Happy Christmas -- If You Want It
RichL
Apparently we don't want it badly enough. Too many unnecessary deaths,
too much attempting to force nations to recreate themselves in our
image.
The threshold for "legalized" killing of innocents has simply become too
low. That includes the present administration in the US, which has
unfortunately bought into the sham that somehow we make ourselves more
"secure" by attacking others who have not provoked us.
"An eye for an eye will make us all blind" -- Mahatma Gandhi
We can change it, if enough of us want it badly enough.
Lennon's message is simple, naive, and as urgent as it was almost 40
years ago.
LookingGlass
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Kw2DF82VIk
>
> Lennon's message is simple, naive, and as urgent as it was almost 40
> years ago.
Peace on earth, and goodwill towards all. ALL...!!!
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
I've been on Earth, 62 going on 63 years. I don't believe there ever
was nor will there ever be peace. Leaving high school and ordered
through a pleasant "Greetings", I was taught how to shoot for a kill.
I still don't know why.
Of course as long as there are folks like Cheney...peace will never
stand a chance.
Merry Christmas to you Rich.
RichL
> On Dec 24, 7:21?pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Kw2DF82VIk
>>
>> deaths, too much attempting to force nations to recreate themselves
>> in our image.
>>
>> The threshold for "legalized" killing of innocents has simply become
>> has unfortunately bought into the sham that somehow we make
>> ourselves more "secure" by attacking others who have not provoked us.
>>
>> "An eye for an eye will make us all blind" -- Mahatma Gandhi
>>
>> We can change it, if enough of us want it badly enough.
>>
>> Lennon's message is simple, naive, and as urgent as it was almost 40
>> years ago.
>
> I've been on Earth, 62 going on 63 years. I don't believe there ever
> was nor will there ever be peace. Leaving high school and ordered
> through a pleasant "Greetings", I was taught how to shoot for a kill.
> I still don't know why.
>
> Of course as long as there are folks like Cheney...peace will never
> stand a chance.
>
> Merry Christmas to you Rich.
I refuse to give up hope.
Merry Christmas to you too!
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
>
> - Show quoted text -
I do try Rich...seems so unreachable.
Yoko's blog today...as you, she refuses to give up hope:
Fattuchus
Sad to say I agree with you. There are millions of Islamofascists.
There will never be peace unless that religion goes through massive
change.
>
> Yoko's blog today...as you, she refuses to give up hope:
>
> blogs.myspace.com/officialyokoono-
She's about as relevant as a Hallmark card. Her inane wishes for
peace gets her publicity. That's her main motive: fame and attention.
RichL
You can't hold back for one day, can you?
Ever consider the possibility that she believes what she's saying?
Especially considering that her message has been pretty consistent for
40+ years?
Fattuchus
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'd like to respond, but I'll bite my tongue for now. After all it's
Christmas.
Crisstti
At least as long as people like him are on positions of power.
Marry Christmas to all you.
> Merry Christmas to you Rich.- Hide quoted text -
RichL
And to you, too!
The Walrus was Danny
> What a bitter, hateful little woman you are. Right, let's attack Yoko
> because she wishes for world peace.
I don't think she does wish for world peace..I think it's a groove
she's hung on to since 1969 and keeps running with it because:
a) It's hard to argue that somebody is horrible when they wish for
world peace
b) It get's her yet more publicity and in turn fame
c) ..and in turn means she remains in the public eye and therefore
might make money from selling diabolical product
Danny
who?
> Fattuchus, spending Christmas morning digging at Yoko:
>
> > > Yoko's blog today...as you, she refuses to give up hope:
>
> > > blogs.myspace.com/officialyokoono-
>
> > She's about as relevant as a Hallmark card. Her inane wishes for
> > peace gets her publicity. That's her main motive: fame and attention.
>
> and she certainly has backed up her words with plenty of time, energy
> and money.
> What a bitter, hateful little woman you are. Right, let's attack Yoko
> because she wishes for world peace. Anything can be twisted into
> something for you to pettily cluck about.
I'm only going to say this once: Fatts is just an ordinary person.
Who gives a flying fuck what she does/doesn't say in this
forum? She is made out to be so important in this place.
With your intelligence...you could be making a million
dollars....doing plenty of things...besides discussing the
topic of posters here. I would hire you to be my lawyer
anytime. Basically, all I'm trying to say is, I have
absolutely nothing against you, PR, except that it makes me
sick to see people as intelligent as you...waste your
time, and your life. I'm trying to give you a compliment.
I said the same thing to Trish, cause there is no
money to be made here.
Merry Chrismas, PR, and no offense intended on my
end. I just don't "get it" that's all.
Jeff
The Walrus was Danny
> You're still #3...no need to work at it.
Can I blame YO for stealing away ten years of my very life without me
realising it, whilst at the same time making me fat and
undesirable....I wish I could, but I can't...there must be some way to
blame her.
Danny
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
> BLACKPOOLJIMMY wrote:
> > On Dec 24, 7:21�pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Kw2DF82VIk
>
> deaths,
> >> too much attempting to force nations to recreate themselves in our
> >> image.
>
> >> The threshold for "legalized" killing of innocents has simply
> become too
> >> unfortunately bought into the sham that somehow we make ourselves
> more
> >> "secure" by attacking others who have not provoked us.
>
> >> "An eye for an eye will make us all blind" -- Mahatma Gandhi
>
> >> We can change it, if enough of us want it badly enough.
>
> >> Lennon's message is simple, naive, and as urgent as it was almost 40
> >> years ago.
