Yoko not manipulative little bitch?
James lean Dean
would say she's a twisted little bitch and people like Lennon's own personal
assistant Fred Seaman who has written a damn good book painting a perfect
picture of Yoko's manipulative ways and John Lennon's lost soul... I'll I
have to ask is why would Julian lie? It is Yoko who is the bizarre one, I
mean you can see how she could be so manipulative. Look at how she raised
her son Sean. They fucking admitted it themselves in interviews saying
they're not GOOD parents, not even OK parents. Of course John was a sucker
for Yoko but that's how manipulation works. She controlled his ass. He
probably thought he was IN love but that's not love, man. If you read his
Playboy interview where he addresses this it's as if he's saying that he's
just in love. Well, people in love don't have affairs and don't manipulate
you, that is if Fred Seaman is telling it like it is.
He was a lost soul and she was using him but maybe I'm wrong. Who knows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Julian Lennon
4th December 2000
A lot of people have phoned and e-mailed me with questions about the
Beatles, and about Dad and what my thoughts are on the 20th anniversary of
his death.
I decided that when the bells rang and the fireworks went off last New
Year's that in the year 2000 I would finally stop talking about Dad and the
Beatles to anyone, except to say that they were a great influence on my life
musically! It's all been said and I have nothing left to offer. I feel that
in the past a lot of people have considered me the book of knowledge on this
subject, which I am certainly not!
I was born, John Charles Julian Lennon on 8th April 1963 and lived with my
biological father, John Lennon, for just a few years. After that I only saw
him a handful of times before he was killed. Sadly, I never really knew the
man. I think that the work he produced was incredible and so was what he
achieved with his three friends, Paul, George and Ringo. But his work hasn't
given me a clear insight into what his real life was about or how he truly
felt about it.
Life is difficult enough. Trying to find one's own identity makes it even
harder, especially when you're not allowed to be you. How are you supposed
to define your own character when all people want from you are answers about
someone else's life, a life that you don't have answers for! I am not John
Lennon, I never will be! I have never lived his life and never will do! Yet
a lot of people believe I have all the answers! Well - I don't! I feel sorry
for all the lost souls out there who have to look outside themselves for the
truth. Everything comes from within, it's just a question of being able to
touch it. You learn from without but you know from within.
I went through a series of love/hate relationships with Dad, whether he was
there or not. I suppose it's much like any other relationship out there,
except ours was public and there for all to see whether I liked it or not.
There was a lot of anger in my life during my teens and twenties, because I
didn't understand what was going on or why things were the way they were. I
had a great deal of anger towards Dad because of his negligence and his
attitude to peace and love. That peace and love never came home to me.
I wonder what it would have been like if he were alive today. I guess it
would have depended on whether he was "John Lennon" (Dad) or "John Ono
Lennon" (manipulated lost soul).
Once I began to look at his life and really understand him, I began to feel
so sorry for him, because once he was a guiding light, a star that shone on
all of us, until he was sucked into a black hole and all of his strength
consumed. Although he was definitely afraid of fatherhood, the combination
of that and his life with Yoko Ono led to the real break down of our
relationship. We did not see each other for extended periods of time and as
the saying goes, out of sight, out of mind! But the Beatles themselves
played no part whatsoever in our demise.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that wherever he is I hope he realises the
mistakes he's made as I realise them and hope never to repeat them, as he
did his father's. I have a brother and I love Sean very much and I hope that
he's able to cope with his destiny. One thing's for sure, he's got a big
brother who will protect him and love him till the end, whatever happens!
Keep your chin up kiddo!
I just hope you do the right thing by Dad! May karma prevail!
And Dad, wherever you are, may your light shine as long as we do!
Julian Lennon
4th December 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1980 Playboy Interview before his death...
PLAYBOY: "How do you feel about all the negative press that's been directed
through the years at Yoko, your 'dragon lady,' as you put it?"
LENNON: "We are both sensitive people and we were hurt a lot by it. I mean,
we couldn't understand it. When you're in love, when somebody says something
like, 'How can you be with that woman?' you say, 'What do you mean? I am
with this goddess of love, the fulfillment of my whole life. Why are you
saying this? Why do you want to throw a rock at her or punish me for being
in love with her?' Our love helped us survive it, but some of it was pretty
violent. There were a few times when we nearly went under, but we managed to
survive and here we are." (looks upward) "Thank you, thank you, thank you."
PLAYBOY: "But what about the charge that John Lennon is under Yoko's spell,
under her control?"
LENNON: "Well, that's rubbish, you know. Nobody controls me. I'm
uncontrollable. The only one who controls me is me, and that's just barely
possible."
PLAYBOY: "Still, many people believe it."
LENNON: "Listen, if somebody's gonna impress me, whether it be a Maharishi
or a Yoko Ono, there comes a point when the emperor has no clothes. There
comes a point when I will see. So for all you folks out there who think that
I'm having the wool pulled over my eyes, well, that's an insult to me. Not
that you think less of Yoko, because that's your problem. What I think of
her is what counts! Because... fuck you, brother and sister... you don't
know what's happening. I'm not here for you. I'm here for me and her and the
baby!"
ONO: "Of course, it's a total insult to me..."
LENNON: "Well, you're always insulted, my dear wife. It's natural..."
ONO: "Why should I bother to control anybody?"
LENNON: "She doesn't need me."
ONO: "I have my own life, you know."
LENNON: "She doesn't need a Beatle. Who needs a Beatle?"
ONO: "Do people think I'm that much of a con? John lasted two months with
the Maharishi. Two months. I must be the biggest con in the world, because
I've been with him 13 years."
LENNON: "But people do say that."
PLAYBOY: "That's our point. Why?"
LENNON: "They want to hold on to something they never had in the first
place. Anybody who claims to have some interest in me as an individual
artist or even as part of the Beatles has absolutely misunderstood
everything I ever said if they can't see why I'm with Yoko. And if they
can't see that, they don't see anything. They're just jacking off to... it
could be anybody. Mick Jagger or somebody else. Let them go jack off to Mick
Jagger, OK? I don't need it."
PLAYBOY: "He'll appreciate that."
LENNON: "I absolutely don't need it. Let them chase Wings. Just forget about
me. If that's what you want, go after Paul or Mick. I ain't here for that.
If that's not apparent in my past, I'm saying it in black and green, next to
all the tits and asses on page 196. Go play with the other boys. Don't
bother me. Go play with the Rolling Wings."
PLAYBOY: "Do you..."
LENNON: "No, wait a minute. Let's stay with this a second; sometimes I can't
let go of it." (He is on his feet, climbing up the refrigerator) "Nobody
ever said anything about Paul's having a spell on me or my having one on
Paul! They never thought that was abnormal in those days, two guys together,
or four guys together! Why didn't they ever say, 'How come those guys don't
split up? I mean, what's going on backstage? What is this Paul and John
business? How can they be together so long?' We spent more time together in
the early days than John and Yoko: the four of us sleeping in the same room,
practically in the same bed, in the same truck, living together night and
day, eating, shitting and pissing together! All right? Doing everything
together! Nobody said a damn thing about being under a spell. Maybe they
said we were under the spell of Brian Epstein or George Martin." (the
Beatles' first manager and producer, respectively) "There's always somebody
who has to be doing something to you. You know, they're congratulating the
Stones on being together 112 years. Whoooopee! At least Charlie and Bill
still got their families. In the Eighties, they'll be asking, 'Why are those
guys still together? Can't they hack it on their own? Why do they have to be
surrounded by a gang? Is the little leader scared somebody's gonna knife him
in the back?' That's gonna be the question. That's-a-gonna be the question!
They're gonna look back at the Beatles and the Stones and all those guys as
relics. The days when those bands were just all men will be on the
newsreels, you know. They will be showing pictures of the guy with lipstick
wriggling his ass and the four guys with the evil black make-up on their
eyes trying to look raunchy. That's gonna be the joke in the future, not a
couple singing together or living and working together. It's all right when
you're 16, 17, 18 to have male companions and idols, OK? It's tribal and
it's gang and it's fine. But when it continues and you're still doing it
when you're 40, that means you're still 16 in the head."
Quigmeister Quigolator Quiganology
It's called a life.
I hope you find it.
.
Nyarlathotep
You're not.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
DavisK
jude)
> would say she's a twisted little bitch and people like Lennon's own
personal
> assistant Fred Seaman who has written a damn good book painting a
perfect
> picture of Yoko's manipulative ways and John Lennon's lost soul...
I'll I
> have to ask is why would Julian lie?
It's not a question of whether Julian is capable of lying or not. I'd
say a psychological examination of him would prove whether his anger
against Yoko is well-founded, not a lie detector test.
>It is Yoko who is the bizarre one, I
> mean you can see how she could be so manipulative. Look at how she
raised
> her son Sean.
What do you mean by that?
> They fucking admitted it themselves in interviews saying
> they're not GOOD parents, not even OK parents. Of course John was a
sucker
> for Yoko but that's how manipulation works. She controlled his ass.
What did she use? Voodoo? Some form of Black Magic? Get real...John
had a will of his own. If he followed Yoko, it was because he loved
her, and not because she had some kind of Svengali-like control over
him.
