Off Topic Messages

Re: Dee Stanley, 1925-2013

Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:17 am

1Sixstring wrote:
Bob-Holland wrote:
rjm wrote:
Fairchild1171 wrote:If anyone does not agree with you Doc, are you going to make sure that they get a one way ticket?


I guess he meant that it's just a very, very blunt, frank post in regard to an immediate death.

Her sons loved her, even if few others did. And this is a very difficult time for them.

I think drjohncarpenter can answer his own questions. There is no need for you to do this. Even though you seem to fully agree with just about everything he states ...

And this topic is not about her sons, or is it?
It's extremely unlikely the sons are even aware of this board. So what's the point that her sons apparently loved her?

What's even worse than someone being blunt about another person's death, are people who keep shoving their own personal opinions down other people's throats.
And to threaten with a "ticket out of here" for someone who is not a moderator (or is he?) is also pretty 'blunt' if you ask me.


It reads like rjm is just excercising a skill called Taking The High Road. Not everyone has it. Doesn't matter what any of our opinions are about Dee Stanley. She still had loved ones that cared for her so it's ALWAYS about the family. In this case her sons and grandchildren who are feeling a loss, which 'makes it about her sons' yes indeed it does.
Christ are people serious defending their right to spit on her grave before she's even in the ground? There's alot of people that didn't like her and for good reason, but most of us in Elvis world (that I've seen on various sites) are cut from the same cloth as rjm. The attitude seems to be "she's gone now and can do no harm, so now we just offer condolences to the family left behind". That's what we humans do, we offer condolences, then move along....or we say nothing.

I know, I know, free speech. Knock yourselves out knocking a dead person. Fine, but it's not for me.

My condolences to the family

You are totally mising the point I was trying to make, which does not come as a surprise I must say.
It is not at all about her sons, for the simple reason that the sons have no idea this board even exists (like I already mentioned in the post you just quoted).
To offer condolences to a public figure on one of the tens of thousands of message boards on the world wide web has more to do with the poster's desire to present him-/herself in a certain way to the other members of that message board (in this case FECC), and less (much much less!) with really wanting to offer the family of the deceased any support.

For the record: I don't spit on anybody's grave.

Re: Dee Stanley, 1925-2013

Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:48 am

SUN-RCA wrote: ... until someone finds that show, and can post it here, so i can read how you can defend her then...


Fans know what was said. The video should not pollute this board or any other Elvis board.

Re: Dee Stanley, 1925-2013

Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:19 am

Bob-Holland wrote:
rjm wrote:
Fairchild1171 wrote:If anyone does not agree with you Doc, are you going to make sure that they get a one way ticket?


I guess he meant that it's just a very, very blunt, frank post in regard to an immediate death.

Her sons loved her, even if few others did. And this is a very difficult time for them.

I think drjohncarpenter <snip> Even though you seem to fully agree with just about everything he states ...


That is completely and totally FALSE! If I feel he is mistaken about something, or appears to be, or I just have a different opinion, I SAY SO!!!

Two words: ED LEEK!!!!!!!!!!!!! For starters. (Oh, and that "little" matter of The Beatles and the history of the 1960s!! Little thing like that. Man alive!) I respectfully express my disagreements, with anyone here, or anywhere else. Respectfully! Perhaps the concept is foreign. :roll:

So, I REALLY resent you calling me a toadie! I have never been, toward anyone, and never will be. :evil:

rjm
P.S. -- And for the record, I had a "need" to write what I did because I didn't think John clarified the matter, or at least not sufficiently for my perspective on it. If that is not the case, and I was wrong about the meaning, sorry, but it does express MY opinion on the matter.
Last edited by rjm on Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Dee Stanley, 1925-2013

Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:31 am

Now that I p'd off EVERYBODY . . . whatever. "You can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself."

phpBB [video]



rjm

Re: Dee Stanley, 1925-2013

Wed Oct 02, 2013 12:13 pm

rjm wrote:
Bob-Holland wrote:
rjm wrote:
Fairchild1171 wrote:If anyone does not agree with you Doc, are you going to make sure that they get a one way ticket?


I guess he meant that it's just a very, very blunt, frank post in regard to an immediate death.

Her sons loved her, even if few others did. And this is a very difficult time for them.

I think drjohncarpenter <snip> Even though you seem to fully agree with just about everything he states ...


That is completely and totally FALSE! If I feel he is mistaken about something, or appears to be, or I just have a different opinion, I SAY SO!!!

Two words: ED LEEK!!!!!!!!!!!!! For starters. (Oh, and that "little" matter of The Beatles and the history of the 1960s!! Little thing like that. Man alive!) I respectfully express my disagreements, with anyone here, or anywhere else. Respectfully! Perhaps the concept is foreign. :roll:

So, I REALLY resent you calling me a toadie! I have never been, toward anyone, and never will be. :evil:

rjm
P.S. -- And for the record, I had a "need" to write what I did because I didn't think John clarified the matter, or at least not sufficiently for my perspective on it. If that is not the case, and I was wrong about the meaning, sorry, but it does express MY opinion on the matter.

Since Doc is mostly pretty accurate at just about everything he posts , don't it seem logical?

Re: Dee Stanley, 1925-2013

Wed Oct 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Yeah, he's got a helkuva batting average. True enough.

But, uh . . .

"He's human, ya know. I mean, he cusses . . . I mean, ya know, he's human." :mrgreen: ;)

rjm

Sent From My Phabulous Galaxy Note II Phablet Using Tapatalk 4
Last edited by rjm on Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:59 pm, edited 11 times in total.

