>
> >
> > Your guess is as good as any. If I ever met him it
> > predated the cover, so I wouldn't have been able to ask.
> > If I met him it would have been no later than 1989.
> >
>
>
> Yes, of course. I don't pretend to speak fact or truth or
> anything other than my opinion, which comes in various
> shades of informed-ness.
>
> But my point is that given as there is not one real scrap
> of evidence to suggest that he DID have a problem with
> supplying (mundane and conservative) subject matter which
> his client asked for, to actively take that position is a
> little odd. But hell, you swear blind that Jim sang all of
> Rory's bits. So what am I trying to accomplish here?!? :o)
Too cute! There are a couple of things. One, in my life I never saw people place so much emphasis on evidence before entertaining a concept. I could see, for instance, people wondering how the information was obtained, and judging whether they might be inclined to believe it, but no requests for evidence. Show us your travel itineraries to prove you went to such and so place, upload the tapes of your conversations, list all of your friends so we could call them and ask if you can be believed, and present, produce, the person to say for themselves. Call the UK, call NY, call LA, but call, and PRODUCE! Can't believe without it. Can't imagine it without it. Well, Jimmy may be a Lord of Excess, but you in the plural are excessively lordy when it comes to such demands. And Wilbury, blind, no, not blind. Wherefore do you perceive that I am saying things blindly?
|