>He
> probably thought he was IN love but that's not love, man. If you read
his
> Playboy interview where he addresses this it's as if he's saying that
he's
> just in love.
So now you're a psychoanalyst...interesting....
>Well, people in love don't have affairs and don't manipulate
> you, that is if Fred Seaman is telling it like it is.
>
> He was a lost soul and she was using him but maybe I'm wrong. Who
knows.
Fred Seaman is a thief. His credibility is zero. Case closed.
You are wrong. Sorry to break the bad news, buddy.
--
/-------|
}:^)7 -<///////}
- \-------|
DavisK
That's correct - you're both wrong.
--
/-------|
}:^)7 -<///////}
- \-------|
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
DavisK
James lean Dean
man, you lean to that side and I'll lean to this one, maybe I'm wrong. That
doesn't mean you're right. I'm just talking about a particular topic. How
can Fred Seaman be a thief? He was born a day before or after John Lennon!
And he was a SEA MAN. That's the reason they hired him. All their
astrological-numerological-voodoo-mumbo-jumbo and shit. I'm starting to
think John was fried on all those drugs and Yoko just took advantage.
And I'm not one of these Beatles freaks who take sides. That's why I stress
that maybe I am wrong, I don't claim to know everything, I know nothing.
"Love the art, not the artists."
"Love the music, not the musicians."
"DavisK" <davi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:90rgpg$44h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Diana
>>Of course John was a sucker for
>> Yoko but that's how manipulation works. She controlled his ass.
>
>What did she use? Voodoo? Some form of Black Magic?......
Suicide threats for one. Ever have an hysterical person you love threatening
suicide? Especially when you know they've already tried it at least once?
- - - - - -
And in my heart you'll always stay
Forever young, forever young.
~ JOHN LENNON ~
1940-1980
There has never been a great spirit without a touch of insanity.
Johnny Moondog
...isn't what other people think of them.
...isn't up to us to judge.
John and Yoko, were, for better or worse, husband and wife, and if we want
others to respect our relationships, we must respect theirs as well.
If someone were to ask me to SPECULATE on what constitutes being a good
person or not, I'd have to take my same position as a hiker and camper (a
guest of nature), and say that, it's whether a person left a place the same
or better than the way they found it, or not.
Re: diaries and journals...
I often used them as a place to vent my sadness, grief, and anger, and often
wishing ill on others. I used them to record my dreams and fantasies that I
knew would never come true.
We know that John told many "white lies." Who can say that his journals, or
for that matter, his spoken words to others, were what was in his heart,
that he intended to act upon. No one can say.
We don't know...we never will.
Go back to listening to the wonderful musical legacy...I know I will. It's
what always keeps me coming back.
giga...@my-deja.com
DavisK <davi...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Fred Seaman is a thief. His credibility is zero. Case closed.
Explain how someone's credibility is zeroed out because they are a
thief.
John Calabro
James lean Dean
said he wanted Julian to know everything about his life.
<giga...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:90rss9$e1a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Diana
>...isn't whether they were a good parent or not.
Being a parent is THE most important "job" a person could have. It's not the
whole story of what makes someone a good person, but it's certainly a large
part of it.
>...isn't what other people think of them.
Maybe not *what* other people think, but perhaps *why*. And that certainly
would not include fans.
>...isn't up to us to judge.
Discussing and judging don't necessarily go together. You can observe
dispassionately and without judgment.
>John and Yoko, were, for better or worse, husband and wife, and if we want
>others to respect our relationships, we must respect theirs as well.
That's absolutely true in our personal lives. Though even there I'd find
exceptions. What if a dear friend is being beaten to a pulp every week or so
by her husband? Wouldn't you try to talk her into leaving him?
>If someone were to ask me to SPECULATE on what constitutes being a good
>person or not, I'd have to take my same position as a hiker and camper (a
>guest of nature), and say that, it's whether a person left a place the same
>or better than the way they found it, or not.
And wouldn't the children you leave behind, that you parented, play a large
part of that?
From my point of view, John most definitely left this world a better place for
having been in it.
Sitting Stoned
amara...@aol.com (Diana) wrote:
> DavisK <davi...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> >>Of course John was a sucker for
> >> Yoko but that's how manipulation works. She controlled his ass.
> >
> >What did she use? Voodoo? Some form of Black Magic?......
>
> Suicide threats for one. Ever have an hysterical person you love threatening
> suicide? Especially when you know they've already tried it at least once?
>
This is how you remember and honor John?
Slinging bullshit gossip about a marriage you (and Fred Seaman) never
came close to comprehending?
As Bob said to Nyny: Have you no shame? No. We know you have no shame
whatsoever, not even on the 8th of December 2000.
Your output is sickening, Di... think about what you're putting out into
the universe in the name of the Beatles. It's pure dogpuke.
--
Francie & Her New Boot
--
Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run
than outright exposure. The fearful are caught
as often as the bold. -- Helen Keller (1880-1968)
http://sites.netscape.net/fabe9131944
NOTE NEW URL - (A SURPRISE FROM NETSCAPE)
Sitting Stoned
> said he wanted Julian to know everything about his life.
>
>
OK, "James", since you parrot Danny the Punk and his hero, Semenboy, tell
us all how you know this. And if you believe it, how come Freddie the
Dreamer didn't even try to get Julian a copy, much less stash the diaries
at his pal Rosen's place? How come he pleaded guilty to Grand Larceny?
I doubt John ever said he wanted Julian to know everything about his
life, or even anything similar.
You don't belong in a Beatle newsgroup. There are places... ask the
PunkAss Danster how you can get into a private list called Stumped.
There are people with common interests like yours, in heaping excrement
on John Lennon's grave.
Perhaps a playing of the Lennon Anthology would be in order.
--
Francie & Her New Boot
--
Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run
than outright exposure. The fearful are caught
as often as the bold. -- Helen Keller (1880-1968)
http://sites.netscape.net/fabe9131944
NOTE NEW URL - (A SURPRISE FROM NETSCAPE)
Sitting Stoned
amara...@aol.com (Diana) wrote:
> "Johnny Moondog" <clark...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >...isn't whether they were a good parent or not.
>
> Being a parent is THE most important "job" a person could have. It's not the
> whole story of what makes someone a good person, but it's certainly a large
> part of it.
>
>
Oh PLEEZ, Di, take your Ladies' Home Journal philosophy and stick it up
your butt!
You are completely yucky. John would have dispatched you with a word or
two for preaching that crap. Mind your own fucking business and stop
slathering rosy red All-American Bullshit all over John and Yoko.
--------
vehicle to achieve that. He was so weak mentally that he simply allowed her
to control his life - In some ways it was similar to the relationship that
existed between Elvis and Col. Parker.
Sitting Stoned <frn...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:90tf6o$gna$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
D 28IF
>
>You don't belong in a Beatle newsgroup. There are places... ask the
>PunkAss Danster how you can get into a private list called Stumped.
>
>There are people with common interests like yours, in heaping excrement
>on John Lennon's grave.
As opposed to you, who has the common interest of heaping excrement on Paul
while he's still alive. Guess that makes you brave, right?
You, of all people, have no right to tell anyone where they should post. I got
news for you, someone giving an opinion of the Beatles or one of them solo, be
it positive or negative, is more on topic than your diary entries.
D 28IF
>> >>Of course John was a sucker for
>> >> Yoko but that's how manipulation works. She controlled his ass.
>> >
>> >What did she use? Voodoo? Some form of Black Magic?......
>>
>> Suicide threats for one. Ever have an hysterical person you love
>threatening
>> suicide? Especially when you know they've already tried it at least once?
>>
>
>
>This is how you remember and honor John?
>
A question was asked. Diana gave her version of an answer. What? She should
hvae waited until midnight, 12/9/00 to respond? If you want to honour John, why
must it be only on the day of his birth or death? It shouldn't matter.
>Slinging bullshit gossip about a marriage you (and Fred Seaman) never
>came close to comprehending?
>
You sling bullshit about things you have little or no knowledge of. What's the
difference?
Johnny Moondog
the
> whole story of what makes someone a good person, but it's certainly a
large
> part of it.
So you judge a person by their deeds? The performance of a parent IS
important, but I disagree with the level of importance you've attached to
it. You also make no allowance for people's personal problems, which may
preclude your standard of "good performance?" I'd hate to live in a world of
your rules...I'd probably have to take some kind of test before I could do
ANYTHING, and I'd hate to see your curve.
John was an EXCELLENT provider, and for the men of his time and origin, was
ahead of most. That should be enough for anyone. (Perhaps Julian should go
to India and clean a few bedpans, or maybe work in a home for functionally
disabled adults. Perhaps his embittered views would then change, and he'd
feel lucky for what he had, instead of despising others for what he didn't
have.)
(Just for the record...I've a son in Florida from whom I've been legally
separated for years. The only fault of mine was that I could not afford the
lawyers that my ex's rich then-husband could afford (which, by the way, was
a misplaced act of vengeance.) [Funny thing is, he turned out to be a
molester.] From clandestine sources, I've heard about what a poor father I
am...like I had any choice whatsoever. Be that as it may, I'd certainly hate
for my son, Sean (also a 'Saturday Night baby'), to be caught in the middle
of constant bickering.