>
> > I've been on Earth, 62 going on 63 years. I don't believe there ever
> > was nor will there ever be peace. Leaving high school and ordered
> > through a pleasant "Greetings", I was taught how to shoot for a kill.
> > I still don't know why.
>
> > Of course as long as there are folks like Cheney...peace will never
> > stand a chance.
>
> islamofascists will feel free to attack this great country. Cause
> douchebag idiots like you hate it as much as they do.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
DC, you're so silly. The only attacks you understand is a ripe fart.
Grow up, little one.
Fattuchus
> Fattuchus, spending Christmas morning digging at Yoko:
>
>
> > > blogs.myspace.com/officialyokoono-
>
> > She's about as relevant as a Hallmark card. Her inane wishes for
> > peace gets her publicity. That's her main motive: fame and attention.
>
> and she certainly has backed up her words with plenty of time, energy
> and money.
Yoko herself said you have to spend money to make money.
She's a shrewd businesswoman. She keeps herself in the news.
Fattuchus
wrote:
Absolutely. I'm glad someone else can see it.
And, BTW, her so called interest in world peace came about only after
she became seriously involved with John. I read an interview where
Yoko herself said that John taught her to love someone other than
herself. She said so herself.
who?
Well, it's the truth: You have to have money to make a lot of
money.
AllaBest
> Ever consider the possibility that she believes what she's saying?
> Especially considering that her message has been pretty consistent for
> 40+ years?
Jesus said it better 2000 years ago.
The Be - Attitudes!
Beatitudes
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they
shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of
righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely
say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.
Dale Houstman
> On Dec 25, 9:09 am, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Ever consider the possibility that she believes what she's saying?
>> Especially considering that her message has been pretty consistent for
>> 40+ years?
>
> Jesus said it better 2000 years ago.
>
Jesus had better writers, and a few wicked PR agents...
dmh
Fattuchus
> Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > Yoko's blog today...as you, she refuses to give up hope:
>
> > > > > blogs.myspace.com/officialyokoono-
>
> > > > She's about as relevant as a Hallmark card. Her inane wishes for
> > > > peace gets her publicity. That's her main motive: fame and attention.
> > And, BTW, her so called interest in world peace came about only after
> > she became seriously involved with John.
>
> Aww, you mean Yoko has only been pushing for world peace since 1968?
> Only 42 years? What a slacker. If she REALLY wants to do some good for
> the world, she should follow your example and just give lip service to
> world peace in a Usenet thread one Christmas afternoon.
>
> Meanwhile, it may just be that Yoko became a lot more interested in
> world peace when she realized she had gained the international clout to
> make a real difference. And how long do you think *John* had been
> interested in world peace? Since, what, maybe the year before? How much
> time do you think *this* guy spent contemplating Vietnam?http://www.catanna.com/hardjohn2.jpg
John (and the other Beatles) were concerned about Vietnam since about
1965 or 1966 (or before). You may wish to read Larry Kane's wonderful
books Ticket to Ride and Lennon Revealed.
I've seen transcripts of Beatle press conferences when they toured the
US in 1965 or 1966 where they criticized the war. They were not as
vocal as they wanted to be because Brian Epstein did not want them to
discuss such controversies. He was afraid it would bad for business.
Fattuchus
> Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > Yoko's blog today...as you, she refuses to give up hope:
>
> > > > > blogs.myspace.com/officialyokoono-
>
> > > > She's about as relevant as a Hallmark card. Her inane wishes for
> > > > peace gets her publicity. That's her main motive: fame and attention.
>
> Meanwhile, it may just be that Yoko became a lot more interested in
> world peace when she realized she had gained the international clout to
> make a real difference. And how long do you think *John* had been
> interested in world peace? Since, what, maybe the year before? How much
> time do you think *this* guy spent contemplating Vietnam?http://www.catanna.com/hardjohn2.jpg
Here's one link re the Beatles and Vietnam:
http://www.beatlesinterviews.org/db66.html
Here is another:
http://www.beatlesinterviews.org/db1966.0822.beatles.html
Here are comments by George and John on war (1966)
Q: "Would any of you care to comment on any aspect of the war in
Vietnam?"
JOHN: "We don't like it."
Q: "Could you elaborate any?"
JOHN: "No. I've elaborated enough, you know. We just don't like it. We
don't like war."
GEORGE: "It's, you know... It's just war is wrong, and it's obvious
it's wrong. And that's all that needs to be said about it."
Mack A. Damia
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>She's about as relevant as a Hallmark card. Her inane wishes for
>peace gets her publicity. That's her main motive: fame and attention.
Vanity is a motive of immense potency. Anyone who has much to do with
children knows how they are constantly performing some antic, and
saying �Look at me�. �Look at me� is one of the most fundamental
desires of the human heart. It can take innumerable forms, from
buffoonery to the pursuit of posthumous fame. There was a Renaissance
Italian princeling who was asked by the priest on his deathbed if he
had anything to repent of. �Yes�, he said, �there is one thing. On one
occasion I had a visit from the Emperor and the Pope simultaneously. I
took them to the top of my tower to see the view, and I neglected the
opportunity to throw them both down, which would have given me
immortal fame�. History does not relate whether the priest gave him
absolution. One of the troubles about vanity is that it grows with
what it feeds on. The more you are talked about, the more you will
wish to be talked about. The condemned murderer who is allowed to see
the account of his trial in the press is indignant if he finds a
newspaper which has reported it inadequately. And the more he finds
about himself in other newspapers, the more indignant he will be with
the one whose reports are meagre. Politicians and literary men are in
the same case. And the more famous they become, the more difficult the
press-cutting agency finds it to satisfy them. It is scarcely possible
to exaggerate the influence of vanity throughout the range of human
life, from the child of three to the potentate at whose frown the
world trembles. Mankind have even committed the impiety of attributing
similar desires to the Deity, whom they imagine avid for continual
praise.
Bertrand Russell's Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1950.
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/_p2/russell-lecture.html
Read it, and your life will be enriched.
AllaBest
That so is so true and so wonderfully funny!
Good ones, Dale!
AllaBest
> There was a Renaissance Italian princeling who was asked by the priest on his deathbed if he
> had anything to repent of. “Yes”, he said, “there is one thing. On one
> occasion I had a visit from the Emperor and the Pope simultaneously. I
> took them to the top of my tower to see the view, and I neglected the
> opportunity to throw them both down, which would have given me
> immortal fame”.
I think this Renaissance Italian princeling must have been
reincarnated (and finally successful) into the body of the woman here
in the red shirt!
RichL
Well I happen to agree, Jesus said it very well indeed.
It's too bad that most of Christianity doesn't focus more clearly on his
own words as opposed to those who came later to "interpret" him.
Crisstti
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 02:01:50 -0800 (PST), Fattuchus
>
Interesting, thanks for posting.
Mack A. Damia
"Nothing in America is so painful to the traveller as the lack of joy.
Pleasure is frantic and bacchanalian, a matter of momentary oblivion,
not of delighted self-expression. Men whose grandfathers danced to
the music of the pipes in Balkan or Polish villages sit throughout the
day glued to their desks, amid typewriters and telephones, serious,
important and worthless. Escaping in the evening to drink and a new
kind of noise, they imagine that they are finding happiness, whereas
they are finding only a frenzied and incomplete oblivion of the
hopeless routine of money that breeds money, using for the purpose the
bodies of human beings whose souls have been born into slavery."
Bertrand Russell, "The Place of Sex Among Human Values", *Marriage and
Morals*, London: 1929.
Dale Houstman
I used His writers, but His PR agents said they didn't want to strand
their careers on the rock simply because they took on a preternaturally
unlikeable client.
dmh
Fattuchus
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 02:01:50 -0800 (PST), Fattuchus
>
Great quote. And yes, I think it describes Yoko. I believe it was Bob
Gruen who mentioned that Yoko once showed him a file she kept of
newspaper clippings which reviewed her art. He commented to her
something like, "But these are bad reviews." and she responded
something to the effect that at least she got a review or that at
least she got the attention.
That's one of the things I find so annoying. For her, it didn't
matter that she dragged John's career down. If John was giving a
concert, she had to perform with him, even if the audience didn't want
to hear her, even if they booed or thought she was awful. She was
going to force herself on John fans and on Beatles fans because of the
simple fact she wanted the attention, and being married to John gave
her the opportunity.
abe slaney
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Fattuchus
Yeah, that sums up the reaction of much of the audience to Yoko's
performance at the One to One Concert. . . . . assuming they weren't
booing, laughing or ignoring her.
who?
Why would that annoy you? I've put songs I've written in
youtube, and the most I've gotten is 2 and a half stars
for one song. I really don't give a damn. I put songs
I've wriiten in youtube that I like, and if other people
don't like them, it's fine with me. So my question
to you is: Would you find it just as annoying to
you for my efforts...and you do Yoko's, and if
you do.....why is it that care at all? Why is she
so important to you to constantly put down?
The thing is, I questioned PR the other other
day of why he feels the need to constantly
put you down, and maybe the reason is, he
wants to treat you, like you talk about Yoko?
So, does it feel good to keep up on the
subject of Yoko? Is it worth it? I think I'm right.
For her, it didn't
> matter that she dragged John's career down.
Bullshit.
If John was giving a
> concert, she had to perform with him, even if the audience didn't want
> to hear her, even if they booed or thought she was awful. She was
> going to force herself on John fans and on Beatles fans because of the
> simple fact she wanted the attention, and being married to John gave
> her the opportunity.
No, it was because John wanted her to perform. He could have said
no way.
Jeff
Fattuchus
> On Dec 27, 2:31 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Great quote. And yes, I think it describes Yoko. I believe it was Bob
> > Gruen who mentioned that Yoko once showed him a file she kept of
> > newspaper clippings which reviewed her art. He commented to her
> > something like, "But these are bad reviews." and she responded
> > something to the effect that at least she got a review or that at
> > least she got the attention.
>
> > That's one of the things I find so annoying.
>
> Why would that annoy you? I've put songs I've written in
> youtube, and the most I've gotten is 2 and a half stars
> for one song. I really don't give a damn. I put songs
> I've wriiten in youtube that I like, and if other people
> don't like them, it's fine with me. So my question
> to you is: Would you find it just as annoying to
> you for my efforts...and you do Yoko's, and if
> you do.....why is it that care at all?
The reason why it is annoying is because I'm a Lennon fan and a
Beatles fan, as you can see from my posts here. When I go to a Lennon
concert, I want to see and hear Lennon. I'm not interesting in
listening to Yoko screech, talk, roll around in a bag, etc. And Yoko
insisted that things be 50/50 . . . She wasn't just an opening act.
