Gus Dudgeon's Funeral - FROM A DISGUSTED FAN
Reghead
I have been a long term reader but have never felt bothered enough to join
in or comment on anything - until now.
I regularly surf sites like eltonjohn.com, Hercules, the major news engines
and sometimes the newish eltonjohnworld.com.
This is what has prompted me to comment - eltonjohnworld.com's George
Matlock has a sickeningly bad taste, self-promoting report on the funeral.
Elsewhere in this group Noreen said it's bad taste to take photos at
funerals. I think she's right, but the media always do this at high profile
funerals. At least they do so outside - this report includes a photo taken
INSIDE the church!! Elton is seen at the pulpit with two coffins in the
foreground. THIS IS SICK!!!!!
Also, the report DID include a line "While some websites chose to simply
copy and paste news of the funeral from other news sources, EJW.com decided
that nothing less than attending would do."
So, he uses a funeral report to try and score points over other Elton John
websites. THIS IS SICK!!!
He's now changed that wording so maybe someone else has told him what they
think or he has seen how unpleasant his own words are.
He can't even get facts straight. "Permiership (his spelling mistake, not
mine) football manager David Yorath had perhaps the most coded tribute of
all: "To uncle G and the Sherriff. Gone but not forgotten. David Yorath."
This refers to football (soccer to those over the pond). There's no
Premiership manager called David Yorath. Terry Yorath is the manager of a
First Division club called Sheffield Wednesday. I don't know who David
Yorath is.
And then there are the photos of flowers - firstly those from Elton. I don't
like this but the mainstream media showed them too. But the close up of the
photos they (eltonjohnword.com) sent smacks of self-promotion.
The sudden death of one of the most important people in the world of Elton
John needs reporting, but not like this.
I've never met Mr Matlock and, on the basis of this, hope I never do.
Am I alone in my feelings here???
'Reghead'
liljj
being at a funeral paying my respects and then picking up a camera...so
tasteless! Eltonjohnworld.com should be ashamed!
--
Visit my web page:
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Backstage/5028/liljjspage.html
"Reghead" <mindy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:102848319...@iris.uk.clara.net...
mac
totally agree.
Taking photographs of cards, getting comments from funeral attendees, a
picture of EJ speaking.. all to put on a website... at some attempt to
provide fans with all the latest EJ news is disgusting!!
I'm sickened that this man... this so called website would go so low. It
makes me ashamed to be a fan if he thinks he represents the kind of
information we as fans seek.
Gus and Sheila and all there deserved respect and privacy on that sad day.
Not Mr Matlock with his camera and notepad in hand. George leave real
reporting to the media or EJ.com who seem to have a bit more respect for
Gus's family. You can bet i won't be visiting your website anymore.
"Reghead" <mindy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:102848319...@iris.uk.clara.net...
JackHandy
but eltonjohnworld.com stepped way out of bounds with their "inside"
coverage. Not only was it in poor taste but it's also a violation of their
right to privacy. It wouldn't surprise me if Mr. Matlock had intentions of
selling his story and photos to the media since he went through so much
trouble to get a photo from inside of the funeral. Was it a hidden camera
Mr. Matlock? Anything to get a new paying customer?
JackHandy
"Reghead" <mindy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:102848319...@iris.uk.clara.net...
Sonia
JackHandy
about people in this forum. Ever heard of a hidden camera? Do you really
think anyone at that funeral wanted to have photos taken during the funeral?
FYI: Diana was a princess with a very public funeral, Gus Dudgeon was a
music producer with a very private funeral. Those photos were in poor taste.
Mr. Matlock violated their right to privacy, especially Elton's.
JackHandy
"Harmony" <harm...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:3D4D80E9...@btopenworld.com...
*(*Well, I don't think it's sick. Since many of us couldn't be there, and
would have liked to have also shown our "respects" it is nice that someone
went for us, and made us feel a part of it by writing about it and showing a
few photos. Nothing wrong in that, I don't think. I'm sure if Elton or
Gus' family had specified no cameras, they would have done something about
anyone taking photos during the service, but they filmed Princess Diana's
funeral, why not Gus Dudgeon's. He was much more important to Elton and his
fans.
If the Dudgeon's didn't mind, then I don't think we should.
Thanks for the photos and "review" George. I didn't even know you had an
Elton John website. Now I do!
nice to see Elton in the pulpit;-)
God bless,
Brenda
Noreen & Joe Romano
Gus and Sheila's friends and family had their privacy invaded in this
tasteless manner.
--Noreen
IslandGirl
JackHandy wrote:
> Of course you would think it was ok. You are responsible for spreading lies
> about people in this forum. Ever heard of a hidden camera? Do you really
> think anyone at that funeral wanted to have photos taken during the funeral?
