Shirley book is full of lies

[caro]

Review from someone who once worked with the Cassidy Family.

Just. Plain. Awful.


I would go as far as to say: Five Alarm Liar.



I see so many people reviewing and acting like this is factual and, while that is a logical conclusion in the case of an "autobiography," this isn't. Far from it.



What this book contains are innacuracies (how to you flub dates and identifications of your own children in pictures?), inconsistancies and downright fabrications mixed with stories so numbingly boring that no matter who would be telling them, your eyes glaze over.



Reviewers are stating they can't believe "Mrs Partridge" would do these things....but the fact is that the most disgusting thing she did in these pages was lie.



How do I know this? I have worked for members of this family and have written the short bios for two members - including Jack Cassidy. I know this may bring a fan-backlash from those who dont want to hear actual honesty here. I might anger some people but this needs to be said. In conversations and correspondence with family and friends of Jack, either the world lied or she is. The flubs are on many levels and are obvious to those who even know a basic amount. Hell, if you read her first book alone, you can see the actual contradictions. Now, I can see filling in the blanks from book to book or expanding, but what she pulled from the past book and used was edited to remove context, explanation and substance to where it doesn't make sense and somehow moves to the point of inaccuracy. There are events I know as fact that have been edited between the books to mostly accurate to just plain wrong. Other events I can't explain in any logical way. How can someone make a point of pages of elaborate story surrounding an event in one book to COMPLETELY voiding the event with another story - without meaning and even without explanation. One of the two is a lie. And no explanation for the change.



There are also events mentioned elsewhere by other people placed in the wrong time, place and context here. Things she has denied knowing for decades are suddenly known and include her in ways that are improbable.



There are so many things that contradict decades of writing and interviews and in ways that don't make sense - and without any explanation for the discrepancy. If you are going to change your story in so many ways and in things that really don't matter except to exploit? It doesn't make sense.



Let's look at some odd factors in this book. For an autobiography, 95% of the photos used are press photos or photos that have been available for decades. Nothing is personal and one of her own sons is misidentified in one photo. Then there is the fact that her last book has input from the entire family and this one has NONE. How about the fact that with all her stories, the other players are mostly given fake names or are dead. One of the few livng people, Joan Collins, called her out on the lies, served cease and desist papers - and the publisher republished without a fight.



I can go into reasons why I'd call BS on most (not all but most) of the Jack Cassidy stories but there are reasons. Jack deserved better treatment than this. He may have been a rogue but there were certain lines he wouldn't cross. There were certain standards he kept. If he was here today, he would be outraged and disgusted. He didn't deny his sexuality (in fact, he loved to make it part of his schtick) but there was a level of sophistication and dignity. The suggestion was there but to the public, it was a wink and a smirk and no more than that. Discretion.



But I asked myself why she would do this. Why take such a distinguished reputation with a hint of naughty and drag yourself through the gutter. I do have one theory that I've been told but will keep to myself. But here is another: Years ago, Florence Henderson made a little bit of a name for herself as "Flo Ho" with candid banter about sexuality and her past. It worked for her and gave her a boost. The two have always been competitive on some level. Now think about a teenage locker room. The boy that doesn't have much of a reputation but wants one and the attention that goes with it, speaks up with lacivious details about either a girl who already has a bad reputation or that ellusive "girl he met at camp" that is just a shadow. People that can't disprove the dirty details. The less a person has actually done, the more gusto they put into their story. I am guessing that these are actually the stories she thinks about during her "special alone time." Because the secret to a good lie is to know when to hold back and not cross the line - and she crossed it again and again. Think about people known for their conquests and sexcapades. Warren Beatty, Hugh Hefner, Charlie Sheen....have they ever written a book with these details? Nope. Part of it is class and discretion but part of it is knowing that giving details is desperate and they don't need to try. Even Wilt Chamberlain that claimed to sleep with 1000 women, didn't go into these sorts of details. Joan Collins who is known for her sexuality, as I said, served Shirley and her published legal documents over her inclusion. Elizabeth taylor and Zsa Zsa Gabor are known for sensuality and multiple marriages and never wrote anything like this.



Sadly, Shirley does have a story to tell and it could have been classy and interesting. She could have taken a dignified approach and have it do just as well. No, the shock value wouldn't have been as heightened but I'd believe any tabloid before I give this book and credence. The irony? Shirley sued The National Enquirer thirty years ago because she didn't want the world believing lies about her. Now she is planting her own.



And for God's sake, if you are going to write a book of trash? Make it readable. This book is so poorly written that it is pathetic. There is no flow. The grammar is questionable. Fire that ghost writer. Fire the editor. It is a book of garbage written like garbage.


As I told a friend of mine, it is toilet paper with a binding. If I could give it negative stars, I would.

Such an interesting life with such a sterling reputation - It is so sad to see someone personally implode it without any productive reason.

[LittleRickyII]

And my conclusion about this "review" of Shirley's book? Just. Plain. Awful. If you're going to harp on and on about how the book is full of lies, have the courage to put evidence behind your statements. And give some friggin' examples of what you're talking about! Anyone can call someone a liar. That's easy. But if you can't be specific, and can't provide evidence for your claim, then what you have to say is pretty useless. Why doesn't this person have the courage to give examples and back them up? Perhaps he/she is afraid that giving specifics might cause them to wind up being sued by Shirley . . . for lying?

[LittleRickyII]

And my conclusion about this "review" of Shirley's book? Just. Plain. Awful. If you're going to harp on and on about how the book is full of lies, have the courage to put evidence behind your statements. And give some friggin' examples of what you're talking about! Anyone can call someone a liar. That's easy. But if you can't be specific, and can't provide evidence for your claim, then what you have to say is pretty useless. Why doesn't this person have the courage to give examples and back them up? Perhaps he/she is afraid that giving specifics might cause them to wind up being sued by Shirley . . . for lying?

