drjohncarpenter wrote:... my copy of the 45 plays mono on both sides ...
Matthew wrote:It seems to me that if individuals wanted to disprove another member's statements regarding the original (not later) release of "Memories"/"Charro" that there are plenty of vinyl collectors on this forum to whip out a copy and play it. No amount of "he said, she said" really tops being able to play a copy of the actual single right? So have at it! Someone else here must have an original copy of this single.
Shawn1968 wrote:My orange label USA RCA stock 45 of 'Charro' is stereo.
♪(...)For when you left you took his pride away
You know he'll never let you break away so easily
You'll have to fight before you're free
But how much more time can you borrow?
Charro...♫
drjohncarpenter wrote:... my copy of the 45 plays mono on both sides ...
Matthew wrote:It seems to me that if individuals wanted to disprove another member's statements regarding the original (not later) release of "Memories"/"Charro" that there are plenty of vinyl collectors on this forum to whip out a copy and play it. No amount of "he said, she said" really tops being able to play a copy of the actual single right? So have at it! Someone else here must have an original copy of this single.
Shawn1968 wrote:My orange label USA RCA stock 45 of 'Charro' is stereo.
Somebody is telling a bold faced lie. I'm leaning towards Shawn1968 being the one telling the truth.
I think it would be fairer in this case to say someone is wrong, rather than telling a lie. Mistakes do happen for everyone from time to time.
rickeap,
Mistakes?! It would be "fairer" in this case for drjohncarpenter to admit that he failed to list "Charro" as one of Elvis' singles released in stereo during the 1960's (because he didn't know about it).
Then he tried covering up his oversight by writing, "... my copy of the 45 plays mono on both sides... ".
Why sugarcoat things? Honesty is the best policy.
Again, I say, somebody is telling abold faced lie.
This user is no longer a member. They have either been banned or requested their account to be closed.
rickeap wrote:I think it would be fairer in this case to say someone is wrong, rather than telling a lie. Mistakes do happen for everyone from time to time.
drjohncarpenter wrote:If certain members were such completely ungracious jerks, I would make the effort to dig out my original 45 and give it another listen.
Food for thought.
Don't worry too much Doc! I (and others) have learned a lot from your posts 99% of the time. For some reason there are folks that JUST want to prove you wrong, and sadly MISS the big picture of an artist we supposedly admire.
drjohncarpenter wrote:If certain members were such completely ungracious jerks, I would make the effort to dig out my original 45 and give it another listen.
Food for thought.
Don't worry too much Doc! I (and others) have learned a lot from your posts 99% of the time. For some reason there are folks that JUST want to prove you wrong, and therefore MISS the big picture of an artist we supposedly admire.
Juan Luis, you completely and intentionally miss the point. drjohncarpenter is the one that has referred to someone else's claim as "erroneous"! Dude, wake up!
drjohncarpenter wrote:If certain members were such completely ungracious jerks, I would make the effort to dig out my original 45 and give it another listen.
Doc, why would you give it another listen?
You've already written - "... my copy of the 45 plays mono on both sides... " Now you're talking about possibly digging it out and giving it another listen (after previously sounding so sure of yourself).
If you listen to it again and admit that it is indeed in stereo, I think you'll gain a new respect from many members on this forum for simply admitting that you made a mistake.
Last edited by chevyford on Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:39 am, edited 2 times in total.
This user is no longer a member. They have either been banned or requested their account to be closed.
drjohncarpenter wrote:If certain members were such completely ungracious jerks, I would make the effort to dig out my original 45 and give it another listen.
Food for thought.
Don't worry too much Doc! I (and others) have learned a lot from your posts 99% of the time. For some reason there are folks that JUST want to prove you wrong, and therefore MISS the big picture of an artist we supposedly admire.
Juan Luis, you completely and intentionally miss the point.
drjohncarpenter wrote:If certain members were such completely ungracious jerks, I would make the effort to dig out my original 45 and give it another listen.
Why would you give it another listen?
You've already written - "... my copy of the 45 plays mono on both sides... " Now you're talking about possibly digging it out and giving it another listen (after previously sounding so sure of yourself).
If you listen to it again and admit that it is indeed in stereo, I think you'll gain a new respect from many members on this forum for simply admitting that you made a mistake.
Chevy, you and I both know that Doc's comment was actually him giving a reason for not digging it out and giving it another listen. He has no intention of doing so - and you can bet your life that he will say his plays mono and will give no aural proof of that.
drjohncarpenter wrote:If certain members were such completely ungracious jerks, I would make the effort to dig out my original 45 and give it another listen.
Food for thought.
Don't worry too much Doc! I (and others) have learned a lot from your posts 99% of the time. For some reason there are folks that JUST want to prove you wrong, and therefore MISS the big picture of an artist we supposedly admire.
