Jim Morrison murderer?
Pete
it's not meant to be provocative.
I read a brief article on the web a few weeks ago. It was written a few
years ago and was generally rather ill informed, but it did refer to a
suspicion that Jim Morrison had murdered someone in the desert.
I know the writer may well have been confusing the HWY plot with real
events and it is well documented that Jim got into a scrape in the desert
with his drinking buddies, but is this, as far as the group is aware, a
common rumour or suspicion?
I have for sometime felt that Jim's preoccupation with death in his lyrics
became more and more aggressive. The dare, "lets drown tonight" is in sharp
contrast to "better bring your gun" in the Soft Parade or the reference to
murder in LA woman and the more obvious references to murder in Riders on
the Storm.
Love to know your views people.
Pete
PButler111
>From: Pete pe...@mail.com
>Date: 5/7/2004 12:26 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Xns94E2419B9264Dpe...@217.32.252.50>
Jim never killed anyone.
PABBY
news:20040507051822...@mb-m11.aol.com...
'Cept himself.
Swampfetus
"PABBY" <AsIfIWould> wrote in message
news:409b7177$0$20816$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
And Pam, indirectly.
---
Dave
Swampfetus
"Pete" <pe...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94E2419B9264Dpe...@217.32.252.50...
Pete, I argued years ago that Jim had a fascination with death & insanity
but no one believed me.
---
Dave
PButler111
>
>'Cept himself.
>
"'cept" no one. Jim never killed anyone.
Pete
news:20040507081336...@mb-m11.aol.com:
>>> Jim never killed anyone.
>>
>>'Cept himself.
>>
>
> "'cept" no one. Jim never killed anyone.
I was really hoping for a slightly more considered response or at least
some elaboration.
In American Prayer, there's a reference to wasting someone in the desert.
LA Woman is about (amongst other things) the sexual association of
sordid, back street sex and murder.
Come on people, I may be a newbie but do me a favour and dismiss me with
a little more than "Jim never killed anyone".
Here's hoping for an interesting debate.
Pete
Pete
news:9tidnbm3nro...@comcast.com:
I would agree whole heartedly with you on that Dave. I had always thought
that the obsession with death was the obsession with his own death but I
begin to wonder whether that obsession included others' death too.
I mean, consider the lyrics in LA Woman "Motel, money, murder, madness"
Does that not talk explicitly about killing a cheap hooker.
Followed by the mantra "Mr Mojo Risin'"
Does that not describe the sexual thrill of the murder?
I don't think I'm reading too much into this people. Ray's video
interprets the song in the same way. The "work in progress" live version
of LA woman on Boot yer Butt has much more explicit lyrics.
Pete
PButler111
>From: Pete pe...@mail.com
>Date: 5/7/2004 10:22 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Xns94E2A67145369pe...@217.32.252.50>
You asked a straightforward question that required a simple answer. There
really wasn't anything to debate about it. Either Morrison did kill someone or
he didn't. The answer is he didn't. What's to debate?
PButler111
Yes you are. Jim was hardly violent, and was "obsessed" with death in the same
way any kid is obsessed with anything they think to be dark and deep and makes
them seem fascinating. It was an act. He didn't behave that way with his
friends.
Alexander DeLarge
guy is talking about. The answer to the question is very simple.
To the gentleman who started this thread: its a myth. What happened is,
Morrison and his friends went out to the desert one day and made an
experimental film called HWY (which is currently only available as a bootleg).
It had a very loose storyline with Morrison playing a hitchhiker who kills a
man, steals his car, and drives back to LA. Upon arrival, he goes to a phone
booth and calls poet Michael McClure, and "confesses" to the crime (this
soundbite was later used on "American Prayer"). Later, Morrison morphed the
storyline into "Riders on the Storm", with a "killer on the road" who's "brain
is squirming like a toad". So what you heard came from that incident.
Butler apparently doesnt know this, since she undoubtedly has never seen the
film (and we already know she is ignorant of the music).
<Dave, kindly re-quote me so that PATRICIA BUTLER can learn something about the
Doors, since she obviously doesnt know nearly as much about the band as she
tries to pretend ... thanks>
Its PAT:
Mick Davis
PButler111
>Date: 5/7/2004 5:48 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <vnUmc.30179$Ut1.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>
>Far more likely a victim than a perpetrator.
He wasn't either.
Bruce Coryell
It was going to be the name he used when he called the Doors office from
Africa, or whereever he fled to, but that call never came.
CrackedActorr
sexual climaxing than anything else, but seriously, he once told me that with
death come the culmination of all knowledge,or "once your dead you know all you
need to know"
Pete
news:20040507131713...@mb-m21.aol.com:
Thanks for your responses. Please allow me to reply.
Jim not violent? He liked to "play" with guns. Jim was a drunk - not
unfamiliar to brawling. He also had a reputation for beating women (read
Ray's account of the recording of Five to One). Sounds ugly doesn't it?
He may have been a genius, the best song writer of the 20th century, the
sexiest man ever to walk the planet and a hero to many - but the real man
had another side.
Secondly, I think you belittle Jim's philosophical talent by saying his
obsession was no more than "any other kid".
You know this stuff.
I don't for one minute believe that Jim was a murderer. But I do think
there's an interesting and serious discussion to be had about the
evolution of his lyrics that reveals something of his private life and
thoughts.
Pete
Pete
news:20040507152013...@mb-m01.aol.com:
> Yeah, sure thing, "Miss Doors expert", and she cant even figure out
> what the guy is talking about. The answer to the question is very
> simple.
>
> To the gentleman who started this thread: its a myth. What happened
> is, Morrison and his friends went out to the desert one day and made
> an experimental film called HWY (which is currently only available as
> a bootleg).
> It had a very loose storyline with Morrison playing a hitchhiker who
> kills a
> man, steals his car, and drives back to LA. Upon arrival, he goes to
> a phone booth and calls poet Michael McClure, and "confesses" to the
> crime (this soundbite was later used on "American Prayer"). Later,
> Morrison morphed the storyline into "Riders on the Storm", with a
> "killer on the road" who's "brain is squirming like a toad". So
> what you heard came from that incident. Butler apparently doesnt
> know this, since she undoubtedly has never seen the film (and we
> already know she is ignorant of the music).
>
Thanks for the polite and well informed response. I appreciate that.
I knew of the HWY story but you've filled a few gaps for me. Thanks.
The trip out to the desert I was referring to was, I think, a different
incident.
Jim disappeared to the desert for a few days with some buddies and came
back battered and bruised. It's an incident desribed in a few of the books
and the events of those few days in the desert seem to be surrounded in
mystery.
Pete
PButler111
>
>Jim not violent? He liked to "play" with guns. Jim was a drunk - not
>unfamiliar to brawling. He also had a reputation for beating women (read
>Ray's account of the recording of Five to One). Sounds ugly doesn't it?
>He may have been a genius, the best song writer of the 20th century, the
>sexiest man ever to walk the planet and a hero to many - but the real man
>had another side.
You're being ridiculous. Morrison wasn't violent. He never beat any women.
And he "played" with guns the same any other recreational shooter does. Pam
was the one who owned the guns and was far more likely than Jim to be violent.
She once beat the shit out of Christopher Jones just because Jones was in
contact with his ex-wife and lied to Pamela about it. Jim would provoke people
to react because he liked provoking reactions, not because he was violent and
wanted to physically fight. You're reading way too much into way too little.
>
>Secondly, I think you belittle Jim's philosophical talent by saying his
>obsession was no more than "any other kid".
And you aggrandize it by calling it an obsession.
>You know this stuff.
I know the stuff I'm saying is correct, yes.
>I don't for one minute believe that Jim was a murderer. But I do think
>there's an interesting and serious discussion to be had about the
>evolution of his lyrics that reveals something of his private life and
>thoughts.
>
>Pete
Well, good luck with that.
PButler111
>Date: 5/8/2004 12:34 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Xns94E3BCECC474Epe...@217.32.252.50>
>
>kubrick...@aol.comkorova (Alexander DeLarge) wrote in
>news:20040507152013...@mb-m01.aol.com:
>
>> Yeah, sure thing, "Miss Doors expert", and she cant even figure out
>> what the guy is talking about. The answer to the question is very
>> simple.
>>
>> To the gentleman who started this thread: its a myth.
So to demonstrate I don't know what I'm talking about, Kubrick gives the answer
I've already given to the question. Brilliant! Really showed me up there!
PButler111
>> know this, since she undoubtedly has never seen the film (and we
>> already know she is ignorant of the music).
>>
>
>
>Thanks for the polite and well informed response. I appreciate that.
>
>I knew of the HWY story but you've filled a few gaps for me. Thanks.
>
>The trip out to the desert I was referring to was, I think, a different
>incident.
>
>Jim disappeared to the desert for a few days with some buddies and came
>back battered and bruised. It's an incident desribed in a few of the books
>and the events of those few days in the desert seem to be surrounded in
>mystery.
>
>Pete
I was speaking to one of those buddies about this very incident last week. But
don't mind me. I'm sure Kubrick can give you far more insight into the
situation than could I or one of the guys who was there at the time.
Mick Davis
news:20040507221221...@mb-m15.news.cs.com...
> I've always thought that Jim main preoccupation with death had more to do
with
> sexual climaxing than anything else,
Oh, come now!
> but seriously, he once told me
When did he tell you this - recently?
> that with
> death come the culmination of all knowledge,or "once your dead you know
all you
> need to know"
Or you KNEW all you'll ever know!
But there's always the good possibility of reincarnation. What would he be
like in a future life?
Alexander DeLarge
>So to demonstrate I don't know what I'm talking about, Kubrick gives the
>answer
>I've already given to the question. Brilliant! Really showed me up there!
Sorry, cuntlick , but you never gave that answer at all. Go back and read
through the thread and show me the part where you even mentioned HWY. Once
again it is shown that Patricia Butler isnt nearly the expert on the topic that
she professes, and once again she takes it with the good graces of a female
shark having her monthly. You lose again, Patsyfakes.
Alexander DeLarge
>I was speaking to one of those buddies about this very incident last week.
>But
>don't mind me. I'm sure Kubrick can give you far more insight into the
>situation than could I or one of the guys who was there at the time.