> FYI: Diana was a princess with a very public funeral, Gus Dudgeon was a
> music producer with a very private funeral. Those photos were in poor taste.
> Mr. Matlock violated their right to privacy, especially Elton's.
>
> JackHandy
>
>
>
This shouldn't be a surprise here........we debated about Brenda liking the
picture of Elton at Versace's funeral back in 2000
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=0c2d6b56.9fe56c39%40usw-ex0103-023.remarq.com&rnum=10&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dfuneral%2Bgroup:alt.fan.elton-john%2Bauthor:IslandGirl%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D0c2d6b56.9fe56c39%2540usw-ex0103-023.remarq.com%26rnum%3D10
The only reason I remember it so well is that I was ever so against the invasion
of privacy back then and was basically blasted for what I was thinking because
of it being "newsworthy". Reading that particular thread just reminded me is
that there is no line drawn in the sand as far as proper protocol and the
invasions of people's privacy continues. In this case, the violator in George
Matlock who is a fan like us. It's very poor judgement and poor taste as far as
I am concerned.
--
THE IslandGirl...Sharon
When stars collide, like you and I...
Visit my Elton page at
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/islandgirlejfan/index.htm
liljj
I'm not too surprised about this...they've done some pretty ugly things in
the past. They disgust me!
SrgntZippo59
example of greed for individual profit at any expense.
Zippo
Web Master EJW.com
We have made some amendments to our pages of the funeral of Gus and Sheila
Dudgeon, having taken on board the concerns of some fans about the content.
As our editor attended the funeral, he wanted fans who felt as sombre as he
did, to feel they too had a chance to mourn and to pray. The intention was
to follow the suggestion of one significant member of the congregation who
asked us to "record this event for future generations, it must not fade".
However, we also accept that, especially in the immediate aftermath of the
funeral service, it is sometimes necessary to step back from one's own
feelings to want to do good in relaying events.
Although we won praise from some people close, some who were at the funeral
and others who were not, and although we have not received any complaint
from Elton or the Dudgeon's families, we have decided on reflection to
remove some photo content that may upset our readers.
It is sometimes said that only those who work very hard, err very hard. And
we accept that the photos would not be appropriate to immortalise on this
website.
We ask similarly that anyone who has viewed the photos to follow our
example, and not replicate them on any publicly-viewable website or other
publicly-accessible media.
If you saw the photos already, you should count yourself privileged to have
been a part of the terribly sad day, which affected George deeply. May those
memories remain with you, but please let us not proliferate that day in this
way.
Instead, we will present later only the transcript of the service, which was
also broadcast outside the church via loudspeakers. That should remain our
best way to recall someone who became a personal friend of our editor.
If you have any concerns about our decision to remove the photos, please
contact edi...@eltonjohnworld.com
We trust you will understand our decision and understand that handling
coverage of a funeral was new ground for us and difficult to fine tune.
We apologize for our readers who has been upset.
Best wishes,
George Matlock - Editor
Fran Gilles - Webmaster
mac
he
> did, to feel they too had a chance to mourn and to pray. The intention was
> to follow the suggestion of one significant member of the congregation who
> asked us to "record this event for future generations, it must not fade".
OOOOH i see ... so George took this literally and just happened to go with
camera and note pad and maybe
even tape recorder in hand. Right.
> Although we won praise from some people close, some who were at the
funeral
> and others who were not, and although we have not received any complaint
> from Elton or the Dudgeon's families, we have decided on reflection to
> remove some photo content that may upset our readers.
Praise..praise??? You should have been thrown out for being disrespectful...
if only they saw your website
and what you were up to while solemnly paying your respects. Solemnly
doesn't mean taking photos or interviewing
people for comments. I think the only reason you "reflected" on taking the
photos off is cause enough people
are sickened by what you did.
> If you saw the photos already, you should count yourself privileged to
have
> been a part of the terribly sad day, which affected George deeply. May
those
> memories remain with you, but please let us not proliferate that day in
this
> way.
Priveleged to have seen those photos??? Oh please... they were in poor
taste....
I was not a part of that sad day... nor should i have been, it was a day
for those truly
close to Gus and his family... not intruders with cameras who only wanted a
scoop for a website.
Frankly Mr Matlcok and Mr Giles.. you needed to just come out and say " we
f***d up " plain and simple... but you weren't men enough to do that...your
apology sounds like nothing more than covering your ass and asking people to
destroy any copied photos before anyone of Gus or his family and friends see
what the heck you were up to that day and to try keep what remaining
visitors you had to your website. Your judgement sucked.