Granted, it would be best for children to have good parents, but there are
better fates than to have to eternally-warring ones. And nobody can
successfully prove that children deserve to have it better than their
parents. If people want their children to be fulfilled, then they won't
steal every opportunity that the kids have to learn under the guise of 'good
parenting.' Hardship builds character, and is, except in very few cases,
inevitable. It's better to encounter it when a person is young, and more
adaptive/adaptable.
I'd say that this ISN'T a perfect world, but considering that it's the only
one which exists that we live in, 'imagined' perfection is a poor standard
by which to reallistically judge. If the courts can make allowances for
'extenuating circumstances,' then people should too. Don't swallow all this
'perfect parenting' and 'parenting is the most important job' crap you're
constantly exposed to. It's touted and advertised by the same people who
brought back Victorian principles, the Moral Majority, the Thrid Reich, and
a host of other values that were all purported to be 'moral.' These rules
are made up by the people who can afford them, plain and simple. The rest of
us do the best we can with what we have; it's in our nature, which has been
formed by millions of years of survival.
Most of all, people, if they can, should try to live their lives in such a
way that it gives them the best chance of true sense of peace and personal
fulfillment in a crazy world. However, if people have to wait for this to
happen before they "go forth and multiply,' we'll die out as a species.
If it's important for YOU to be a good parent, just go do it, and don't try
to rationalize your sacrifices by trying to pass a blanket judgment on the
world.
> Discussing and judging don't necessarily go together. You can observe
> dispassionately and without judgment.
But you didn't.
> That's absolutely true in our personal lives. Though even there I'd find
> exceptions. What if a dear friend is being beaten to a pulp every week or
so
> by her husband? Wouldn't you try to talk her into leaving him?
I was going to address this, but this is so far off-topic that doing so
would be completely inappropriate. Perhaps a Critical Thinking class or two
would be in order.
Sitting Stoned
"--------" <lac...@idx.com.au> wrote:
> It is not dogput - It's the truth. She craved fame, and used him as a
> vehicle to achieve that. He was so weak mentally that he simply allowed her
> to control his life - In some ways it was similar to the relationship that
> existed between Elvis and Col. Parker.
>
Channel Albert Goldslime much?
Hey, YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT, Anonymouse... buzz off.
Sitting Stoned
d2...@aol.com (D 28IF) wrote:
>
> >
>
> A question was asked. Diana gave her version of an answer. What? She should
> hvae waited until midnight, 12/9/00 to respond? If you want to honour John, why
> must it be only on the day of his birth or death? It shouldn't matter.
>
> >Slinging bullshit gossip about a marriage you (and Fred Seaman) never
> >came close to comprehending?
> >
Bullshit is bullshit no matter what day it is, and Diana *always*
dishonors John... every time she tells another fucking lie about Yoko.
There's no difference between slingin' it on any other day and yesterday,
but it would have been decent of Di to refrain for just one day...
Fuck you, 28. Cut the crap playing Defender of the Bashers. If they have
no defense but yours, they've lost the case INSTANTANEOUSLY. The only
answer you ever have is an attack on me. Which is not an answer at all.
Strabbo
news:59cY5.13$mZ44.2...@news.randori.com...
How
> can Fred Seaman be a thief?
By stealing.
Sitting Stoned
Thanks for stating more clearly and distinctly my emotional reaction to
Diana's ridiculous assertions. It's quite a stretch for her to think for
herself. More than a year and a half ago she posted a personal revelation
about her own study and understanding of the Japanese language and
culture. You could hardly tell it was the same poster!
Anyway, my mother and father died during the past year, and I remember
thinking how great it was that they never pretended they loved us kids
more than they6 loved each other. My mother, one of the last great ones,
hated all that Hallmark card "family values" shit that characterised the
Eisenhower years, and she supported Adlai Stevenson, a divorced "egghead"
diplomat... for the "kids" here, Stevenson was JFK's Democratic
competition in 1960. In 1962, Adlai saved our asses and my brand new 19
year old husband from going to war when he stood up to Khruschev at the
UN. He was the reason the "Cuban Missile Crisis" never got to a shooting
war. JFK worked through Stevenson. Like I said, he was divorced, so her
never had a chance to get elected in a conservative moralistic atmosphere
as 1960 was...
I'd love to have a real discussion with you, Moon... or have I already???
--
Francie
--
One is not born a woman,
One becomes one.
~Simone de Beauvoir~ French writer/philosopher (1908-1986)
http://sites.netscape.net/fabe9131944/gogo
NEW PAGE: The Last Beatle Interview CD
Johnny Moondog
"--------" <lac...@idx.com.au> wrote in message
news:3a32...@news1.idx.com.au...
--------
Sitting Stoned <frn...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:90tvhs$sio$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Nyarlathotep
>
> >>Of course John was a sucker for
> >> Yoko but that's how manipulation works. She controlled his ass.
> >
> >What did she use? Voodoo? Some form of Black Magic?......
>
> Suicide threats for one. Ever have an hysterical person you love
threatening
> suicide? Especially when you know they've already tried it at least
once?
That's right, Diana; Ono used suicide threats as a means of
manipulating John. But that's just the beginning. She also used
promises of a "hypnotic smoking cure" to lure John over to the Dakota --
and promptly re-ensnare him through a two-step process involving (1)
drugs and (2) her pregnancy.
Nyarlathotep
Sitting Stoned <frn...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > Suicide threats for one. Ever have an hysterical person you love
threatening
> > suicide? Especially when you know they've already tried it at least
once?
> >
>
> This is how you remember and honor John?
Actually, Francie, she was talking about Yoko.
> Slinging bullshit gossip about a marriage you (and Fred Seaman) never
> came close to comprehending?
Actually, Francie, Diana understands that phony marriage all too
well.
> As Bob said to Nyny: Have you no shame?
And as I said to Sobbin' Bob, "You're acting like Francie. If you
want to contradict my assertions, please do so intelligently."
Nyarlathotep
giga...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <90rgpg$44h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>
> DavisK <davi...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Fred Seaman is a thief. His credibility is zero. Case closed.
>
> Explain how someone's credibility is zeroed out because they are a
> thief.
Good point, John. Personally, I do not consider Fred a thief. I
believe that his motives in taking the diaries were benevolent -- that,
indeed, he was carrying out John's wishes.
To understand why I believe this, I urge people to read both The
Last Days of John Lennon, *and* Daddy Come Home, by Pauline Lennon.
Nyarlathotep
>
> >Slinging bullshit gossip about a marriage you (and Fred Seaman) never
> >came close to comprehending?
> >
>
> You sling bullshit about things you have little or no knowledge of.
What's the
> difference?
The difference is that Diana slings facts. The only people slinging
BS are Yoko's sycophants.
Nyarlathotep
"James lean Dean" <h...@bye.com> wrote:
> He STOLE the diaries to give to Julian by the way, I'd do the same.
John
> said he wanted Julian to know everything about his life.
I'd do the same thing, too. Fred's true allegiance was with John,
not Yoko "Destroy all the men you have slept with" Ono. The true
betrayor of JL in all this is Yoko, not Fred.
UsurperTom
>he was divorced, so her
>never had a chance to get elected in a conservative moralistic atmosphere
>as 1960 was...
Most divorced people never give up their obligations to their children. Mick
Jagger is an example of a rock star who was a terrible husband, but a wonderful
father to his children. Adlai Stevenson was a good man. His daughter even
appeared in a campaign commercial for him. John Lennon should have followed
the examples of Mick Jagger and Adlai Stevenson in being a successful divorced
father.
Tom
Johnny Moondog
"UsurperTom" <usurp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001209172155...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
Nyarlathotep
usurp...@aol.com (UsurperTom) wrote:
> Francie wrote:
>
> >he was divorced, so her
> >never had a chance to get elected in a conservative moralistic
atmosphere
> >as 1960 was...
>
> Most divorced people never give up their obligations to their
children. Mick
> Jagger is an example of a rock star who was a terrible husband, but a
wonderful
> father to his children. Adlai Stevenson was a good man.
Yes, he was. Just for fun, Usurper, I took some courses in
Poli-Sci from Dr. Robert Woetzel, who started his career working as a
gopher for Adlai Stevenson.
Lizz Holmans
<nyarla...@my-deja.com> writes
>
> The difference is that Diana slings facts. The only people slinging
>BS are Yoko's sycophants.
Hardly.
Some of us are historians.
Lizz 'I can't sling anything--my arthritis won't let me' Holmans
--
Lizz Holmans
Diana
>> Being a parent is THE most important "job" a person could have. It's
>>not the whole story of what makes someone a good person, but it's
>>certainly a large part of it.
>
>So you judge a person by their deeds?
In part. Thought leads to behavior leads to action. Granted, that's a gross
simplification. Motive and cirumstance must be taken into consideration. If a
parent truly loves their child, yet beats them or sexually assaults them,
aren't their actions important?
>The performance of a parent IS important, but I disagree with th
> level of importance you've attached to it.
I didn't attach any particular level of importance to actions. You're making
assumptions. Perhaps it was my fault because I didn't go into more detail, but
a post can be only so long.
