rogers daughter

bong · Post by **bong** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 3:19 pm

madcap69 wrote: Hey Bong I noticed you said body, Nothing doing with that Roger face, uh?

I don't think she looks that much like roger. There is a passing resemblance like was stated but thats about it.

madcap69 · Post by **madcap69** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 3:24 pm

Ya... she is a very pretty girl. I wouldn't mind seeing a old photo of mom. Since I think we can agree the body didn't come from roger.

quicksilver · Post by **quicksilver** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 4:17 pm

EDITED BY ADMIN FOR BEING IN BREACH OF FORUM RULES

quicksilver · Post by **quicksilver** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 5:32 pm

quicksilver wrote:EDITED BY ADMIN FOR BEING IN BREACH OF FORUM RULES

Sorry, lost my mind for a split second.

NewEarthMud · Post by **NewEarthMud** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 7:13 pm

SydsMadcapGirl · Post by **SydsMadcapGirl** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 7:19 pm

I think India is BEAUTIFUL. I've seen some photos of Roger's son, Harry, and unfortunately he isn't as blessed. And while I do agree that Roger himself was not by any means an attractive man circa 1967 or so, age has certainly done him well.

Pugs on the Wing · Post by **Pugs on the Wing** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 7:41 pm

SydsMadcapGirl wrote:...I do agree that Roger himself was not by any means an attractive man circa 1967 or so, age has certainly done him well.

I agree that Roger has aged quite well for a rock musician from his era, (Keith Richards, for example, being on the opposite extreme...yeesh...ok I feel justified in that remark since this is NOT a Rolling Stones forum!) but I still prefer him early 1970s (like circa KQED studio or Pompeii) or so...I love longer hair on men. I think this picture http://floydart-jester.crosswinds.net/a ... ooklet.jpg (takes a long time to load...beware dialups) was from '67. Maybe it's just me, but ...wow! that's not unattractive in my book.

Feeling Very Pink · Post by **Feeling Very Pink** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 8:45 pm

Wow, that's really cool - never seen that one before. Nick looks youthful, Rick looks cool, Roger looks noble and Syd, well, Syd's just great.

SydsMadcapGirl · Post by **SydsMadcapGirl** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 9:17 pm

I agree that Roger has aged quite well for a rock musician from his era, (Keith Richards, for example, being on the opposite extreme...yeesh...ok I feel justified in that remark since this is NOT a Rolling Stones forum!) but I still prefer him early 1970s (like circa KQED studio or Pompeii) or so...I love longer hair on men. I think this picture http://floydart-jester.crosswinds.net/a ... ooklet.jpg (takes a long time to load...beware dialups) was from '67. Maybe it's just me, but ...wow! that's not unattractive in my book.[/quote]

I stand corrected. That is a rockin pic, I've never seen that either. Mr. Waters does look quite attractive in that one. As far as looks go, I've always been rather partial to Syd...but hey. LOL. And, YES, poor poor Keith Richards. Ugh. They should just stick his face up on a poster, with a very large caption that says: "DON'T DO DRUGS". Haha. (Okay I feel kinda bad for that...but oh well!)

grateful pink · Post by **grateful pink** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 3:55 pm

Great pic! Worth the dialup modem time! Roger looks good (but not great)--better than most of his pics. But Syd looks reallly great (dig those shades!)!

Feeling Very Pink · Post by **Feeling Very Pink** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 5:31 pm

Only he could rock the cardigan look at that age.

Ailbhe · Post by **Ailbhe** » Thu Mar 06, 2003 11:12 am

I know that this is going to sound like I'm a total Waters fangirl but... I think Roger was incredibly good looking and sexy.i mean , I do drool over the pompeii video.A real lot. Don't know, maybe I've got a thing for big teeth and green eyes and angular jawlines but I've always found that man irrestible.Well, ********** ************* *********** .As for Syd ...Syd was beautiful... ethereal.I love Syd .I even prefer his music over Roger's.But he just does not make me squirm about in my pants like Roger does ... that's it.

EDITED BY ADMIN - Inappropriate sexual content removed

Feeling Very Pink · Post by **Feeling Very Pink** » Thu Mar 06, 2003 12:31 pm

But he's got veiny arms! Urgh!

kaya · Post by **kaya** » Thu Mar 06, 2003 1:18 pm

i agree with some replys that were made before. Roger is really not that bad looking!! and i really don't like that people are making fun of him!! :grrrrr

Pugs on the Wing · Post by **Pugs on the Wing** » Thu Mar 06, 2003 2:11 pm

Ailbhe wrote:I know that this is going to sound like I'm a total Waters fangirl but... I think Roger was incredibly good looking and sexy.i mean , I do drool over the pompeii video.A real lot. Don't know, maybe I've got a thing for big teeth and green eyes and angular jawlines but I've always found that man irrestible.Well, ********** ************* *********** .As for Syd ...Syd was beautiful... ethereal.I love Syd .I even prefer his music over Roger's.But he just does not make me squirm about in my pants like Roger does ... that's it.

EDITED BY ADMIN - Inappropriate sexual content removed

Yes exactly. Syd was beautiful in a very untouchable mythical way, but Roger...what can I say? He just has *it* for me...all the right elements...long nose, full mouth, lean muscles, and his eyes are like no one else's...deep and sad even. Of course it goes without mentioning that these things are meaningless if he also didn't thrill me intellectually and artistically as well.

And as far as watching the Pompeii video, I keep a drool bucket at hand.