Yep, Im sure I can. Was this "buddy" by any chance Frank Lisciandro? If so,
then tell him Alex from Subterranean Cinema wants to know if it's "sooner
rather than later" yet. Three years later, and still nothing released,
Frank. Have you given up?
Jealousy is an ugly thing, Butler, and so is your broad, permanently scowling
face.
Pete
news:20040508140045...@mb-m18.aol.com:
>>Thanks for your responses. Please allow me to reply.
>>
>>Jim not violent? He liked to "play" with guns. Jim was a drunk - not
>>unfamiliar to brawling. He also had a reputation for beating women
>>(read Ray's account of the recording of Five to One). Sounds ugly
>>doesn't it? He may have been a genius, the best song writer of the
>>20th century, the sexiest man ever to walk the planet and a hero to
>>many - but the real man had another side.
>
> You're being ridiculous. Morrison wasn't violent. He never beat any
> women. And he "played" with guns the same any other recreational
> shooter does. Pam was the one who owned the guns and was far more
> likely than Jim to be violent. She once beat the shit out of
> Christopher Jones just because Jones was in contact with his ex-wife
> and lied to Pamela about it. Jim would provoke people to react
> because he liked provoking reactions, not because he was violent and
> wanted to physically fight. You're reading way too much into way too
> little.
>
Thank you for your comments. I value your opinion.
There's an interesting cultural layer in what you describe that I had
previously not understood:
'And he "played" with guns the same any other recreational shooter does.' -
Like this is normal behaviour?
I live in a little backwater of Europe called England where we don't have a
gun culture. This kind of behaviour is seen as kind of dangerous. But, as
you describe, playing with guns in a US context is apparently mainstream.
There is a bit to what you say that I don't understand however. I would be
very interested to understand, why it is that you dismiss the evidence
presented by those who lived and worked with Jim. Or have I read it
wrongly? When Ray describes the woman Jim brought with him to the studio
when they recorded Five to One as having been beaten at the hands of Jim -
was Ray exagerating or lying?
Perhaps you know better. - in which case I would very much like to
understand why.
Pete
news:20040508140238...@mb-m18.aol.com:
>
> I was speaking to one of those buddies about this very incident last
> week.
You are a tease!
So what happened exactly?
Pete
Alric Knebel
The first time I read Sugarman's book, there was a section about Jim and a
couple of friends going out into the desert, and one of the group didn't
come back. Sugarman recounted the story in a way that made the
disappearance seem mysterious and sinister, without stating it directly that
Jim had murdered someone. I wondered about it for years, and why no one
else ever noticed it, and how it would have been an easy enough mystery to
solve for anyone with access to the right people. But in BREAK ON THROUGH,
the same story was told, this time without the sinister slant on things.
Sugarman really loaded his account of things. The thing that keeps that
book going is, Sugarman and Hopkins were the first with the most.
Alric
PButler111
>
>There's an interesting cultural layer in what you describe that I had
>previously not understood:
>
>'And he "played" with guns the same any other recreational shooter does.' -
>Like this is normal behaviour?
Yes, it is. There are gun clubs all over the country set up for such things.
Did you think they catered to only a freakish few?
>I live in a little backwater of Europe called England where we don't have a
>gun culture. This kind of behaviour is seen as kind of dangerous. But, as
>you describe, playing with guns in a US context is apparently mainstream.
Get over yourself. There's probably even more recreational shooting done in
England than here.
>There is a bit to what you say that I don't understand however. I would be
>very interested to understand, why it is that you dismiss the evidence
>presented by those who lived and worked with Jim. Or have I read it
>wrongly? When Ray describes the woman Jim brought with him to the studio
>when they recorded Five to One as having been beaten at the hands of Jim -
>was Ray exagerating or lying?
Ray told me the story of Jim showing up with the girl at the studio, and he
didn't say a thing about her having been beaten, by Jim or anyone else. I
think if that had ever happened (and how he would have known Jim beat her
without Jim having actually done it in front of him is a bit of a mystery) he
would have thought it worth a mention.
>Perhaps you know better. - in which case I would very much like to
>understand why.
See above.
PButler111
>Date: 5/10/2004 4:50 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <1cInc.91569$Uz1....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>
Unfortunately too much of "the most" wasn't true. Jim went into the desert
with three friends and came out of the desert with three friends, all of whom
-- with the exception of Jim -- are quite alive today.
PButler111
>> week.
>
>
>You are a tease!
>
>
>So what happened exactly?
>
>Pete
They went into the desert to make a movie. They made a movie. They went home.
Alexander DeLarge
>They went into the desert to make a movie. They made a movie. They went
>home.
Yeah boy, that is the kind of deep insightful detail that Butler is known for.
That's why her little books are such raging bestsellers ...
Anyway, Pete, if you want to know the FULL story of the making of HWY, go to
the page on my website, located at:
And click on the link to the article I wrote for Cashiers Du Cinemart magazine,
called WHY. There is a long section there, written by Frank Lisciandro
(Butler isnt the only one with sources on the "inside"), and youll see it was a
bit more than Butler's silly vacant three sentence capsule description. I
seriously doubt she has ever even seen the film, much less researched into its
real history. If it didnt have something to do with Pamela Courson's muff, it
obviously didnt interest Patricia Butler.
Alexander DeLarge
>Unfortunately too much of "the most" wasn't true. Jim went into the desert
>with three friends and came out of the desert with three friends, all of whom
>-- with the exception of Jim -- are quite alive today.
And all of whom are now close personal friends of HERS, of course. ;)
Nothing V
kubrick...@aol.comkorova says...
> It's PAT:
>
> >They went into the desert to make a movie. They made a movie. They went
> >home.
>
> Yeah boy, that is the kind of deep insightful detail that Butler is known for.
> That's why her little books are such raging bestsellers ...
>
> Anyway, Pete, if you want to know the FULL story of the making of HWY, go to
> the page on my website, located at:
>
> http://subcin.com/jimhwy.htm
>
> And click on the link to the article I wrote for Cashiers Du Cinemart magazine,
> called WHY.
Thats the most info Ive ever seen written about HWY. Interesting
reading. Well done, Alex.
--
Nothing V
There are no real successes in this world as
we are all bound in the brotherhood of death.
If you have to die, you have failed.
--Christopher S Hyatt,PhD
Pete
news:20040510072849...@mb-m07.aol.com:
>>Thank you for your comments. I value your opinion.
>>
>>There's an interesting cultural layer in what you describe that I had
>>previously not understood:
>>
>>'And he "played" with guns the same any other recreational shooter
>>does.' - Like this is normal behaviour?
>
> Yes, it is. There are gun clubs all over the country set up for such
> things. Did you think they catered to only a freakish few?
>
Thank you again for your comments which I value. As I mentioned, living
in a different country - its not always obvious or intuitive to overlay a
culture on events, especially when you're not intimately familiar with
that culture.
Do I think gun clubs cater for a freakish few? I don't know - I don't
live in America and therefore don't pretend to have any special insight.
That's why I value your comments. Thank you.
>>I live in a little backwater of Europe called England where we don't
>>have a gun culture. This kind of behaviour is seen as kind of
>>dangerous. But, as you describe, playing with guns in a US context is
>>apparently mainstream.
>
> Get over yourself. There's probably even more recreational shooting
> done in England than here.
Sorry to go off topic for a momement but this comment - I do not value. I
appreciate your insight and expertise. Please have a little respect for
others' insight and expertise. You clearly know nothing about gun law and
cluture in the UK. It appears not to prevent you expressing an opinion.
Being rude to someone without provocation, about whom you know nothing
and expressing opinions on a topic you're unfamiliar with, puts your
credibility under question.
>
>
>>There is a bit to what you say that I don't understand however. I
>>would be very interested to understand, why it is that you dismiss the
>>evidence presented by those who lived and worked with Jim. Or have I
>>read it wrongly? When Ray describes the woman Jim brought with him to
>>the studio when they recorded Five to One as having been beaten at the
>>hands of Jim - was Ray exagerating or lying?
>
> Ray told me the story of Jim showing up with the girl at the studio,
> and he didn't say a thing about her having been beaten, by Jim or
> anyone else. I think if that had ever happened (and how he would have
> known Jim beat her without Jim having actually done it in front of him
> is a bit of a mystery) he would have thought it worth a mention.
>
Without getting into a juvenile newsgroup squabble on this - I can't see
that this comment makes sense.
I have only met Ray once - on that occassion he didn't mention this
incident either. (OK - so there was me and 20,000 other people there at
the time!) I don't draw the conclusion therefore that it didn't happen.
There's alot of things he didn't mention. It doesn't mean they didn't
happen. He described the incident in his book. Have you read his book?
You are of course correct in stating "how he would have known Jim beat
her without Jim having actually done it in front of him is a bit of a
mystery". But I've seen you defend things that you "know" in this
newsgroup despite the fact that your were not an eye witness. I think you
are perfectly entitled to do so - within reason - just as Ray is in
describing the incident in his book.
All we actually know of course is that Ray claims that a woman claimed
that Jim hit her. Ray loved Jim. He would not sully Jim's reputation over
something like that lightly by repeating her claim unless he believed
there was likely to be some truth in it. I think we can safely draw a
conclusion that "Jimbo", as Ray described drunk Jim, was known for being
violent toward women - as, regretably, many drunks are.
Pete
>
> Anyway, Pete, if you want to know the FULL story of the making of HWY,
> go to the page on my website, located at:
>
> http://subcin.com/jimhwy.htm
>
> And click on the link to the article I wrote for Cashiers Du Cinemart
> magazine, called WHY. There is a long section there, written by
> Frank Lisciandro
>
>
Thank you indeed. You've restored my faith in this newsgroup.
Pete
Nothing V
pe...@mail.com says...
> >>I live in a little backwater of Europe called England where we don't
> >>have a gun culture. This kind of behaviour is seen as kind of
> >>dangerous. But, as you describe, playing with guns in a US context is
> >>apparently mainstream.
> >
> > Get over yourself. There's probably even more recreational shooting
> > done in England than here.
