All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Did Elvis die on purpose?

No. He wanted to continue living longer.
31
43%
Yes. He hoped to escape the world and his pain and problems.
9
13%
Nil. His death was total 100% accident.
32
44%
 
Total votes : 72

Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:11 am

Cryogenic wrote:..not when they're bringing illumination to a topic rarely understood, even by EP's biggest fans.


Whether Elvis committed suicide or not? Yes, this topic gets a great deal of misunderstood debate in the Elvis world. The best thing for this topic would have been to have left it in the doldrums of retired 2005 threads where it was previously left undisturbed and inactive.

Your observation that this topic was rejuvenated to garner attention to the thread reviver appears accurate; however one questions whether this should be applauded, despite the apparent desire to correct inaccuracies of information.

Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:20 am

Matthew wrote:The best thing for this topic would have been to have left it in the doldrums of retired 2005 threads where it was previously left undisturbed and inactive.


Then we disagree.

IMO: One can take a half empty / half full approach to this.

You have clearly taken the half empty approach ........... but I prefer to see it as N8 bringing dignity, clarity and accuracy to an important topic.

Matthew wrote:Your observation that this topic was rejuvenated to garner attention to the thread reviver appears accurate


That was not my observation at all.

Matthew wrote:however one questions whether this should be applauded, despite the apparent desire to correct inaccuracies of information.


One doesn't question; you (and others lacking perspicacity / comprehension) question.

Those are two entirely different things. :wink:

Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:41 am

Cryogenic wrote:
Matthew wrote:Your observation that this topic was rejuvenated to garner attention to the thread reviver appears accurate


That was not my observation at all.



Your previous thread states:

Cryogenic wrote:What are you doing, N8?

I dunno ... making one very large and specific post one and a half YEARS after the topic was last posted in ... and then adding a second a day later (rather than editing it into your last) ... seems to suggest ... YOU'RE TRYING TO GET NOTICED.

But I could be wrong. :wink:



You then write directed at N880EP:

Cryogenic wrote:P.S. Good job!!! :lol:


I fail to see how I have misconstrued your post.

You can throw any number of long and learned words into the fray as you deem necessary (I lack neither perspicacity or comprehension, Elvis didn’t commit suicide, this is common knowledge) but this topic hardly deserves the attention it received and now, continues to receive when the ludicrousness of the subject matter doesn’t warrant it.

PS. When I write "One questions" I am referring to me, not you.

Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:09 am

Matthew wrote:
Cryogenic wrote:
Matthew wrote:Your observation that this topic was rejuvenated to garner attention to the thread reviver appears accurate


That was not my observation at all.



Your previous thread states:

Cryogenic wrote:What are you doing, N8?

I dunno ... making one very large and specific post one and a half YEARS after the topic was last posted in ... and then adding a second a day later (rather than editing it into your last) ... seems to suggest ... YOU'RE TRYING TO GET NOTICED.

But I could be wrong. :wink:



Correct.

That's what I wrote.

But what did I MEAN?

You're taking me too literally.

Matthew wrote:You then write directed at N880EP:

Cryogenic wrote:P.S. Good job!!! :lol:


Correct.

But again ....... you're taking me too literally.

Matthew wrote:I fail to see how I have misconstrued your post.


You see a vouching for ego where none exists. I am championing N8 for bringing SUBSTANCE into the thread ........ not himself.

Matthew wrote:You can throw any number of long and learned words into the fray as you deem necessary (I lack neither perspicacity or comprehension, Elvis didn’t commit suicide, this is common knowledge) but this topic hardly deserves the attention it received and now, continues to receive when the ludicrousness of the subject matter doesn’t warrant it.


1) The words I "can throw" into "the fray" (hmmm, I wonder why you think it's a fray ;) ) are NOTHING compared to what N8 can do, believe me. That you would choose to attack me in such a superficial manner says a lot.

2) You do lack perspicacity and comprehension ........ which your very assertion re-attests -- on multiple levels.

3) (As bolded) Because you stated things as fact, when, on such a broad topic as this, they are anything but, I have only one thing to say: you are wrong.

Matthew wrote:PS. When I write "One questions" I am referring to me, not you.