>You also make no allowance for people's personal problems, which may
>preclude your standard of "good performance?" I'd hate to live in a world of
>your rules...I'd probably have to take some kind of test before I could do
>ANYTHING, and I'd hate to see your curve.
I didn't make any rules. Who said anything about tests or curving a grade?
You definitely read much, much more into my post than I wrote -- or believe.
>John was an EXCELLENT provider, and for the men of his time and origin, was
>ahead of most. That should be enough for anyone. (Perhaps Julian should go
>to India and clean a few bedpans, or maybe work in a home for functionally
>disabled adults. Perhaps his embittered views would then change, and he'd
>feel lucky for what he had, instead of despising others for what he didn't
>have.)
Ah. Now we have a context. What about Sean? He has more -- and worse, imo --
complaints about John than Julian, and infinitely less reason to complain. Why
not include his public comments in here? People asked Julian to make a
statement about his father and he did. His mistake was being honest. John was
a lousy father to Julian, and said so himself more than once. John and Julian
are in agreement. John wasn't even an excellent provider. What did Cynthia
end up with, $15,000 or something like that? I'm not sure.
>(Just for the record...I've a son in Florida from whom I've been legally
>separated for years. The only fault of mine was that I could not afford the
>lawyers that my ex's rich then-husband could afford (which, by the way, was
>a misplaced act of vengeance.) [Funny thing is, he turned out to be a
>molester.] From clandestine sources, I've heard about what a poor father I
>am...like I had any choice whatsoever. Be that as it may, I'd certainly hate
>for my son, Sean (also a 'Saturday Night baby'), to be caught in the middle
>of constant bickering.
Well, yours is an entirely different situation. I'm sorry that Julian's
comments on John's lack of parenting skills made you feel guilty (or am I
making unfair assumptions?). I know a few parents in similar positions and how
painful it is for them. Not only is it grossly unjust to the parent, but the
child suffers as well. It's ugly and the laws need changing. I'm sorry you
must go through this personal hell. It's beyond sad for all involved.
>Granted, it would be best for children to have good parents, but there are
>better fates than to have to eternally-warring ones. And nobody can
>successfully prove that children deserve to have it better than their
>parents. If people want their children to be fulfilled, then they won't
>steal every opportunity that the kids have to learn under the guise of 'good
>parenting.' Hardship builds character, and is, except in very few cases,
>inevitable. It's better to encounter it when a person is young, and more
>adaptive/adaptable.
Agreed.
>I'd say that this ISN'T a perfect world, but considering that it's the only
>one which exists that we live in, 'imagined' perfection is a poor standard
>by which to reallistically judge. If the courts can make allowances for
>'extenuating circumstances,' then people should too. Don't swallow all this
>'perfect parenting' and 'parenting is the most important job' crap you're
>constantly exposed to. It's touted and advertised by the same people who
>brought back Victorian principles, the Moral Majority, the Thrid Reich, and
>a host of other values that were all purported to be 'moral.' These rules
>are made up by the people who can afford them, plain and simple. The rest of
>us do the best we can with what we have; it's in our nature, which has been
>formed by millions of years of survival.
I still can't imagine any job more vital and potentially personally satisfying
than being responsible for a child's life and upbringing. You're in a
situation where it's impossible for you to do so. And of course environment is
only part of what goes into making a person what they are.
I don't consider myself Victorian, the Moral Majority and Christian Right turn
my stomach. I won't even respond to the Third Reich comment.
>Most of all, people, if they can, should try to live their lives in such a
>way that it gives them the best chance of true sense of peace and personal
>fulfillment in a crazy world. However, if people have to wait for this to
>happen before they "go forth and multiply,' we'll die out as a species.
Agreed.
>If it's important for YOU to be a good parent, just go do it, and don't try
>to rationalize your sacrifices by trying to pass a blanket judgment on the
>world.
Whom have I judged? John was a poor parent to Julian. That's a fact that John
himself admitted. John's father was a poor parent to him. That's a fact, too.
John was bitter all his life about his father walking out on him. The cycle
continued with Julian. Why not berate John for being bitter toward his father?
Why does Julian get all the blame?
In fact, are not *you* the one being judgmental about Julian?
>> Discussing and judging don't necessarily go together. You can observe
>> dispassionately and without judgment.
>
>But you didn't.
Where, when, in what post? I thought this was an abstract discussion and
didn't know I was falling into a pit.
>> That's absolutely true in our personal lives. Though even there I'd find
>> exceptions. What if a dear friend is being beaten to a pulp every week or
>so
>> by her husband? Wouldn't you try to talk her into leaving him?
>
>I was going to address this, but this is so far off-topic that doing so
>would be completely inappropriate. Perhaps a Critical Thinking class or two
>would be in order.
Took a couple in college and did very well, I might add. One of the most
important courses I took. IMO they should be required, or at least the
principles clearly incorporated into all classes, as early as elementary
school.
The Walrus was Danny
For God's sake Frank's, just coz it's December 8/9 doen't mean the world
stops turning. Yoyo did make suicide threats, face it.
>
> Slinging bullshit gossip about a marriage you (and Fred Seaman) never
> came close to comprehending?
Well the marriage of JL and Yoyo is a difficult one to get to grips with. I
can never quite get it that such a talented bloke 1) got hitched up with
Yoyo in 1968 and 2) went back to Yoyo in 1975.
>
> As Bob said to Nyny: Have you no shame? No. We know you have no shame
> whatsoever, not even on the 8th of December 2000.
So it's December 8th? Big deal. Franks bans all use of the words "Yoyo" and
"pain in the arse" in the same sentence on December 8th. What a lot of old
bollocks you witter Franks. Ah but then the brighter of those among us
already realise this (refer to Old Brown Shoe thread about 4 months ago)
>
> Your output is sickening, Di... think about what you're putting out into
> the universe in the name of the Beatles. It's pure dogpuke.
Yes but dogpuke exists Franks, it's real, it's there, grasp it and let it
sqelch through the fingers of your clenched fist. Yoyo threatened suicide.
Emotional blackmail I call it.
> Francie & Her New Boot
No doubt as opposed to her Old Brown Shoe eh Franks?
Danny
Johnny Moondog
gross
> simplification. Motive and cirumstance must be taken into consideration.
If a
> parent truly loves their child, yet beats them or sexually assaults them,
> aren't their actions important?
Considering that I had these same things happen to me, I'd say that, while I
understand that these are not desirable things to happen to a child, they're
not unforgiveable, even if the perpetrators never express regret. I see them
as simply often unavoidable...why? Because they DO happen, and if we know
they're wrong, then they must have been unavoidable...sort of like
automobile accidents. We never hear about the near-misses on the news.
If one subscribes to string theory, then one sees that the biggest
contributors to tragedies aren't neccessarily the most proximate ones.
> >The performance of a parent IS important, but I disagree with th
> > level of importance you've attached to it.
>
> I didn't attach any particular level of importance to actions. You're
making
> assumptions. Perhaps it was my fault because I didn't go into more
detail, but
> a post can be only so long.
You said "THE most important job." I can't infer that you mean "in my
opinion," or "in my case" if you don't include/express it.
> >You also make no allowance for people's personal problems, which may
> >preclude your standard of "good performance?" I'd hate to live in a world
of
> >your rules...I'd probably have to take some kind of test before I could
do
> >ANYTHING, and I'd hate to see your curve.
>
> I didn't make any rules. Who said anything about tests or curving a
grade?
> You definitely read much, much more into my post than I wrote -- or
believe.
Again, it's a logical assumption if one believes that you're speaking in
absolutes (which you did), without qualification. I understand now.
> >John was an EXCELLENT provider, and for the men of his time and origin,
was
> >ahead of most. That should be enough for anyone. (Perhaps Julian should
go
> >to India and clean a few bedpans, or maybe work in a home for
functionally
> >disabled adults. Perhaps his embittered views would then change, and he'd
> >feel lucky for what he had, instead of despising others for what he
didn't
> >have.)
>
> Ah. Now we have a context. What about Sean? He has more -- and worse,
imo --
> complaints about John than Julian, and infinitely less reason to complain.
Why
> not include his public comments in here? People asked Julian to make a
> statement about his father and he did. His mistake was being honest.
John was
> a lousy father to Julian, and said so himself more than once. John and
Julian
> are in agreement. John wasn't even an excellent provider. What did
Cynthia
> end up with, $15,000 or something like that? I'm not sure.
I'd include Sean, too, if that had been mentioned earlier. I probably had
two of the worst parents imagineable (which one of them has admitted), and
learned the value of not second-guessing their decisions/values. The fact
is, one of them is very mentally ill in such a way that it manifests itself
as the appearance of control. When I realized that there really was no
control, I had no gripe. It doesn't do any good to say that people who CAN'T
be responsible SHOULD be.
Both John's children should learn this lesson while they're still young
enough to. Working in the service of others is the best teacher. I'm not
criticising; I'm observing as someone who has beat those demons, not as an
indignant parent.
