Tina Turner is no more

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like an odd way to phrase your title OP. Her music carries on.

I think OP’s title is fine…I don’t get what the problem is. She is no more. She has died. Of course her music carries on.

+1. "Is no more" is a euphemism, just like "passed away," "has left us," "is gone," etc.

OP here. I am trying to understand why my title caused so much consternation to certain posters. Someone actually called me a pig yesterday over the thread title.

Sorry, OP. I didn't find anything offensive in your title.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am watching the HBO Max documentary about her. She grew up with violence. Her mother left. Her father left. She remembered what it was like to be in a family of sharecroppers literally picking cotton in the Deep South.

Both she and Ike truly suffered as kids. I'm not excusing his abuse, but he was terribly abused during his childhood.

Yes, you are excusing his choice to abuse both Tina and his children. Tina forgave him, but she never forgot what he did to her. And she never trusted him again. The world is lucky that Tina was so intelligent to listen to her inner voice and NOT people telling her to worry about Ike and his motives. She got away ALIVE when that man literally wanted her DEAD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like an odd way to phrase your title OP. Her music carries on.

I think OP’s title is fine…I don’t get what the problem is. She is no more. She has died. Of course her music carries on.

+1. "Is no more" is a euphemism, just like "passed away," "has left us," "is gone," etc.

OP here. I am trying to understand why my title caused so much consternation to certain posters. Someone actually called me a pig yesterday over the thread title.

Sorry, OP. I didn't find anything offensive in your title.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like an odd way to phrase your title OP. Her music carries on.

I think OP’s title is fine…I don’t get what the problem is. She is no more. She has died. Of course her music carries on.

+1. "Is no more" is a euphemism, just like "passed away," "has left us," "is gone," etc.

OP here. I am trying to understand why my title caused so much consternation to certain posters. Someone actually called me a pig yesterday over the thread title.

Sorry, OP. I didn't find anything offensive in your title.

+1

I thought it was odd but not offensive. I guess I think of "things" being no more, not people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like an odd way to phrase your title OP. Her music carries on.

I think OP’s title is fine…I don’t get what mthe problem is. She is no more. She has died. Of course her music carries on.

Well, that’s because you’re crass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like an odd way to phrase your title OP. Her music carries on.

I think OP’s title is fine…I don’t get what the problem is. She is no more. She has died. Of course her music carries on.

+1. "Is no more" is a euphemism, just like "passed away," "has left us," "is gone," etc.

OP here. I am trying to understand why my title caused so much consternation to certain posters. Someone actually called me a pig yesterday over the thread title.

Much of those comments have since been deleted by the admin. You’re phrasing was insensitive so others were insensitive in kind. Now you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like an odd way to phrase your title OP. Her music carries on.

I think OP’s title is fine…I don’t get what the problem is. She is no more. She has died. Of course her music carries on.

+1. "Is no more" is a euphemism, just like "passed away," "has left us," "is gone," etc.

OP here. I am trying to understand why my title caused so much consternation to certain posters. Someone actually called me a pig yesterday over the thread title.

Sorry, OP. I didn't find anything offensive in your title.

+1

I thought it was odd but not offensive. I guess I think of "things" being no more, not people.

That’s exactly what someone said yesterday. It’s insensitive to say that people or living things are “no more”. It’s like saying there’s “nothing left” of her. It’s a weird way to view a person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like an odd way to phrase your title OP. Her music carries on.

I think OP’s title is fine…I don’t get what the problem is. She is no more. She has died. Of course her music carries on.

+1. "Is no more" is a euphemism, just like "passed away," "has left us," "is gone," etc.

OP here. I am trying to understand why my title caused so much consternation to certain posters. Someone actually called me a pig yesterday over the thread title.

Much of those comments have since been deleted by the admin. Your phrasing was insensitive so others were insensitive in kind. Now you know.

That’s your opinion.

[Anonymous]

I find it less offensive for a person to suggest someone who is no longer alive has been canceled than someone who is still living, but it seemed like an odd choice of words, particularly for someone who has clearly left an indelible legacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like an odd way to phrase your title OP. Her music carries on.

I think OP’s title is fine…I don’t get what mthe problem is. She is no more. She has died. Of course her music carries on.

Well, that’s because you’re crass.

Not at all. It's an old country expression for passing on. It is biewed as gentler than "dying."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like an odd way to phrase your title OP. Her music carries on.

I think OP’s title is fine…I don’t get what mthe problem is. She is no more. She has died. Of course her music carries on.

Well, that’s because you’re crass.

Not at all. It's an old country expression for passing on. It is biewed as gentler than "dying."

+1. It is not insensitive, but it is old-fashioned, and therefore less familiar these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like an odd way to phrase your title OP. Her music carries on.

I think OP’s title is fine…I don’t get what mthe problem is. She is no more. She has died. Of course her music carries on.

Well, that’s because you’re crass.

Not at all. It's an old country expression for passing on. It is biewed as gentler than "dying."

The “crass” PP has been watching too much Monty Python.

[Anonymous]

Typical DCUM that a thread on the passing of a legendary rock star has turned into a pedantic argument on whether or not the title is appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am watching the HBO Max documentary about her. She grew up with violence. Her mother left. Her father left. She remembered what it was like to be in a family of sharecroppers literally picking cotton in the Deep South.

Both she and Ike truly suffered as kids. I'm not excusing his abuse, but he was terribly abused during his childhood.

Yes, you are excusing his choice to abuse both Tina and his children. Tina forgave him, but she never forgot what he did to her. And she never trusted him again. The world is lucky that Tina was so intelligent to listen to her inner voice and NOT people telling her to worry about Ike and his motives. She got away ALIVE when that man literally wanted her DEAD.

PP here. Not excusing at all to state that a boy was beaten with boards and sodomized. That's abuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am watching the HBO Max documentary about her. She grew up with violence. Her mother left. Her father left. She remembered what it was like to be in a family of sharecroppers literally picking cotton in the Deep South.

Both she and Ike truly suffered as kids. I'm not excusing his abuse, but he was terribly abused during his childhood.

Yes, you are excusing his choice to abuse both Tina and his children. Tina forgave him, but she never forgot what he did to her. And she never trusted him again. The world is lucky that Tina was so intelligent to listen to her inner voice and NOT people telling her to worry about Ike and his motives. She got away ALIVE when that man literally wanted her DEAD.

PP here. Not excusing at all to state that a boy was beaten with boards and sodomized. That's abuse.

What's that supposed to mean? That's [i]abuse. As if the abuse he inflicted on Tina wasn't as bad?