>
> Sorry to go off topic for a momement but this comment - I do not value. I
> appreciate your insight and expertise. Please have a little respect for
> others' insight and expertise. You clearly know nothing about gun law and
> cluture in the UK. It appears not to prevent you expressing an opinion.
>
> Being rude to someone without provocation, about whom you know nothing
> and expressing opinions on a topic you're unfamiliar with, puts your
> credibility under question.
>
Patricia, why the hell do you have to be rude to this guy? Hes posting
on-topic, which youre always screaming for, & hes being polite &
appreciative of responses. I can think of no other poster in the history
of this newsgroup that has been so well-behaved, now even DESPITE your
rudeness. If someone provokes you, as far as Im concerned theyre asking
for a fight. But this guy didnt challenge you in the slightest. Whats
the problem?
Pete, Ive enjoyed your posts & I hope you wont let one rude person drive
you away.
Alexander DeLarge
>
>Pete
No problem at all, Pete. Thanks for being such a gentleman, you certainly
deserved a lot more polite treatment than you received from Patricia Butler.
And rest assured, the majority of us are just solid Doors fans who treat each
other with respect. Butler is just the group's bobo doll, so feel free to
take a swing at her whenever the mood strikes.
Speaking of PAT, its about time for her to awaken and answer your postings from
the night before. Since Pete and Nothing both quoted me in their responses,
this should be the part where she tries to slag me for daring to know more
about HWY than she does (its not that difficult, since she obviously knows
nothing about it). Im sure she will soon be on the phone to Lisciandro,
verifying that they are really his words in the article.
Alexander DeLarge
>Thats the most info Ive ever seen written about HWY. Interesting
>reading. Well done, Alex.
Glad you liked it. :-D
PButler111
>Date: 5/10/2004 11:20 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <MPG.1b0a106ee...@news.central.cox.net>
>
>In article <20040510103816...@mb-m04.aol.com>,
>kubrick...@aol.comkorova says...
>> It's PAT:
>>
>> >They went into the desert to make a movie. They made a movie. They went
>> >home.
>>
>> Yeah boy, that is the kind of deep insightful detail that Butler is known
>for.
>> That's why her little books are such raging bestsellers ...
>>
>> Anyway, Pete, if you want to know the FULL story of the making of HWY, go
>to
>> the page on my website, located at:
>>
>> http://subcin.com/jimhwy.htm
>>
>> And click on the link to the article I wrote for Cashiers Du Cinemart
>magazine,
>> called WHY.
>
>
>Thats the most info Ive ever seen written about HWY. Interesting
>reading. Well done, Alex.
>--
>Nothing V
I just love how Kubrick insists that he knows more about the making of HWY than
the folks who actually made it. Typical.
PButler111
>>>have a gun culture. This kind of behaviour is seen as kind of
>>>dangerous. But, as you describe, playing with guns in a US context is
>>>apparently mainstream.
>>
>> Get over yourself. There's probably even more recreational shooting
>> done in England than here.
>
>Sorry to go off topic for a momement but this comment - I do not value. I
>appreciate your insight and expertise. Please have a little respect for
>others' insight and expertise. You clearly know nothing about gun law and
>cluture in the UK. It appears not to prevent you expressing an opinion.
>
>Being rude to someone without provocation, about whom you know nothing
>and expressing opinions on a topic you're unfamiliar with, puts your
>credibility under question.
That was an awful lot of words saying nothing really except that you don't like
being contradicted. Are you trying to say that there isn't widespread
recreational shooting in England? Jump out of your huff and give some actual
information if you think what I said was wrong.
>>>There is a bit to what you say that I don't understand however. I
>>>would be very interested to understand, why it is that you dismiss the
>>>evidence presented by those who lived and worked with Jim. Or have I
>>>read it wrongly? When Ray describes the woman Jim brought with him to
>>>the studio when they recorded Five to One as having been beaten at the
>>>hands of Jim - was Ray exagerating or lying?
>>
>> Ray told me the story of Jim showing up with the girl at the studio,
>> and he didn't say a thing about her having been beaten, by Jim or
>> anyone else. I think if that had ever happened (and how he would have
>> known Jim beat her without Jim having actually done it in front of him
>> is a bit of a mystery) he would have thought it worth a mention.
>>
>
>Without getting into a juvenile newsgroup squabble on this - I can't see
>that this comment makes sense.
>
>I have only met Ray once - on that occassion he didn't mention this
>incident either. (OK - so there was me and 20,000 other people there at
>the time!) I don't draw the conclusion therefore that it didn't happen.
>There's alot of things he didn't mention. It doesn't mean they didn't
>happen. He described the incident in his book. Have you read his book?
Let me try this again. Ray and I spoke specifically and at length about this
woman and this incident. When we discussed this specific incident, the woman
had not been beaten, by Jim or anyone else. Had she been beaten -- and had Ray
somehow been able to devine that it was Jim who had beaten her -- I think,
during our lengthy discussion of the occasion, Ray would have thought to
mention it. Is that more clear?
>You are of course correct in stating "how he would have known Jim beat
>her without Jim having actually done it in front of him is a bit of a
>mystery". But I've seen you defend things that you "know" in this
>newsgroup despite the fact that your were not an eye witness. I think you
>are perfectly entitled to do so - within reason - just as Ray is in
>describing the incident in his book.
Well, let's see. I base my comments on conversations with dozens of people --
including Ray -- all of whom did know Jim, most of them very, very well. You
base your comments on the fact that you really want to believe one thing you
read in one book. Hmm...
>All we actually know of course is that Ray claims that a woman claimed
>that Jim hit her. Ray loved Jim. He would not sully Jim's reputation over
>something like that lightly by repeating her claim unless he believed
>there was likely to be some truth in it.
Really? He wouldn't? And you know this... how, exactly?
I think we can safely draw a
>conclusion that "Jimbo", as Ray described drunk Jim, was known for being
>violent toward women - as, regretably, many drunks are.
"Jimbo," which none of his friends remember anyone ever calling him, was known
to cry when he was drunk, and pick fights with men who then beat him up when he
was drunk, and piss himself when he was drunk, and piss on other people's
things when he was drunk, and pass out in strangers' cars and beds and porches
when he was drunk. What he wasn't known to do -- ever -- was hit women, let
alone beat them up.
PButler111
>on-topic, which youre always screaming for, & hes being polite &
>appreciative of responses. I can think of no other poster in the history
>of this newsgroup that has been so well-behaved, now even DESPITE your
>rudeness. If someone provokes you, as far as Im concerned theyre asking
>for a fight. But this guy didnt challenge you in the slightest. Whats
>the problem?
>
>Pete, Ive enjoyed your posts & I hope you wont let one rude person drive
>you away.
>--
>Nothing V
Nobody was rude to this guy. If he wants to get his knickers in a twist every
time someone contradicts things he says, then he's going to go through life
with a permanent wedgie headache.
Alexander DeLarge
>I just love how Kubrick insists that he knows more about the making of HWY
>than
>the folks who actually made it. Typical.
See what I mean, she's as predictable as Big Ben. :-D
As if Frank Lisciandro doesnt count as one of the "folks who actually made it".
He isnt quoted anywhere else about it, because he sent it to me exclusively.
Alexander DeLarge
>Nobody was rude to this guy. If he wants to get his knickers in a twist
>every
>time someone contradicts things he says, then he's going to go through life
>with a permanent wedgie headache.
His "knickers" ... only Butler is pompous enough to use British terminology to
insult an actual Brit, who has done nothing but post politely. Does this
pathetic flake fit in with ANYONE? Ill bet even anger therapy groups would
kick her to the curb as a hopeless case.
Pete
news:20040511075207...@mb-m11.aol.com:
>>>>I live in a little backwater of Europe called England where we don't
>>>>have a gun culture. This kind of behaviour is seen as kind of
>>>>dangerous. But, as you describe, playing with guns in a US context
>>>>is apparently mainstream.
>>>
>>> Get over yourself. There's probably even more recreational shooting
>>> done in England than here.
>>
>>Sorry to go off topic for a momement but this comment - I do not
>>value. I appreciate your insight and expertise. Please have a little
>>respect for others' insight and expertise. You clearly know nothing
>>about gun law and cluture in the UK. It appears not to prevent you
>>expressing an opinion.
>>
>>Being rude to someone without provocation, about whom you know nothing
>>and expressing opinions on a topic you're unfamiliar with, puts your
>>credibility under question.
>
> That was an awful lot of words saying nothing really except that you
> don't like being contradicted. Are you trying to say that there isn't
> widespread recreational shooting in England? Jump out of your huff
> and give some actual information if you think what I said was wrong.
Contradictions don't bother me. That's all part of a healthy debate. You
contradict me later in your post in a much more constructive and credible
way. What I object to is rudeness, and innappropriate arrogance.
For information, the ownership of all firearms was made illegal in the UK
a number of years ago following the shooting of a load of innocent school
kids by a "recreational" shooter. I would give you chapter and verse but
it's off topic. Your are ignorant about these matters.
Please don't bother to try again. Simple question. Have you read Ray's
book?
No is OK! We won't condemn you for it.
Have you read it?
If not, perhaps you'd go away and do that and then give us your expert
view on why he made a clear implication that Jim beat a woman. If you
have read Ray's book, perhaps you would do the same and explain your
view.
>
>
>>You are of course correct in stating "how he would have known Jim beat
>>her without Jim having actually done it in front of him is a bit of a
>>mystery". But I've seen you defend things that you "know" in this
>>newsgroup despite the fact that your were not an eye witness. I think
>>you are perfectly entitled to do so - within reason - just as Ray is
>>in describing the incident in his book.
>
> Well, let's see. I base my comments on conversations with dozens of
> people -- including Ray -- all of whom did know Jim, most of them
> very, very well. You base your comments on the fact that you really
> want to believe one thing you read in one book. Hmm...
I base my comments on what Ray said directly.
You know, I'm being quite genuine here. I have, for many years, held the
belief that Jim was violent to women. This was based on hearsay, rumour -
I can't remember fully from where I developed this view. More recently I
read Ray confirm this trait. I didn't realise there was anything
contentious about the issue.
>
> I think we can safely draw a
>>conclusion that "Jimbo", as Ray described drunk Jim, was known for
>>being violent toward women - as, regretably, many drunks are.
