Reply With QuoteYes, I am hopeless . But, it doesn't bother me.Originally Posted by jak
Just never figured out why it should bother you,madam.
BTW: Did I ever tell you I like the 1977 concerts ?
Youre hopeless madam.It's just so unfortunate youre wrong so often.Tell you the truth; I don't care what you disagree with.
The "other info" is there already. It's not in some distant future.
No one is elevated it's just fact. I don't look for "smoking guns" , I just read the documents that are in black and white, that anyone can see.
You just keep on believing whatever you like.
Yes, I am hopeless . But, it doesn't bother me.
Just never figured out why it should bother you,madam.
BTW: Did I ever tell you I like the 1977 concerts ?
"I have learned never to ridicule any man's opinion, however strange it may seem."
Please tell me again how dynamic he was in 77.I'll be back after I take the curlers out of my hair.Yes, I am hopeless . But, it doesn't bother me.
Just never figured out why it should bother you,madam.
BTW: Did I ever tell you I like the 1977 concerts ?
Wow , Folks , If You Have The Time Listen To The Show Of Austin ,tx March 77 , It's Fantastic !!!
Again One Hell Of A Show !!
A Real Treat For A Real Fan !! Jakytyjak
COLONEL DRIES SAYS ;
"THAT'S MY BOY"
I wonder too Sleepyjack.There is aslo a beautiful "straight" version on "Elvis Live at the International Hotel"..I love that version!
You are being deliberately provocative here. Re-read the threads again. Get Mojo to claify before making such statements.
Try again. That "following" exhange you posted was from MojoElvis! Come on, do you seriously think I'd use the word "witch" when I meant "which"? It was MojoElvis' comment you rehashed ... not mine!
Are you even reading these posts before responding??? Let's wait for Mojo to clarify, shall we, before launching such a silly tirade? (Although, now he will possibly respond and skew his own answer to agree with yours). At no stage did I read or misread any statement from him about AYLT being in Aloha. He did not say this! Why ... why ... would you assume that's what I thought he meant??
I'll lay this out simply, so you can follow ...
Mojo wrote two consecutive posts:
"Thank you epmoodyblue. Has any of these people with negative words ever seen the New Years Eve 76/77 concert footage? AWESOME SHOW!!!"
"He Was Just Joking Around During , Lonesome Tonight, It Wasn't Drug Related
He Did The Same Thing In The Hawaii Concert In 1960 And Also The 68 Comeback."
How could anyone believe he meant that AYLT was in Aloha? He didn't even suggest that! You have put words into my mouth, as it were, and are clutching at straws to make your "case". YOU were the one to link this song with Aloha, even in a passing reference ... NOT ME!
Wrong again. This is no fact! You believe anything you read on the internet, info such as the stuff you posted without first checking it out yourself. Elvis performed AYLT in concert a total of 44 times from 1969 to 1977. Twenty six of those times were prior to December 5, 1976, which (I presume) was the first time performed with the "gay" routine with Charlie. I presume because I don't have the version from Lake Tahoe, May 7, 1976 (I don't recall having a tape of the show anyway, so does anyone know if this was a joke version?) Now, even if the Tahoe version was a joking one, the next previous version was from Las Vegas August 19, 1975. I have that show on tape (but not with me) so I can't remember if it was serious or not. But even assuming that Vegas version was a joke, the next previous version is from April 1972 - when he was still being serious. No matter which way you cut it, the majority of the versions of AYLT were serious. (To clarify: a majority is anything over 50%!)
WHAT is your point here??? I see it one way, you see it another. Obviously no one can say with 100% certainty that it is drug-related. It is my opinion - on an issue that cannot be empirically proven, unlike for example the AYLT scenario above. And if he wasn't joking in Omaha as you say, what do you think he was doing, and why did he stumble and munble his way through the song?
Some fans might make this "cinematic assertion", but I do not. We were talking about AYLT from In Concert - and that is to what I was referring. Yes, the same version in This Is Elvis comes at the end where some people (non-fans mostly) could leap to a drug-related opinion. I however, am talking about the song in context, ie I have formed my opinion based on the footage ... in sequence and in context, mind you! ... from the In Concert special which, as I recall, did not mention drugs, even in passing. You have again made an incorrect assumption about my perceptions. You should know by now that my opinions are based on the most accurate information I can attain: and the In Concert version of AYLT is more accurate than the This Is Elvis version, even though it is the same performance.