When John would release a new album, I'd be interested in it and buy
it . . . I'd want to hear and listen to John. I wasn't interested in
listening to Yoko. When I bought Double Fantasy, I wanted John's
music. Yoko knew that, so she nagged John and Jack Douglas first to
get on the album, and secondly to make sure that her songs were
alternated with John's. If you read different reviews about Double
Fantasy and the comments many readers made, their comments are similar
to mine. They were very annoyed that they were forced to listen to her
crap singing.
When I buy a book about John, I want it to be about John, not
JohnandYoko.
If you put something on youtube, that's great. That is what youtube is
for . . . . for people to share. But I'm not forced to listen to
something from youtube. I'm not paying money to listen to youtube.
Why is she
> so important to you to constantly put down?
> The thing is, I questioned PR the other other
> day of why he feels the need to constantly
> put you down, and maybe the reason is, he
> wants to treat you, like you talk about Yoko?
C'mon Jeff. You know that PR has put many many people down in this
group. It has nothing to do with Yoko.
> So, does it feel good to keep up on the
> subject of Yoko? Is it worth it? I think I'm right.
>
> For her, it didn't
>
> > matter that she dragged John's career down.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> If John was giving a
>
> > concert, she had to perform with him, even if the audience didn't want
> > to hear her, even if they booed or thought she was awful. She was
> > going to force herself on John fans and on Beatles fans because of the
> > simple fact she wanted the attention, and being married to John gave
> > her the opportunity.
>
> No, it was because John wanted her to perform. He could have said
> no way.
>
> Jeff-
I'm not so sure about that. I don't think it was as easy as you say.
First, John was emotionally a weak guy. He was like putty in Yoko's
hands. Secondly, it was a one sided relationship. Yoko was not
thrilled about being married to John. She did him a favor. Yoko's
main interest was and probably always will be promoting herself and
her career. John knew that if he wanted to keep Yoko happy in the
marriage, he had to promote her. IMO it was one of the basis of their
whole relationship . . . making Yoko famous.
One day you may want to read May Pang's book and the new Norman bio.
And remember, when Yoko's career did not go well, what did she do? She
threw John out of the house. She said so in her Playboy interview.
Yoko wasn't really interested in him. I think John knew that, but he
loved her and wanted to stay in her good graces, so he did what she
wanted, even if it meant he played the fool.
who?
I'll have to respond to this post tomorrow. Have a good night.
Jeff
Mack A. Damia
You've missed the point entirely.
On purpose?
Mack A. Damia
Ponder this question: How are you expressing your vanity?
RichL
You're not forced to buy albums that have Yoko Ono on them or books
about John and Yoko, either.
Jeff
I responded to your entire post, but it said my posting session was
over, so I tried
logging in to this handle, and in the process, lost my entire response
to your
post. I'm not about to write it all over again.
Jeff
Fattuchus
It is a very long article. I don't think I missed the point. Care
to explain it?
>
> On purpose?-
Er, no.
Here is one fascinating quote from the article:
"Much that passes as idealism is disguised hatred or disguised love of
power. "
I think that applies . . . . .
Fattuchus
I didn't know I was expressing any vanity.
Your question ASSUMES so.
Fattuchus
In a sense I am, in some instances. When Double Fantasy was newly
released, if I wanted to buy the first Lennon album that he released
in about 5 years, I had to suffer through Yoko's crap singing.
Nowadays it's not so bad because we have CD's and modern technology,
but in the days of records, it was a problem.
A couple of years ago I bought what I thought would be a great book,
Memories of John. It was called Memories of John, the summary
suggested it was Memories of John. When I read it, I realized much of
the book had no memories of John because the people making comments
did not know John or weren't even born when John was alive. It became
evident that the book was largely a vanity project by Ms. Ono.
Fattuchus
> RichL wrote:
> >It's too bad that most of Christianity doesn't focus more clearly on
> >his own words as opposed to those who came later to "interpret" him.
>
> Islam as fast as you do Christianity.
I happen to agree with some of the political views you express . . . .
but the way you express yourself is something else. Do you think you
can say the same thing but in a civil way? Thanks.
For example, like you, I do find it disheartening that some people
here are quick to condemn Christianity yet he or she will bristle if
someone criticizes Islam. I don't get it.
Another Muslim fundamentalist just tried to blow up a plane . . . this
one in Detroit. All in the name of Islam.
I am sitting here shaking my head.
Mack A. Damia
We all express vanity, m'dear. Even the humblest of people complete
to see who can be the most humblest.
Yoko does it her way; how do YOU express your vanity?
(Hint: Many of us in here already know the answer)
Mack A. Damia
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I think that applies . . . . .
Again, Russell names several universal motives for humankind.
Acquisitiveness and power are just two of them; vanity is another.
AllaBest
> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Mercutio: O, then, I see Queen Mab hath been with you.
She is the fairies' midwife, and she comes
In shape no bigger than an agate-stone
On the fore-finger of an alderman,
Drawn with a team of little atomies
Athwart men's noses as they lie asleep;
Her waggon-spokes made of long spinners' legs,
The cover of the wings of grasshoppers,
The traces of the smallest spider's web,
The collars of the moonshine's watery beams,
Her whip of cricket's bone, the lash of film,
Her waggoner a small grey-coated gnat,
Not so big as a round little worm
Prick'd from the lazy finger of a maid;
Her chariot is an empty hazel-nut
Made by the joiner squirrel or old grub,
Time out o' mind the fairies' coachmakers.
