lwr001 said:

PeteSilas said:

umm, don't take it personally, I'm just making a point. And don't think I'm just some whiny person at home chilling, I could have been a pro fighter so I know a thing or two about being a warrior. No need for you to get so defensive over some long ago studies that I cited, or personal, we ain't here for that.

could of and the point is you are talkign about some random study an not personal expereince,,,

And if someone is trying to denote facts, those random studies are generally what they should be discussing, not personal anecdotes. Pete said nothing wrong. To demand that people keep their opinions to themselves and STFU as though somehow that honors your service only undermines the meaning and purpose of service.

Eileen said:

cardinal said:

Eileen said:

Yeah, I say we let Sharon Osbourne pay the lost wages and non-insurable bills of all the folks who don't get paid for going to acupuncture, physical therapy, massage, reiki, nutritionists, holistic med specialists...

You know who else still gets paid for doing all that - grandstanding politicians.

It's so easy to blather about people taking pills because they're just lazy. There but for the grace of God...

does sharon o call anyone lazy? i don't really follow sharon osborne. and i sure as hell was not calling anyone lazy. but if prince had been able to connect with this california dr, these are some of the therapies that might have helped him. the grandstanding pols imo are totally in bed with big pharma....and its not in big pharmas best interest to have a healthy and empowered population. sad and depraved, but true.

Hi Cardinal. Sorry, I wasn't even thinking about you with that last comment, it was meant to be very general based on the sum total of reading lately - so much commentary about people (esp. Americans) taking painkillers because they're lazy, an easy quick fix, etc. I should have added a general disclaimer.

(Separately) Although yes, folks like Prince and Sharon Osbourne are exactly those who can (could) avail themselves of every possible alternative, should they so choose.

[Edited 5/18/16 17:46pm]

he was on OPIOD painkillers , as opposed to others, FOR A REASON

Eileen said:

luvsexy4all said:

luvsexy4all said:

Do you really believe he would tell his bodyguard?? Addicts are good at keeping secrets.

Eileen said:

lwr001 said:

could of and the point is you are talkign about some random study an not personal expereince,,,

And if someone is trying to denote facts, those random studies are generally what they should be discussing, not personal anecdotes. Pete said nothing wrong. To demand that people keep their opinions to themselves and STFU as though somehow that honors your service only undermines the meaning and purpose of service.

take a seat ,, also, you have absolutely no idea what the purpose of my service was,,we moved on several thread ago,,, and actually, it doesnt undermine my service..my service to protect the

constitution guarantees

my right to say STFU,, I get , YOU may not like, so be it,,Once again, we had already moveed on before you choose to opine.. He actually did a pretty gopod job of arguing/fighting/articulating his stance without your help which wasnt asked for

[Edited 5/19/16 7:47am]

it's ok everyone, we're all here mourning, least I am. Let's be patient with each other.

PeteSilas said:

rap said:

Do you really believe he would tell his bodyguard?? Addicts are good at keeping secrets.

I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that it depends on the person. But i recall in bill russell's book, he spoke highly of a street woman who he loved and when she died of a heroin overdose, he was perplexed and made a statement of how we can hide the biggest secrets even from those who know us the best.

Mkilpatrick74 said:

luvsexy4all said:

he was on OPIOD painkillers , as opposed to others, FOR A REASON

deleting my comments. [Edited 5/19/16 12:50pm]

....u mind telling me why??

PeteSilas said:

rap said:

Do you really believe he would tell his bodyguard?? Addicts are good at keeping secrets.

I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that it depends on the person. But i recall in bill russell's book, he spoke highly of a street woman who he loved and when she died of a heroin overdose, he was perplexed and made a statement of how we can hide the biggest secrets even from those who know us the best.

Yup, and nobody was better at being private than Prince. He didn't trust anyone with the exception of a few longtime friends, so to think he'd trust information about a possible drug dependency with a bodyguard that he hired what, just 4 years ago?, is ridiculous. Prince picked up his meds personally, did he not? So how the hell would the bodyguard know what pills he was taking, how many and how often. It was pointless to ask the bodyguard anything related to meds, and as I said earlier even if the bodyguard did see Prince doing something to hurt himself he certainly wouldn't rat him out before or after death.

Pokeno4Money said:

PeteSilas said:

I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that it depends on the person. But i recall in bill russell's book, he spoke highly of a street woman who he loved and when she died of a heroin overdose, he was perplexed and made a statement of how we can hide the biggest secrets even from those who know us the best.

Yup, and nobody was better at being private than Prince. He didn't trust anyone with the exception of a few longtime friends, so to think he'd trust information about a possible drug dependency with a bodyguard that he hired what, just 4 years ago?, is ridiculous. Prince picked up his meds personally, did he not? So how the hell would the bodyguard know what pills he was taking, how many and how often. It was pointless to ask the bodyguard anything related to meds, and as I said earlier even if the bodyguard did see Prince doing something to hurt himself he certainly wouldn't rat him out before or after death.

True, but he took a stand by stating he never saw anything relating to a possible drug dependency. He felt the need to say that, regardless, cause, like many of us, he's probably sick and tired (and sad) from seeing the awful headlines some rags are already putting out (Aids, drugs, womanizer) without there being an official cause fo death yet. Good of him to defend his boss in the midst of so much speculation.

[Edited 5/22/16 5:39am]

MMJas said:

True, but he took a stand by stating he never saw anything relating to a possible drug dependency. He felt the need to say that, regardless, cause, like many of us, he's probably sick and tired (and sad) from seeing the awful headlines some rags are already putting out (Aids, drugs, womanizer) without there being an official cause fo death yet. Good of him to defend his boss in the midst of so much speculation.

Anybody in his position would have said they had no knowledge of an addiction problem, whether true or not. If he had said he knew about a problem, he'd get a ton of heat for being an enabler and for not doing anything to help ... and he'd also have a hard time finding another employer because nobody would want to hire someone who spills private information like that, even after death.

Pokeno4Money said:

MMJas said:

True, but he took a stand by stating he never saw anything relating to a possible drug dependency. He felt the need to say that, regardless, cause, like many of us, he's probably sick and tired (and sad) from seeing the awful headlines some rags are already putting out (Aids, drugs, womanizer) without there being an official cause fo death yet. Good of him to defend his boss in the midst of so much speculation.

Anybody in his position would have said they had no knowledge of an addiction problem, whether true or not. If he had said he knew about a problem, he'd get a ton of heat for being an enabler and for not doing anything to help ... and he'd also have a hard time finding another employer because nobody would want to hire someone who spills private information like that, even after death.

I guess you're right.