Well I don't know, but I would say he couldn't be bothered when he was drugged up. I'd say he couldn't be bothered when he was sleeping instead of tayloring his schedule to her's more when she was there.Originally Posted by May
I'm not saying he was a bad father -which seems like you feel the person making the above statement is. He was faulty at times and could have done better. I give credit for Priscilla taking the time to bring Lisa to see her father in concert.
You might not like what is said but even Lisa said she would wait outside his bedroom till he woke up.
Elvis did many things right with Lisa, but he also did things wrong too. You can not change fact and history.
Jo Smith says that she's Alanna Nash's source.
Alanna Nash just interviews people and whatever they tell her she writes down without any doubt just like with Byron Raphael in the Colonel book.
I will say though that Jo Smith was around quite a bit in the 70's and is more reliable.
I believe Lamar Fike and Billy Smith said basically the same thing in Revelations that even when Lisa was around he really didn't pay much attention to her.
judging by the stuff Alana Nash said about Tura Santana this book is shaping up to be the most factual Elvis book in history.
Who knew that Tura Santana taught Elvis everything he ever knew and was an advisor to him in all his relationships with women.
1. Peter Whitmer is not an Elvis fan and he's not giving his opinion as a fan
He's giving it as a mental health professional which is unethical.
2. In Peter Whitmer's previous book he got a number of things wrong and his assumptions about Elvis were off base.
3. Peter Whitmer will attempt to psycho analyze Elvis a person he never met or treated as a patient and tell everyone why his relationships all failed.
I predict he'll say something like Elvis was so traumatized by the death of his twin brother at birth that it caused him mental and emotional problems that doomed his relationships.
I wonder if Peter Whimer every thought of the possibility that Elvis wasn't looking to settle down and that he was just looking for a good time.
Last edited by Brian; 12-22-2009 at 08:11 PM.
I would say that goes for 100% of all parents. Obviously not all dad's have the same kind of lifestyle Elvis had, but as far as being a dad (or mum) everyone makes mistakes.
Are you seriously suggesting that it is morally unacceptable to provide one's fully-qualified professional opinion on a subject if you don't admire them fanatically?
Can you imagine the consequences for humanity which could result from this way of thinking?
'Taking Care of Beaulieu'.
well said Teddy
"NO-ONE, BUT NO-ONE,IS HIS EQUAL, OR EVER WILL BE. HE WAS, AND IS SUPREME".Mick Jagger
I'm not really sure how giving ones "learned opinion" on the mental health of an individual based upon what evidence is available is unethical-its just his opinion.
His opinion is like yours, or mine.... just because we have it-does not make it the absolute last word on whatever subject the opinion is directed at.
People are who they are, because of genes and their lifes experiences-this is a fact.......now how they affect each person is not always the same. But when you look at enough case examples of good childhoods, bad childhoods, and everything in between-patterns show up-not exact in every detail-but close and it gives people who study them a place to start when looking at individuals and trying to understand them and their actions in life......but no pattern is absolute 100% proof of all good childhoods, bad childhoods etc....
I'm not afraid of this gentleman giving an opinion-because it is not the last word-in which he solves the mystery of Elvis's life....its just his learned opinion-nothing more.
Last edited by KPM; 12-29-2009 at 12:27 PM.
Work in Progress!
Very good post!!!
Exactly
It is unethical because you meet and then you treat
I just think this is a bad move and Alanna is going down the wrong path
Peter Withmer's book was full of mistakes and errors and was criticized by others.
I just think like his previous book his opinions will be wrong and it's not really needed in this type of book.
No, I didn't say thatAre you seriously suggesting that it is morally unacceptable to provide one's fully-qualified professional opinion on a subject if you don't admire them fanatically?
Can you imagine the consequences for humanity which could result from this way of thinking?
I meant what I said Peter Whitmer's not a fan and he's not giving an opinion as one.
To give his professional it would be more proffesional had Elvis been a patient of his but he doesn't know Elvis from Adam and is not a fan so he is not as knowledgeable as die hard fans are and his opinions will probably be wrong like in his last book.
This is a completely moot perspective.
It's ridiculous to assume that one cannot study a subject professionally without enjoying or even casually appreciating their abilities.
It's as silly as claiming that loving someone qualifies you to assess their merits categorically.
I agree. Why else do doctors {of all kinds} confer with specialists in their field?
Whinmoor's book is just another angle on the Elvis story.............no more, no less.
Take it as you find it..........just like everyone else's book.
That's not what I said
I didn't say he had to enjoy his ability
The difference is a doctor treats a patient and asks another doctor for advice if he has misgivings about a diagnosis or something along those lines.
Elvis wasn't a patient of any psychiatrist so their is nothing to confer about.
Elvis had plenty of medical doctors. Some knew him quite well. As a few could tell you; there were quite a few things they would be able to relate to another doctor. Be it physical or emotional pain. In a medical practice or a psychological practice, you have to study both.
It appears everyone says what they think Elvis would say or do.
Why not a professionally trained person? In other words ; why not look for the reasons he was the way he was instead of just judging him?
With all due respect. The psychologists are people too, and can only go on their life experiences.
In their profession, they try to pidgeonhole people into a personality type, as they've been taught in their profession, as the people who taught them.
Then there are their theories on whose philosophies they follow, or not. It's still subjective.
Then what is the relevance of mentioning that he 'isn't a fan' in this context?
It was the very first item in your list of alleged weaknesses, suggested to undermine his credibility for the book!
"Your Honor, I have it on reliable authority that the defendant is not an Elvis fan"
"Send him down!!"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote