Anything about Elvis
More than 30 Million visitors can't be wrong

Re: "Elvis at 70" in American Heritage Magazine

Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:24 am

Recently the subject of apologies and gentlemanliness has appeared in another thread.

Well, I would think a true gentleman would accept the sincere, heartfelt apology from a lady. It is quoted below. We all sometimes say things in the wrong way. (Glad I got that off my chest, finally.)

I certainly hope you consider me a lady, my friend.

Best,
rjm


rjm wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:

P.S. -- To pmp, who seems sad. Look, he's a rocker. A stone rocker. More than me, I guess, because I prefer the Comeback music to the early RCA music, even if it didn't change the world. (Elvis was just better in 1968 and 1969 than in the glory years, for me.) You really love the real old-fashioned stuff. You do. You really like Bing Crosby! (I just picked a name.) Not John Lydon. I can't see how that can change. But "goodwill" can still exist, I think.

Sent From My Phabulous Galaxy Note II Phablet Using Tapatalk 4


This has to be one of the condescending, patronising posts I have read on here in a very long time. I seem sad?! And no, I don't really like Bing Crosby, I never have. I do like swing music, though, and jazz - music which is selling by the bucket load at the moment via the resurgence in the genre thanks to Buble, who has just had 4 #1 albums on the bounce in the US. To say jazz and swing is old fashioned is no different to saying rock is old fashioned - its heyday was sixty years ago, but it's still going strong.


First off, I sincerely apologize if it came off that way! Definitely not my intention! You seemed very disappointed. I wish I had used a different word. Scratch "sad." Disappointed, and thus displeased. It's just a word. Looking at it again, it was the wrong one. I think you know what I meant. I would hope so.

Shoot, I'm a little disappointed. In fact, I'm sad. I like it when peace breaks out! But people are different from one another. If they weren't and always agreed, life would be boring as he**. I read the manner of disagreement as teasing, and I could see you read it as malevolent. So, I thought you were bummed about it. And I said that. Poor choice of word. Again, my apologies for any misunderstanding.

As for "Bing," I recalled some positive commentary, but I really just grabbed a name. Bing was THE crooner before Sinatra, and he inspired Sinatra in a variety of ways. Crosby changed pop singing forever with his embrace of the microphone. He was important, and very talented. Perhaps I made an assumption there. Shoot, I appreciate his work!

But, all right, let's say Ella. Although I wouldn't call her a crooner, certainly. So we'll stick to swing and jazz. Although Sinatra was a crooner, among other things. It gets a little complicated. So, I said "old-fashioned." To me, pre-rock is "old-fashioned." No matter how long in the tooth rock is getting, it's still "new."

How to explain? Bing wasn't all that old when he died, yet it seemed like he had been around forever! It's different with rock. Rockers are "forever young." At least in our minds. It's different with pre-rock performers. They seem "old-fashioned" even when young.

Again, I never meant it as condescending. Very sorry about that.

All the best,
rjm

Sent From My Phabulous Galaxy Note II Phablet Using Tapatalk 4

Re: "Elvis at 70" in American Heritage Magazine

Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:34 pm

Your "apology" was as condescending, patronising and, frankly, incorrect as your original words (and ridiculously convoluted).

Sometimes less is more.

Re: "Elvis at 70" in American Heritage Magazine

Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:09 pm

That seems just a little harsh, Peter.

There was no malice in Robin's post.

Re: "Elvis at 70" in American Heritage Magazine

Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:30 pm

...
Last edited by poormadpeter on Thu Mar 13, 2014 8:28 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Re: "Elvis at 70" in American Heritage Magazine

Thu Mar 13, 2014 8:02 pm

poormadpeter wrote:Your "apology" was as condescending, patronising and, frankly, incorrect as your original words (and ridiculously convoluted).

Sometimes less is more.


:shock:

Wow.

You are -- far and away -- the most bitter and ungracious member of this forum.

Of course it does serve to remind everyone how many wonderful FECC members are on the other end of the spectrum, like George Smith ... or rjm.

So ... do carry on!

Re: "Elvis at 70" in American Heritage Magazine

Thu Mar 13, 2014 8:08 pm

Apologies for deleting an earlier version of this post. Other people had commented by the time I'd edited it, so it make more sense to simply repost it here.

George Smith wrote:That seems just a little harsh, Peter.

There was no malice in Robin's post.


I'm sorry if they sound harsh - they were written quickly and partly out of anger. However, I do stand by them. I walked away from RJM's apology the first time around with good reason - to avoid such a clash which, ultimately, wouldn't do anyone any good.

If I had a five pound note for every time Robin used the "incorrect choice of words" and later retracted/apologised for them either here or in a private message, I'd be a quite bit richer.

I hold no malice towards Robin, who I'm sure is a lovely lady, but to bring up an old post and attach to it my comments about apologies regarding incorrect facts (out of context) seems rather silly and childish (and even, to use her own terms, a little unladylike) - not least because we would be in a position where I thanked her for apologising and then she would thank me for thanking her etc. My comment was clearly about apologising when my facts were wrong, something which I ALWAYS do. I don't expect thanks for apologising - we shouldn't need to be thanked for doing the right thing.

I realise, taken out of context, that my comments here seem rather vicious, but the facts are that me and Robin have been here a number of times before (at least four in the last year according to my inbox alone). Sadly, apologies begin to mean less when someone then goes off and makes the same mistake again and again - and I'm really not going to start thanking her for apologies for posts she shouldn't have made in the first place (and where the apology is nearly as problematic as the original statement). If that makes me sound like a bit of a b*stard, then so be it - but there is a history of similar incidences beyond this thread that many probably don't know about, and my post was made bearing that in mind.

Again, I hold no malice towards Robin - I'm just a little out of patience. There was no intention to upset RJM (and if I have, then I apologise).

Re: "Elvis at 70" in American Heritage Magazine

Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:47 pm

Whatever!

(You will be troubled no more with apologies or clarifications from me. Guaranteed.)

If that sounds patronizing, live with it.

rjm

Sent via mobile

Re:

Fri Mar 14, 2014 2:37 am

rjm wrote:Whatever!

(You will be troubled no more with apologies or clarifications from me. Guaranteed.)

If that sounds patronizing, live with it.


Never apologise, never explain.