Re: Dee Stanley, 1925-2013

Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:43 pm

rjm wrote:
Bob-Holland wrote:
rjm wrote:
Fairchild1171 wrote:If anyone does not agree with you Doc, are you going to make sure that they get a one way ticket?


I guess he meant that it's just a very, very blunt, frank post in regard to an immediate death.

Her sons loved her, even if few others did. And this is a very difficult time for them.

I think drjohncarpenter <snip> Even though you seem to fully agree with just about everything he states ...


That is completely and totally FALSE! If I feel he is mistaken about something, or appears to be, or I just have a different opinion, I SAY SO!!!

Two words: ED LEEK!!!!!!!!!!!!! For starters. (Oh, and that "little" matter of The Beatles and the history of the 1960s!! Little thing like that. Man alive!) I respectfully express my disagreements, with anyone here, or anywhere else. Respectfully! Perhaps the concept is foreign. :roll:

So, I REALLY resent you calling me a toadie! I have never been, toward anyone, and never will be. :evil:

rjm
P.S. -- And for the record, I had a "need" to write what I did because I didn't think John clarified the matter, or at least not sufficiently for my perspective on it. If that is not the case, and I was wrong about the meaning, sorry, but it does express MY opinion on the matter.


rjm
You don't have say sorry to anyone on this thread. You're allowed to express your feelings/thoughts like others are. People want to run their mouths and Then act offended when they get called. You certainly didn't say anything wrong and weren't defending Dee, no-one here is. But you just wanted to offer condolences to any loved ones, family or friends. No-one has a clue who is lurking out there and a family member or family friend being a member isn't impossible, it's actual laughable to assume they're not. Nice video by the way.
I'm done here regardless if I see notification of more comments or others just want to argue their points, because I don't want to smut up the board anymore than already has been with this topic.

Re: Dee Stanley, 1925-2013

Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:30 pm

promiseland wrote:
rjm wrote:
Bob-Holland wrote:
rjm wrote:
Fairchild1171 wrote:If anyone does not agree with you Doc, are you going to make sure that they get a one way ticket?


I guess he meant that it's just a very, very blunt, frank post in regard to an immediate death.

Her sons loved her, even if few others did. And this is a very difficult time for them.

I think drjohncarpenter <snip> Even though you seem to fully agree with just about everything he states ...


That is completely and totally FALSE! If I feel he is mistaken about something, or appears to be, or I just have a different opinion, I SAY SO!!!

Two words: ED LEEK!!!!!!!!!!!!! For starters. (Oh, and that "little" matter of The Beatles and the history of the 1960s!! Little thing like that. Man alive!) I respectfully express my disagreements, with anyone here, or anywhere else. Respectfully! Perhaps the concept is foreign. :roll:

So, I REALLY resent you calling me a toadie! I have never been, toward anyone, and never will be. :evil:

rjm
P.S. -- And for the record, I had a "need" to write what I did because I didn't think John clarified the matter, or at least not sufficiently for my perspective on it. If that is not the case, and I was wrong about the meaning, sorry, but it does express MY opinion on the matter.

Since Doc is mostly pretty accurate at just about everything he posts , don't it seem logical?



:D And what is really funny is that we know you actually believe it... :D

Re: Dee Stanley, 1925-2013

Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:02 pm

rjm wrote:Now that I p'd off EVERYBODY . . . whatever. "You can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself."

phpBB [video]



rjm


Hey! I've played that song live with Tom Brumley on pedal steel. :D

It was Tom who played pedal steel on the recording, and he was also a member of Buck Owens' band The Buckaroos.

Re: Dee Stanley, 1925-2013

Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:50 pm

promiseland wrote:
rjm wrote:That is completely and totally FALSE! If I feel he is mistaken about something, or appears to be, or I just have a different opinion, I SAY SO!!!

Two words: ED LEEK!!!!!!!!!!!!! For starters. (Oh, and that "little" matter of The Beatles and the history of the 1960s!! Little thing like that. Man alive!) I respectfully express my disagreements, with anyone here, or anywhere else. Respectfully! Perhaps the concept is foreign. :roll:

So, I REALLY resent you calling me a toadie! I have never been, toward anyone, and never will be. :evil:

rjm
P.S. -- And for the record, I had a "need" to write what I did because I didn't think John clarified the matter, or at least not sufficiently for my perspective on it. If that is not the case, and I was wrong about the meaning, sorry, but it does express MY opinion on the matter.


Since Doc is mostly pretty accurate at just about everything he posts , don't it seem logical?


Thanks for the compliment. I am just another fan here, but unlike some of the people on this topic, I don't go around trying to derail things with jealous personal agendas.

Just let it roll off your back, rjm -- it's the internet.

::rocks

Re: Dee Stanley, 1925-2013

Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:37 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:I am just another fan here, but unlike some of the people on this topic, I don't go around trying to derail things with jealous personal agendas.

Just let it roll off your back, rjm -- it's the internet.

Another (unintended but) funny self-reflective post, "drjohncarpenter".
And in the process you keep using other people to get back at me. This is the second time today. Very classy.

THE person famous for derailing topics strictly because of personal agendas, claims he is not like that at all. :smt023

It seems that not rjm, but you, needs to let it roll of your back.
But I understand your problem to do this since it's not just "the internet" in your case. This forum is your life, right "drjohncarpenter"?
Like I said, I understand.

:smt023