Your patronising "post-script" aside, let me correct you .......

When one writes "one questions", and one is being grammatically / syntactically correct, one is talking about a de-individualised person / group (i.e. not themselves). But you were clearly talking about yourself (i.e. you gave your own myopic view on the matter). You communicated an ego-centric opinion under the guise of speaking for others. Gramatically, you were wrong ...... though, in a warped kind of way, I guess you're correct here, for you really WERE speaking about yourself, as you've just said.

My own use of "one" was correct: "IMO: One can take a half empty / half full approach to this." See the difference? I wasn't talking about myself or any particular individual at that point (I subsequently went on and did that).

Bottom line: you don't get to decide on an important topic like this as to whether it's right or wrong, and it certainly doesn't warrant attacking / deriding another person and their well-written posts over. I thought you said in another thread that you're a Christian and DON'T judge...? Well, you sure contradicted yourself in record time, that's all I can say.

Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:32 am

Fine by me the thread being revisited, I hadnt seen it on its first run. One theory which to me made sense was that Elvis had an extremely enlarged colon which while using the toilet can put presure on the heart and in some cases stop it all together.

Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:06 am

Cryogenic wrote:
Matthew wrote:
Cryogenic wrote:
Matthew wrote:Your observation that this topic was rejuvenated to garner attention to the thread reviver appears accurate


That was not my observation at all.



Your previous thread states:

Cryogenic wrote:What are you doing, N8?

I dunno ... making one very large and specific post one and a half YEARS after the topic was last posted in ... and then adding a second a day later (rather than editing it into your last) ... seems to suggest ... YOU'RE TRYING TO GET NOTICED.

But I could be wrong. :wink:



Correct.

That's what I wrote.

But what did I MEAN?

You're taking me too literally.

Matthew wrote:You then write directed at N880EP:

Cryogenic wrote:P.S. Good job!!! :lol:


Correct.

But again ....... you're taking me too literally.

Matthew wrote:I fail to see how I have misconstrued your post.


You see a vouching for ego where none exists. I am championing N8 for bringing SUBSTANCE into the thread ........ not himself.

Matthew wrote:You can throw any number of long and learned words into the fray as you deem necessary (I lack neither perspicacity or comprehension, Elvis didn’t commit suicide, this is common knowledge) but this topic hardly deserves the attention it received and now, continues to receive when the ludicrousness of the subject matter doesn’t warrant it.


1) The words I "can throw" into "the fray" (hmmm, I wonder why you think it's a fray ;) ) are NOTHING compared to what N8 can do, believe me. That you would choose to attack me in such a superficial manner says a lot.

2) You do lack perspicacity and comprehension ........ which your very assertion re-attests -- on multiple levels.

3) (As bolded) Because you stated things as fact, when, on such a broad topic as this, they are anything but, I have only one thing to say: you are wrong.

Matthew wrote:PS. When I write "One questions" I am referring to me, not you.


Your patronising "post-script" aside, let me correct you .......

When one writes "one questions", and one is being grammatically / syntactically correct, one is talking about a de-individualised person / group (i.e. not themselves). But you were clearly talking about yourself (i.e. you gave your own myopic view on the matter). You communicated an ego-centric opinion under the guise of speaking for others. Gramatically, you were wrong ...... though, in a warped kind of way, I guess you're correct here, for you really WERE speaking about yourself, as you've just said.

My own use of "one" was correct: "IMO: One can take a half empty / half full approach to this." See the difference? I wasn't talking about myself or any particular individual at that point (I subsequently went on and did that).

Bottom line: you don't get to decide on an important topic like this as to whether it's right or wrong, and it certainly doesn't warrant attacking / deriding another person and their well-written posts over. I thought you said in another thread that you're a Christian and DON'T judge...? Well, you sure contradicted yourself in record time, that's all I can say.


Unbelievable.

Cryogenic (what is your name anyway?); I am a Christian and as stated in the other thread: it is not for me to judge anyone or put them down for not believing in the sacrifice Jesus made for humankind. I have NOT contradicted myself because I have stated nothing to contradict.

My postscript was certainly not patronising, merely correcting your interpretation of my sentence utilising the word “one”.