You seem obsessed by this one performance. I think it's mostly drug-related, with Elvis trying to make a joke of it. You think differently. Big deal.
Do you ever get tired putting all those words in people's mouths?It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. I did not imply anything about "gross obesity" ... however, you have incorrectly inferred that from my comments. I said Elvis was obese. Now, take the time to check the threads again ... where did I say anything otherwise? As for factually incorrect ... please. Go onto the Net and find any weight chart.
Better still, here's one I picked at random.
http://www.annecollins.com/weight-lo...sity-chart.htm
Now, you feel free to find your own weight information, 'mkay? Then type in Elvis' weight for his height. Be generous with both figures if you like. Elvis Presley was obese. Not for the entire 70s, not for even the last two years. But near the end. Obesity is a weight category: it does not mean Elvis or any other obese person was so big they needed to be forklifted out of their house.
Oh, for the love of ...... read what Elvis was eating for a late-night snack every night. That's thousands of calories with just that. Do you know what Elvis last meal was? Research it, will you, or Google it, whatever you need to do.
Yes, it was very charitable. As I said, I did read the links. But, IMO, they are reading too much into one song. And the info about AYLT was simply w-r-o-n-g, wrong.
Here is my previous comment on this subject, word for word:
"You misread my posts. I never said Elvis never looked good again after 1973. What I said was that he never looked as good again after 1973. Big difference. Yes, there are indeed many shots from 1974 to 1976 (even one or two from 1977) where Elvis indeed looks good, fine, happy, and healthy. "
Once again, you have misread one of my posts, reported it erroneously, then regurgitated it completely inaccurately. Well, at least it was one of my posts this time, and not one of MojoElvis' !
Then why do you accuse me of "correcting" people? One would only presume to correct people if they thought the people were wrong ... right?
Here's another one: well, DUH!Responses based on subjective statements???
As for objective matters, well ... the AYLT information or the obesity chart information I posted is completely objective, free from my own or anyone else's biases.
As I explained elsewhere, my comment above is an ironic one. The thread was not hijacked at all. My point was that, from your point of view and others, you think it was. So, now you know who it feels when someone comes on to your threads and makes it "unpleasant", as some on here like to do when people like jak, stryx and myself talk about something that others think is unsavoury. If you don't like a post, don't respond to it. Simple. And yes, I do like this thread!
Okay, in that case, I call "tat" !!
Please point to any thread in this (or any of my other posts) where I have been biased when it comes to something that can be proven (ie it is objective information). As for the subjective postings ... of course they will be biased. Just as you have a bias towards 1977, which is fine.
Uh, well ... I ... I can't. You may have me there.
Wait a sec ... hang on ... I know why I can't point to where you said that ...
BECAUSE I DIDN'T SAY YOU DID!
Here, once again, is my original comment word for word:
"to restate, IMO he never again reached the superlative heights of January 1973."
What part of IMO do you not understand?
Hey, if someone puts words into my mouth (or posts) when I did not say or even imply them, then they're ripe for the picking!
Have a good day.
Last edited by Getlo; 11-24-2007 at 01:40 PM.
Getlo - cute'n'cuddly
Is there some reason this thread cannot be closed?
It's been torn up twice. I think it's gotten way off topic.IMO.
"I have learned never to ridicule any man's opinion, however strange it may seem."
Why close it?It's interesting and stirring up a good debate.I say dam the torpedoes and carry on lads.
Jak
I disagree. Some have destroyed this thread .
IMO, it's things like this that are embarrassing.
Grown men ..too much. It's yours .
"I have learned never to ridicule any man's opinion, however strange it may seem."
Guys ........ sorry about the mess that's been created. But one individual has been conducting a campaign in here from the second page (according to my browser). Other people contested him on and off, but it got to a point where I felt like interceding for everyone. As noted below, this will be my final response to said individual. I don't know if this thread can survive, but at least I'll have cleared a few things up along the way. Elvis and his fans often have their dignity stripped -- or often have their dignity attempt to be stripped -- away from them, and it's most insidious when other fans are the ones doing it. I never like seeing that; pardon my passion, which has taken me on this course.
Getlo ............ there are so many fallacies in your last post that I honestly think you're winding me up, which seems to be something you've tailored to an artform. Judging by the evidence, you have issues when being confronted youtself, even though you do it as a matter of routine to others. This is my final response to you. I hope people of intelligence can see what you're up to; if not, congratulations -- mission accomplished.