[Mr. Television]

First you post threads slamming David and now you're doing the same to Shirley. You don't seem like a Partridge Family fan.

[caro]

This review was written by someone who worked for the Cassidys. She did research about Jack's life. Shirley made up stories to sell a book. If you don't believe how bad this book is go to www.amazon.com or www.goodreads.com. If you really want to verify what I am saying. Unfortunately, Shirley needs the money.

[caro]

This article was not written by me. It was written by someone who worked for the Cassidys at one point and has done research on Jack Cassidy's life . You need to go to www.amazon.com or www.goodreads.com. If you need to see the other bad reviews go there. It is unfortunate that Shirley has to resort to lying to sell a book.

[LittleRickyII]

Originally Posted by caro

This review was written by someone who worked for the Cassidys. She did research about Jack's life. Shirley made up stories to sell a book. If you don't believe how bad this book is go to www.amazon.com or www.goodreads.com. If you really want to verify what I am saying. Unfortunately, Shirley needs the money.

Shirley signed her name to her book. Who is this coward who is unwilling to identify herself or to give any specifics about what she claims to be lies? What's she so afraid of if the truth is on her side?

[LittleRickyII]

Originally Posted by caro

This article was not written by me. It was written by someone who worked for the Cassidys at one point and has done research on Jack Cassidy's life . You need to go to www.amazon.com or www.goodreads.com. If you need to see the other bad reviews go there. It is unfortunate that Shirley has to resort to lying to sell a book.

Shirley signed her name to her book. Who is this coward who is unwilling to identify herself or to give any specifics about what she claims to be lies? What's she so afraid of if the truth is on her side?

[caro]

I know who she is and the Cassidy family know who she is. Shirley sold out. At least Jack's 1st wife and David's mother never sold out. It is a tacky thing to do.

[Dianne3]

This post got my attention, yet there is absolutely no info. in it.
What lies?
All it is repetive ranting without backing up what you are so upset about.

[shotzette]

Originally Posted by LittleRickyII

And my conclusion about this "review" of Shirley's book? Just. Plain. Awful. If you're going to harp on and on about how the book is full of lies, have the courage to put evidence behind your statements. And give some friggin' examples of what you're talking about! Anyone can call someone a liar. That's easy. But if you can't be specific, and can't provide evidence for your claim, then what you have to say is pretty useless. Why doesn't this person have the courage to give examples and back them up? Perhaps he/she is afraid that giving specifics might cause them to wind up being sued by Shirley . . . for lying?

IMO, the funniest thing about the "review" is that it complains how poorly written Shirley's book was, but the review itself has poor punctuation and meanders all over the place. I'm calling BS on the "insider info".

[caro]

Shirley's book is full of bad reviews. People are missing the point here. I know Shirley needs the money. She doesn't get that much acting work. He voice is shot. She can't sell her house because it is in need of repairs. She could have written a good book but went tabloid.
By the way, her goon of a husband Marty just sold a piece to the National Enquirer on how David only has 3 months on live. They don't even like each other.

[LittleRickyII]

Originally Posted by caro

Shirley's book is full of bad reviews. People are missing the point here. I know Shirley needs the money. She doesn't get that much acting work. He voice is shot. She can't sell her house because it is in need of repairs. She could have written a good book but went tabloid.
By the way, her goon of a husband Marty just sold a piece to the National Enquirer on how David only has 3 months on live. They don't even like each other.

No caro, we aren't missing the point at all. In fact, I think this so-called review was written by YOU. But even if it wasn't, it doesn't matter because it's a worthless piece of garbage. As everyone keeps telling you, there are no specifics. There is nothing in that "review" telling us specifically what lies are in Shirleys book, and there's nothing there proving they are lies. Who are the witnesses who can prove they are lies? And most importantly, whoever wrote this review doesn't even have the guts to sign their name to it. Shirley has the guts to put her name behind her book. As such, her credibility is way, way higher than the writer of this slanderous review. And as for you, your constant ranting about, and obsession of, David Cassidy and Shirley Jones tells me that you're obviously insanely jealous of them.

[caro]

David is up for his 2nd and 3rd DUI. Marty Ingels sold information to the National Enquirer for an Article title David Cassidy has 3 months to live. Shirley Jones got sued by Joan Collins and wins. David has gotten banned from places by showing up drunk. Jealous? The is factual. I know the person who wrote the article and it wasn't me. PM me and I will tell you the name. She has worked with the Cassidy Family and did research and interviews with people who worked with Jack Cassidy. Shirley Jones can't sell her house and can't afford to make repairs. Jealous?

[LittleRickyII]

Originally Posted by caro

David is up for his 2nd and 3rd DUI. Marty Ingels sold information to the National Enquirer for an Article title David Cassidy has 3 months to live. Shirley Jones got sued by Joan Collins and wins. David has gotten banned from places by showing up drunk. Jealous? The is factual. I know the person who wrote the article and it wasn't me. PM me and I will tell you the name. She has worked with the Cassidy Family and did research and interviews with people who worked with Jack Cassidy. Shirley Jones can't sell her house and can't afford to make repairs. Jealous?

Why a PM and not a public acknowledgement? Shirley Jones has publicly put her name on her book, so why can't the person who wrote this review do the same? And why can't this person articulate what the purported lies are that she's claiming? This just makes it look like she is worried about being sued by Ms. Jones for libel, and losing. As for David Cassidy's alcohol problems, Shirley Jones' house, Marty Ingels and all the rest of this stuff you relentlessly keep harping on, why do you care? Why don't you just go live your own life and let other people worry about theirs? What has it got to do with you?