As to my ‘literal’ interpretations of your prior post begs the question what exactly DID you mean when you wrote: “YOU'RE TRYING TO GET NOTICED.”

Whether I get to decide on this topic or not, in my humble opinion this subject matter is ridiculous rather than important. Elvis didn’t commit suicide – what is there to debate?
[/b]

Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:22 am

Matthew wrote:Unbelievable.


Yes ........ I expect it is.

(And that, BTW, is also your problem).

Matthew wrote:Cryogenic (what is your name anyway?)


Cryogenic.

Matthew wrote:I am a Christian and as stated in the other thread: it is not for me to judge anyone or put them down for not believing in the sacrifice Jesus made for humankind. I have NOT contradicted myself because I have stated nothing to contradict.


You can play it that way if you like.

Matthew wrote:My postscript was certainly not patronising, merely correcting your interpretation of my sentence utilising the word “one”.


Ummmm ....... yes, it was.

The very fact it took the form of a "post-script" is proof. That you also wrote it in the present tense is indicative of your arrogance. (Misplaced, too).

Matthew wrote:As to my ‘literal’ interpretations of your prior post begs the question what exactly DID you mean when you wrote: “YOU'RE TRYING TO GET NOTICED.”


Oh, Lord ....... you gave them eyes, but they cannot see.

I meant he was trying to get his posts noticed -- OR ........ his statements, VIA his posts (same difference).

Matthew wrote:Whether I get to decide on this topic or not, in my humble opinion this subject matter is ridiculous rather than important. Elvis didn’t commit suicide – what is there to debate?
[/b]


Well ...... I think N8 would agree with at least one of your assertions there. (And so do I).

I'm not actually sure there's a lot to debate, either, BTW. N8 was presenting important corrections. In essence: whether you realise it or not, you're attacking someone for providing knowledge, and in continuing to argue things out with me, giving this thread even greater visibility (which you claim to be against).

By all means, carry on.

Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:32 am

I have not attacked N880EPs information, I have questioned to need to bring such an old thread back into plain view.

Again (and for the last time) my post script was not patronising, it was added after the event because it came to fruition after I wrote the post.

You call me arrogant. Hmm, pot calling the kettle black.

Good day to you.

Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:35 am

Matthew wrote:I have not attacked N880EPs information, I have questioned to need to bring such an old thread back into plain view.


You see the two as mutually exclusive ........ I do not.

Matthew wrote:Again (and for the last time) my post script was not patronising, it was added after the event because it came to fruition after I wrote the post.


But you still positioned it -- by way of it being a "post-script" -- and wrote it in a patronising manner.

Matthew wrote:You call me arrogant. Hmm, pot calling the kettle black.


Not really.

Matthew wrote:Good day to you.


It's more like late evening, but thanks. :wink:

Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:55 am

Image

Cryo -

Off the top of my head, I believe the above pic. was taken on Einstein's birthday sometime in the 50's.

Why is he doing it? He was pretty much summing up how he felt about celebrity worship. The press had been hounding him all day, asking him to smile for the cameras ........... The Big "E" (yeah, just like E) was weary of it and gave them his tongue instead (Incidently, Einstein had a fantastic sense of humour, ..... and this - for the remainder of his life - was one of his favorite photos of himself.)

There are lots of stories that I could tell you about this Big "E", too.

----------------------

Matthew / Rob -

There is no other way to educate / correct gross misunderstanding ....... about misinformation ........ the different ways in which people come to believe it ............... how the U.S. court system works ............ and some of the reasons I bother to post any where ................

.......... other than re-visiting the evidence directly as demonstration (ie: bringing this thread back).

The only other option is to allow willful wallowing in ignorance ................. (which for me, is never an option).

----------------------

Eddie -

Valsalva does not explain other details (evidence / scene / autopsy) of what happened that day.

---------------------

I hope the take home message(s) are not lost on everyone.



N8
Last edited by N880EP on Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:09 am

N880EP wrote:Image

Cryo -

Off the top of my head, I believe the above pic. was taken on Einstein's birthday sometime in the 50's.