>
> "Jimbo," which none of his friends remember anyone ever calling him,
> was known to cry when he was drunk, and pick fights with men who then
> beat him up when he was drunk, and piss himself when he was drunk, and
> piss on other people's things when he was drunk, and pass out in
> strangers' cars and beds and porches when he was drunk. What he
> wasn't known to do -- ever -- was hit women, let alone beat them up.
At last - a useful contribution and valuable insight into a character
from someone who has done some research. Thanks. (By the way, I said beat
women - not beat them up. There's a difference in English English if not
American English)
Jimbo by the way is what Billy Idol used to call him - when he was
little.
Seriously, the name Jimbo comes from....actually, why not read Ray's book
and find out where Jimbo comes from?
Swampfetus
"Pete" <Pe...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94E6CB4FBD260pe...@217.32.252.50...
> a number of years ago following the shooting of a load of innocent school
> kids by a "recreational" shooter. I would give you chapter and verse but
> it's off topic. Your are ignorant about these matters.
I thought handguns were criminalized. You can still own shotguns & rifles
with which to hunt, correct?
---
Dave
PButler111
>Date: 5/11/2004 1:59 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Xns94E6CB4FBD260pe...@217.32.252.50>
>> That was an awful lot of words saying nothing really except that you
>> don't like being contradicted. Are you trying to say that there isn't
>> widespread recreational shooting in England? Jump out of your huff
>> and give some actual information if you think what I said was wrong.
>
>Contradictions don't bother me. That's all part of a healthy debate. You
>contradict me later in your post in a much more constructive and credible
>way. What I object to is rudeness, and innappropriate arrogance.
>
>For information, the ownership of all firearms was made illegal in the UK
>a number of years ago following the shooting of a load of innocent school
>kids by a "recreational" shooter. I would give you chapter and verse but
>it's off topic. Your are ignorant about these matters.
That was all very interesting. But what does it have to do with what I said
and what you were asked? I said there's widespread recreational shooting in
England. You replied with a huffy lecture about gun ownership. Now try
focusing on what I actually said: there's widespread recreational shooting in
England. Are you saying there isn't? Do you want me to post a 100 or so links
to shooting clubs in the UK?
>>>Without getting into a juvenile newsgroup squabble on this - I can't
>>>see that this comment makes sense.
>>>
>>>I have only met Ray once - on that occassion he didn't mention this
>>>incident either. (OK - so there was me and 20,000 other people there
>>>at the time!) I don't draw the conclusion therefore that it didn't
>>>happen. There's alot of things he didn't mention. It doesn't mean they
>>>didn't happen. He described the incident in his book. Have you read
>>>his book?
>>
>> Let me try this again. Ray and I spoke specifically and at length
>> about this woman and this incident. When we discussed this specific
>> incident, the woman had not been beaten, by Jim or anyone else. Had
>> she been beaten -- and had Ray somehow been able to devine that it was
>> Jim who had beaten her -- I think, during our lengthy discussion of
>> the occasion, Ray would have thought to mention it. Is that more
>> clear?
>
>Please don't bother to try again. Simple question. Have you read Ray's
>book?
>
>No is OK! We won't condemn you for it.
>
>Have you read it?
>
>If not, perhaps you'd go away and do that and then give us your expert
>view on why he made a clear implication that Jim beat a woman. If you
>have read Ray's book, perhaps you would do the same and explain your
>view.
Are you honestly this obtuse that you are completely incapable of grasping the
point. You read something in Ray's book. RAY AND I DISCUSSED THE SAME
INCIDENT, ONE-ON-ONE, AT LENGTH. You honestly aren't getting this?
>>>You are of course correct in stating "how he would have known Jim beat
>>>her without Jim having actually done it in front of him is a bit of a
>>>mystery". But I've seen you defend things that you "know" in this
>>>newsgroup despite the fact that your were not an eye witness. I think
>>>you are perfectly entitled to do so - within reason - just as Ray is
>>>in describing the incident in his book.
>>
>> Well, let's see. I base my comments on conversations with dozens of
>> people -- including Ray -- all of whom did know Jim, most of them
>> very, very well. You base your comments on the fact that you really
>> want to believe one thing you read in one book. Hmm...
>
>I base my comments on what Ray said directly.
Ray didn't say it directly. You read something that Ray wrote in a book. Ray
did speak to me about it directly, and when he told me the story, there was no
beating.
>You know, I'm being quite genuine here. I have, for many years, held the
>belief that Jim was violent to women. This was based on hearsay, rumour -
>I can't remember fully from where I developed this view. More recently I
>read Ray confirm this trait. I didn't realise there was anything
>contentious about the issue.
You've pulled out for evidence of your long held belief (and kudos to you for
believing the worst about someone based on absolutely nothing but your desire
to do so) one story from one person in one book, a story that itself has
changed over the years. This is hardly evidence of anything other than your
gullibilty.
>>
>> I think we can safely draw a
>>>conclusion that "Jimbo", as Ray described drunk Jim, was known for
>>>being violent toward women - as, regretably, many drunks are.
>>
>> "Jimbo," which none of his friends remember anyone ever calling him,
>> was known to cry when he was drunk, and pick fights with men who then
>> beat him up when he was drunk, and piss himself when he was drunk, and
>> piss on other people's things when he was drunk, and pass out in
>> strangers' cars and beds and porches when he was drunk. What he
>> wasn't known to do -- ever -- was hit women, let alone beat them up.
>
>At last - a useful contribution and valuable insight into a character
>from someone who has done some research. Thanks. (By the way, I said beat
>women - not beat them up. There's a difference in English English if not
>American English)
You really can't be pleased enough with yourself over your nationality, can
you? It's a little like someone pleased with himself over his current age --
nothing he has the least control over, nor that he accomplished through talent
and hard work, but hey -- what the fuck.
>Jimbo by the way is what Billy Idol used to call him - when he was
>little.
>
>Seriously, the name Jimbo comes from....actually, why not read Ray's book
>and find out where Jimbo comes from?
I've heard all the stories directly from Ray, and have hours of them on tape.
Why would I need to read them?
projectile vomit chick
"Alexander DeLarge" <kubrick...@aol.comkorova> wrote in message
news:20040511100627...@mb-m16.aol.com...
I'd take that bet.......she really is a miserable wretch. I can not see
even one redeeming quality about the sow. Why someone (especially an
*author*, heh) would spend copious amounts of time on the internet arguing
with EVERYONE is beyond me.
[insert her usual bitter bile here]
Pete
news:20040511152800...@mb-m22.aol.com:
>>
>>For information, the ownership of all firearms was made illegal in the
>>UK a number of years ago following the shooting of a load of innocent
>>school kids by a "recreational" shooter. I would give you chapter and
>>verse but it's off topic. Your are ignorant about these matters.
>
> That was all very interesting. But what does it have to do with what
> I said and what you were asked? I said there's widespread
> recreational shooting in England. You replied with a huffy lecture
> about gun ownership. Now try focusing on what I actually said:
> there's widespread recreational shooting in England. Are you saying
> there isn't? Do you want me to post a 100 or so links to shooting
> clubs in the UK?
>
What part of ignorant do you not understand? There is not widespread
recreational shooting in England. We could go into details but I would
refer you to alt.shooting.recreational.dumbfuck.ignorant if you really
want to discuss.
>
> Are you honestly this obtuse that you are completely incapable of
> grasping the point. You read something in Ray's book. RAY AND I
> DISCUSSED THE SAME INCIDENT, ONE-ON-ONE, AT LENGTH. You honestly
> aren't getting this?
I am sorry this upsets you.
Have you read Ray's book?
Come on now. "No" is all it takes.
So Ray chose not to discuss this with you? Maybe he didn't want to
discuss it with you? Maybe he thought you read his book?
>>> Well, let's see. I base my comments on conversations with dozens of
>>> people -- including Ray -- all of whom did know Jim, most of them
>>> very, very well. You base your comments on the fact that you really
>>> want to believe one thing you read in one book. Hmm...
>>
>>I base my comments on what Ray said directly.
>
> Ray didn't say it directly. You read something that Ray wrote in a
> book. Ray did speak to me about it directly, and when he told me the
> story, there was no beating.
Now, this is interesting. Are you saying that Ray didn't write the book
perhaps or that he did write it but that doesn't count as saying it
directly?
Or are you saying that he didn't say it to you specifically therefore it
didn't happen?
Is everything that Ray didn't say not true?
Come on - newsgroup squabbling aside, you know better than most of us -
what's the truth here?
Please, give me a direct answer: Why did Ray say in his book that Jim's
woman was beaten by Jim?
>
>>>
>>> I think we can safely draw a
>>>>conclusion that "Jimbo", as Ray described drunk Jim, was known for
>>>>being violent toward women - as, regretably, many drunks are.
>>>
>>> "Jimbo," which none of his friends remember anyone ever calling him,
>>> was known to cry when he was drunk, and pick fights with men who
>>> then beat him up when he was drunk, and piss himself when he was
>>> drunk, and piss on other people's things when he was drunk, and pass
>>> out in strangers' cars and beds and porches when he was drunk. What
>>> he wasn't known to do -- ever -- was hit women, let alone beat them
>>> up.
>>
>>At last - a useful contribution and valuable insight into a character
>>from someone who has done some research. Thanks. (By the way, I said
>>beat women - not beat them up. There's a difference in English English
>>if not American English)
>
>
> You really can't be pleased enough with yourself over your
> nationality, can you? It's a little like someone pleased with himself
> over his current age -- nothing he has the least control over, nor
> that he accomplished through talent and hard work, but hey -- what the
> fuck.
>
My patiece wears thin. I've made the humble implication that its perhaps
a translation problem.
You say "tomatoe" - I say "fuck you"
PButler111
>Date: 5/11/2004 4:13 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9mboc.16506$V97....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Please show me one calm, reasonable, polite, on-topic post from either of you
to me. No, didn't think you could.
Pete
news:q5mdnf0aoPv...@comcast.com:
Off topic but guns are effectivelt illegal - even air guns.
Pete
This is a light hearted post OK?
Off topic
I have to defend Ms Butler on this.
If she intended to use British terminology, she got it very wrong.