The only person being deliberately provocative is you. You hassled MojoElvis by posing the same question twice, ignoring his new statements in your second response merely so you could restate the original question. I see that as harassment, but you are free to define it your own way.
I can't try again; I wasn't trying before; I was DOING. Perhaps this simple fact escaped you, but I stated I was posting an exchange, and two quotations subsequently appeared; the first quotation was by MojoElvis, the second was by yourself. I don't understand how you couldn't see that, not least when I indicated what I was doing before I did it.Try again. That "following" exhange you posted was from MojoElvis! Come on, do you seriously think I'd use the word "witch" when I meant "which"? It was MojoElvis' comment you rehashed ... not mine!
I have not launched, nor do I intend to launch, a "silly tirade". I calmly presented quotations to support my interpretation that you misread MojoElvis, and, at the least, used the AYLT issue as a bludgeoning tool for denigrating the "77 Elvis" and his fans.
We're going round in circles. You conveniently omitted your own response to the second of those quotations by MojoElvis. But even without it, MojoElvis appears to be referring to the 1961 Hawaii concert, not the 1973 Hawaii concert, especially as "Are You Lonesome Tonight" was performed in the former, but not the latter.
I linked this song to "Aloha" only to say it wasn't performed there, since your response to MojoElvis' post seemed to imply it was. MojoElvis got the year wrong when he said "The Hawaii Concert In 1960", but he was only off by one year. What's more likely -- that he was referring to another Hawaii-based concert 13 years later where AYLT was never performed, or that he was slightly off in his chronology about a place and venue where AYLT was performed?You have put words into my mouth, as it were, and are clutching at straws to make your "case". YOU were the one to link this song with Aloha, even in a passing reference ... NOT ME!
But see ...... the "gay" routine is not the demarcation point for serious and non-serious versions; the "gay" routine is only another non-serious permutation that began at a certain point. The argument here is that the non-serious interpretation of the monologue began long ago, just after Elvis first recorded the song, in fact -- at the 1961 Hawaii benefit concert, of which there is an aural record.
No, I don't think they were. It may be helpful if a reputable Elvis scholar were to confirm, but I believe there were many more dropped and / or parodied versions. The fact that "Are You Lonesome Tonight" was still a fresh recording in 1961 and was performed in a sardonic fashion even then, and that Elvis avoided serious interpretations of the monologue in BOTH of the iconic sitdown sessions in 1968, a setting in which he felt pressured to perform to a high standard, lends credence to the notion that he generally chose to avoid doing entirely faithful live renditions, with respect to his original recording. In 1969, there were more humourous versions, one of which broke down into a near-endless stream of laughter. Again, three very critical times for Elvis in different ways, and three very scatalogical sets of performances.
I believe he was heavily drugged in Omaha and generally failed to perform to an adequate level. However, in "Careless Love", Peter Guralnick captured a quotation where Elvis apparently acknowledged this to the show's producers ("I know I was terrible"), with the added promise of doing better for the next show. Based on the audio-video evidence, I believe he fulfilled that promise. Drugs were still playing a part in his behaviour in Rapid City, but I don't think that they were anywhere near as overt as Omaha, and they weren't responsible for Elvis spoofing the monologue or him "forgetting" the words to AYLT, in my opinion. But have whatever negative interpretation you will.
While your opinions may be based on "the most accurate information" you can obtain, that doesn't make the opinions in and of themselves accurate. The weight issue is a good example . . .
That's a lame personal attack. They're generally made when an argument is being lost. You are the one who has been attempting to put words into my mouth -- I have only done my level best to challenge your specious behaviour and skewed assertions.Do you ever get tired putting all those words in people's mouths?
Erm ...... I already acknowledged that Elvis tended towards obesity and may have sometimes been obese, but I also specificed that he was only ever clinically obese, never morbidly obese. They are separate medical categories. Please look them up. Your calorie figures implied that he was deeply entrenched in the most severe weight category.