Why is he doing it? He was pretty much summing up how he felt about celebrity worship. The press had been hounding him all day, asking him to smile for the cameras ........... The Big "E" (yeah, just like E) was weary of it and gave them his tongue instead (Incidently, Einstein had a fantastic sense of humour, ..... and this - for the remainder of his life - was one of his favorites photos of himself.)

There are lots of stories that I could tell you about this Big "E", too.


Not sure about the date ........ but I've heard the story before. Quite recently, actually (it's in that book, "A Short History Of Nearly Everything", I told you about -- as is practically everything else).

I'm sure you could tell me loads. Would love to hear it all sometime, actually. Einstein was mega. Giga / terra, even. :p

Actually, if anyone was a terr(or) ... it would probably be Newton, right? I've also read some things about him, and ....... BOY. I think God gave him a sharp mind and missed the personality. (In a manner of speaking).

N880EP wrote:The only other option is to allow willful wallowing in ignorance ................. (which for me, is never an option).


Yeah.

It seems I am slowly adopting your traits. (Mainly limited to more superficial things like formatting right now, but give it 20 years....). :shock:

N880EP wrote:I hope the take home message(s) are not lost on everyone.


There is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows for those who don't. For some ......... well, you could go supernova and it wouldn't change anything.

Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:19 am

Cryo -

Sir Isaac Newton was not a pleasant individual, at all.

He most definitely was also not a man to cross or get on the bad side of.

----------------------------

When I have some more time, later on today, I will PM you one of my own research stories pertaining to Einstein.


N8

Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:22 am

Cryogenic

I believe we have called a ''truce'' correct me please if I am wrong.

I have something to say and you may not like it, but I can tell you are a well educated young man and would like to think you can respect what i have to say. I can clearly see by your post's that you and N8 are obviously in contact away from the Message Board.

I understand that you my hold the Gentleman in the highest regard, but these post's actually bring your ''fawning'' for want of a better word to the forefront of this thread and and not the Topic in hand.

N8

Am I correct in thinking that the ''official'' Autopsy Report won't be available for another 50 years. I am sure I read somewhere that EPE and Priscilla actually asked for the Report to be sealed again.

Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:24 am

N880EP wrote:Cryo -

Sir Isaac Newton was not a pleasant individual, at all.

He most definitely was also not a man to cross or get on the bad side of.


Yes. Definitely. I've read that.

I've also read that he was extremely aloof and had to be coaxed into releasing his papers. He also provided no financial aid / backing for the publication of "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica" at all -- which was actually critically needed back then.

He and Einstein are like chalk and cheese.

N880EP wrote:When I have some more time, later on today, I will PM you one of my own research stories pertaining to Einstein.


Excellent! I'm looking forward to that. 8)

LittleDarlin wrote:I have something to say and you may not like it, but I can tell you are a well educated young man and would like to think you can respect what i have to say. I can clearly see by your post's that you and N8 are obviously in contact away from the Message Board.

I understand that you my hold the Gentleman in the highest regard, but these post's actually bring your ''fawning'' for want of a better word to the forefront of this thread and and not the Topic in hand.


Right ...... and in the same manner that you called a truce ...... you could have PMed me to say this.

(Thanks for the compliment, BTW)

Like I said before (to Rob): you may accuse me of genuflection. And lo and behold, you have. Well ...... life is short. While I will concede that the last couple of posts (by myself) have now started to go off on a tangent, every other thing (including the "fawning" you label me with) have been totally valid and on topic. Other people were ripping N8's very action of bringing this thread back, let alone considering what he wrote. That is the height of ignorance and rudeness, and given my respect for N8, not to mention my vested interest in the truth, I will go out of my way to defend him and his points.

Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:43 am

LittleDarlin wrote:N8

Am I correct in thinking that the ''official'' Autopsy Report won't be available for another 50 years. I am sure I read somewhere that EPE and Priscilla actually asked for the Report to be sealed again.


2027 is the date that the 50 year closure clause ends.

Anything can happen at that time and this of course also depends on how the laws are / changed between now ..... & then.

The report is sealed because its contents reveal polypharmacy as the cause of death.