Guys don't wear knickers. In the UK you don't use an expression like that
to a man. It's like mixing up "tu" and "vous" in France. We forgive you
but you're still embarrasing.
I'm sure she didn't mean to try to talk "British". She just made a
mistake.
Pete
Pete
>>Thank you indeed. You've restored my faith in this newsgroup.
>>
>>Pete
>
> No problem at all, Pete. Thanks for being such a gentleman, you
> certainly deserved a lot more polite treatment than you received from
> Patricia Butler. And rest assured, the majority of us are just solid
> Doors fans who treat each other with respect. Butler is just the
> group's bobo doll, so feel free to take a swing at her whenever the
> mood strikes.
>
Nice to know there are Dooors fans here.
Pete
news:MPG.1b0a225e2...@news.central.cox.net:
> In article <Xns94E63C3363D62pe...@217.32.252.50>,
> pe...@mail.com says...
>
>
> Patricia, why the hell do you have to be rude to this guy? Hes posting
> on-topic, which youre always screaming for, & hes being polite &
> appreciative of responses. I can think of no other poster in the
> history of this newsgroup that has been so well-behaved, now even
> DESPITE your rudeness. If someone provokes you, as far as Im concerned
> theyre asking for a fight. But this guy didnt challenge you in the
> slightest. Whats the problem?
>
> Pete, Ive enjoyed your posts & I hope you wont let one rude person
> drive you away.
>
Thanks for your support.
Newsgroups aren't boxing matches. It's not about who's hard enough to
take the shit. Idiots who want to fight all the time make newsgroups an
unattractive venue for what could otherwise be a great place to chat.
This could be a good newsgroup. A bit happy? A bit laid back? A bit
tolerant?
I'm new to it so who am I?
How about a few manners people?
How about a bit of respect for each other?
What is this group about? Enjoying a shared enthusiasm for the music of
the Doors? Or or a bitter competition about who knows most about Jim
Morrison's inner self?
Swampfetus
"Pete" <pete@mai;.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94E6E35F28246pe...@217.32.252.50...
Pete, I think you're wrong on this one. Gun ownership is not illegal in the
UK. Its even possible to own fully automatic assault rifles, though there's
a lot of red tape you have to go through.
By the way, my advice to you concerning Butler is ignore her altogether. Its
not a bit surprising to me that she chooses to fuck with someone as nice as
yourself. That's just who she is. You'll come to despise her very existence,
trust me. Go check out the Barry Manillow newsgroup & you'll see what I
mean.
---
Dave
Alric Knebel
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> "Jimbo," which none of his friends remember anyone ever calling him, was
known
> to cry when he was drunk, and pick fights with men who then beat him up
when he
> was drunk, and piss himself when he was drunk, and piss on other people's
> things when he was drunk, and pass out in strangers' cars and beds and
porches
> when he was drunk. What he wasn't known to do -- ever -- was hit women,
let
> alone beat them up.
I remember an article coming out a couple of years after Jim died, either
written by a woman who had been one of his steadies or it was maybe one of
those short one-page articles in CIRCUS magazine about this woman. In it,
she mentions that he beat her up a couple of times. In the piece, she
claimed that he was often too drunk to perform sexually and he'd get mad. I
don't know how true it is, but I'm thinking that just because his friends
didn't know about these incidences doesn't mean they didn't happen. Or,
maybe they DID know, and his friends might be reluctant to have such
information part of the biographical record, as the significance of the
incidences to understanding his overall personality might become
exaggerated, when it should really remain just a footnote. I don't really
see it as something beyond his personality, considering his penchant for
vandalism when he was drunk (and sometimes just high), such as trashing an
Electra recording studio, smearing food all over his girlfriend's wall, and
pissing into a wine bottle and giving it to a waitress. These incidences
indicate hostility. I'm not saying I believe the beating stories, but I'm
not dismissing it either.
Alric Knebel
PButler111
>Date: 5/11/2004 4:19 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Xns94E6E3177E841pe...@217.32.252.50>
>
>pbutl...@aol.com (PButler111) wrote in
>news:20040511152800...@mb-m22.aol.com:
>
>>>
>>>For information, the ownership of all firearms was made illegal in the
>>>UK a number of years ago following the shooting of a load of innocent
>>>school kids by a "recreational" shooter. I would give you chapter and
>>>verse but it's off topic. Your are ignorant about these matters.
>>
>> That was all very interesting. But what does it have to do with what
>> I said and what you were asked? I said there's widespread
>> recreational shooting in England. You replied with a huffy lecture
>> about gun ownership. Now try focusing on what I actually said:
>> there's widespread recreational shooting in England. Are you saying
>> there isn't? Do you want me to post a 100 or so links to shooting
>> clubs in the UK?
>>
>
>What part of ignorant do you not understand? There is not widespread
>recreational shooting in England.
Really? That's amazing. Then what do you figure all these organizations are
up to?
High Wycombe and District Rifle and Pistol Club
49th Rifle and Pistol Club
BIRMINGHAM
01213281212
AYRESOME QUOIT & AIR RIFLE CLUB
CLEVELAND
BARBURY SHOOTING SCHOOL
SWINDON
Basildon Rifle & Pistol Club
BATTLE RIFLE & PISTOL CLUB
TUNBRIDGE WELLS
BIRMINGHAM SHOOTING CENTRE
BIRMINGHAM
BLUE KNIGHT PISTOL ACADEMY
SUNDERLAND
BOLTON & NRP SHOOTING CLUB
BOLTON
BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR SHOOTING CONSERVATION
TUNBRIDGE WELLS
BRITISH SHOOTING SPORTS COUNCIL
TUNBRIDGE WELLS
BURY SHOOTING SPORTS CLUB
BOLTON
BUXTED & DISTRICT RIFLE & PISTOL CLUB
TUNBRIDGE WELLS
CHATCOMBE ESTATE SHOOTING SCHOOL
GLOUCESTER
CITY RIFLE CLUB
GUILDFORD
COTTONDALE SHOOTING GROUND
YORK
EAST YORKSHIRE GUN CLUB
HULL
EDGEHILL SHOOTING GROUND
OXFORD
FAREHAM CLAY TARGET CLUB
PORTSMOUTH
HAM & PETERSHAM RIFLE & PISTOL CLUB
TWICKENHAM
HEREFORD & WORCESTER SHOOTING GROUND
BIRMINGHAM
HIGH LODGE SHOOTING SCHOOL
IPSWICH
HUMBERSIDE SHOOTING GROUND
YORK
KENSINGTON RIFLE & PISTOL CLUB
LEICESTER & DISTRICT SMALL-BORE RIFLE & PISTOL CLU
LEICESTER
LONDON & MIDDLESEX COUNTIES RIFLE ASSOCIATION
GUILDFORD
LOWE'S SHOOTING GROUND
DERBY
MEADOWHEAD SPORTING CLAY SHOOTS
TUNBRIDGE WELLS
MENDIP SHOOTING GROUND
BATH
MID KENT SHOOTING GROUND
MEDWAY
MID NORFOLK SHOOTING SCHOOL
NORWICH
MIRFIELD RIFLE RANGE
HUDDERSFIELD
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION
GUILDFORD
NORTH DEVON SHOOTING GROUND
EXETER
NORTH DEVON SHOOTING GROUND
EXETER
PENNINE SHOOTING SPORTS ASSOCIATION LTD
OLDHAM
PORTSMOUTH RAILWAY RIFLE CLUB
PORTSMOUTH
ROYAL ARTILLERY ASSOCIATION GUNNERS CLUB
LIVERPOOL
SHIELD SHOOTING CENTRE
DORCHESTER
SPA VALE SHOOTING GROUND
LEICESTER
Now tell me some more about ignorance, Pete. Really. Because you sure seem to
know your stuff.
>> Are you honestly this obtuse that you are completely incapable of
>> grasping the point. You read something in Ray's book. RAY AND I
>> DISCUSSED THE SAME INCIDENT, ONE-ON-ONE, AT LENGTH. You honestly
>> aren't getting this?
>
>I am sorry this upsets you.
>
>Have you read Ray's book?
>
>Come on now. "No" is all it takes.
>
>So Ray chose not to discuss this with you? Maybe he didn't want to
>discuss it with you? Maybe he thought you read his book?
Yes, Pete, I'm sure Ray thought -- several years before he'd even thought of
writing a book -- that I'd read his book. It couldn't possibly be that by the
time he got around to writing the book -- many years later -- he needed a few
exciting details to make things really cook. Wow. Your brilliance is just
dazzling me now.
>>>> Well, let's see. I base my comments on conversations with dozens of
>>>> people -- including Ray -- all of whom did know Jim, most of them
>>>> very, very well. You base your comments on the fact that you really
>>>> want to believe one thing you read in one book. Hmm...
>>>
>>>I base my comments on what Ray said directly.
>>
>> Ray didn't say it directly. You read something that Ray wrote in a
>> book. Ray did speak to me about it directly, and when he told me the
>> story, there was no beating.
>
>
>Now, this is interesting. Are you saying that Ray didn't write the book
>perhaps or that he did write it but that doesn't count as saying it
>directly?
>
>Or are you saying that he didn't say it to you specifically therefore it
>didn't happen?
>
>Is everything that Ray didn't say not true?
I'm saying that you're clearly a moron or you would have gotten what was being
said here quite awhile ago.
>
>Come on - newsgroup squabbling aside, you know better than most of us -
>what's the truth here?
>
>Please, give me a direct answer: Why did Ray say in his book that Jim's
>woman was beaten by Jim?
"Jim's woman"? Surely you mean a woman Jim was with at the moment. As for why
Ray would say something happened that didn't, see if you can't work that one
out for yourself, skippy.
>>>>
>>>> I think we can safely draw a
>>>>>conclusion that "Jimbo", as Ray described drunk Jim, was known for
>>>>>being violent toward women - as, regretably, many drunks are.
>>>>
>>>> "Jimbo," which none of his friends remember anyone ever calling him,
>>>> was known to cry when he was drunk, and pick fights with men who
>>>> then beat him up when he was drunk, and piss himself when he was
>>>> drunk, and piss on other people's things when he was drunk, and pass
>>>> out in strangers' cars and beds and porches when he was drunk. What
>>>> he wasn't known to do -- ever -- was hit women, let alone beat them
>>>> up.