All I know is that Elvis' last meal was allegedly "four scoops of ice cream and six chocolate chip cookies" -- a vague statement for assessing caloric intake if ever there was one. Nevertheless, ballpark figures can be rendered. Do you know how many calories are in an "average" scoop of ice cream? Around 100. Four scoops would equal 400 calories. If they were unusually large scoops he had, then we could expand that to 200, which totals 800 calories. And do you know how many calories are in an "average" sized chocolate chip cookie? Around 50. But we could again expand this figure, knowing Elvis' big appetite, and assume he ate particularly large and unhealthy cookies, doubling to 100. 100 times 6 is 600. 600 plus 800 is 1,400. 1,400 calories is certainly a lot for one meal, especially a "desert", but it's still just over half the recommended daily intake for a fully grown adult male, and it's based on inflated figures. I mean, the scoops and cookies could have been of average distinction, which could equally be why Elvis had multiples of each. Graceland is surprisingly small, he had a surprisingly small kitchen, he probably had average sized utensils (including an ice cream scoop). In fact, I'm not entirely sure where the "four scoops of ice cream and six cookies" comes from, even though it's bandied about a lot. If this was deduced by autopsy (I think that's correct), then there was probably a standard system they were comparing the masses of each to, which suggests the scoops of ice cream and cookie calorie level is actually less than what I am guessing, since I have blown those figures up to their upper extremes.Oh, for the love of ...
Be that as it may, given that Elvis was meant to be dieting just prior to his next concert tour, which he was about to embark on when he died, then, while he may have treated himself to something hefty, he was still only getting around half of what he actually required for normal functioning. However, I don't know too much about how strict this dieting was, other than it supposedly only lasted two days. You've said Elvis was a glutton and I don't disagree -- in fact, 1,400 calories from a glorified snack is high, to say nothing of the sugar content -- but to claim he consumed tens of thousands of calories is absurd. While Elvis always enjoyed his food, and was certainly very fond of gorging on different things at different times, you are talking cartoon figures, and Elvis wasn't a cartoon character. With all that in mind, let's go back to your original assertion:
In spite of your gleeful sarcasm, it seems that you're the one in need of educating. Please consult food websites and medical resources concerning obsesity and calorie content for different foods. Since you pride yourself on being right, you clearly need to remedy your gross ignorance. And, returning to the "cartoon character" remark of mine, this is part of the problem. Many people say the most extreme things and presume they're telling the gospel truth. It's not denial on the part of other people to acknowledge Elvis was fat and unwell, but to also assert that he wasn't so fat and so unwell that he consumed up to 100,000 calories a day! Consult Google. Those figures are pure nonsense.
Thanks for telling me my information was "w-r-o-n-g, wrong" .... when I have ALREADY noted that the error was of my own making. I'll leave that quotation as evidence that you take pleasure in revealing when someone or something is "wrong". Moreover, you have failed to provide any evidence for your calorie figures as I originally asked for, which tells me a lot. Fortunately, one of us bothers to check facts and even admit when they're wrong.
You are in error again. Just as my quoting of MojoElvis naturally preceded my quoting of yourself, for reasons of CLARITY and POSTERITY, you have again commented on the wrong post. As I previously stated, I said that you made two separate assertions in two separate posts, one of which I agreed with , one of which I didn't, ........ this is the one I did NOT agree with:Here is my previous comment on this subject, word for word:
"You misread my posts. I never said Elvis never looked good again after 1973. What I said was that he never looked as good again after 1973. Big difference. Yes, there are indeed many shots from 1974 to 1976 (even one or two from 1977) where Elvis indeed looks good, fine, happy, and healthy. "
Once again, you have misread one of my posts, reported it erroneously, then regurgitated it completely inaccurately. Well, at least it was one of my posts this time, and not one of MojoElvis' !
A completely black and white statement passed off as fact.
Of course, there are subjective assessments made daily in life, including whether one likes Elvis or not, and what it is they do and don't like about him. You are deliberately smudging out the subtlety in my reasoning where subjectivity and opinions are concerned. Any reasonable minded person can read back through my responses and come to their own conclusions; in fact, I welcome their diligence. Further: The ALYT information is incomplete and subjectively misinterpreted by you, which I have covered in this posting. The obesity chart information fails to address the deficiencies in your reasoning and the erroneous calorie information you earlier injected into this discussion.Here's another one: well, DUH!
As for objective matters, well ... the AYLT information or the obesity chart information I posted is completely objective, free from my own or anyone else's biases.
You may dress your behaviour up and pretend it's all above board, but as you earlier admitted to, sarcasm is one of your weapons, and it has no place in a civilised discussion between reasonable adults. Some of your quips and comments in here are testament to your unruly nature, regardless of how justified you may think you were and still are. Although I don't read the boards very often, I took an interest in this thread and watched you systematically destroy it over several pages, earning the ire of multiple fans over the course of your contributions. If your remark about "knowing how it feels" was ironic, then it wasn't without considerable beligerence backing it up. Such reasoning is also extremely callow and reckless -- and, as already said, NOT BECOMING of an adult in full command of his or her faculties, which you seem to think you are.