If the true cause were heart attack / cancer :roll: , etc., ..... there would be no reason to seal it and hide the truth. (This, incidently, was also what was told privately to Vernon & others when the autopsy results were completed.) Hence, the sealing.

That "truth" was also white-washed by Francisco (cardiac arrhythmia, which is technically true, but also technically meaningless. It's a play on the fallacy of gobbly gook - word semantics) in order to dupe an ignorant public. It has, in large measure, succeeded.


N8

PS - Cryo, thank you for your words / support. I will also try to get to that PM soon.

Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:49 am

N880EP wrote:
LittleDarlin wrote:N8

Am I correct in thinking that the ''official'' Autopsy Report won't be available for another 50 years. I am sure I read somewhere that EPE and Priscilla actually asked for the Report to be sealed again.


2027 is the date that the 50 year closure clause ends.

Anything can happen at that time and this of course also depends on how the laws are / changed between now ..... & then.

The report is sealed because its contents reveal polypharmacy as the cause of death.

If the true cause were heart attack / cancer :roll: , etc., ..... there would be no reason to seal it and hide the truth. (This, incidently, was also what was told privately to Vernon & others when the autopsy results were completed.) Hence, the sealing.

That "truth" was also white-washed by Francisco (cardiac arrhythmia, which is technically true, but also technically meaningless. It's a play on the fallacy of gobbly gook - word semantics) in order to dupe an ignorant public. It has, in large measure, succeeded.


N8



Thank You

So who were they ''hiding'' the findings of polypharmacy from.......... the Fan's or from His Daughter?

You see.........I think this is why the rumours and everything were allowed to get out of hand. If it was stated at the time what Elvis died of officially a lot of malicious rumours could have been laid to rest.

Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:06 am

N880EP wrote:
LittleDarlin wrote:N8

Am I correct in thinking that the ''official'' Autopsy Report won't be available for another 50 years. I am sure I read somewhere that EPE and Priscilla actually asked for the Report to be sealed again.


2027 is the date that the 50 year closure clause ends.

Anything can happen at that time and this of course also depends on how the laws are / changed between now ..... & then.


I never thought about that ...... BUT ........ if Elvis is as big then as he is now, even if the laws haven't changed by then, TPTB (The Powers That Be) might be able to exert some pressure and get something done. Anything could happen.

N880EP wrote:That "truth" was also white-washed by Francisco (cardiac arrhythmia, which is technically true, but also technically meaningless. It's a play on the fallacy of gobbly gook - word semantics) in order to dupe an ignorant public. It has, in large measure, succeeded.


Yeah ........ people hear, "cardiac arryhythmia" ....... and they think, "heart attack".

They could have just as easily have said, "respiratory failure" ....... and if people hear, "respiratory failure" ........... they think, "lung failure".

And so on.

What has amazed me since I wised up is why it wasn't contested by doctors up and down the country. You'd think such a verdict would have caused thousands of M.D.s / practitioners to collectively fling their arms up in the air and go "bullshit!" the SECOND they heard it. What gives? Is it some kind of rule that other people not in that circle of doctors don't interfere?

N880EP wrote:Cryo, thank you for your words / support. I will also try to get to that PM soon.


No problem.

Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:27 am

Cryogenic wrote:
N880EP wrote:Cryo -

Sir Isaac Newton was not a pleasant individual, at all.

He most definitely was also not a man to cross or get on the bad side of.


Yes. Definitely. I've read that.

I've also read that he was extremely aloof and had to be coaxed into releasing his papers. He also provided no financial aid / backing for the publication of "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica" at all -- which was actually critically needed back then.

He and Einstein are like chalk and cheese.

N880EP wrote:When I have some more time, later on today, I will PM you one of my own research stories pertaining to Einstein.


Excellent! I'm looking forward to that. 8)

LittleDarlin wrote:I have something to say and you may not like it, but I can tell you are a well educated young man and would like to think you can respect what i have to say. I can clearly see by your post's that you and N8 are obviously in contact away from the Message Board.

I understand that you my hold the Gentleman in the highest regard, but these post's actually bring your ''fawning'' for want of a better word to the forefront of this thread and and not the Topic in hand.