Also, upon divorce, John was no more responsible to Cynthia than the courts
decided. His situation with Julian was altogether another one. As far as
John's legacy, the law is still the law. Yoko didn't have to come up with a
cent. I believe in standing up for one's rights under the law (unlike a
select group of Democrats and Republicans right now.)
> >(Just for the record...I've a son in Florida from whom I've been legally
> >separated for years. The only fault of mine was that I could not afford
the
> >lawyers that my ex's rich then-husband could afford (which, by the way,
was
> >a misplaced act of vengeance.) [Funny thing is, he turned out to be a
> >molester.] From clandestine sources, I've heard about what a poor father
I
> >am...like I had any choice whatsoever. Be that as it may, I'd certainly
hate
> >for my son, Sean (also a 'Saturday Night baby'), to be caught in the
middle
> >of constant bickering.
>
> Well, yours is an entirely different situation. I'm sorry that Julian's
> comments on John's lack of parenting skills made you feel guilty (or am I
> making unfair assumptions?). I know a few parents in similar positions
and how
> painful it is for them. Not only is it grossly unjust to the parent, but
the
> child suffers as well. It's ugly and the laws need changing. I'm sorry
you
> must go through this personal hell. It's beyond sad for all involved.
I don't feel guilty a bit. I'd have had to have some kind of power, and I
didn't. It's painful, but I'm sure as heck not to blame. Having to reconcile
still having a life after being denied my child freed me to think more
universally...there are OTHER things from which to make a life, not better,
not worse, just different.
> >Granted, it would be best for children to have good parents, but there
are
> >better fates than to have to eternally-warring ones. And nobody can
> >successfully prove that children deserve to have it better than their
> >parents. If people want their children to be fulfilled, then they won't
> >steal every opportunity that the kids have to learn under the guise of
'good
> >parenting.' Hardship builds character, and is, except in very few cases,
> >inevitable. It's better to encounter it when a person is young, and more
> >adaptive/adaptable.
>
> Agreed.
Cool.
Didn't say you were, but what I said was based on the logical assumption
that you were speaking for everyone, as did those
philosophies/establisments.
> >Most of all, people, if they can, should try to live their lives in such
a
> >way that it gives them the best chance of true sense of peace and
personal
> >fulfillment in a crazy world. However, if people have to wait for this to
> >happen before they "go forth and multiply,' we'll die out as a species.
>
> Agreed.
Again, cool.
> >If it's important for YOU to be a good parent, just go do it, and don't
try
> >to rationalize your sacrifices by trying to pass a blanket judgment on
the
> >world.
>
> Whom have I judged? John was a poor parent to Julian. That's a fact that
John
> himself admitted. John's father was a poor parent to him. That's a fact,
too.
> John was bitter all his life about his father walking out on him. The
cycle
> continued with Julian. Why not berate John for being bitter toward his
father?
> Why does Julian get all the blame?
Again, based on your unqulaified comment earlier.
> In fact, are not *you* the one being judgmental about Julian?
Not as a sore parent or child, but rather, as one who's grown past it. See
my earlier comments. If he's hurting, he ought to take care of it, rather
than wear it as a "thorny crown."
> >> Discussing and judging don't necessarily go together. You can observe
> >> dispassionately and without judgment.
> >
> >But you didn't.
>
> Where, when, in what post? I thought this was an abstract discussion and
> didn't know I was falling into a pit.
Again, the pit was your comment on parenting.
Have yourself a very nice Holiday season!
-William
D 28IF
>Fuck you, 28. Cut the crap playing Defender of the Bashers. If they have
>no defense but yours, they've lost the case INSTANTANEOUSLY. The only
>answer you ever have is an attack on me. Which is not an answer at all.
You act like the biggest blowhard and sanctimonious piece of crap here. You are
hardly someone to tell anyone what they can and cannot write in this ng. I
often respond with facts. The truth of the matter is, when the discussion is
with you, Francie, facts play no part because you all but ignore them. You
don't know how to have a debate or discussion which includes actual facts. When
faced with something that flies in the face of your beliefs, you throw insults
and then run in the opposite direction.
Sitting Stoned
More of your same ole broken record, 28. More fuckin' bullshit. Attack
with only slightly twisted accusations, slap on a few general insults and
wait for the angry or funny or absurdist or sentimental response - get
Francie to play...
You're so tired. So tiring. So uninspired and uninspiring.
Pardon me while I fart.
--
Francie
--
One is not born a woman,
One becomes one.
~Simone de Beauvoir~ French writer/philosopher (1908-1986)
http://sites.netscape.net/fabe9131944/gogo
NEW PAGE: The Last Beatle Interview CD
Doug Campbell
One of you colors a simple statement about the importance of good
parenting as 'slathering rosy-red All-American bullshit all over John
and Yoko' and the other claims that this kind of statement is brought to
you by the same people who brought you the Third Reich? Hmm, no
self-justifying hyperbole there!
Listen up - if a person is going to have children then they should be
prepared to raise them using the best of their character and intuition.
That's no Donna Reed platitude, it's a human imperative that hopefully
doesn't need to be taught but occurs naturally in sapient beings.
Unfortunately for so many children, that instinct is drowned out in the
parent mesmerized by their own ego fulfillment.
You can't glorify John's devotion to raising Sean on the one hand and on
the other sneer at the mention of 'good parenting' simply because you
read in it some criticism regarding Julian. At least be consistent.
Unless you were just taking issue with Diana because she's Diana... ;)
DC
Diana
>> The difference is that Diana slings facts. The only people slinging
>>BS are Yoko's sycophants.
>
>Hardly.
>
>Some of us are historians.
If you doubt my facts, read Tony Cox's account of how he got Yoko out of the
psychiatric institution. Read Cynthia's account of the letters Yoko sent sent
her threatening to commit suicide if Cyn didn't let her have John. Read the
accounts of people who spent many hours a day and witnessed these threats of
suicide.
I may not be an historian, but I have a pretty firm grasp of English, and
believe that first-hand witnesses, especially when there are several and all
saying the same thing, are reliable.
Johnny Moondog
> parenting as 'slathering rosy-red All-American bullshit all over John
> and Yoko' and the other claims that this kind of statement is brought to
> you by the same people who brought you the Third Reich? Hmm, no
> self-justifying hyperbole there!
I think you misunderstood. My statement was meant to address the practice of
projecting personal values on other people, no matter how good and noble
they may seem at the time. Diana made a blanket statement; I addressed it.
> Listen up - if a person is going to have children then they should be
> prepared to raise them using the best of their character and intuition.
Listen up - Open your eyes and ears to your environment. No parent really
believes that they're doing a bad job. That's the problem. By the time they
see the results of their handiwork, it's usually too late. And all people DO
raise their children to the best of their often poor character and lousy
intuition. The only way to break the chain is to steal these children from
their cribs, or educate and train them before they pass their parents
characteristics and behavior along. Or has my own experience and education
betrayed me? (At 43, I'm graduating with honors two degrees from UCSD...one
of them is a B.S. in Clinical and Social Psychology. No brag, just fact.)
But what do you say to the children of these people, children who have
"slipped through the cracks of society"? That what happened to them
shouldn't have happened? That's so illogical, and it sure didn't provide me
with much comfort...on the contrary, those words broke my heart, time after
time, as my family, my neighbors, and my friends turned their backs on me
uncomprehendingly. They couldn't understand, nor were they willing to accept
that people could treat their children so poorly. Nor were they willing to
help.
> That's no Donna Reed platitude, it's a human imperative that hopefully
> doesn't need to be taught but occurs naturally in sapient beings.
> Unfortunately for so many children, that instinct is drowned out in the
> parent mesmerized by their own ego fulfillment.
It doesn't occur naturally; it's a product of civilization, and learning
from trial-and-error. That's how everything we learn comes about, until it
can be organized and taught. When we learn the value of change, and how to
bring it about, we can enact the type of behavior that you are talking
about, and pass it down to the children in such a way that they never know
any other way. Much of what you described has already happened in many
clans, but most certainly not all. Economics are often to blame; scarcity is
the problem. Read Faulkner. He addresses this in many of his works.
> You can't glorify John's devotion to raising Sean on the one hand and on
> the other sneer at the mention of 'good parenting' simply because you
> read in it some criticism regarding Julian. At least be consistent.
You're in error, at least if you're criticizing what I wrote. I never
mentioned Sean Lennon.
I never said anything about John being a good father to either child; I
don't believe that he could have been that good to either, given his
background, education, the times, but most of all that he went through life
having people kiss his ass 'as is' and worshipping the ground he walked on.
What was really his motivation for change? The answer is quite clear...it
was his restless feelings, but that just wasn't enough for him.
I know because I have had to suffer loss as an adult, be treated kindly and
fairly by other generous people, and pursue healing in the form of a good,
well-rounded education (provided by scholarships, grants and loans stemming
from my good grades), and good psychological counseling that encouraged me
to take responsibility for myself (VERY MUCH like in "Good Will Hunting"),
while I leave blame and vengeance in it's own grave.
The irony is that now that I feel that I CAN do a good job as a father...it
may be too late.
