All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:57 am

It's quite obvious that the line "he's just that kind of guy" was written from a woman's perspective, Joy Byers. No straight man would ever comment about another guy in that way. It would almost be too queer. And I seriously doubt that Charlie Daniels is queer.


Where do you conclude that is a homophobic statement? Your liberal interpretation of homophobic is stretching it a bit. If you're referring to the Charlie Daniels bit, that was tongue-in-cheek and was meant to humorous based in part on Charlie Daniels music and his persona.

Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:35 am

Daryl wrote:Matthew,

I can't help it if you lack the intellect to take facts and thoroughly analyze them and draw your own conclusion. You keep stating that it isn't fact but yet you can't offer a rebuttal to it's contrary. What do you think the Guralnick's, the Tunzi's, the Jorgensen's of the Elvis world have done for the last 20 some years. Offer me something that proves that Joy Byers didn't help write that line. Again, Joy Byers says that Charlie Daniels wrote all the music and most of the lyrics. From that bit of information you can deduce that Charlie Daniels was stuck on coming up with a suitable lyric somewhere in the song, or else he would have finished the song himself. That is when Joy Byers comes in. She helps Charlie out with a line or two. What is the weakest line in the entire song? Again it's "he's just that kind of guy." And again, most guys wouldn't phrase it that way. It's just something that doesn't happen all that often. That line came from a woman's perspective, rather than a man's. I don't think I can spell it out any clearer than that.

Daryl


Thank you for making my point clear, finally you are seeing the big picture. I can't offer any evidence that Joy didn't contribute that line anymore than you can that she did. Joy could have contributed any line in that song and she and her husband are the ONLY people who can confirm or deny anything...accept this fact. Its only taken a couple of pages for you to understand this but no worries Daryl, some just need a little time to catch up with the rest of the class.

Basically you have applied your own bias as the "kind of guy" YOU are to reason that because YOU'D never say that line it therefore must have been written by a woman because YOU as a guy wouldn't say it...that would be too "queer" for YOU to say as a guy in YOUR opinion. And because YOU'D never say such a thing the line automatically defaults to becoming a throw away, weak line in YOUR opinion.

Here's the thing Daryl, you have failed at deductive reasoning and to quote the Greatest Criminal Mind of our time:

You

Are

Image

Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:54 am

Matthew,

A guy simply wouldn't say it, unless they were to the point of exasperation after arguing with the woman in the song. But not until then. It wouldn't be the first thing to come out of their mouth. Why can't you get that through your head?

If you fail to realize that "he's just that kind of guy" is the weakest line in the entire song, then there is no hope for you to begin with. Why else would Charlie Daniels need to bring in another songwriter to help on his song. What part of that don't you grasp? He wouldn't have needed help on anything else because every other line in the song is written from a man's perspective. As much as it pains you, you cannot deny that it is the weakest line in the entire song. Finally, I based my opinion that a guy normally wouldn't say such thing on the fact that I've never heard of a guy use it in conversation in my own personal life, or for that matter in a television show or a movie. I'm not the least saying that a guy can't say it. I'm saying that it is very unusual for a guy to say it, not unless as I stated earlier he was to the point of exasperation after arguing with the woman in the song that he finally just said that he's just that kind of guy. The song makes no mention of an argument to precede that comment.

Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:29 am

I can see why you love wikipedia. It's compiled of information from various sources that sometimes has incorrect information. There was an article a few years ago in USA Today about this very matter in which someone posted incorrect information about a U.S. political figure. Basically someone has posted slanderous materials on a wikipedia page about this politician.

So I take it you also love getting incorrect information some of the time as well?

And as for those three definitions, what exactly have you posted in this thread that's been any semblance of useful information.

Where exactly have I been destructive? And I hardly consider the "queer" comment derogatory or otherwise inflammatory when used in the context that I'm talking about a line in a song, not a person or any group of people.

Daryl

Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:39 am

This "troll" still loves It Hurts Me as recorded by Elvis Presley, january 1964!
And his version of Memphis, also january 1964, is still my favourite version of the Chuck Berry classic!

Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:36 am

Please answer my previous question about the Rivers incident Daryl. Why would Marty and the guys lie? I think it's an important point. What was to be gained them arbitrarily bashing Johnny Rivers 30 years after the fact? Of all the performers in the world why him? That Guralnick thought enough of it to feature it in his book (Was it Nash book as well? I don't remember.) He had many incidents where he had to choose conflicting versions of the truth (like Elvis' discovery). He must have had some grounds.

Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:50 am

Hello,

Likethebike, I really can't answer with 100% certainty, but I would draw my conclusion that either Rivers rubbed the guys the wrong way or that Lacker blames Rivers for introducing Larry Geller to Elvis. It's just like some people want to insist that Col. Tom Parker killed Elvis. Just because alot of people insist on it, doesn't mean it's entirely true. Just by reading Nash's book alone, you can draw the conclusion that Marty Lacker despised Larry Geller, as did alot of guys in the MM. The only other reason I can think of that Lacker made up the story is that it might have been used to create something controversial to sell books. You never heard about the story until after Nash's book came out. Why is that? Surely someone in the MM would have mentioned that Rivers stole "Memphis" from Elvis in the 31 years between '64 and '95 when Nash's book came out. You can bet that Albert Goldman would have. And didn't Lamar Fike help both Goldman and Nash on their respective books.

Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:56 pm

Daryl wrote:I can see why you love wikipedia. It's compiled of information from various sources that sometimes has incorrect information.


Indeed, the perfect medium for your essay on It Hurts Me.

Run along now Daryl...

Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:00 pm

Matthew wrote:
Daryl wrote:I can see why you love wikipedia. It's compiled of information from various sources that sometimes has incorrect information.


Indeed, the perfect medium for your essay on It Hurts Me.

Run along now Daryl...


I have a feeling we haven't heard the last from Daryl! :wink:

Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:18 pm

Joe Car wrote:
Matthew wrote:
Daryl wrote:I can see why you love wikipedia. It's compiled of information from various sources that sometimes has incorrect information.


Indeed, the perfect medium for your essay on It Hurts Me.

Run along now Daryl...


I have a feeling we haven't heard the last from Daryl! :wink:


Same Bat time, same Bat channel....

Image

Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:30 pm

I don't use wikipedia for the reason I stated before. You must have bats in your belfry if you can't understand that much. Matthew, you're the one who said you loved wikipedia so much.

Daryl

Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:34 pm

The Geller theory is interesting. I have no doubt though that Goldman didn't dig up the "Memphis" story because he didn't bother to ask. Goldman had little to no interest in Elvis' music. He addressed some central pieces like "Heartbreak Hotel" but only because it is impossible to do a book on Presley without them. As it was "Can't Help Falling in Love", "Burning Love", "Little Sister" and others went without mention and others like "Suspicious Minds" and "All Shook Up" were mentioned only in passing.

One of the things that separated Guralnick's books was his willingness to ask about Elvis' music and his knowledge of it. Unlike previous biographers, he had at least listened to everything. He probably asked about "Memphis", an obscure album track, because he had been on record as an advocate of Elvis' version since the late 1970s.

Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:36 pm

Daryl wrote:I don't use wikipedia for the reason I stated before. You must have bats in your belfry if you can't understand that much. Matthew, you're the one who said you loved wikipedia so much.

Daryl


ImageImageImageImage

The Troll stumbles away punchdrunk.

Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:52 pm

Hello,

You're absolutely right that Goldman had no interest in Elvis' music but he did have an interest in selling books, stooping to whatever level to do that. If he thought nothing wrong of bashing Elvis in print, he wouldn't have thought twice about going after Rivers. Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. I believe that Rivers sometime in the early '80s ('83-'85) performed on an American Bandstand anniversary celebration or an American Music Awards telecast in which he paid tribute to Elvis. Don't you think that someone would have mentioned that Rivers stole "Memphis" from Elvis then? Another point about Lacker that I forgot was that if you read ROTMM, he clear as day mentions how much drugs he took while working with Elvis. I don't know too many people that abuse drugs and it makes their memory sharper 31 years later.

Daryl

Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:56 pm

Matthew,

You must be referring to yourself as the troll. While you keep making posts that sound as if they come from a 3 year old. Obviously you wasted too much of your childhood watching Batman. What gives with your fixation on Batman?

Mon Apr 16, 2007 12:06 am

Daryl wrote:Matthew,

You must be referring to yourself as the troll. While you keep making posts that sound as if they come from a 3 year old. Obviously you wasted too much of your childhood watching Batman. What gives with your fixation on Batman?


Because all possible avenues to have a reasonable debate with you in an adult medium have been exhausted, indeed I think you rather comical hence the classic cartoon prose. It is also rather humorous your need to always have the last word. You have reasoned NOTHING based on fact but merely on your own narrow minded point of view – which of course you are entitled to, even though it beggars belief.

Good day to you Daryl, this will be my last post in this thread.


Image

Mon Apr 16, 2007 12:10 am

Because all possible avenues to have a reasonable debate with you in an adult medium have been exhausted, indeed I think you rather comical hence the classic cartoon prose.


Isn't likethebike and myself having a reasonable debate as I type. Or are you blind?

Mon Apr 16, 2007 3:35 am

Matthew - 1

Daryl - 0

Mon Apr 16, 2007 4:37 am

Hello,

No doc, you got it all wrong. It's more like

Daryl 3

Matthew 0