Jim Morrison was more of a legend than a loser

Well, I seem to have hit a raw nerve. I would like to apologize to Pro and any other Morrison fan out there if I have demeaned the famed singer. I also request all voters to kindly vote on the basis of quality of arguments alone, and not on any pre-formed bias or emotion of any sort. Thank you. "First off, Con's statement that "Only someone, having been destined to fail would behave that way. And he did. That's a loser by definition" is contradictory to his definition in the first place. Con states that a loser is someone who is used and manipulated by others, and then criticizes Morrison for simply not following the directions of others. "My apologies, Pro. I did not know that you would take the definition of 'loser' to such literal heights. Anyone reading your views would be inclined to believe that a person entering rehab for drug/alcohol addiction and obeying (or in your opinion, being manipulated by) what the staff there tell him/her to do, in order to rid him/her off the problem would be dubbed a loser. I would like to place on record for all our readers here that such a person is not a loser, but a fighter and the people advising him are not manipulators, but merely helpers and well-wishers. Frankly, I cannot believe you actually said that."Con's biggest problem is that he ridiculously applies his morality of what it right and wrong, and judges Morrison by this. This is the overarching theme in his argumentation, and ultimately its failure. The immorality of using Heroin and LSD is only valid if the law is valid. So if Con respects the Controlled Substances Act, good for him, but if Jim Morrison did not respect it, you cannot call him "bad" or "good" for what he chooses to do. "Nowhere have I tried to project a stand of 'morality', as Pro has stated. I have only tried to portray Jim's tendency to ignore the ill-effects of his addictions to such alarming levels that it led to his untimely death at the young age of 27, or in other words, how he allowed his urges to TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIM, in the long run. I have never called Jim 'good' or 'bad'. However, I will call any such life-consuming substance bad. Life is good, agreed? So anything which endangers life, snuffs it out, should be logically deemed bad. Touch me is a pretty crappy song really, as is that entire album. The lyrics to Touch Me are so bad, in fact, that after that album, The Soft Parade, The Doors began individually attributing song credits. Light my Fire, two of the three verses were written by Krieger (the second Morrison wrote), but every other song (covers excluded) off of The Doors, Strange Days, and Waiting for the Sun were written by Morrison, which you fail to give credit to. I would like to point out that 'Touch Me' reached #3 on the Billboard Hot 100 and #1 in the Cashbox Top 100 in early 1969 (the band's third American number-one single). The single also did well elsewhere, peaking at #1 in the RPM Canadian Singles Chart and at #10 in the Kent Music Report in Australia.[1] So clearly, Pro's views are Pro's own personal bias speaking out against this lovely number. Also, The Soft Parade was not very well appreciated by fans and critics alike, due to the fact that this was a departure from the usual style of the Doors, employing brass and string instruments, and not due to the album being 'crappy', as Pro vaguely puts it. And truth be told, four songs on the album each, were written by Morrison and Kreiger, the ninth, 'Do It' was a joint effort by both of them. Also, fans complained that it was creatively lacking as the songs followed lyrical formulae of previous albums.[2] This proves that even his admirers were bored of the same brand of Morrison poetry, surprising for someone considered a 'Legend'. Also, Pro is factually wrong in stating that it was due to the 'bad' lyrics of 'Touch me' that the song credits were mentioned separately. It has been very clearly stated that the reason for individual credits was that Morrison did not want the phrase 'get your guns' on 'Tell All The people ' to seem like it was his philosophy[2]. Also, Pro is wrong in saying the system of individual song credits started after 'The Soft Parade'. It started with it due to the reason I just mentioned.Also, the reason why Kreiger started writing a large number of the Doors' lyrics, as stated in Tom DiCillo's 'When You're Strange', was that Morrison had headed too far down the road to destruction, again due to his addictions, compromising on the time he had to allot for his creative pursuits, thereby ALLOWING HIMSELF TO BE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF. The authenticity of this documentary should not be doubted, as Ray Manzarek himself had stated that 'this would be the true story of the Doors, the anti-Oliver Stone', referring to the 1991 movie, 'The Doors' [3]"As for his showman tactics, con does not like them. Fine, but a lot of people do, and just because Con does not like something does not make its author a loser. "I would like to quote a line from 'When You're Strange' yet again. After the performance in New Haven, when Jim was arrested for the first time on stage, the reputation of The Doors had become one of a 'dirty, dangerous band'. Johnny Depp also goes on to describe in his narration that after that incident, there was a marked change in the audience's attitude which turned up to watch shows. The center of attraction was no longer the music, but instead, watching Morrison go crazy and act all messed up, a 'spectacle' who was TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF by all the boozing, all the hashing, all the dropping and all the shooting. Can't blame the crowd really; after all, People are Strange. :)Ha! Is that all you have got Con? So what if Jim lied? People like Jim because he created great music that millions love. Con, do you seriously believe that Jim's embellishment of a story invalidates all the respect people have for him? And if his little self-myth about the "Indians on dawn's highway" even matters to most people? I had much respect for Jim because I identified with his lyrics far before I knew about his little stories he made up. It does not matter. But, con, if you seriously believe that all those millions of people who have Doors posters on their walls, or those who know every lyric to Roadhouse Blues, are just fools because they hero loved to tell an embellished story, who can we look up to?Hey Pro. Maybe you're the wrong person I'm telling about Jim's lies. You like just his music. Your respect towards Jim is drawn only due to his talent. But there are millions who consider Jim a God, a 'Shaman prophet', who visit his grave everyday, pray TO him and contribute largely to his 'legend' status. I think the fact that Jim lied not only about the Indian incident, but also about how his entire family was dead, would, and SHOULD, make a hell lot of difference to them.And about the lyrics to 'Roadhouse Blues'. There is one line which is particularly disturbing. 'And I woke up this morning and I got myself a beer.' Do you know what drinking in the morning is a sign of, Pro? According to the CAGE questionnaire, it is one of the four warning signs of alcoholism[4]. Fine, admitted, Jim was already an alcoholic and had been TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY ALCOHOL (I'm not blaming him). But incorporating and glorifying alcoholism in his lyrics, which millions of impressionable fans would listen to and thus, potentially ruining their lives too?? How is that fine? Ruining your life is one thing, understandable almost, if you think really really broadly. But encouraging and enticing others to do the same as well? Encouraging them to be TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF? I rest my case. I thank Pro for a really enjoyable debate.I thank the readers for their valuable time. Vote Con.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...