Right ...... and in the same manner that you called a truce ...... you could have PMed me to say this.

(Thanks for the compliment, BTW)

Like I said before (to Rob): you may accuse me of genuflection. And lo and behold, you have. Well ...... life is short. While I will concede that the last couple of posts (by myself) have now started to go off on a tangent, every other thing (including the "fawning" you label me with) have been totally valid and on topic. Other people were ripping N8's very action of bringing this thread back, let alone considering what he wrote. That is the height of ignorance and rudeness, and given my respect for N8, not to mention my vested interest in the truth, I will go out of my way to defend him and his points.





Cryogenic

I will listen for hours on end to anyone who can tell me anything about Elvis..............especially someone who has a better understanding and knowledge about him than myself.

I publically apologise to you If I have offended you BUT.......I do believe what I wrote has got us back on Topic and that was my aim, if this gets me banned then so be it. I wish it to be known I am not causing trouble.....just telling it how it is.

As you know Education is my field of work but even I could not understand where this thread was going...............it went from ''Did he or didn't he commit suicide'' to Einstein...............which is relevant in which way.....please point it out to me.

N8

I was not around when you posted here before so I don't know who you are etc.........what I do know is I am interested in what you have to say and if I ask You a question...........you give me a reasonable answer and I respect what you have to say, nothing more..........nothing less.

My post wasn't meant to demean, belittle or criticise anyone at all I just saw it as it was.

P.S. Cryogenic

I didn't PM you again in case you thought I was a stalker




:wink:

Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:49 am

LittleDarlin wrote:
Cryogenic wrote:
N880EP wrote:Cryo -

Sir Isaac Newton was not a pleasant individual, at all.

He most definitely was also not a man to cross or get on the bad side of.


Yes. Definitely. I've read that.

I've also read that he was extremely aloof and had to be coaxed into releasing his papers. He also provided no financial aid / backing for the publication of "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica" at all -- which was actually critically needed back then.

He and Einstein are like chalk and cheese.

N880EP wrote:When I have some more time, later on today, I will PM you one of my own research stories pertaining to Einstein.


Excellent! I'm looking forward to that. 8)

LittleDarlin wrote:I have something to say and you may not like it, but I can tell you are a well educated young man and would like to think you can respect what i have to say. I can clearly see by your post's that you and N8 are obviously in contact away from the Message Board.

I understand that you my hold the Gentleman in the highest regard, but these post's actually bring your ''fawning'' for want of a better word to the forefront of this thread and and not the Topic in hand.


Right ...... and in the same manner that you called a truce ...... you could have PMed me to say this.

(Thanks for the compliment, BTW)

Like I said before (to Rob): you may accuse me of genuflection. And lo and behold, you have. Well ...... life is short. While I will concede that the last couple of posts (by myself) have now started to go off on a tangent, every other thing (including the "fawning" you label me with) have been totally valid and on topic. Other people were ripping N8's very action of bringing this thread back, let alone considering what he wrote. That is the height of ignorance and rudeness, and given my respect for N8, not to mention my vested interest in the truth, I will go out of my way to defend him and his points.





Cryogenic

I will listen for hours on end to anyone who can tell me anything about Elvis..............especially someone who has a better understanding and knowledge about him than myself.

I publically apologise to you If I have offended you BUT.......I do believe what I wrote has got us back on Topic and that was my aim, if this gets me banned then so be it. I wish it to be known I am not causing trouble.....just telling it how it is.

As you know Education is my field of work but even I could not understand where this thread was going...............it went from ''Did he or didn't he commit suicide'' to Einstein...............which is relevant in which way.....please point it out to me.

N8

I was not around when you posted here before so I don't know who you are etc.........what I do know is I am interested in what you have to say and if I ask You a question...........you give me a reasonable answer and I respect what you have to say, nothing more..........nothing less.

My post wasn't meant to demean, belittle or criticise anyone at all I just saw it as it was.

