All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Does Lamar Fike regret helping Goldman with that book?

Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:30 pm

I have just recently obtained a brilliant documentary about Colonel Parker which was filmed by a Dutch TV film crew in 1999.

There is some great interviews on there and right at the end there is an interview with Lamar Fike which,im assuming , was filmed at his home.

Right behind Lamar on the wall is a portrait of the cover of Albert Goldmans book'Elvis'.

Now recently, some one put up a topic about Lamar saying that he was conned into saying the things he said to Goldman which helped Goldman write THAT book.
I just thought, well if Lamar is embarrassed about that then why is there a portrait of the book in his house??

Everyone knows about that infamous book and the way that Goldman waits for his victim to die so that he could write lies about them knowing that he couldnt be sued. :twisted:

Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Goldman does not wait anymore. He died.

Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:01 pm

Yeah, i know.Suffered a heart attack while he was a passenger on a plane.

Would like to think that he suffered and there was no one to help him.Nearest he ever got to heaven.

What an evil man. :twisted:

Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:48 pm

I guess that Lamar didn't want the book to be what it became. You can't blame him that he tried to make some money. He might just have gotten connected to the wrong "journalist". Many things that Lamar says seem to be true and I think he knows, that he doesn't make much friends when he tells about the failtures of our beloved idol. I am interested in Elvis as a person. And I'm not one of those who desperately trying to paint a picture of their hero that makes him look sympathic. I don't think that I would have liked him that much, at least I think I would have gotten tired of all that sh*t over the years. Who wants to be with a armed junkie? Not me. But I'm not an Elvis fan because of the king's personality (even though it is very interesting). I'm a fan because he sung so damn well and he was the most entertaining performer that I have ever seen or heard. So I can't blame Lamar for anything. At least he tells stories, that seem to have a lot more truth in them, than the stuff EPE and Priscilla trying to sell us.

re

Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:05 pm

from http://www.elvisinfonet.com/


EIN: Albert Goldman's biography is widely despised by Elvis fans. In 2005, how do you feel about your involvement with it?

LF: My involvement was only to introduce him to people, I had nothing to do what he wrote. Can't we all get over this!

EIN: Because of Goldman's anti-Elvis narrative its positive points are easily overlooked. What do you think Goldman's book brought to the Elvis world?

LF: Nothing.

Re: re

Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:13 am

tcb4 wrote:from http://www.elvisinfonet.com/


EIN: Albert Goldman's biography is widely despised by Elvis fans. In 2005, how do you feel about your involvement with it?

LF: My involvement was only to introduce him to people, I had nothing to do what he wrote. Can't we all get over this!

EIN: Because of Goldman's anti-Elvis narrative its positive points are easily overlooked. What do you think Goldman's book brought to the Elvis world?

LF: Nothing.


This is exactly what i am talking about.
Lamar must know how many Elvis fans despise this book and after these words im astonished to see an interview with a portrait of the cover of the book behind him.
That says to me that Lamar is not that much ashamed of his involvement in the book.
dl,
You call Elvis your idol and say that you are only interested in him as a person but by calling him a junkie,which ,to me, is a term used by heroin users ,is not a very pleasent thing to say.
Elvis had a very serious problem with prescribed medication and health problems but to label him a junkie is such a wrong term to use.

.

Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:52 pm

dl wrote: I don't think that I would have liked him that much, at least I think I would have gotten tired of all that sh*t over the years. Who wants to be with a armed junkie? Not me.


Then perhaps finding another message board where you and Lamar can sympathise with each other would be a better place for you. PM DJC I am sure he has some pretty good leads.


JUNKIE!!!!

Image

PURPORTED JUNKIE 8 MONTHS BEFORE HIS DEATH

Image

ANY QUESTIONS?

sorry my ...

Sat Jan 28, 2006 5:27 pm

I think he was sorry, he didnt did the book on his own, so he could have made more money.

Give me the good old Lisa quote: "I hope they rott in hell" .

Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:54 pm

Stari062,

I think you are getting confused with the book Elvis:What happened? by Red West,Sonny West and Dave Hebler.

Im talking about the book by Albert Goldman in which Lamar Fike helped Goldman with.