See?
I don't know of other threads off the top of my head, but it's clear to even a casual reader that you have a didactic disposition. You may not always be wrong; in fact, you could almost always be right, for all I know. But you have clearly been wrong in here and have exuded a certain level of arrogance and delight in correcting other people, even though some of those corrections contained inaccurate information, and most, if not all, were made under dubious circumstances. It's just a question of behaving in a way that's fair and respectful, which I don't think you've been; learn first, speak second.
This remark was positioned, IN SUCH A WAY, as to imply I had asserted otherwise, when I hadn't. Again, this is an example of skewing and pretending you didn't do something when you did.Uh, well ... I ... I can't. You may have me there.
Wait a sec ... hang on ... I know why I can't point to where you said that ...
BECAUSE I DIDN'T SAY YOU DID!
Here, once again, is my original comment word for word:
"to restate, IMO he never again reached the superlative heights of January 1973."
What part of IMO do you not understand?
"Ripe for the picking" -- so you admit that you pick on people? That's a start. I'll leave you to think about everything else I've said. I fear the thread has been clogged with assertion and counter assertion; it's a shame you had to start down this path. A cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Right now, that phrase comes dangerously close to summing you up. Next time a thread like this appears, I recommend steering clear, or at least biting your tongue and leaving the sarcasm and inaccurate information at home.Hey, if someone puts words into my mouth (or posts) when I did not say or even imply them, then they're ripe for the picking!
Have a good day.
Last edited by Cryogenic; 11-24-2007 at 04:26 PM.
Cryogenic:
I thank you for your wisdom.
Others agree with you; they're just afraid.
I'm sorry you got dragged into such childish behavior by some.
Take care of yourself; maybe things will change someday,
but I doubt it.What a mess.
"I have learned never to ridicule any man's opinion, however strange it may seem."
I have this on CD with me after all.
The version of AYLT from Vegas August 19, 1975 is indeed a jokey one, although I can't tell if it's joking around with Charlie or something else.
Getlo - cute'n'cuddly
Pathetic comment.
Let us then take this to a new thread.
Follow me over.
Getlo - cute'n'cuddly
I thought this thread specifically said ;You fans of 1977 concerts .
Some like them, some don't. All a matter of opinion.
I thought he looked very ill ; but he struggled and got it done.
I'm not much into " looks" but in the spirit and strength of the man.
He did ok for himself and his fans ,IMO.
...you're moving on the back roads, by the rivers of my memory and for hours you're just gentle on my mind.
i'm not very inspired to read all those long-winded arguments
Rick
Read post #168 to see who started the long-winded arguments.
Getlo - cute'n'cuddly
Well , If This Is Still About "the Fans Who Enjoy Elvis In 1977 ".
( I Really Have Serious Doubt About This But O.k.)
Today I'm Gonna Listen To Shows From The February Tour Of 1977 , Wich I ( Col Dries ) Really Enjoy Very Much No Matter What Anybody Say About Elvis.
One Of My Favorite Live Performances Is "where No One Stands Alone".
Yes , I Know .some Of The People Will Not Like It , But He ....this Is Lucky Enough For The Fans Who Like Elvis In 1977.
COLONEL DRIES SAYS ;
"THAT'S MY BOY"
One thing that people missing is one show that he walk off the stage in 1977, no one taking about that one,(In Baltimore 1977) we know that he walk off another time in Las Vegas show, but He come back and finsh the show with great few so ngs one was Polk Salad Annie, It's rare in 1973 shows And I'm So Lonsome I could cry, He sing it twce before that , In Aloha's shows and Opening show 1-26-73, las Vegas.
Take a look at you and me,,Are we too blind to see, Do we Simply turn our heads and look the other way.....(Line From "in The Ghetto")
I was wondering if anybody here knew about the Baltimore show.That's another example of Elvis in serious trouble.I think that show was in May?Like I said the evidence of what was really goping on at those shows is abundant for those that want the truth.I think that show was releases under the title "Send Me The Light,I need It Bad".I havent pulled that one in ages for a listen.
Jak
May 29th to be exact.
Ever heard the show?
Woeful stuff ... by anyone's standards!
Getlo - cute'n'cuddly
Posting Permissions