>>>
>>>At last - a useful contribution and valuable insight into a character
>>>from someone who has done some research. Thanks. (By the way, I said
>>>beat women - not beat them up. There's a difference in English English
>>>if not American English)
>>
>>
>> You really can't be pleased enough with yourself over your
>> nationality, can you? It's a little like someone pleased with himself
>> over his current age -- nothing he has the least control over, nor
>> that he accomplished through talent and hard work, but hey -- what the
>> fuck.
>>
>
>My patiece wears thin. I've made the humble implication that its perhaps
>a translation problem.
You're probably right. I'm speaking English, you're speaking imbecile.
>You say "tomatoe" - I say "fuck you"
Mostly because you ran out of intelligent things to say long ago.
PButler111
>Date: 5/11/2004 4:21 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Xns94E6E35F28246pe...@217.32.252.50>
Those explaining the scores of gun clubs -- including air gun clubs -- all over
the country, not to mention the hunting organizations. You have actually
visited England once, haven't you, Pete?
PButler111
>Date: 5/11/2004 4:32 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Xns94E6E5574A586pe...@217.32.252.50>
Yeah, Pete, I'll be sure to pass that little tidbit on to all my British
friends who use the term for either sex. I'll tell them that at the same time
I'll tell them how no one in England shoots recreationally. I'm sure they'll
all be really interested at both bits of info.
PButler111
>Date: 5/11/2004 4:39 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Xns94E6E673E145Epe...@217.32.252.50>
Yeah, right. Here's a great example of Kubrick being the calm, reasoned,
insightful, polite, open-minded Doors fan:
From: Alexander DeLarge (kubrick...@aol.comkorova)
Subject: Re: THE MORRISON HEROIN ARTICLE
Newsgroups: alt.music.the-doors
Date: 2003-07-23 17:34:47 PST
Yeah, I remember you from a fews of years ago when last we had a flamewar, LIZ,
you fucking ridiculous excuse for a snatch. Go fuck yourself, LIZ, youre not
even close to being a "Goddess", youre not even worthy of licking the sweat
from my balls.
I hardly need your approval for anything I say on this newsgroup or any other,
you broken down shell of a cunt, so eat shit and die real soon, K? k ... And
now you can do some digging to crawl back into your hole, Hole. This flamewar
had died out nicely until you came along, so why dont you fuck back off and
make yourself useless to the world again. Fuck you very much.
the Lizard Peasant crawled back the fuck out of her scuzpit after a long hiatus
and puked this whopper out:
>You know it's bad enough that my ISP cancelled my Newsgroup services.
>Then I do some digging to catch up, and come across this type immature
>horseshit over and over again.
>
>Alexander, grow the fuck up. You have proven time and time again to be
>much more of an ass than Patricia. It is very extremely stupid, to
>watch you argue with her, and add more ad nauseum to the Google
>archives with your repetitive claims of not reading her posts. Who the
>fuck cares?
>
>And your repetitious insults towards the Coursons, without knowing
>what the fuck you are talking about is hilarious. I am quite sure Jim
>would be appreciative (NOT).
>
>Fucking get some maturity already. Have a nice cup of shut the fuck
>up.
>
>Geeze...I have been sitting here in silence for months reading this
>crap, couldn't take it anymore.
>
>~waves to the Link~
>~waves to all the other "old" Doors regs~
>
>If anyone has links (Fan, tributes etc) for the Doors 21st Century,
>let me know since I still edit the Doors categories for DMOZ.org and
>Yahoo.
>
>Liz.....................
PButler111
>Message-id: <Xns94E6EB0E04F6pe...@217.32.252.50>
>
>Nothing V <noth...@coxnospam.net> wrote in
>news:MPG.1b0a225e2...@news.central.cox.net:
>
>> In article <Xns94E63C3363D62pe...@217.32.252.50>,
>> pe...@mail.com says...
>>
>>
>> Patricia, why the hell do you have to be rude to this guy? Hes posting
>> on-topic, which youre always screaming for, & hes being polite &
>> appreciative of responses. I can think of no other poster in the
>> history of this newsgroup that has been so well-behaved, now even
>> DESPITE your rudeness. If someone provokes you, as far as Im concerned
>> theyre asking for a fight. But this guy didnt challenge you in the
>> slightest. Whats the problem?
>>
>> Pete, Ive enjoyed your posts & I hope you wont let one rude person
>> drive you away.
>>
>
>
>Thanks for your support.
>
>Newsgroups aren't boxing matches. It's not about who's hard enough to
>take the shit. Idiots who want to fight all the time make newsgroups an
>unattractive venue for what could otherwise be a great place to chat.
>
>This could be a good newsgroup. A bit happy? A bit laid back? A bit
>tolerant?
>
>I'm new to it so who am I?
You're the guy who just ended a post with "fuck you," so maybe you should take
your lectures about manners and respect elsehwere.
PButler111
>Date: 5/11/2004 6:27 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Zadoc.306$5z...@bignews2.bellsouth.net>
There's a big difference between destroying property and doing physical
violence to a woman. Let's face it, Jim was a bit whipped. He'd be a lot more
likely to hit a man than he ever would a woman. As for his friends not wanting
to talk about it, trust me, they talk about all kinds of things they wouldn't
want printed in a book, but that doesn't stop them from telling the stories all
the same. Babe and Paul told me any number of things they asked not to have
published, and we still talk about this stuff, long after the book's been out.
Dee
<snip lots and lots of hissing and spitting>
> > You really can't be pleased enough with yourself over your
> > nationality, can you? It's a little like someone pleased with himself
> > over his current age -- nothing he has the least control over, nor
> > that he accomplished through talent and hard work, but hey -- what the
> > fuck.
> >
>
> My patiece wears thin. I've made the humble implication that its perhaps
> a translation problem.
>
>
> You say "tomatoe" - I say "fuck you"
I must thank you both for an incredibly amusing journey. I haven't
read anything on this newsgroup for quite a while, and had forgotten
the joys of "open" debate. :)
Nothing V
kubrick...@aol.comkorova says...
Alex talked to someone who made the film. Thats where he got his
information.
--
Nothing V
There are no real successes in this world as
we are all bound in the brotherhood of death.
If you have to die, you have failed.
--Christopher S Hyatt,PhD
Nothing V
says...
>
> "Pete" <pete@mai;.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94E6E35F28246pe...@217.32.252.50...
> > "Swampfetus" <swamp...@comcast.net> wrote in
> > news:q5mdnf0aoPv...@comcast.com:
> >
> > >
> > > "Pete" <Pe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Xns94E6CB4FBD260pe...@217.32.252.50...
> > >> pbutl...@aol.com (PButler111) wrote in
> > >> news:20040511075207...@mb-m11.aol.com:
> > >> For information, the ownership of all firearms was made illegal in
> > >> the UK a number of years ago following the shooting of a load of
> > >> innocent school kids by a "recreational" shooter. I would give you
> > >> chapter and verse but it's off topic. Your are ignorant about these
> > >> matters.
> > >
> > > I thought handguns were criminalized. You can still own shotguns &
> > > rifles with which to hunt, correct?
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Dave
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Off topic but guns are effectivelt illegal - even air guns.
> >
>
> Pete, I think you're wrong on this one. Gun ownership is not illegal in the
> UK. Its even possible to own fully automatic assault rifles, though there's
> a lot of red tape you have to go through.
>
I thought guns were banned in England. I was curious to find out for
sure. Im still looking, but so far I found this: "Under England's
present gun control laws only certified members of approved target
shooting gun clubs are allowed to keep firearms, which must be .22
caliber or smaller, and which must be kept locked up at the gun club at
all times. There are also no veritable self-defense laws in England.(4)"
from http://www.haciendapub.com/article15.html
Dont really know about the credibility of the source.
Nothing V
deir...@yahoo.com says...
Dee, did you ever go by DLyte99720 (or something to that effect) on AOL,
by any chance? I realise this is a long shot.
Pete
news:fY2dnT37b9-...@comcast.com:
To stay a bit on topic - this part of the thread developed because, as a
Brit unfamiliar with gun culture, I had drawn the conclusion that as Jim
Morrison liked to play with guns, that may have indicated a tendency
toward violence. Ms Butler points out that playing with guns is a normal
recreation activity in the US and as such the connection I made is
unjustified.
Ms Butler then goes on to claim some kind of knowledge of UK gun law and
you, more politely suggest I may have got this wrong.
We drift into a completely off topic conversation with this one and it
doesn't really matter whether I'm right or wrong about UK gun law. I
accept that playing with guns is normal if your a US citizen - I can't
quite get my head around that one but I accept it.
To drift way off topic in the hope that this one is put to bed:
Is it possible to own a gun legally in the UK? Yes - but very
restrictive. Automatic and semi automatic weapons have never been legal.
Would it be possible to legally borrow your girlfriend's Luger and go out
into the desert and "play". No.
Here is a brief description of gun law in the UK.
The Firearms Amendment Act was introduced after a gunman killed 16 school
children and their teacher in Dunblane in 1996. The ban tightened what
was already one of the world's strictest gun laws. It took effect in July
1997.
The law bans the possession of all handguns of .22 calibre and above and
those able to fire more than one shot at a time.
There are tight restrictions on where and how the sub .22 calibre weapons
are stored used.
More recently (April 2004) restrictions on the use of airguns were
introduced
For Air guns it is illegal to:
Carry a loaded or unloaded airgun or imitation firearm in a public place
without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. (Playing with guns is not
a reasonable excuse)
Possess or use an airgun if you have been sentenced to three months or
more in custody.
Kill or injure any bird or animal protected by law unless you are
authorised to do so under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981.
Owners of airguns that use self contained air cartridges have to apply
for a FireArms Certificate (£50) before 30 April 2004. Failure to do so
could result in a mandatory five-year prison sentence under the Criminal
Justice Act 2003.
Pete
news:fY2dnT37b9-...@comcast.com:
>
>
> By the way, my advice to you concerning Butler is ignore her
> altogether. Its not a bit surprising to me that she chooses to fuck
> with someone as nice as yourself. That's just who she is. You'll come
> to despise her very existence, trust me. Go check out the Barry
> Manillow newsgroup & you'll see what I mean.
