Cindy's kidnapping incident [[Old news + the shade is funny).

[David J]

Kidnapped Supremes Singer Jumps Out of Speeding Car [[Old Incident + The shade is so funny)

---

The Kidnapping:

If it's the '60s and you're gonna kidnap a member of Motown sensation the Supremes, the obvious choice would be Diana Ross, since we're pretty sure she's the only one the average person could name [[the others were replaced more often than the drummer in Spinal Tap). Kidnapper Charles Collier apparently decided that that would take way too much work and instead went for the much lesser known but awesomely named Cindy Birdsong.
On December 2, 1969, Birdsong was opening the door to her Hollywood apartment when a crazed Collier jumped on her with a butcher knife and shoved her into the passenger seat of her car. Collier then took her on a terrifying joyride along the Long Beach Freeway -- Birdsong knew she had to get away from him as fast as possible, but what the hell could she do, jump out?

But Then ...

Well, yeah. After being forced to spend 30 minutes in the man's company, Birdsong couldn't take one more second of it and reached for his knife, cutting her hands in the process. Since this clearly wasn't working out, she went to plan B: She unlocked the car door, opened it and jumped out of a speeding vehicle in the middle of a freeway. As a general rule, if you do that and the impact doesn't kill you, the other cars probably will [[it was nighttime by now, by the way).

Birdsong survived the fall, coming to a stop at the end of a ditch. Injured and bloodied, she got up and did her third crazy thing in less than a minute: She headed back to the freeway and started running in the opposite direction of the cars, determined to make it as hard as possible for Collier to circle back and collect her. She waved at the coming cars, but none of them stopped once they got a close enough look to see she that wasn't Diana Ross. Luckily, two highway patrolmen happened to be passing by, and they sort of have to stop in these situations.

After all that, Birdsong was only treated for minor cuts and bruises. Figuring she had to be some sort of supernatural being for walking away from that, the kidnapper turned himself in a few days later

Read more: 6 Brilliant Ways Hostages Outwitted Their Captors | Cracked.com 6 Brilliant Ways Hostages Outwitted Their Captors | Cracked.com

[smark21]

What a dickish attempt at "humor". Why did this need to be posted here? We have new rules. Looks like a Diana Ross fan is trying to find a way around the new rules. Between this and Bokiluis' way of writing marywilson it looks like a couple of Diana Ross fans are trying to find ways to circumvent the new rules. Ralph could you please send warnings to David J and bokiluis about the new code of conduct here so that peace can be maintained?

[longtimefan]

I agree with smark. Additionally, there is nothing humorous about violence against women.

[Lulu]

What a dickish attempt at "humor". Why did this need to be posted here? We have new rules. Looks like a Diana Ross fan is trying to find a way around the new rules. Between this and Bokiluis' way of writing marywilson it looks like a couple of Diana Ross fans are trying to find ways to circumvent the new rules. Ralph could you please send warnings to David J and bokiluis about the new code of conduct here so that peace can be maintained?

Unfortunately, it's snuck back in from all sides. I won't even bother naming names but yeah, it needs to stop.

[LadyLola]

I agree with smark. Additionally, there is nothing humorous about violence against women.

I agree. This is repulsive.

[Jimi LaLumia]

kick them off if they're starting in..and that means ALL!!

[franjoy56]

Unfortunately, it's snuck back in from all sides. I won't even bother naming names but yeah, it needs to stop.

Cindy was the most gracious of all the supremes now this peace be still in the name of love

[stephanie]

I dont find this to be funny either BUT it is no reason to ban anyone. Evidently it came from another source, it is not a dig at Diana Ross [[well one sentence may be) and for those who have no sensitivity they may find it funny. It is talking about a singing group that is from Detroit so its not like its off topic and belonging in the clubhouse. All I am saying is maybe a warning [[and I dont even know if this would garner that nobody is slandering anyone on the board and getting into petty arguments over this) but not a banning.

[144man]

That link comes from Cracked magazine and is just one of a list of strange kidnappings. I'm not familiar with the magazine, but I suspect it's just an example of the sort of article they normally run. In reality, is it that much worse than a Mad Magazine spoof?

I think I detect a whiff of paranoia here. If people have to worry about over-reaction to every triviality, the forum will become unpleasant once again.

[supremester]

Where is the humor? Is this an attempt at humor? What has this got to do with Diana Ross fans and new rules? Is this a joke?