And in this state she gallops night by night
Through lovers' brains, and then they dream of love;
O'er courtiers' knees, that dream on court'sies straight,
O'er lawyers' fingers, who straight dream on fees,
O'er ladies' lips, who straight on kisses dream,
Which oft the angry Mab with blisters plagues,
Because their breaths with sweetmeats tainted are:
Sometime she gallops o'er a courtier's nose,
And then dreams he of smelling out a suit;
And sometime comes she with a tithe-pig's tail
Tickling a parson's nose as a' lies asleep,
Then dreams, he of another benefice:
Sometime she driveth o'er a soldier's neck,
And then dreams he of cutting foreign throats,
Of breaches, ambuscadoes, Spanish blades,
Of healths five-fathom deep; and then anon
Drums in his ear, at which he starts and wakes,
And being thus frighted, swears a prayer or two
And sleeps again. This is that very Mab
That plats the manes of horses in the night,
And bakes the elflocks in foul sluttish hairs,
Which once untangled much misfortune bodes:
This is the hag, when maids lie on their backs,
That presses them and learns them first to bear,
Making them women of good carriage:
This is she--
Romeo: Peace, peace, Mercutio, peace!
Thou talk'st of nothing.
AllaBest
> Why would that annoy you? I've put songs I've written in
> youtube, and the most I've gotten is 2 and a half stars
> for one song. I really don't give a damn. I put songs
> I've wriiten in youtube that I like, and if other people
> don't like them, it's fine with me. So my question
> to you is: Would you find it just as annoying to
> you for my efforts...and you do Yoko's, and if
> you do.....why is it that care at all? Why is she
> so important to you to constantly put down?
ABRAHAM
Do you bite your thumb at us, sir?
SAMPSON
I do bite my thumb, sir.
ABRAHAM
Do you bite your thumb at us, sir?
SAMPSON
[Aside to GREGORY] Is the law of our side, if I say
ay?
GREGORY
No.
SAMPSON
No, sir, I do not bite my thumb at you, sir, but I
bite my thumb, sir.
GREGORY
Do you quarrel, sir?
ABRAHAM
Quarrel sir! no, sir.
SAMPSON
If you do, sir, I am for you: I serve as good a man as you.
ABRAHAM
No better.
SAMPSON
Well, sir.
GREGORY
Say 'better:' here comes one of my master's kinsmen.
SAMPSON
Yes, better, sir.
ABRAHAM
You lie.
SAMPSON
Draw, if you be men. Gregory, remember thy swashing blow.
AllaBest
Fattuchus
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:32:43 -0800 (PST), Fattuchus
>
>
>
>
>
I don't see things that way. That's an interesting concept . . . that
we all express vanity.
People often express opinions; they express interests; people express
feelings and many different things. But vanity?
>
> Yoko does it her way; how do YOU express your vanity?
>
> (Hint: Many of us in here already know the answer)-
I don't know the answer. Sorry.
Someone else brought up Yoko in this thread, and I responded. Am I
not allowed to respond? And if I do,
do I have to like what she does? It seems there are some people here
who believe I must think the same way they do.
This is a Beatles newsgroup. It seems logical to me that some people
here might discuss Yoko, and that many Beatles fans are not going to
like her much. Frankly, if one is a Beatles fan and is familiar with
Beatles history and some of the things she had done, I'm surprised she
gets as much positive commentary as she does.
Fattuchus
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:32:43 -0800 (PST), Fattuchus
>
>
>
>
>
I glanced through the article . . . . it talks about vanity as a
motive in human nature. Here's a partial quote:
"Vanity is a motive of immense potency. Anyone who has much to do with
children knows how they are constantly performing some antic, and
saying “Look at me”. “Look at me” is one of the most fundamental
desires of the human heart. It can take innumerable forms, from
buffoonery to the pursuit of posthumous fame. There was a Renaissance
Italian princeling who was asked by the priest on his deathbed if he
had anything to repent of. “Yes”, he said, “there is one thing. On one
occasion I had a visit from the Emperor and the Pope simultaneously. I
took them to the top of my tower to see the view, and I neglected the
opportunity to throw them both down, which would have given me
immortal fame”. History does not relate whether the priest gave him
absolution. One of the troubles about vanity is that it grows with
what it feeds on. The more you are talked about, the more you will
wish to be talked about. The condemned murderer who is allowed to see
the account of his trial in the press is indignant if he finds a
newspaper which has reported it inadequately. And the more he finds
about himself in other newspapers, the more indignant he will be with
the one whose reports are meagre. Politicians and literary men are in
the same case. And the more famous they become, the more difficult the
press-cutting agency finds it to satisfy them. . . . . . . . ."
I don't have the time right now to study this article thoroughly.
Kindly point me to the part about EXPRESSING vanity.
And I don't see how I am vain. Sorry.
Mack A. Damia
>This is a Beatles newsgroup. It seems logical to me that some people
>here might discuss Yoko, and that many Beatles fans are not going to
>like her much. Frankly, if one is a Beatles fan and is familiar with
>Beatles history and some of the things she had done, I'm surprised she
>gets as much positive commentary as she does.
How long can your apparent dislike of Yoko be dragged through the mud?
Seems to me that you're milking this thing to get attention.
What difference does it make it the final analysis which is that he
loved her and she loved him?
What is your motove for pursuing an unpopular topic?
I suggest, "vanity".
Fattuchus
> Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The reason why it is annoying is because I'm a Lennon fan and a
> > Beatles fan, as you can see from my posts here.
>
> really hate Muslims, Lennon's widow and Obama's health-care plan. You do
> seem to enjoy the Beatles as an outlet for cheap sexual fantasy, though
> I'm not sure that counts.
If you ever had a sexual fantasy, you would know that it counts. And
sexual fantasies don't have to be cheap.