>
> ---
> Dave
Thanks for the advice Dave but I don't think I'll get to hate her. I prefer
to save hatred for really bad people.
If you look carefully between the ridiculous comments, there's some
perfectly credible contributions from her.
Pete
PButler111
>Date: 5/12/2004 1:31 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Xns94E74C7D13278pe...@217.32.252.50>
You really are a prentetious little creep, aren't you? We Americans are such
barbarians, wasting our time playing with guns, while you Brits sit home
writing poetry and drinking tea. Right. Perhaps you can tell that to the
hundreds of recreational gun clubs currently thriving in the UK. You simply
can't admit that you're wrong about this, no matter how much evidence is shoved
up your nose. Why don't you spend a minute toptoeing through the British NRA
website, peruse a few of their scores of links to recreational gun clubs, take
a look at their calendar of recreational shooting events, and then come back
and tell us how Brits don't do any recreational shooting. Here's the page,
just to make it easier for you: http://www.nra.org.uk
PButler111
>> altogether. Its not a bit surprising to me that she chooses to fuck
>> with someone as nice as yourself. That's just who she is. You'll come
>> to despise her very existence, trust me. Go check out the Barry
>> Manillow newsgroup & you'll see what I mean.
>>
>> ---
>> Dave
Yes, Pete, take Dave's advice on this. He ignored me about a dozen times a day
until I finally had to killfile him. He's all about ignoring folks Honest.
As for Mr. "You Say Tomatoe [sic] I Say Fuck You," I'm sure there's a certain
segment of the American population who likes being insulted by Brits who don't
even know anything about their own culture ("there is no recreational shooting
in England"), but I'm not one of them. Dave, however, can feel free to bend
over and ask for another all he likes.
Pete
news:20040511194430...@mb-m02.aol.com:
"Jim would get drunk most days and this was no exception and as usual he
got rude, obnoxious, and violent. He turned into a cretin, a disgusting
drunk." (Paul Rothchild)
And about Jim and Janis Joplin also from Paul Rothchild:
"Jim came staggering over. He reached into the car and started to say
something and she told him to fuck off. She wasn't interested anymore.
Jim wasn't going to take no for an answer, though, and he reached into
the car and grabbed Janis by the hair."
Janis whacked Jim over the head with a bottle of JD and knocked him out
cold.
It's clear to me that Jim had the capacity to be violent to women. It's
simply not credible to say that either he was not violent or that he
would never have been violent to a woman.
I agree with Alric that this aspect of his personality should remain a
footnote - but a very important and interesting one when attempting to
interpret his music.
PButler111
>got rude, obnoxious, and violent. He turned into a cretin, a disgusting
>drunk." (Paul Rothchild)
>
>And about Jim and Janis Joplin also from Paul Rothchild:
>
>"Jim came staggering over. He reached into the car and started to say
>something and she told him to fuck off. She wasn't interested anymore.
>Jim wasn't going to take no for an answer, though, and he reached into
>the car and grabbed Janis by the hair."
>
>Janis whacked Jim over the head with a bottle of JD and knocked him out
>cold.
>
>
>It's clear to me that Jim had the capacity to be violent to women.
You mean based on Paul's story of Jim showing up and getting "violent" toward
his surroundings and the other *men* in the room, and based on Paul's story of
*Janis* hitting *Jim* in the head with a bottle -- that's your proof positive
that Jim beat up women? Wow! What does that make Janis, then? The
Terminator?
It's
>simply not credible to say that either he was not violent or that he
>would never have been violent to a woman.
How does what you just posted illustrate any such thing? For one thing, you've
just gone from talking about Jim beating up women to Jim being violent in
general. We were talking specifically about Jim beating up women. I don't
recall anyone, least of all myself, saying that Jim was never violent in
general -- quite the opposite. I said, and I still say -- and you haven't
produced anything to refute -- that Jim was not physically violent with women.
>
>I agree with Alric that this aspect of his personality should remain a
>footnote - but a very important and interesting one when attempting to
>interpret his music.
If it were true. Since it has no basis in reality, using it to "interpret his
music" is a little like using this week's grocery ads to interpret his music:
terribly fascinating, I'm sure, but of no real meaning whatsoever.
Pete
news:20040512141014...@mb-m11.aol.com:
>>"Jim would get drunk most days and this was no exception and as usual
>>he got rude, obnoxious, and violent. He turned into a cretin, a
>>disgusting drunk." (Paul Rothchild)
>>
>>And about Jim and Janis Joplin also from Paul Rothchild:
>>
>>"Jim came staggering over. He reached into the car and started to say
>>something and she told him to fuck off. She wasn't interested anymore.
>>Jim wasn't going to take no for an answer, though, and he reached into
>>the car and grabbed Janis by the hair."
>>
>>Janis whacked Jim over the head with a bottle of JD and knocked him
>>out cold.
>>
>>
>>It's clear to me that Jim had the capacity to be violent to women.
>
> You mean based on Paul's story of Jim showing up and getting "violent"
> toward his surroundings and the other *men* in the room, and based on
> Paul's story of *Janis* hitting *Jim* in the head with a bottle --
> that's your proof positive that Jim beat up women? Wow! What does
> that make Janis, then? The Terminator?
You're defending the indefensible. I assume this story is true. Jim got
drunk and as Paul says: "as usual he got rude, obnoxious, and violent".
Paul then goes on to describe a violent response to rejection by a woman
- not to other men - to a woman.
Sure, Janis got violent back. This thread isn't about her - she may have
been a violent person - but this isn't about who is most violent.
And it not proof positive. No-one claims it is. It is merely evidence -
from a credible source and we can all draw our own conclusions. I draw
the conclusion that Jim, at the very least, had the capacity to be
violent toward women. You draw a different one.
>
>
> It's
>>simply not credible to say that either he was not violent or that he
>>would never have been violent to a woman.
>
> How does what you just posted illustrate any such thing? For one
> thing, you've just gone from talking about Jim beating up women to Jim
> being violent in general. We were talking specifically about Jim
> beating up women. I don't recall anyone, least of all myself, saying
> that Jim was never violent in general -- quite the opposite. I said,
> and I still say -- and you haven't produced anything to refute -- that
> Jim was not physically violent with women.
I haven't gone through the posts but I recall that you did claim that Jim
was not violent generally - but that isn't really the issue. I think that
Paul's story does support my assertion that Jim was known for being
violent towards women.
>
>>
>>I agree with Alric that this aspect of his personality should remain a
>>footnote - but a very important and interesting one when attempting to
>>interpret his music.
>
> If it were true. Since it has no basis in reality, using it to
> "interpret his music" is a little like using this week's grocery ads
> to interpret his music: terribly fascinating, I'm sure, but of no real
> meaning whatsoever.
>
Come to think of it Ms Butler, I saw a grocery ad this week for
flatulence relief pills that used the expression "Break on through". You
might be on to something here!
Have a good day
PButler111
>>
>> You mean based on Paul's story of Jim showing up and getting "violent"
>> toward his surroundings and the other *men* in the room, and based on
>> Paul's story of *Janis* hitting *Jim* in the head with a bottle --
>> that's your proof positive that Jim beat up women? Wow! What does
>> that make Janis, then? The Terminator?
>
>You're defending the indefensible.
I think you win that prize.
I assume this story is true. Jim got
>drunk and as Paul says: "as usual he got rude, obnoxious, and violent".
And how does that prove to you that he was in the habit of beating women?
>Paul then goes on to describe a violent response to rejection by a woman
>- not to other men - to a woman.
No, Paul then goes on to describe Janis's violent reaction to someone pulling
her hair. Jim got hit over the head with a bottle. Sounds like he's the one
that got beat up to me.
>Sure, Janis got violent back. This thread isn't about her - she may have
>been a violent person - but this isn't about who is most violent.
It's not really about anything other than you not being able to admit you just
might be wrong.
>And it not proof positive. No-one claims it is. It is merely evidence -
>from a credible source and we can all draw our own conclusions.
So how many hours did you spend talking to Paul about Jim?
I draw
>the conclusion that Jim, at the very least, had the capacity to be
>violent toward women. You draw a different one.
Based on the fact that he pulled someone's hair once? That puts pretty much
every schoolboy worldwide into the "violent toward women" category, by your
reckoning.
>> It's
>>>simply not credible to say that either he was not violent or that he
>>>would never have been violent to a woman.
>>
>> How does what you just posted illustrate any such thing? For one
>> thing, you've just gone from talking about Jim beating up women to Jim
>> being violent in general. We were talking specifically about Jim
>> beating up women. I don't recall anyone, least of all myself, saying
>> that Jim was never violent in general -- quite the opposite. I said,
>> and I still say -- and you haven't produced anything to refute -- that
>> Jim was not physically violent with women.
>
>I haven't gone through the posts but I recall that you did claim that Jim
>was not violent generally - but that isn't really the issue. I think that
>Paul's story does support my assertion that Jim was known for being
>violent towards women.
It must have been where I said that Jim got violent when drunk. I could see
how that could come across as me saying Jim was never violent.
Pete
news:20040512154311...@mb-m11.aol.com:
>
> Based on the fact that he pulled someone's hair once? That puts
> pretty much every schoolboy worldwide into the "violent toward women"
> category, by your reckoning.
There is something patently obvious about Jim Morrison. He was a drunk. He
got violent sometimes and that violence wasn't restricted to men. This is
not an amazing revelation. Alchoholics do this kind of stuff.
Ms Butler, I can sympathise with you a little bit. Its easy to delude
yourself about a hero and his behaviour. It's easy to think that he never
did the ugly things.
But he did.
Pete
> could see how that could come across as me saying Jim was never
> violent.
By the way Pat, are you a drunk? You come across as one.
PButler111
>Date: 5/12/2004 4:23 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Xns94E7E3CA07D93pe...@217.32.252.50>
So now not only do you know everything there is to know about Jim's personal
life and motivations, but you also know everything about me and my motivations.
Wow! What an awesome responsibility to know absolutely everything! Even
more, I guess, so when everything you know is completely wrong. Jim Morrison
is now "obvious" to you, and Jim is now my "hero." Thanks for the heads up. I
certainly wouldn't have known about it otherwise.