Noreen & Joe Romano
JackHandy
explain it because I can't believe that Elton John would allow you to do
that. That's a pretty sneaky and well-planned thing to do for someone so
distraught by a death. Elton probably doesn't know about the photos and
that's why no one has complained. It looks like you published these photos
to gain sales on your web site because most were in the protected area,
which I did not see because I'm not a member, and they explicitly showed
your web site logo. You made it look like the funeral was brought to us by
eltonjohnworld.com. How sick is that? Shame on you for exploiting Elton John
and Gus Dudgeon under these circumstances!
JackHandy
"Web Master EJW.com" <webm...@eltonjohnworld.com> wrote in message
news:3d4e5b36$0$269$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
Shubes61
you know... not too long ago, there was news that elton allegedly wished
"cancer of the clitoris" on a photographer who was standing outside elizabeth
hurley's home... i can only imagine what he would
think of someone taking pictures inside the private funeral of a very good
friend.
denice
Karen M
shub...@aol.com (Shubes61) wrote:
i can only imagine what he would
> think of someone taking pictures inside the private funeral of a very good
> friend.
>
> denice
Funerals, and, really any service in a church, are not private unless
designated so by the family/friends of the deceased. That
George-whatisname was allowed in shows that this particular service was
NOT intended to be private, and, apparently, the family/friends didn't
make a 'no cameras' request.
I've been to a couple funerals were friends/family of the deceased took
photos. I thought it was morbid, but if having a couple snapshots gave
them one last memory... well, whatever. Most of these "photographers"
were elderly, so I credited it as the evolution of the Victorian
tradition of ... taking photos of the deceased. Yes, that's right,
formal portraits of the deceased. So, you see, taking photos at a
funeral isn't exactly a new phenomenon.
Now, posting said images to the 'net for financial gain (as this
certainly seems to be) is a bit different...but that whole site is a bit
problematic. I didn't do much snooping, but I didn't see a disclaimer
that it wasn't any sort of "official" function of Team Elton John, and
it really needs one.
Karen
fanz
"Shubes61" <shub...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020805164554...@mb-mp.aol.com...
Noreen & Joe Romano
but I *do* know that the press were asked NOT TO TAKE PHOTOS INSIDE THE
CHURCH. No one authorized EltonJohnWorld to do what they did.
--Noreen
IslandGirl
Karen M wrote:
> apparently, the family/friends didn't
> make a 'no cameras' request.
>
>
Do we know that for sure? Cameras are small these days and CAN be concealed!
Deuxpat
>example of greed for individual profit at any expense.
My God ! and to see two hundred time in a day on TV the WTC , isn't it
disrespectful and disgusting ??? have you ever thought to the families who saw
that all the time ??? and when there are attempts in Israel or anywhere else ,
when we see blooding bodies and others , isn't it disrespectful and disgusting
?what do you think about ? Just news or profit????? W e live in a world of
pictures and you can't forbid this and some photos more or less .....
pfffffffffffffffffffff !!!!
SrgntZippo59
like I am. That sends a loud message... loud and clear.
Zippo
Harmony
http://www.angelfire.com/in2/Elton/DudgeonFuneral.html
I put a lot into it, but not one person has mentioned it. Yet it
seems you jump all over people when they do or say something wrong, in
your opinion.
Why can't you guys see some of the good that's out there? so many of
you just complain all the time. It's sad. (and negative)
On the positive side, it is very nice that someone gave us a full
report on the funeral and took a photo or two. Helps somewhat, in the
grief process. If I can't be somewhere that I'd like to be, the next
best thing is to hear about it from someone else, and see some photos
or video.
I don't see how this is so offensive. If the guy (George?) was out to
make money, then it would be different. I don't know what his motives
were, and neither do any of you, so why not just appreciate what he's
done and leave it at that?
peace,
Brenda
*~*~*~*~*~*~*
RIP Gus & Sheila
God bless you,
Brenda
Shubes61 wrote:
denice
**Whoa don't start that again!! Elton's curses are not really from
his heart. Just his anger. Still, cursing's a serious business. I hope
he's repented of it?:-)
Stephen
but I dont think there is anything wrong at all about sending a card
that has a company or website logo on it if it goes with flowers.
I know when my father passed several of the corporations he worked for
and social organizations/clubs sent cards with the flowers that had
their logo on it.
It seems to me that some people are getting very worked up about an
unfortunate error of judgement in showing some material related to a
funeral. While I dont necessarily agree with what they did, I dont
think it is as heinous as some are making out. After all I dont think
there is anything wrong with the name of the website, or calling the
webmaster "The Editor". Lets not let outrage about an error of
judgement cloud our opinion of everything they have ever done. They
have after all, done their best to make amends. People said they didnt
like what had happened in no uncertain terms, and they repaired the
error and did their best to make it good. I dont think thats unreasonable.
Just mho
Steve
CrockRock wrote:
> How's about the picture that showed their floral arrangement.....it had
> their
> "ICON" on it....how gross is that???
>