I guess you never had one, "cheap" or otherwise.
Fattuchus
> >This is a Beatles newsgroup. It seems logical to me that some people
> >here might discuss Yoko, and that many Beatles fans are not going to
> >like her much. Frankly, if one is a Beatles fan and is familiar with
> >Beatles history and some of the things she had done, I'm surprised she
> >gets as much positive commentary as she does.
>
> How long can your apparent dislike of Yoko be dragged through the mud?
> Seems to me that you're milking this thing to get attention.
>
> What difference does it make it the final analysis which is that he
> loved her and she loved him?
I don't believe Yoko really loved John. I believe she loved herself.
She loved the money, the fame, the power, the spotlight. Yoko loved
what she could get out of John.
Yoko herself said that JOhn taught her to love someone else other than
herself.
I'm glad you brought this up. A while back here someone else asked me
why I disliked her? Is it her "music"? Her "art"? Others wondered,
"Why doesn't Fatty criticize Heather Mills so much?" And the answer I
gave then which is still my opinion is that I don't like the way Yoko
treated John. She lied to him, used him, threw him out of the house,
was unhappy being Mrs. Lennon, cheated on him, wanted to abort his
baby, complained that he ruined HER career, etc. Yoko claimed she was
the real composer in the family. She treated John and, to an extent,
the other Beatles, dismissively, as if she were superior and they were
just some stupid boy/toy band.
Then once John died and she realized how much money and fame and
attention she could get being "The Widow," and controlling John's
estate, her schtick changed.
Young fans are not going to know this. They are going to be duped.
That's one of the reasons why I appreciate certain books like the ones
by May Pang and Fred Seaman. They tell it like it is.
>
> What is your motove for pursuing an unpopular topic?
>
> I suggest, "vanity".
Someone else brought up Yoko.
I suggest my motive is "justice" and a desire for people to know "the
truth." I suggest my motive is that I admire and appreciate the
Beatles, and I don't like it when someone treats them like shit. This
is a Beatles newgroup, after all, so I don't think my POV should be
surprising.
Fattuchus
> Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > not allowed to respond? And if I do,
> > do I have to like what she does? It seems there are some people here
> > who believe I must think the same way they do.
>
> > This is a Beatles newsgroup. It seems logical to me that some people
> > here might discuss Yoko, and that many Beatles fans are not going to
> > like her much. Frankly, if one is a Beatles fan and is familiar with
> > Beatles history and some of the things she had done, I'm surprised she
> > gets as much positive commentary as she does.
>
> 200th time. Now, maybe you can get back to clawing at her for being a
> peace activist.
I value Yoko's peace activism as much as I value your peace activism.
Mack A. Damia
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 27, 3:54�pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >This is a Beatles newsgroup. �It seems logical to me that some people
>> >here might discuss Yoko, and that many Beatles fans are not going to
>> >like her much. �Frankly, if one is a Beatles fan and is familiar with
>> >Beatles history and some of the things she had done, I'm surprised she
>> >gets as much positive commentary as she does.
>>
>> How long can your apparent dislike of Yoko be dragged through the mud?
>> Seems to me that you're milking this thing to get attention.
>>
>> What difference does it make it the final analysis which is that he
>> loved her and she loved him?
>
>
>I don't believe Yoko really loved John. I believe she loved herself.
>She loved the money, the fame, the power, the spotlight. Yoko loved
>what she could get out of John.
You don't know that, and you're only guessing. But you drag it through
the mud. You won't shut up about it.
>Yoko herself said that JOhn taught her to love someone else other than
>herself.
Good for John. That doesn't change anything.
>I'm glad you brought this up. A while back here someone else asked me
>why I disliked her? Is it her "music"? Her "art"? Others wondered,
>"Why doesn't Fatty criticize Heather Mills so much?" And the answer I
>gave then which is still my opinion is that I don't like the way Yoko
>treated John. She lied to him, used him, threw him out of the house,
>was unhappy being Mrs. Lennon, cheated on him, wanted to abort his
>baby, complained that he ruined HER career, etc. Yoko claimed she was
>the real composer in the family. She treated John and, to an extent,
>the other Beatles, dismissively, as if she were superior and they were
>just some stupid boy/toy band.
That's only your take, which you have shared with the group hundreds
of times.
>Then once John died and she realized how much money and fame and
>attention she could get being "The Widow," and controlling John's
>estate, her schtick changed.
You're deluding.
>Young fans are not going to know this. They are going to be duped.
Don't be utterly daft, woman. You're embarrassing yourself.
>That's one of the reasons why I appreciate certain books like the ones
>by May Pang and Fred Seaman. They tell it like it is.
They tell it las they see it and nothing more.
>
>>
>> What is your motove for pursuing an unpopular topic?
>>
>> I suggest, "vanity".
>
>
>Someone else brought up Yoko.
And you jumped on it.
>I suggest my motive is "justice" and a desire for people to know "the
>truth." I suggest my motive is that I admire and appreciate the
>Beatles, and I don't like it when someone treats them like shit. This
>is a Beatles newgroup, after all, so I don't think my POV should be
>surprising.
This is a newsgroup about the Beatles. It isn't a newsgroup about John
and Yoko and their relationship or about bashing Yoko, and that's what
you seem to want to make it.
Mack A. Damia
Because you want the center of attention by proposing such ridiculous
theories about stuff you'll never know.
Not only that, but you are obsessed with it - and you are obsessed
with the attention it gets you.
abe slaney
> I don't believe Yoko really loved John. I believe she loved herself.