What a dickish attempt at "humor". Why did this need to be posted here? We have new rules. Looks like a Diana Ross fan is trying to find a way around the new rules. Between this and Bokiluis' way of writing marywilson it looks like a couple of Diana Ross fans are trying to find ways to circumvent the new rules. Ralph could you please send warnings to David J and bokiluis about the new code of conduct here so that peace can be maintained?

[supremester]

I don't believe the article was intended to make fun of women, kidnapping or anything of the sort. The poster, in the title, references the shade - totally from an outside source - and reflects the thinking of a lot of the public perception of the group. SO what? THIS is offensive? Where, exactly? What am I bolivious to?

[Methuselah2]

I hope "The New Deal" that Ralph has recently adopted can have one addition to it. And that would be:

"Any complaints about a thread, posting, or SDF member be sent via SDF personal email directly to ralpht only.

Such complaints are not to appear in any threads within the Forum."

I think this would help eliminate the finger-pointing and whistle-blowing that seems to be gaining momentum and may only end up creating further factions within the Forum.

[144man]

I hope "The New Deal" that Ralph has recently adopted can have one addition to it. And that would be:

"Any complaints about a thread, posting, or SDF member be sent via SDF personal email directly to ralpht only.

Such complaints are not to appear in any threads within the Forum."

I think this would help eliminate the finger-pointing and whistle-blowing that seems to be gaining momentum and may only end up creating further factions within the Forum.

Wouldn't that mean everyone's going to end up looking over their shoulder? I think my post #9 above is a fair comment, but anyone could take objection to it. Does Ralph want all the extra work?

[Methuselah2]

I don't think so, 144man. It's merely setting up a method to voice a complaint. People obviously want to be able to do it, and this would seem to be the most direct way to do it. And Ralph is clearly the only person here to address such complaints and actually deal with them. Using threads and postings to do it doesn't appear to be working from what I've been able to see. And I find these complaints very similar in nature and in tone to the very postings that necessitated The New Deal itself.

Objecting to, disagreeing, or finding fault with a thread or posting is not a problem--I'm not taking issue with personal opinions. But voicing a complaint that calls for the removal of the poster seems way outside the scope of the threads' discussions.

And, in the long-run, an SDF personal email to Ralph about it should actually simplify things for Ralph by keeping it between the appropriate parties. At least that's what I would hope. The shortest distance between two points is always a straight line.

[144man]

This is so difficult, Methusaleh. Some people will say this thread should exist, other people will say it shouldn't. Personally I'm not sure. Do we even have a right to be offended on Cindy Birdsong's behalf? It just seems strange to wait for Ralph's intervention. The subject matter is in the public domain. If those who did not like the thread had just ignored it, it would have died a natural death in a couple of days anyway.

If members disagree, why can't they just have a normal conversation with each other [[possibly through the messaging system) just like you and I are having right now?

[144man]

...Objecting to, disagreeing, or finding fault with a thread or posting is not a problem--I'm not taking issue with personal opinions. But voicing a complaint that calls for the removal of the poster seems way outside the scope of the threads' discussions...

On that I am in 100% agreement.

[Methuselah2]

This is so difficult, Methusaleh. Some people will say this thread should exist, other people will say it shouldn't. Personally I'm not sure. Do we even have a right to be offended on Cindy Birdsong's behalf? It just seems strange to wait for Ralph's intervention. The subject matter is in the public domain. If those who did not like the thread had just ignored it, it would have died a natural death in a couple of days anyway.

If members disagree, why can't they just have a normal conversation with each other [[possibly through the messaging system) just like you and I are having right now?

Of course you're right, 144man. Being able to discuss this between us is both helpful and enjoyable. But we are aware that we're on a open forum, and we know that things that start out small can get huge very fast. And problematic. For me, a complaint that calls for some action to be taken against a member needs careful handling. And I'm convinced such a complaint like that requires an audience of only one--the person in charge, Ralph, and whether I agree with him or not.

The article that this thread was started for is a difficult one for me. I found it unpleasant, unfunny, and unnecessary. By only its writer. Not by its poster here.

[144man]

Of course you're right, 144man. Being able to discuss this between us is both helpful and enjoyable. But we are aware that we're on a open forum, and we know that things that start out small can get huge very fast. And problematic. For me, a complaint that calls for some action to be taken against a member needs careful handling. And I'm convinced such a complaint like that requires an audience of only one--the person in charge, Ralph, and whether I agree with him or not.

The article that this thread was started for is a difficult one for me. I found it unpleasant, unfunny, and unnecessary. By only its writer. Not by its poster here.