I know alot of fans dont like the Wests or Hebler.I have no problem with them.Met them both and they seem ok sort of blokes.If fans dont like them then thats fine.
I think Elvis dying had alot to do with the reaction of the fans.Elvis :What happened? was written while Elvis was still alive and it was unfortunate that the book came out 2 weeks before Elvis passed.Because of that they will always be hated by some fans.Everyone has their own opinion cause if everyone thought the same then life would be boring.

The Goldman book shouldnt be compared with the other book cause Goldman never knew Elvis and waited till he died before writing THAT book.Goldman had a habit of writing crap about entertainers after they died knowing he couldnt get sued.He first did it about Lenny Bruce,then Elvis and later on about John Lennon.

Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:36 am

dl wrote:I guess that Lamar didn't want the book to be what it became. You can't blame him that he tried to make some money. He might just have gotten connected to the wrong "journalist". .


Yes it's conceivable that, as Lamar suggests now, he didn't know what he was getting into and the book didn't turn out as he expected. However, it's pretty damning to have a framed picture of the cover on his wall! Let's put this into perspective for a second. If a book was written about one of your closest friends and it tore that person to shreds, suggesting that they had pretty much no redeeming features, would you put a framed picture of the cover on the wall? A decent person would be ashamed that they had any involvement in it and certainly not want a daily reminder of it on their wall. The man is a loser and I'm fed up of some fans praising him for how frank and open he can be. F**k him!

Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:38 am

TJ wrote:
dl wrote:I guess that Lamar didn't want the book to be what it became. You can't blame him that he tried to make some money. He might just have gotten connected to the wrong "journalist". .


Yes it's conceivable that, as Lamar suggests now, he didn't know what he was getting into and the book didn't turn out as he expected. However, it's pretty damning to have a framed picture of the cover on his wall! Let's put this into perspective for a second. If a book was written about one of your closest friends and it tore that person to shreds, suggesting that they had pretty much no redeeming features, would you put a framed picture of the cover on the wall? A decent person would be ashamed that they had any involvement in it and certainly not want a daily reminder of it on their wall. The man is a loser and I'm fed up of some fans praising him for how frank and open he can be. F**k him!


preach it brother!

Re: .

Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:40 am

Blue-Gypsy wrote:
dl wrote: I don't think that I would have liked him that much, at least I think I would have gotten tired of all that sh*t over the years. Who wants to be with a armed junkie? Not me.


Then perhaps finding another message board where you and Lamar can sympathise with each other would be a better place for you. PM DJC I am sure he has some pretty good leads.


JUNKIE!!!!

Image

PURPORTED JUNKIE 8 MONTHS BEFORE HIS DEATH

Image

ANY QUESTIONS?



now DL why dont u take ur armed junkie comments and blatant contempt for the person of Elvis Presley elsewhere, because you obviously have issues and anger at him for letting u down and dying on you, sounds like it anyway.

Sun Jan 29, 2006 2:24 am

Of course Fike regrets his "association" with Goldman.

That said, however, ..............

IMO, Fike has nobody but himself to blame for his propensities towards exaggeration being used and now becoming a classical source of NEGATIVE MYTH.

Ironically, Goldman will forever be Fike's Legacy as well.


N8
... just a fan ....

Re: re

Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:25 pm

Sean Ryan wrote:You call Elvis your idol and say that you are only interested in him as a person but by calling him a junkie,which ,to me, is a term used by heroin users ,is not a very pleasent thing to say.
Elvis had a very serious problem with prescribed medication and health problems but to label him a junkie is such a wrong term to use.


The term junkie is not JUST for heroin addicts. It can apply to anything one takes too much of. Hence the term "junk food junkie".
Yes Elvis had legitimate healt problems which required him to take certain drugs. But he also often took more than the prescribed doses, and also took a plethera of other drugs, too. He was no dobut a junkie. Unpleasant as it may sound.
Yet he was also a kind, giving, caring human being. The drug use was out of control, and out of his control by the 70's. It doesn't make him less of a person...in fact it shows that he was as human as the rest of us.
Just curious, what term would you use to describe his drug habits?

Axe

Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:59 pm

Jumpsuit junkie comes to mind. But with Elvis it just does not sound nice. For me anyway.

Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:10 pm

Anytime "junkie" is mentioned (without anyting before it), the connotation is that it's "hard/street" drugs. The actual definition isn't that, but (at least in America), you say the word "junkie" and ask 10 people what that means, they'll likely all give the same answer, something along the lines of "someone on crack or heroin or something that can't get enough and will do anything to get it, and who does it for the high".