Juan Luis, you completely and intentionally miss the point.
drjohncarpenter wrote:If certain members were such completely ungracious jerks, I would make the effort to dig out my original 45 and give it another listen.
Why would you give it another listen?
You've already written - "... my copy of the 45 plays mono on both sides... " Now you're talking about possibly digging it out and giving it another listen (after previously sounding so sure of yourself).
If you listen to it again and admit that it is indeed in stereo, I think you'll gain a new respect from many members on this forum for simply admitting that you made a mistake.
Chevy, you and I both know that Doc's comment was actually him giving a reason for not digging it out and giving it another listen. He has no intention of doing so - and you can bet your life that he will say his plays mono and will give no aural proof of that.
Intentionally by me? You will never know. Facts or opinions should never be degraded to become nasty answers etc.. That's all I have to say.
Last edited by Juan Luis on Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
drjohncarpenter wrote:If certain members were such completely ungracious jerks, I would make the effort to dig out my original 45 and give it another listen.
Food for thought.
Don't worry too much Doc! I (and others) have learned a lot from your posts 99% of the time. For some reason there are folks that JUST want to prove you wrong, and therefore MISS the big picture of an artist we supposedly admire.
Juan Luis, you completely and intentionally miss the point.
drjohncarpenter wrote:If certain members were such completely ungracious jerks, I would make the effort to dig out my original 45 and give it another listen.
Why would you give it another listen?
You've already written - "... my copy of the 45 plays mono on both sides... " Now you're talking about possibly digging it out and giving it another listen (after previously sounding so sure of yourself).
If you listen to it again and admit that it is indeed in stereo, I think you'll gain a new respect from many members on this forum for simply admitting that you made a mistake.
Chevy, you and I both know that Doc's comment was actually him giving a reason for not digging it out and giving it another listen. He has no intention of doing so - and you can bet your life that he will say his plays mono and will give no aural proof of that.
I totally agree.
This user is no longer a member. They have either been banned or requested their account to be closed.
Juan Luis wrote:Intentionally by me? You will never know. Facts or opinions should never be degraded to become nasty answers etc.. That's all I have to say.
Your comments are erroneous. How's that for a little drjohncarpenter langauge for ya' ?
This user is no longer a member. They have either been banned or requested their account to be closed.
Juan Luis wrote:Intentionally by me? You will never know. Facts or opinions should never be degraded to become nasty answers etc.. That's all I have to say.
Your comments are erroneous. How's that for a little drjohncarpenter langauge for ya' ?
Not bad when my English is far from my first language. And if you check my posts over the years you will see that I am NOT a fan boy of anyone on this board..except of course to Elvis. I just call things as I see them,even if my opinions are not popular.
Juan Luis wrote:Intentionally by me? You will never know. Facts or opinions should never be degraded to become nasty answers etc.. That's all I have to say.
Your comments are erroneous. How's that for a little drjohncarpenter langauge for ya' ?
Not bad when my English is far from my first language. And if you check my posts over the years you will see that I am NOT a fan boy of anyone on this board..except of course to Elvis. I just call things as I see them,even if my opinions are not popular.
Juan Luis, you are more concerned about protecting Doc from being challenged than you are of finding out the truth about the original issue of "Charro".
Doc is more concerned about protecting his ego and pride than he is of finding out the truth about the original issue of "Charro".
drjohncarpenter wrote:If certain members were such completely ungracious jerks, I would make the effort to dig out my original 45 and give it another listen.
Food for thought.
Don't worry too much Doc! I (and others) have learned a lot from your posts 99% of the time. For some reason there are folks that JUST want to prove you wrong, and sadly MISS the big picture of an artist we supposedly admire.
Thank you, JL.
As long as there are cool people like you on this forum, I will remain a proud and dedicated member of FECC.
It's easy to ignore a handful of dual forum malcontents, trust me.
. Dr. John Carpenter, M.D. Stop, look and listen, baby <<--->> that's my philosophy!
drjohncarpenter wrote:If certain members were such completely ungracious jerks, I would make the effort to dig out my original 45 and give it another listen.
Food for thought.
Don't worry too much Doc! I (and others) have learned a lot from your posts 99% of the time. For some reason there are folks that JUST want to prove you wrong, and therefore MISS the big picture of an artist we supposedly admire.
Juan Luis, you completely and intentionally miss the point.
I have checked my original issue Australian release and can't find the word stereo or mono on the cover or label. There is an (s) after the term trademark but I'm not sure if that refers to stereo.
Doc, maybe there would be less malcontents if you weren't so difficult and abrasive.
drjohncarpenter wrote:If certain members were such completely ungracious jerks, I would make the effort to dig out my original 45 and give it another listen.