In that case, I have come to the conclusion that it is right for that article be posted here so that members can be made aware of it and show their disapproval against the article, not the writer [Don't shoot the messenger.], and also to have the opportunity to go back to the original source of the article and show their disapproval there as well.

[Jimi LaLumia]

so if someone were to post a racist article attacking Motown artists, it would be ok to post it here since the poster didn't write it but just wanted to share.. or for that matter if someone were to post an article that pits one Motown artist against another in very unflattering language, but they just post it without being the writer, that would be ok?...sounds like the can of worms opening to me, just as things had become pleasant here..

[Methuselah2]

Jimi - For me, the answer is Yes. I don't endorse such articles but I do endorse a member having a choice to post them. And I'd want to know about such articles being published.

The title of such a thread should mention the racism element to alert members as to the nature of the article. The thread can then be bypassed by those who choose to do so.

[detmotownguy]

What a dickish attempt at "humor". Why did this need to be posted here? We have new rules. Looks like a Diana Ross fan is trying to find a way around the new rules. Between this and Bokiluis' way of writing marywilson it looks like a couple of Diana Ross fans are trying to find ways to circumvent the new rules. Ralph could you please send warnings to David J and bokiluis about the new code of conduct here so that peace can be maintained?

Smark, your comments mirror my interpretation of the motivation behind the posting. How childish considering the new rules. Unfortunately, some people never become fully developed adults.

[ralpht]

Damn, this is getting out of hand.

First of all, I see no problem with the original post that seems to have caused this unnecessary uproar. I didn't see any attempt at all of any kind of humor, but simply a post of interest to some of an unfortunate incident that happened many years ago. Give it a rest now.

[Lulu]

Damn, this is getting out of hand.

First of all, I see no problem with the original post that seems to have caused this unnecessary uproar. I didn't see any attempt at all of any kind of humor, but simply a post of interest to some of an unfortunate incident that happened many years ago. Give it a rest now.

Agree. Look, what the author said ain't exactly groundbreaking news to any of us. My parents bought me More Hits by The Supremes and still get Mary Wilson confused with Mary Wells. As for the revolving door, well there were a lot of members in the 70s. I don't think he was being shady or offensive. If you took it that way, that's on you and you should take out your frustration on him - not The Supremes or anyone here at SDF.

[marymary]

I agree that if you dislike something to send a note outside of the thread about it, otherwise you are bumping the supposedly problematic material to the top, which is supposedly what you wouldn't want. I really hope people don't take these rules as license to whine and tattle like children.

Cracked is a very well known humor site, and besides a couple of jokes about the lineup changes there was no humor derived from the violence; in fact they seemed to hold Cindy's courage in high regard, especially since the article was called "Brilliant Ways Hostages Outwitted Their Captors". I had heard about this kidnapping before of course but I wasn't familiar with the details and I came away very impressed with Cindy's presence of mind and bravery. That some people are fixating on the Diana references is telling [[about them, not the article).

[Roberta75]

Damn, this is getting out of hand.

First of all, I see no problem with the original post that seems to have caused this unnecessary uproar. I didn't see any attempt at all of any kind of humor, but simply a post of interest to some of an unfortunate incident that happened many years ago. Give it a rest now.

Thank the good Lord you step dear Ralph cause ive been setting back just shaking my head at where this thread is going,

Fondly,

Roberta

[TheMotownManiac]

It is within your right to voice objection to a post or comment. Using terminology such as dickish, childish or suggesting others are not developed adults are contrary to the new rules. Do you see where you might have found a more pleasant way to voice your concern? I could use negative adjectives here to express my opinions but am trying to respect the new rules, which I appreciate, and am striving to be objective about my own involvement. I am aware I was part of the problem in the past and vow to not be ever again.

Smark, your comments mirror my interpretation of the motivation behind the posting. How childish considering the new rules. Unfortunately, some people never become fully developed adults.

[ralpht]

Good post MotownManic. It all seems so simple. Have we taken this far enough now?

[captainjames]

Cindy was truly blessed and a heroine after this. I think I first heard from JET about the incident and then began my detective work as to why Cindy Birdsong.

[marymary]

Cindy was truly blessed and a heroine after this. I think I first heard from JET about the incident and then began my detective work as to why Cindy Birdsong.

Did you find anything anything out? It has been discussed here in the past and there were some rumblings about motivations behind it but nothing concrete that I can recall.