P.S. Cryogenic

I didn't PM you again in case you thought I was a stalker




:wink:


Sometimes ......... I sense you feel you need to explain yourself ........ but you don't. However, thanks for offering me one on this occasion. And thanks again for the compliments. We're cool. 8)

BTW: If you were posing a question there, then it only got to Einstein through the collective efforts of N8 and I. I summoned up a jokey picture (one that I thought would appeal to N8 ) to lighten the mood, but it was N8 that took it somewhere. Look what you made me do -- I'm bashing N8 myself now! :lol: (J/K)

Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:06 am

N880EP wrote:That "truth" was also white-washed by Francisco (cardiac arrhythmia, which is technically true, but also technically meaningless. It's a play on the fallacy of gobbly gook - word semantics) in order to dupe an ignorant public. It has, in large measure, succeeded.


N8


Has it really succeeded? I think if most people were asked why Elvis died, they would say drugs were the cause. I agree there was an intention to conceal the truth, but I don't think it was successful.

Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:18 am

TJ wrote:
N880EP wrote:That "truth" was also white-washed by Francisco (cardiac arrhythmia, which is technically true, but also technically meaningless. It's a play on the fallacy of gobbly gook - word semantics) in order to dupe an ignorant public. It has, in large measure, succeeded.


N8


Has it really succeeded? I think if most people were asked why Elvis died, they would say drugs were the cause. I agree there was an intention to conceal the truth, but I don't think it was successful.


Good question, actually.

I think it has succeeded to the extent that most people are CONFUSED (only, they *think* they know) -- but not *entirely* duped. I think 90% know he died a drug death, but far fewer realise it was an accidental overdose, or precisely what that overdose did to him. Ironically, some of the other myths surrounding his death -- bone cancer, murder, him still living (very fringe) -- are perpetuated by a mixture of those closest to him and nuttier fans. The main public probably has a slightly better grasp of things than that.
Last edited by Cryogenic on Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:19 am

I've gotten the impression that he wanted to do an ALL gospel tour if he had lived.

Not totally sure if thats true but there you go.

At the end of Elvis' life I don't think he really cared anymore either way.
He was at the end and he knew it. What day and time that end would come, he did NOT know, but he wasn't going to change anything major in his life for more then 2 or 3 days.

It's like a car on the highway: You're driving on an open highway at 90 mph and at some point you just.....take your hands off the wheel.
I think that's what Elvis did. He didn't intentionally drive the car off the road or into a tree, but he really didn't seem to care anymore.

You could say that he was committing slow suicide, but I definately don't think he INTENDED to kill himself on the 16th.
It just happened that way. If it had not happened on August 16th, it could have happened on September 22, you know?

Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:23 am

healy wrote:It's like a car on the highway: You're driving on an open highway at 90 mph and at some point you just.....take your hands off the wheel.
I think that's what Elvis did. He didn't intentionally drive the car off the road or into a tree, but he really didn't seem to care anymore.


Very well put.

Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:17 am

TJ -

I think that Cryo has pretty much summed up that answer and what I meant by it.

--------------------------------

LittleDarlin wrote:As you know Education is my field of work but even I could not understand where this thread was going...............it went from ''Did he or didn't he commit suicide'' to Einstein...............which is relevant in which way.....please point it out to me.


Which is why I took it to PM's w/ Cryo.

LittleDarlin wrote:N8

I was not around when you posted here before so I don't know who you are etc.........what I do know is I am interested in what you have to say and if I ask You a question...........you give me a reasonable answer and I respect what you have to say, nothing more..........nothing less.

My post wasn't meant to demean, belittle or criticise anyone at all I just saw it as it was.


Well, Sid, ...... sometime people get offended by blunt & truthful answers. They shouldn't, but they do. So, what I see as reasonable, ...... others sometimes do not.

LittleDarlin wrote:P.S. Cryogenic

I didn't PM you again in case you thought I was a stalker


I'm often stalked, wherever I go (both on & off the MB's). In fact, ..... I've even had stalkers ........... later call me a stalker (!!) :lol:

--------------------------------

Good thread, all.


N8

PS - healy, in Fike's words, EP, in a way, died of terminal apathy. The Wests tried to shake him out of it, ..... it just turned out to be too late.

Take care, all.

Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:23 am

[quote="N880EP"]Image

You are all wrong!

Einstein was auditioning for NZ Idol Maori Edition back in the days before TV.