> She loved the blah blah blah
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Fattuchus
> and attacks, but never hesitate to jump for this sort of lowball jab at
> male adversaries' manhood/virility.
You brought it up.
Fattuchus
It's not merely my take. Yoko herself admitted much of this in her
own interviews. Have you read her Playboy interview or many of her
other interviews?
Plus much of this was reported by insiders . . . people who were
there.
I guess you don't want to believe it.
Fattuchus
So??
And why can't I respond or talk about it?
Fattuchus
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:53:32 -0800 (PST), Fattuchus
>
>
>
>
>
I know what I read in John and Yoko interviews and what insiders have
to say. My "theories" are not ridiculous.
Have you read many books/interviews? If you have, I don't see how you
could come to the conclusion that you do.
I could give you quite a few examples, but I see you are not
interested. If I did, I bet you'd say, "You're obsessed."
>
> Not only that, but you are obsessed with it - and you are obsessed
> with the attention it gets you.-
I am not obsessed, and I am certainly not obsessed with "attention."
Mack A. Damia
I don't really care one way or another, but you sure as hell do.
Why?
Crisstti
> On Dec 26, 4:55 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 02:01:50 -0800 (PST), Fattuchus
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
According to Paul, John had a file or folder where he kept newspaper
cuttings of anything about him.
Fattuchus
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:10:15 -0800 (PST), Fattuchus
>
>
>
>
>
I am Beatle fan and a Lennon fan. I think John was treated very, very
badly. I'll leave it at that.
BTW, over the years, there have been a number of people who have
posted her and/or who read RMB who share my views . . . . many of them
have left. Some are still here.
AllaBest
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:10:15 -0800 (PST), Fattuchus
>
>
>
>
>
Because SHE BROKE UP The Beatles despite what John said at the time!
AND I'll bet Paul and Ringo appreciate someone saying this because
they can't... can they?
Fattuchus
John kept a folder with newspaper cuttings about John or about Paul?
Mack A. Damia
"........in my life, I've loved them all".
Nil
rec.music.beatles:
> I am Beatle fan and a Lennon fan. I think John was treated very,
> very badly. I'll leave it at that.
Yeah, sure you will.
Mack A. Damia
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I know what I read in John and Yoko interviews and what insiders have
>to say. My "theories" are not ridiculous.
They are if you don't move beyond them.
>
>Have you read many books/interviews? If you have, I don't see how you
>could come to the conclusion that you do.
A couple. General stuff about the Group.
>I could give you quite a few examples, but I see you are not
>interested. If I did, I bet you'd say, "You're obsessed."
That you keep bringing this matter up to a group that's really not all
that interested is obsessive.
>> Not only that, but you are obsessed with it - and you are obsessed
>> with the attention it gets you.-
>
>I am not obsessed, and I am certainly not obsessed with "attention."
Then let it drop and move on.
Fattuchus
> Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > to say. My "theories" are not ridiculous.
>
> > Have you read many books/interviews? If you have, I don't see how you
> > could come to the conclusion that you do.
>
> > I could give you quite a few examples
>
> the evidence which supports your hate campaign and pretend the rest
> doesn't exist.
Have you ever been in a serious relationship? Surely you have parents
and/or relatives.
If you had a brother you cared about and he was married to a gal who
threw him out of the house and suggested that he screw other women and
that she screw other men, what would you think? And what if that gal
bragged she threw him out of the house because she was tired of being
"Mrs. So and So" and she thought if she got rid of him, she'd do
better in her career? And what if at some point she became pregnant
with his baby and she told him point blank she was going to have an
abortion unless he quit a job he loved and was successful at, took
care of the baby, and turned over his wealth to her so she could
supposedly run the family business?
And what if the gal encouraged your brother to take heroin?
I could go on and on . . . . . Yes, I know it is ultimately between
your brother and his wife. But if that were my brother, I would never
be convinced that his wife loved him, cared for him, etc. I'd be
convinced that your brother, as good a person as he is, was a sucker
and made a bad mistake.
And if he were, Heaven forbid, shot dead . . . . what if his widow
went around telling the world how much she loved him and how devoted
she was, etc. etc.?
Crisstti
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
About John.
Fattuchus
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:15:44 -0800 (PST), Fattuchus
>
> >I know what I read in John and Yoko interviews and what insiders have
> >to say. My "theories" are not ridiculous.
>
> They are if you don't move beyond them.
>
>
>
> >Have you read many books/interviews? If you have, I don't see how you
> >could come to the conclusion that you do.
>
> A couple. General stuff about the Group.
Well, I appreciate your concession. Thank you.
>
> >I could give you quite a few examples, but I see you are not
> >interested. If I did, I bet you'd say, "You're obsessed."
>
> That you keep bringing this matter up to a group that's really not all
> that interested is obsessive.
There are some people who are interested. They tend to be quiet. But
I do have to agree that most of the vocal people here are not
interested.
It never dawned on me that discussions here have to be a popularity
contest and that unpopular opinions are not allowed. I thought this
was a democracy. Freedom of speech and all that.
How naive of me.
Fattuchus
I see. I don't find it odd that John, a celebrity, would keep a
folder of newspaper clippings and articles about himself. And if Yoko
did the same thing, it would not be odd. But IMO what made her
behavior odd is that according to Bob Gruen, (or whoever the person
who told the story was) she kept a folder which was made up of
critical reviews. These were not flattering. And when Gruen said to
Yoko something like, "But these are all bad reviews" or "These are
all nasty articles" (or whatever the quote was) her response was to
essentially say that at least she got some publicity.