PButler111
>Date: 5/12/2004 4:29 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Xns94E7E4CB47BF1pe...@217.32.252.50>
Well, you haven't been right about anything yet, so at least your streak us
unbroken..
projectile vomit chick
"PButler111" <pbutl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040511193638...@mb-m02.aol.com...
Wow. So you take being turned down for cunnilingus
badly........apparently.............
themissinglink
> > 1st post to this group so I hope this isn't too off topic and I promise
> > it's not meant to be provocative.
> >
> > I read a brief article on the web a few weeks ago. It was written a few
> > years ago and was generally rather ill informed, but it did refer to a
> > suspicion that Jim Morrison had murdered someone in the desert.
> >
> > I know the writer may well have been confusing the HWY plot with real
> > events and it is well documented that Jim got into a scrape in the desert
> > with his drinking buddies, but is this, as far as the group is aware, a
> > common rumour or suspicion?
> >
> > I have for sometime felt that Jim's preoccupation with death in his lyrics
> > became more and more aggressive. The dare, "lets drown tonight" is in
> sharp
> > contrast to "better bring your gun" in the Soft Parade or the reference to
> > murder in LA woman and the more obvious references to murder in Riders on
> > the Storm.
> >
> > Love to know your views people.
> >
> > Pete
>
> Pete, I argued years ago that Jim had a fascination with death & insanity
> but no one believed me.
>
> ---
> Dave
Dave, how in the world could anyone have argued with that?! It was the
earmark of his psyche! I remember being vaguely alarmed and playfully
disgusted with him coming back from a stop at a friends house on the
beach in Malibu one time with a book called Diary of a Murderer, or
something like that. He loved getting a reaction and made some comment
in our endless bantering about the virtues of spirituality over the
depravity of the city, like "beauty's in the eye of the beholder" or
somesuch. He was always amused in the reaction he could provoke with
his morbidity. Kept him company, I guess.
themissinglink
> news:20040511075207...@mb-m11.aol.com:
>
> >>>>I live in a little backwater of Europe called England where we don't
> >>>>have a gun culture. This kind of behaviour is seen as kind of
> >>>>dangerous. But, as you describe, playing with guns in a US context
> >>>>is apparently mainstream.
> >>>
> >>> Get over yourself. There's probably even more recreational shooting
> >>> done in England than here.
> >>
> >>Sorry to go off topic for a momement but this comment - I do not
> >>value. I appreciate your insight and expertise. Please have a little
> >>respect for others' insight and expertise. You clearly know nothing
> >>about gun law and cluture in the UK. It appears not to prevent you
> >>expressing an opinion.
> >>
> >>Being rude to someone without provocation, about whom you know nothing
> >>and expressing opinions on a topic you're unfamiliar with, puts your
> >>credibility under question.
> >
> > That was an awful lot of words saying nothing really except that you
> > don't like being contradicted. Are you trying to say that there isn't
> > widespread recreational shooting in England? Jump out of your huff
> > and give some actual information if you think what I said was wrong.
>
> Contradictions don't bother me. That's all part of a healthy debate. You
> contradict me later in your post in a much more constructive and credible
> way. What I object to is rudeness, and innappropriate arrogance.
>
> For information, the ownership of all firearms was made illegal in the UK
> a number of years ago following the shooting of a load of innocent school
> kids by a "recreational" shooter. I would give you chapter and verse but
> it's off topic. Your are ignorant about these matters.
>
> >
> >
> >>>>would be very interested to understand, why it is that you dismiss
> >>>>the evidence presented by those who lived and worked with Jim. Or
> >>>>have I read it wrongly? When Ray describes the woman Jim brought
> >>>>with him to the studio when they recorded Five to One as having been
> >>>>beaten at the hands of Jim - was Ray exagerating or lying?
> >>>
> >>> Ray told me the story of Jim showing up with the girl at the studio,
> >>> and he didn't say a thing about her having been beaten, by Jim or
> >>> anyone else. I think if that had ever happened (and how he would
> >>> have known Jim beat her without Jim having actually done it in front
> >>> of him is a bit of a mystery) he would have thought it worth a
> >>> mention.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Without getting into a juvenile newsgroup squabble on this - I can't
> >>see that this comment makes sense.
> >>
> >>I have only met Ray once - on that occassion he didn't mention this
> >>incident either. (OK - so there was me and 20,000 other people there
> >>at the time!) I don't draw the conclusion therefore that it didn't
> >>happen. There's alot of things he didn't mention. It doesn't mean they
> >>didn't happen. He described the incident in his book. Have you read
> >>his book?
> >
> > Let me try this again. Ray and I spoke specifically and at length
> > about this woman and this incident. When we discussed this specific
> > incident, the woman had not been beaten, by Jim or anyone else. Had
> > she been beaten -- and had Ray somehow been able to devine that it was
> > Jim who had beaten her -- I think, during our lengthy discussion of
> > the occasion, Ray would have thought to mention it. Is that more
> > clear?
>
> Please don't bother to try again. Simple question. Have you read Ray's
> book?
>
> No is OK! We won't condemn you for it.
>
> Have you read it?
>
> If not, perhaps you'd go away and do that and then give us your expert
> view on why he made a clear implication that Jim beat a woman. If you
> have read Ray's book, perhaps you would do the same and explain your
> view.
>
> >
> >
> >>You are of course correct in stating "how he would have known Jim beat
> >>her without Jim having actually done it in front of him is a bit of a
> >>mystery". But I've seen you defend things that you "know" in this
> >>newsgroup despite the fact that your were not an eye witness. I think
> >>you are perfectly entitled to do so - within reason - just as Ray is
> >>in describing the incident in his book.
> >
> > Well, let's see. I base my comments on conversations with dozens of
> > people -- including Ray -- all of whom did know Jim, most of them
> > very, very well. You base your comments on the fact that you really
> > want to believe one thing you read in one book. Hmm...
>
> I base my comments on what Ray said directly.
>
>
> belief that Jim was violent to women. This was based on hearsay, rumour -
> I can't remember fully from where I developed this view. More recently I
> read Ray confirm this trait. I didn't realise there was anything
> contentious about the issue.
>
The populace at large of the underground in Hollyweird circa '65 to
the End, lived passing on the nightly news, sightings, and histrionics
of Jim's forrays into the Night. Brainless girls wanting to feel
important would literally brag that they had balled Jim, though he
brought them to tears and even bruising in his raging intensity. The
men (clueless wonders as well at times) would drool with admiration at
his worst behavior, practically chanting with glee that "that Jimbo
was a MADman!!), (and yes, he did get mentioned by that handle by the
arrogant and presumptious familiarity of the unfamiliar with anything
other than grapevine and voyeurism of the madding crowd).
It was tragic and lonely and self-destructive, but a very real side of
his gut reaction to same said madding crowd. Like a cornered and
frantic spooky bull or stallion seeking escape. There is no way on
God's earth for anyone to dare say they have the "handle" or "read" on
the VERY private and compartmentalized life of this complex and
private man who paradoxically lived as a chameleon on a Divine petrie
dish.
Sorry for rambling, but the balls of anyone trying to pigeon hole him
with social climbing wannabeism just drives me wild sometimes, and is
the very ugly stupidity that was disgusting to behold while he lived.
Though, it certainly wouldn't have dared be uttered in such bizarre
and inappropriate confidence while he was here to rebut!
Salutations to you. YOu are charming and a welcome breath of fresh
air.
Link.
>
>
> >
> > I think we can safely draw a
> >>conclusion that "Jimbo", as Ray described drunk Jim, was known for
> >>being violent toward women - as, regretably, many drunks are.
> >
> > "Jimbo," which none of his friends remember anyone ever calling him,
> > was known to cry when he was drunk, and pick fights with men who then
> > beat him up when he was drunk, and piss himself when he was drunk, and
> > piss on other people's things when he was drunk, and pass out in
> > strangers' cars and beds and porches when he was drunk. What he
> > wasn't known to do -- ever -- was hit women, let alone beat them up.
>
> At last - a useful contribution and valuable insight into a character
> from someone who has done some research. Thanks. (By the way, I said beat
> women - not beat them up. There's a difference in English English if not
> American English)
>
> Jimbo by the way is what Billy Idol used to call him - when he was
> little.
>
> Seriously, the name Jimbo comes from....actually, why not read Ray's book
> and find out where Jimbo comes from?
PButler111
What the fuck are you talking about??
Pete
news:c3f7c1a8.04051...@posting.google.com:
Thank you for this really interesting response.
Pete
PButler111
>
>Pete
You couldn't figure out what the fuck she was on about either, could you?
Pete
@mb-m07.aol.com:
>>Thank you for this really interesting response.
>>
>>Pete
>
> You couldn't figure out what the fuck she was on about either, could you?
>
There was no irony intended in my comment. I found missinglink's comments
articulate and interesting.
Pete
PButler111
>Date: 5/14/2004 8:15 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Xns94E990F98C543pe...@217.32.252.50>
Great. What'd she say?
The Goddess
> Yeah, right. Here's a great example of Kubrick being the calm, reasoned,
> insightful, polite, open-minded Doors fan:
>
> From: Alexander DeLarge (kubrick...@aol.comkorova)
> Subject: Re: THE MORRISON HEROIN ARTICLE
> Newsgroups: alt.music.the-doors
> Date: 2003-07-23 17:34:47 PST
>
> Yeah, I remember you from a fews of years ago when last we had a flamewar, >LIZ,
[snipped the flashback while laughing]
Dayumn..I forgot all about that ..surprised you remembered it to repost it.
Actually enjoy reading Alex's shit now....
> >If anyone has links (Fan, tributes etc) for the Doors 21st Century,
> >let me [Liz] know since I still edit the Doors categories for DMOZ.org and
> >Yahoo.
> >
Ditto in 2004.......
Liz..................................
Mekki Messer
This Patricia comes across as a very self defensive, arrogant prick.
"Mimimi I spoke to Ray and he didn't mention this n that to me, so it can't be true.
I am the oracle. "
Did your 3 minutes of fame riding another cash cow put you on that steep hill?
Or were you born like that?
Puh