Food for thought.
Don't worry too much Doc! I (and others) have learned a lot from your posts 99% of the time. For some reason there are folks that JUST want to prove you wrong, and therefore MISS the big picture of an artist we supposedly admire.
Juan Luis, you completely and intentionally miss the point.
No actually... he nailed it.
Thanks, man.
I deeply appreciate your unsolicited and honest view.
. Dr. John Carpenter, M.D. Stop, look and listen, baby <<--->> that's my philosophy!
Juan Luis wrote:Intentionally by me? You will never know. Facts or opinions should never be degraded to become nasty answers etc.. That's all I have to say.
Your comments are erroneous. How's that for a little drjohncarpenter langauge for ya' ?
Juan Luis is a well respected board member, pull your head in.
Juan Luis wrote:Intentionally by me? You will never know. Facts or opinions should never be degraded to become nasty answers etc.. That's all I have to say.
Your comments are erroneous. How's that for a little drjohncarpenter langauge for ya' ?
Juan Luis is a well respected board member, pull your head in.
I've got your head.
It doesn't matter if he's "well respected". In this case he's wrong.
drjohncarpenter wrote:
elvis-fan wrote: No actually... he nailed it.[/color]
Thanks, man.
I deeply appreciate your unsolicited and honest view.
"Misguided, confused view" is more like it.
drjohncarpenter wrote:
It's easy to ignore a handful of dual forum malcontents, trust me.
The only thing easy for you to ignore is the truth when it gets in your way.
Back to topic -
rickeap wrote:I have checked my original issue Australian release and can't find the word stereo or mono on the cover or label. There is an (s) after the term trademark but I'm not sure if that refers to stereo.
Why not play it and find out?
This user is no longer a member. They have either been banned or requested their account to be closed.
drjohncarpenter wrote:If certain members were such completely ungracious jerks, I would make the effort to dig out my original 45 and give it another listen.
Food for thought.
Don't you mean:
"If certain members weren't such completely ungracious jerks, I would make the effort to dig out my original 45 and give it another listen."
For the record, no I haven't based my information on Jerry Osborne's books.
I have two yellow copies (DJ promos) and both feature "Charro" in stereo. I also have the orange label version which features "Charro" in stereo as well as the Gold Standard single which is in stereo. All one has to do is play the single version against the version found on the "Almost In Love" LP and it can easily be concluded they are one in the same, both in stereo.
drjohncarpenter wrote:If certain members were such completely ungracious jerks, I would make the effort to dig out my original 45 and give it another listen.
Food for thought.
Err........... did you mean "weren't" ?
Colin B Judge a man not by his answers, but by his questions - Voltaire
As some of you already know, I have to step back from this place for a while due to other commitments. These places can become addictive. I'm NOT leaving (unless my account is deleted), I just won't be around as much.
Last night I sent a private message to the Doc regarding the topic of this thread and his unwillingness to admit he made a mistake, as well as our ongoing "issues". No reply was received, so I reprint the message here as it seems to me to be a fitting end to this little chapter.
*
A few words to the Doc. being on two forums is not a crime, nor have I said anything on that forum that I wouldn't say here if i were allowed to. In fact, you blow the matter out of proportion - I say very little on the Monkey forum and, in one post on there, was even criticial of it.
This is not an angry message. As it happens, I am beginning to pity you. The power and authority that you have here has become something of an obsession for you, I think. So much so, that you can't see the wood for the trees, or that, on occasions like this, you are doing yourself more harm than good. Your desperation to be seen as an unfallable oracle here is clearly what leads you to be as vicious as you are. So much desperation in fact, that with the roustabout thread you went back and altered what you had written when a silly mistake was pointed out to you, and then to cover your back you called me the liar. All you had to say was "slip of the tongue. I meant to say..."
This thread has gone much further than that, and you are unable to take the same action as so many posts have been added, and so many people have seen it. And now you are scrabbling around, attempting to be nonchalent about the whole thing, when actually the fact you have effectively been proven to have made a mistake is really scaring you. Does it mean that much to you to be seen as infallable? The man who knows everything, the man who is never ever wrong.
I have no vendetta against you. I have simply given you a piece of your own medicine over the last few weeks and bruised your ego a little. It's actually a little scary just ho w far you will go to protect your position here; how much a status on an internet message board actually means to you. In fact, it's heartbreaking. And here you are scrabbling around like an insect after a little kid has pulled one of its legs off.
But I am done here. I start teaching at university this week, and I have a parent in hospital. There are things more important than this place. So, you won't be seeing as much of me on here as you have in the past, for which I am sure you will be eternally thankful. Although I will still be around.
Just admit you are wrong occasionally, and be nicer to people. The forum will be better that way and you will the respect you clearly crave.