My interpretation is that Yoko acted as if she didn't care whether it
was good or bad, as long as she got some publicity and some media
attention.
Fattuchus
They can't. They have a business relationship to protect.
RichL
John Lennon is not your brother.
What happened between John and Yoko was 30-40 years ago ferchrissakes!
Let it go...you're going to drive yourself insane, if not the rest of
us.
RichL
Oh good God, there she goes with the democracy bullshit again. Next
comes "censorship".
Mack's post has nothing to do with the *popularity* of your views. They
have had periods of popularity on the newsgroup as different people come
and go.
He's talking about your obsession with this, and as you know he's far
from the first person to point it out. It's not healthy *for you* even
if any of it was valid. Let it go *for your own sake*. You don't know
John and never did, you don't know Yoko and never did, regardless of
what you may believe, only a sliver of their private life has been
revealed, and it's been revealed by people who have axes of one sort or
another to grind.
You're becoming like a nutty religious fanatic. Your posts increasingly
revolve around this "truth" that you *must* reveal to those who you
believe are unaware.
Mack A. Damia
Well, yes.
Enough folks are saying "enough", so you might take the hint if you
have any wisdom.
Yoko may have been the iceing on the cake as far as the breakup went,
but they were all tired of the Beatles scene.
But so what? Life goes on.
RichL
>>>> On Dec 27, 2:31 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Great quote. And yes, I think it describes Yoko. I believe it was
>>>>> Bob Gruen who mentioned that Yoko once showed him a file she kept
>>>>> of newspaper clippings which reviewed her art. He commented to her
>>>>> something like, "But these are bad reviews." and she responded
>>>>> something to the effect that at least she got a review or that at
>>>>> least she got the attention.
>>
>>>>> That's one of the things I find so annoying.
>>
>>>> youtube, and the most I've gotten is 2 and a half stars
>>>> for one song. I really don't give a damn. I put songs
>>>> I've wriiten in youtube that I like, and if other people
>>>> don't like them, it's fine with me. So my question
>>>> to you is: Would you find it just as annoying to
>>>> you for my efforts...and you do Yoko's, and if
>>>> you do.....why is it that care at all?
>>
>>> The reason why it is annoying is because I'm a Lennon fan and a
>>> Lennon concert, I want to see and hear Lennon. I'm not interesting
>>> in listening to Yoko screech, talk, roll around in a bag, etc. And
>>> Yoko insisted that things be 50/50 . . . She wasn't just an opening
>>> act.
>>
>>> When John would release a new album, I'd be interested in it and buy
>>> it . . . I'd want to hear and listen to John. I wasn't interested in
>>> listening to Yoko. When I bought Double Fantasy, I wanted John's
>>> music. Yoko knew that, so she nagged John and Jack Douglas first to
>>> get on the album, and secondly to make sure that her songs were
>>> alternated with John's. If you read different reviews about Double
>>> Fantasy and the comments many readers made, their comments are
>>> similar to mine. They were very annoyed that they were forced to
>>> listen to her crap singing.
>>
>>> When I buy a book about John, I want it to be about John, not
>>> JohnandYoko.
>>
>>> If you put something on youtube, that's great. That is what youtube
>>> is for . . . . for people to share. But I'm not forced to listen to
>>> something from youtube. I'm not paying money to listen to youtube.
>>
>> You're not forced to buy albums that have Yoko Ono on them or books
>> about John and Yoko, either.-
>
> In a sense I am, in some instances. When Double Fantasy was newly
> released, if I wanted to buy the first Lennon album that he released
> in about 5 years, I had to suffer through Yoko's crap singing.
No you didn't, you nutty fool. You *chose* to buy the album. You
*chose* to subject yourself to Yoko's wailing.
Your "martyrdom" is revolting and oh, so phony.
The Arranger
I'm swearing off responding to this stuff for the new year. In fact,
I'm starting now.
The Arranger
Mack A. Damia
wrote:
>AllaBest <bip...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Because SHE BROKE UP The Beatles despite what John said at the time!
>
>Oh grow up, you silly man.
I think you are misreading his post. He's being sarcastic.
abe slaney
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:21:53 -0800, poisoned rose <prose1...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >AllaBest <bip_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> Because SHE BROKE UP The Beatles despite what John said at the time!
>
> >Oh grow up, you silly man.
>
> I think you are misreading his post. He's being sarcastic.
No, he's 100% serious.
Mack A. Damia
Not with the follow up sentence:
>AND I'll bet Paul and Ringo appreciate someone saying this because
>they can't... can they?
Doesn't add up. Why can't they? Real answers please, not fantasy.
Regardless, I'm curious how many in the group were alive when they
broke up.
Fattuchus
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:21:53 -0800, poisoned rose <prose1...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >AllaBest <bip_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> Because SHE BROKE UP The Beatles despite what John said at the time!
>
> >Oh grow up, you silly man.
>
> I think you are misreading his post. He's being sarcastic.
Of course he's serious, and there one or two other people here who
have expressed the same view over the years.
who?
Is that your view?
Crisstti
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:58:37 -0800 (PST), abe slaney
>
I'm pretty sure Danny is indeed completely serious.
And the follow up sentence does follow up. They have bussiness
dealings with Yoko all the time. They probably couldn't have issued
the Anthologies without her approval, nor the Love album, nor
anything.
Not saying Paul and Ringo actually think Yoko broke up The Beatles,
but if they do, they'd certainly have good reasons not to say it.