DavisK
"--------" <lac...@idx.com.au> wrote:
> It is not dogput - It's the truth. She craved fame, and used him as a
> vehicle to achieve that. He was so weak mentally that he simply
allowed her
> to control his life
Some people look at it as her controlling his life - others may look at
it as her giving John a bit more focus and putting him on the straight
and narrow. There's nothing wrong with that.
--
/-------|
}:^)7 -<///////}
- \-------|
DavisK
giga...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <90rgpg$44h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>
> DavisK <davi...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Fred Seaman is a thief. His credibility is zero. Case closed.
>
> Explain how someone's credibility is zeroed out because they are a
> thief.
He broke his trust with the Lennons when he stole from them. I think
that is a loss of credibility - he can't be trusted.
Diana
>Unless you were just taking issue with Diana because she's Diana... ;)
It's the bane of my existence! <g> What's interesting is that, with few
exceptions, after going back and forth a couple of times, the other person and
I usually end up within an inch of almost total agreement, which is what
happened here. It's usually my fault because I don't express myself clearly
or, as William pointed out, I speak in absolutes when I don't really think that
way but it comes across like that.
Anyway, I love these debates. They keep me on my toes :-)
DavisK
Nyarlathotep <nyarla...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <90rss9$e1a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> giga...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <90rgpg$44h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >
> > DavisK <davi...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Fred Seaman is a thief. His credibility is zero. Case closed.
> >
> > Explain how someone's credibility is zeroed out because they are a
> > thief.
>
> Good point, John. Personally, I do not consider Fred a thief. I
> believe that his motives in taking the diaries were benevolent --
that,
> indeed, he was carrying out John's wishes.
How did you know what John's wishes were? Did you channel him through
a medium or get your hands on a Ouiji Board?
--
/-------|
}:^)7 -<///////}
- \-------|
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
DavisK
I'm glad you don't say anything about Yoko MAKING John a bad father,
because he did it all on his own. Julian should be pissed off at John
if he's still bitter...not at Yoko.
--
/-------|
}:^)7 -<///////}
- \-------|
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sitting Stoned
Assuming you are referring to my earlier post, and not just the last one,
I'd like to add that parenting (we used to say simply "Raising kids") is
a very personal matter, and Diana *was* heaping excrement (politically
correct excrement) on Yoko and John.
Furthermore, I have not "glorified" John's decision to be the primary
caregiver for Sean. Never. I do think it was the right thing for the
Lennons to do it that way, because I know Yoko never pretended to be the
maternal stay-at-home mom. She loved her children, but she was more
suited to the conventional "husband" role and she performed magnificently
as the CFO!
I sneer at Diana's empty-headed parroting of current mores, which cannot
reasonably be applied to what was essentially a 60s marriage, an
experiment that succeeded except for a few really gross errors in hiring
of household help.
The marriage of John and Yoko cannot be picked apart in New Age PC terms.
We can't judge the marriages of other people by Oprah standards.
UsurperTom
>I never mentioned Sean Lennon.
On the BBC's web site, Sean was quoted as calling his father an "asshole." Two
years ago, Sean said in an interview promoting his debut album that John had a
"violent temper." It's funny that Sean is allowed to occasionally criticize
his father, but the sycophants go beserk when Julian does the same thing.
Tom
Sitting Stoned
Can you read, really?
Because it's apples and oranges and you never get past the buzzword
level.
A snippet of a young man's candor here and there is nothing like the
strident longstanding criticism of Julian's - all of it blaming Yoko.
Julian is 35 going on 60, a cramped and constricted "victim" of his own
anger.
Imagine, if you will (do you ever imagine?) that Julian falls on his head
and when he comes to, he sees and hears Yoko's message of peace and
positive energy and disciplined creativity. He sees that the door has
been open for quite a while. He can grow. It's never too late. Both Sean
and Yoko have said that Jules is coming through anger.
It's time for Julian to give it up and start fresh and clean, not
polluted and fried with envy and rage.
Forgiveness could be his salvation.
Sitting Stoned
"Johnny Moondog" <clark...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Also, upon divorce, John was no more responsible to Cynthia than the courts
> decided. His situation with Julian was altogether another one. As far as
> John's legacy, the law is still the law. Yoko didn't have to come up with a
> cent. I believe in standing up for one's rights under the law (unlike a
> select group of Democrats and Republicans right now.)
>
>
>
Once there was a word and the word was "WOW." (Lennon, at the baby grand
during a tea break in the studio, summer of 68)
I have to say it, William: you're far too articulate and evolved for this
group. It's such a pleasure to read your writing.
Historically, I've found that the more extended and focused discussions
seem to disappear like vapors. Diana doesn't possess the mental stamina
to keep up with you on this, her holy crusade against John and Yoko, the
two most godless individuals she has ever encountered, even vicariously.
But let me not derail this thread now. Let's see how far it goes before
the Gang starts to accuse you of being my new victim.
;-)
--------
Sitting Stoned <frn...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:90urvv$hc9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
D 28IF
>> You act like the biggest blowhard and sanctimonious piece of crap here. You
>are
>> hardly someone to tell anyone what they can and cannot write in this ng. I
>> often respond with facts. The truth of the matter is, when the discussion
>is
>> with you, Francie, facts play no part because you all but ignore them. You
>> don't know how to have a debate or discussion which includes actual facts.
>When
>> faced with something that flies in the face of your beliefs, you throw
>insults
>> and then run in the opposite direction.
>>
>>
>
>More of your same ole broken record, 28. More fuckin' bullshit. Attack
>with only slightly twisted accusations, slap on a few general insults and
>wait for the angry or funny or absurdist or sentimental response - get
>Francie to play...
>
Yet see how you do continue to respond with the same old same old.
>You're so tired. So tiring. So uninspired and uninspiring.
Yet you continue to participate. Guess you go for the uninspired and
uninspiring.
>Pardon me while I fart.
>
>--
It'd be the most creative thing you've ever done.
DavisK
I don't think people are complaining about Julian criticizing his
father. It's Julian attacking Yoko that IS the problem. Julian seems
to like to blame Yoko for his shitty relationship with John. That's
the issue....
--
/-------|
}:^)7 -<///////}
- \-------|
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
James lean Dean
real Lennon. He gave him to Rosen to make copies to give to Julian by the
way. I forget who asked why he didn't make copies for Julian. Rosen then
turned on Fred, that bastard. Fred eventually had to plead guilty because he
did steal them and was against the law. That's like j-walking to save a baby
or breaking a window of a car to open it and save the baby or breaking into
a house to save a baby. The point is, his intention was positive and for
nonprofit. Perhaps all of you Yoko defenders are under her manipulation. You
guys ever hear of evidence?? I'd hate to have you in a jury cause you guys
wouldn't believe any fucking thing.
I'm suspicious of the people who defend this chick just as I'm suspicious of
those who don't like Beatles; don't like animals; don't like kids; and so
on.
"The only good thing to come out of England were The Beatles and America."
"DavisK" <davi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:90vbba$rro$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
James lean Dean
and others that could BREAK her hold over him so to speak. This was
witnessed by numerous people, not just Fred.
Also, you guys are going on an on about the parenting issue. I brought this
up as purely ONE of many examples of how Yoko's character is shady and how
she COULD manipulate someone. It's not that far off! <sarcasm>
If you need to make an appointment to see your mother or need to make one
for your wife and sometimes get denied because she's talking to her other
boyfriends or on drugs, that's SAD. This is a good piece of evidence that
any lawyer would pinch at. John may have been a poor father himself but
we're talking about Yoko here, it doesn't matter. John was doing a much
better job than Yoko though, just for the record.
The real mother of Sean Lennon is Helen Seaman, Fred Seaman's aunt, who was
the full time "nanny" but in Yoko's world, "mother".
"DavisK" <davi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:910b7r$h83$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
James lean Dean
day, well, WE didn't want a fucking vigil!
All he and I want is some damn truth.
I see Yoko with all his money and it's just damn sad.
What do we have to gain from bashing Yoko? We would love to like her like
sweet Linda Macca. (jealous Francie???????)
But under all the BS there lies truth to EVERY cliche and/or stereotype. And
it's a big one that Yoko manipulated John so you can't deny or defend the
truth, it will come out one day. And maybe I'll be wrong, hope so but all
the evidence points the other way.
"Sitting Stoned" <frn...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:90vs2r$6u5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
nowhere man
> He stole from Yoko, she's no damn Lennon.
the looks give it away, huh?
> He was trying to return them to a
> real Lennon. He gave him to Rosen to make copies to give to Julian by the
> way. I forget who asked why he didn't make copies for Julian.
me, repeatedly.....with no answers ever forthcoming. :3)
> Rosen then
> turned on Fred, that bastard.
be specific here.
> Fred eventually had to plead guilty because he
> did steal them and was against the law.
glad that you recognise how the legal system works.
> That's like j-walking to save a baby
> or breaking a window of a car to open it and save the baby or breaking into
> a house to save a baby.
hmmm? One steals something and doesn't return it to the person you said you
took it for. How is that equivalent to saving or not saving a baby's life?
> The point is, his intention was positive and for
> nonprofit.
yeah, yeah, yeah Fred was doing it out of the goodness of his sweet little
heart. Pull the other one.
> Perhaps all of you Yoko defenders are under her manipulation. You
> guys ever hear of evidence??
ain't that what the courts used to convict Fred?