To even call Elvis a prescription drug junkie seems a bit hard - he had a definite problem, but going by what Jerry Schilling said of the medications being band-aids, that doesn't so much fit the connotation of just doing it for the high that "junkie" suggests.

That's why there's such a backlash to that word - the definition may loosely fit, but (imo) for Elvis' legacy and memory to start to shed off the crap it's had to go through over the years... the further we as fans stay away from that word (particularly where non-fans can read it), the better.

Just my two cents.

Re: re

Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:24 pm

Axeman wrote: Just curious, what term would you use to describe his drug habits?

Axe


Perhaps you would say he was addicted to pain killers? Maybe you would say he was addicted to prescription drugs? I am sure there is a host of phrases you could come up with when you are talking about someone you care about that has a problem other than Junkie!

I have a question, if your mother, father, or maybe even your child was addicted to prescription medicine and you were confiding in a close friend about the problem, would you refer to your loved one as a Junkie in that conversation?

I hope I have answered your question.

Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:59 pm

In it's original connotation the word 'junkie' referred to a heroin addict. Heroin was known as 'junk.' I know what I'm talking about here folks because 2 of my 4 older sisters were heroin addicts. So when people refer to Elvis as a junkie they don't know what the f#ck they're talking about. He was a pill addict. But he was no 'junkie' in the true sense of the word.

Anybody who thinks of Elvis as a junkie and who can cavalierly refer to him in that manner is a disciple of Goldman.

Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:28 am

Lamar made a mistake.

I accept that.

We all should be responsible for the consequences of our mistakes.

I deal with them.

So should Lamar.

Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:55 am

Hi Steve,

Your point is exactly what i am talking about.

Lamar made a mistake we all know that and he has said that he regrets it and wishes that he took no part in helping Goldman with that book but,as i have said, he does an interview and in the background is a portrait of the cover of the forementioned book.
If Lamar regrets helping Goldman with that book i just dont understand why on earth he would have a portrait of it in his home. :roll:

Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:57 am

Well Sean, for all we know he might throw darts at it.

If not, then at best he has only made yet another mistake.

Lamar, the idea is to learn from our mistakes, not use them to do it wrong again.

Re: re

Mon Jan 30, 2006 2:40 am

Blue-Gypsy wrote:
Axeman wrote: Just curious, what term would you use to describe his drug habits?

Axe


Perhaps you would say he was addicted to pain killers? Maybe you would say he was addicted to prescription drugs? I am sure there is a host of phrases you could come up with when you are talking about someone you care about that has a problem other than Junkie!

I have a question, if your mother, father, or maybe even your child was addicted to prescription medicine and you were confiding in a close friend about the problem, would you refer to your loved one as a Junkie in that conversation?

I hope I have answered your question.


To answer YOUR question, yes if my father, etc., was addicted to some kind of narcotic, I would certainly use the term 'junkie' as easily as I would 'addict', 'fiend' or any other term. They may not be pretty terms, but I think calling a spade a spade beats watering the term down, so to speak, or to make it less-offensive sounding. Because in doing that, you water down the nature of the problem. "Addicted to prescription medications" sounds so much more pleasant than "junkie". Sounds like a junkie needs immediate help, while someone merely addicted to prescription medications somehow has a different problem that's not as serious. IT'S THE SAME THING, FOLKS.
Think of this...what used to be called "shell-shock", in WWI, had been renamed Battle Fatigue...then Operational Exhaustion...now finally, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder...all the life is taken out of the wording and I bet if they'd still been calling it shell-shock some of the US vets would've gotten the care they needed in the early 70's...
I know that's not really related to the subject concerning Elvis, but the premise is the same. Call it what you will, I suppose, but an addict is an addict, wether it's heroin, nicotine, alchohol or painkillers. It's ALL junk. The fact that heroin is most closely associated with the term does not exclude other drugs from being so. It's ugly, but we're all human. I choose to accept the ugly parts of life and admire and enjoy the beautiful parts. Without the ugly, we couldn't appreciate the beauty.

Axe

Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:42 am

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:20 am

Vincent wrote:Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.


Only those with weak minds can be made to commit atrocities.

Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:42 am

Axeman wrote:Only those with weak minds can be made to commit atrocities.


Absolutely true.