquaintances. Sir Paul has no memories on which to base small talk if they did. "Say, Pete, remember the time that we all...... I mean that you went to... I mean that you told me that...... er uhm..... well, I'm a little foggy right now....." Ok, I admit I can be "Master of the Obvious", but somebody's got to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on May 29, 2009 10:33:18 GMT -5
Both of you are completely missing the point.
If total and complete strangers such as yourselves can look at pre-1966 and post-1966 pictures of Paul McCartney and declare themselves to be absolutely certain that they're not the same man, how come Pete Best can't do it?
Pete Best played drums in the same band that the "original" Paul McCartney played in. He should be considerably more familiar with how the "original" presented himself than either of you are.
So how come he can't tell that the "original" has been "replaced"?
He apparently can't tell that the pre-1966 McCartney has been "replaced" because he blames the man who calls himself Paul McCartney today for having fired him.
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on May 29, 2009 10:54:02 GMT -5
That's assuming that Best is being sincere and totally honest.
|
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on May 29, 2009 12:17:37 GMT -5
That's assuming that Best is being sincere and totally honest. Why shouldn't he be? How does it profit him to waste time and energy pretending to dislike Sir Paul if he has no grudge against Sir Paul? How does it profit him to waste time and energy pretending that Sir Paul is the guy who fired him if it isn't true? |
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on May 29, 2009 12:29:43 GMT -5
What I'm saying is there is a difference between what famous people say in public as to what they say in private.
|
|