If you have any more evidence, please bring it forth.
> I'd hate to have you in a jury cause you guys
> wouldn't believe any fucking thing.
I'd hate to have a thicko like yourself in any jury. Did I see you on the OJ
panel by any chance?
> I'm suspicious of the people who defend this chick just as I'm suspicious of
> those who don't like Beatles; don't like animals; don't like kids; and so
> on.
I'm suspicious of men who call girls 'chicks'.
Will
James lean Dean
make a comeback to anything.
I'm suspicious of people who reply by quoting everything. I'm not going to
go over the whole evidence, you can put a spin on anything. I wouldn't waste
my time trying to sway you anyway. Your cup is full and needs to be empty in
order for me to feel it up with some truth.
All the Yoko sycophants, where do they all come from?
How about we stop giving you proof and you start defending Yoko with proof?
You can't.
HOW DO YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT?
I always say, "Love the art, not the artist," but how can you love either
when it comes to Yoko "loco" Ono?
"nowhere man" <william_m...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:3A33C65A...@lineone.net...
My Dear Nemesis
"James lean Dean" <h...@bye.com> wrote:
> He stole from Yoko, she's no damn Lennon.
<rest of Semenboy Defense Standard Post snipped cos we've heard all this
nonsense before>
Exsqueeze me? She's no Lennon?
How do they spell _moron_ on the planet you come from?
And did it take you a long long time to get your head wedged so firmly up
your rectum?
Frannie ("He married her and they took each other's names, you know.")
--
“To live is so startling
It leaves little time
for anything else.”
-- Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)
http://sites.netscape.net/fabe9131944/gogo
NEW PAGE: The Last Beatle Interview CD
James lean Dean
Yeah, I'm just a spider on Mars but just because you marry (oooooooooh wow -
legal contract) someone doesn't make them real and honest.
To sign a "love contract" just cheapens the whole point of love, how sad.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only oneeeeeeee.
I'll be waiting your wonderful reply full of wit!
"My Dear Nemesis" <frn...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:910id0$mho$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
nowhere man
> We can sit here all day and reply with our witty comebacks since you can
> make a comeback to anything.
who said anything about 'we'? I haven't came across anything 'witty' of yours
as yet.
> I'm suspicious of people who reply by quoting everything.
surely, you like to see evidence. Yes?
> I'm not going to
> go over the whole evidence, you can put a spin on anything.
thank you (I think) :3)
> I wouldn't waste
> my time trying to sway you anyway. Your cup is full and needs to be empty in
> order for me to feel it up with some truth.
your trouble mate is that you can't handle the truth. It's sitting staring you
in the face, but you are too blind to see it.
> All the Yoko sycophants, where do they all come from?
funny you should use the 's' word LOL have you been posting here in the
past? ROFLOL
> How about we stop giving you proof and you start defending Yoko with proof?
> You can't.
you again use the word 'we'. You suggest, by direct inference, that you are
part of some larger group which has been posting here on the anti-Yoko platform
in the past.
Listen, try and make it a bit harder. This is too easy.
Will
> HOW DO YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT?
on my side, with a hot water bottle at my toes.
> I always say, "Love the art, not the artist," but how can you love either
> when it comes to Yoko "loco" Ono?
how can you love, when you don't know what love is?
James lean Dean
I don't belong to any fucking group, I belong to me, Yoko and me; that's
reality.
But seriously, I hate those anti-Yokos and those pro-Yokos.
Hey, if you can't convince them, confuse them!
Also, my friend, I didn't say reply with MY WIT, I said yours...
Do you have your wits about you today?
The truth is plain to see right?
A Lighter Shade of Pale is a nice one.
Back to Yoko...
This isn't fun anymore, I don't care!!!!!!!!
LEAVE ME ALONE!
To be insane in a world of insanity is to be normal?
Help! I need somebody!
#9??????
I need to buy a guitar and borrow a piano and steal some lyrics.
Some day you will all be playing my music, hehe.
Mozart was the Vincent van Gogh of music.
"nowhere man" <william_m...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:3A33DDF3...@lineone.net...
nowhere man
> Just a figure of speech, man. I used the word "we" as a typo, it's a typo!
>
> I don't belong to any fucking group, I belong to me, Yoko and me; that's
> reality.
great lyric.
> But seriously, I hate those anti-Yokos and those pro-Yokos.
there are very few 'pro-Yoko' people in this forum. There are however quite a
few who stand up for fairness.
> Hey, if you can't convince them, confuse them!
>
> Also, my friend, I didn't say reply with MY WIT, I said yours...
you used the plural.
> The truth is plain to see right?
>
> A Lighter Shade of Pale is a nice one.
>
> Back to Yoko...
>
> This isn't fun anymore, I don't care!!!!!!!!
>
> LEAVE ME ALONE!
>
> To be insane in a world of insanity is to be normal?
>
> Help! I need somebody!
>
> #9??????
>
> I need to buy a guitar and borrow a piano and steal some lyrics.
>
> Some day you will all be playing my music, hehe.
>
> Mozart was the Vincent van Gogh of music.
glad we cleared that up :3)
Will
James lean Dean
And in the end, the point is take it easy, give to the needy and don't be
greedy!
Who wants to write some music WIT me?
Collaboration is the best, look at Lennon-Macca. Look at those two actors
Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. Everyone loves collaboration.
Will, are you married? If and/or when you ask(ed) a woman/man to marry
her/him, I bet you asked, "WILL you marry me?" And she/he said,"Pun not
intended."
No, serious, ok, maybe not so much, but what do you do, Will? How old are
you? I'm new here. I'm a 19 year young (never say old) bloke who likes to
poke fun at things, what are you?
"nowhere man" <william_m...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:3A33F0D1...@lineone.net...
My Dear Nemesis
>
> And in the end, the point is take it easy, give to the needy and don't be
> greedy!
>
> Who wants to write some music WIT me?
>
<long hollow silence>
> Collaboration is the best, look at Lennon-Macca. Look at those two actors
> Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. Everyone loves collaboration.
>
Lennon Ono and Ono Lennon, *that* was a twelve year long collaboration.
>
>
> No, serious, ok, maybe not so much, but what do you do, Will? How old are
> you? I'm new here. I'm a 19 year young (never say old) bloke who likes to
> poke fun at things, what are you?
>
>
Yeah, right. You're 19 and new here... and I'm 27 and a virgin and the
moon is made of green cheese... you fucking bigot moron.
Frannie
--
“To live is so startling
It leaves little time
for anything else.”
-- Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)
http://sites.netscape.net/fabe9131944/gogo
NEW PAGE: The Last Beatle Interview CD
UsurperTom
>be specific here
Even Rosen said that Yoko put him on her payroll. It's in the introduction to
"Nowhere Man." Rosen gave Yoko 16 volumes of the journals afterwards.
Tom
UsurperTom
>A snippet of a young man's candor here and there is nothing like the
>strident longstanding criticism of Julian's - all of it blaming Yoko.
Yoko encouraged, aided and abeted John's neglect of Julian. Many witnesses
have backed up Julian. Nobody is absolving John of any blame here. In the
past, you and others said that Julian shouldn't criticize John as a father
because John is dead.
Why do you (at least used to) support Paul's kids in their criticism of Heather
Mills? Where's your source for the "wicked stepmother" theory? How has Julian
been "manipulated" by outside forces?
>Forgiveness could be his salvation.
You sound like a preacher.
Tom
My Dear Nemesis
usurp...@aol.com (UsurperTom) wrote:
> Nowhere Man wrote:
>
> >be specific here
>
> Even Rosen said that Yoko put him on her payroll. It's in the introduction to
> "Nowhere Man."
Ah. So now you know why Rosen was a co-defendant in the Semenboy case.
He too was sucking off the Lennon moneytit. That puts Rosen into a fairly
large group, when you consider that the office itself now has just three
trusted people (Eliot Mince is not among them - he has his own office)
working in it. Yoko has had to cut back on the help because of the Rosens
and the Semenboys and the Goldmanish culture vultures who have weaseled
their way into the household when John, who was not normally paranoid at
all, was around and the Lennon household was safe... when I hear that the
former tarot card reader has written a "tell-all" it's not a big deal.
The common thing is to steal from rich people. The uncommon thing is
there's always a small audience for stories written by former gofers and
maids and session producers and all manner of former bloodsucking phonies
who reaped the benefits of working for John and Yoko.
Doesn't surprise me to hear of this mother of a school friend of Sean's
(and we now know Yoko was always working), this woman named "Marnie
Hair," another obscurity-ridden woman who talked to Goldman (who now
burns in the depths of eternal hell) and reported John Lennon's brutality
toward his wife and baby son. Heck, *she* oughta know, right?
This is getting way too bizarre, Tom. You've got to come down from your
tabloid wallpapered tower and touch the earth!
Francie
nowhere man
> No, serious, ok, maybe not so much, but what do you do, Will? How old are
> you? I'm new here. I'm a 19 year young (never say old) bloke who likes to
> poke fun at things, what are you?
someone who can see through a liar.
Diana
are 2 sides to every story, but are reluctant to apply that concept to other
people.
"James lean Dean" <h...@bye.com> writes:
>He stole from Yoko, she's no damn Lennon. He was trying to return them to a
>real Lennon. He gave him to Rosen to make copies to give to Julian by the
>way. I forget who asked why he didn't make copies for Julian. Rosen then
>turned on Fred, that bastard. Fred eventually had to plead guilty because he
>did steal them and was against the law. That's like j-walking to save a baby
>or breaking a window of a car to open it and save the baby or breaking into
>a house to save a baby. The point is, his intention was positive and for
>nonprofit. Perhaps all of you Yoko defenders are under her manipulation. You
>guys ever hear of evidence?? I'd hate to have you in a jury cause you guys
>wouldn't believe any fucking thing.
- - - - - -
And in my heart you'll always stay
Forever young, forever young.
~ JOHN LENNON ~
1940-1980
There has never been a great spirit without a touch of insanity.
nowhere man
> Very well put! Those who are quick to defend Yoko often point out that there
> are 2 sides to every story, but are reluctant to apply that concept to other
> people.
okay then, for the zillionth time, did Fred return the diaries to Julian?
Will <<<Silence is golden>>>>
My Dear Nemesis
amara...@aol.com (Diana) wrote:
> Lizz Holmans <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >> The difference is that Diana slings facts. The only people slinging
> >>BS are Yoko's sycophants.
> >
> >Hardly.
> >
> >Some of us are historians.
>
> If you doubt my facts, read Tony Cox's account of how he got Yoko out of the
> psychiatric institution.
Irrelevant, and we who have read about Tony Cox know what kind of a man
he is - stealing his own daughter and preventing her mother from finding
her. He is biased and Yoko was not in a psychiatric facility after she
married John.
Read Cynthia's account of the letters Yoko sent sent
> her threatening to commit suicide if Cyn didn't let her have John.
There are no such letters, or Cyn would have sold them to the tabs for a
hefty sum. Speaking of letters, anyone with an axe to grind or a plot to
make money off John's dead body can say anything about letters that never
were written and you will believe them if it suits your personal theory
of the evil Yoko.
Read the
> accounts of people who spent many hours a day and witnessed these threats of
> suicide.
>
You mean Marnie and Fred, filtered through the ugliest vision ever
perpetrated on rock literature, Goldman's ultimate slime job?
You mean the tarot card reader who got fired and evicted from his paid
loft in Soho?
> I may not be an historian, but I have a pretty firm grasp of English, and
> believe that first-hand witnesses, especially when there are several and all
> saying the same thing, are reliable.
>
You have named no first-hand witnesses, cited no documentation, and based
your latest gossip-based attack on Yoko (via the lowest form of invasion
of privacy, the attack based on your own fear and ignorance about mental
illness, depression, and eccentricity) on vague references to nameless
people.
The only thing you have a firm grasp on is your vibrator, Di.
Hey. Whatever gets you through the night...
francie
DavisK
I'm sure the marriage certifcate would indicate otherwise.
> He was trying to return them to a
> real Lennon.
Now the idiocy of your argument really comes out. How is Julian more
Lennon than John? Because he has 13 of John's chromosomes? When you
marry someone, they can't be a blood relative. That's actually
illegal...
>He gave him to Rosen to make copies to give to Julian by the
> way. I forget who asked why he didn't make copies for Julian. Rosen
then
> turned on Fred, that bastard.
Poor baby...
> Fred eventually had to plead guilty because he
> did steal them and was against the law. That's like j-walking to save
a baby
> or breaking a window of a car to open it and save the baby or
breaking into
> a house to save a baby.
I don't recall Julian's life being in danger if he didn't get the
diaries. Your logic is irrelevant.
> The point is, his intention was positive and for
> nonprofit.
Oh yeah...then why did he make copies instead of giving them directly
(the originals) to Julian? Thank god he got caught before he could do
more serious damage.
> Perhaps all of you Yoko defenders are under her manipulation.
LOL! She's got some kind of subliminal psychic power transmitting
through my computer and TV. If you think that, then you are starting
to scare me dude...
> You
> guys ever hear of evidence?? I'd hate to have you in a jury cause you
guys
> wouldn't believe any fucking thing.
>
If someone steals, they are guilty of a crime. What's your problem?
> I'm suspicious of the people who defend this chick just as I'm
suspicious of
> those who don't like Beatles; don't like animals; don't like kids;
and so
> on.
>
Strange comparison. Are you suggesting that if we defend her, we are
less human in some way? Strange...
DavisK
jury. The guy's logic was erratic and scary, quite frankly...
In article <20001210200342...@nso-fj.aol.com>,
--
DavisK
jury. The guy's logic was erratic and scary, quite frankly...
In article <20001210200342...@nso-fj.aol.com>,
amara...@aol.com (Diana) wrote:
--
DavisK
nowhere man <william_m...@lineone.net> wrote:
> James lean Dean wrote:
> > I'd hate to have you in a jury cause you guys
> > wouldn't believe any fucking thing.
>
> I'd hate to have a thicko like yourself in any jury. Did I see you
on the OJ
> panel by any chance?
LOL, Will! Good one.
DavisK
can
> make a comeback to anything.
>
They are especially effective as rebuttals to idiotic statements.
> I'm suspicious of people who reply by quoting everything. I'm not
going to
> go over the whole evidence, you can put a spin on anything. I
wouldn't waste
> my time trying to sway you anyway. Your cup is full and needs to be
empty in
> order for me to feel it up with some truth.
>
Say what?...
> All the Yoko sycophants, where do they all come from?
>
Yoko defenders you mean? We've been here all the time. Thank God
there are some people in the world who don't still believe she broke up
the Beatles, etc...
> How about we stop giving you proof and you start defending Yoko with
proof?
> You can't.
>
> HOW DO YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT?
>
Like a baby. How 'bout you?
> I always say, "Love the art, not the artist," but how can you love
either
> when it comes to Yoko "loco" Ono?
>
Sorry James 'Mean' Dean...but we don't 'love' Yoko. We just don't
think she's the anti-christ, like some would like to have us believe...
DavisK
typo!
>
Wooops!
> I don't belong to any fucking group, I belong to me, Yoko and me;
that's
> reality.
>
Now you are on Yoko's side? What's going on?
> But seriously, I hate those anti-Yokos and those pro-Yokos.
>
> Hey, if you can't convince them, confuse them!
>
You have proven that you are anti-Yoko, no matter what you want to us
to believe.
> Also, my friend, I didn't say reply with MY WIT, I said yours...
>
> Do you have your wits about you today?
>
> The truth is plain to see right?
>
> A Lighter Shade of Pale is a nice one.
>
> Back to Yoko...
>
> This isn't fun anymore, I don't care!!!!!!!!
>
> LEAVE ME ALONE!
>
We can't leave you alone, James...you've opened up a can of worms, and
now you will have to eat it.
> To be insane in a world of insanity is to be normal?
>
> Help! I need somebody!
>
> #9??????
>
Good Lord...!
> I need to buy a guitar and borrow a piano and steal some lyrics.
>
> Some day you will all be playing my music, hehe.
>
> Mozart was the Vincent van Gogh of music.
>
Will, sounds like we are dealing with a nutcase here...LOL!
DavisK
with Paul
> and others that could BREAK her hold over him so to speak. This was
> witnessed by numerous people, not just Fred.
What did she use? Hocus pocus or abracadabra? Yoko could ask of John
to do things, but John was the one who made the choices.
>
> Also, you guys are going on an on about the parenting issue. I
brought this
> up as purely ONE of many examples of how Yoko's character is shady
and how
> she COULD manipulate someone. It's not that far off! <sarcasm>
>
Now she's parenting John? What are you talking about?
> If you need to make an appointment to see your mother or need to make
one
> for your wife and sometimes get denied because she's talking to her
other
> boyfriends or on drugs, that's SAD. This is a good piece of evidence
that
> any lawyer would pinch at.
What? LOL! I wonder who's the one doing the drugs...
>John may have been a poor father himself but
> we're talking about Yoko here, it doesn't matter. John was doing a
much
> better job than Yoko though, just for the record.
The argument seems to be that people are blaming Yoko for manipulating
John into being a bad father. And we are saying that John being a bad
father was his own doing.
>
> The real mother of Sean Lennon is Helen Seaman, Fred Seaman's aunt,
who was
> the full time "nanny" but in Yoko's world, "mother".
>
Cuckoo.....!
D 28IF
>Irrelevant, and we who have read about Tony Cox know what kind of a man
>he is - stealing his own daughter and preventing her mother from finding
>her. He is biased and Yoko was not in a psychiatric facility after she
>married John.
"We who have read about Tony Cox"? You one of a small number or something? Wow,
you're in an exclusive club. Don't you know that's not allowed.
While I certainly don't condone kidnapping, Yoko said in last week's US
magazine that it may have been better than Kyoko wasn't around during that
time. She was apart from all the madness that followed John & Yoko wherever
they went. So, in the end, for the sake of the child, maybe it ended up for the
best.
Not unlike how Yoko supposedly held the relatively small amount of money that
John set aside for Julian in trust, until Yoko felt Julian was mature enough to
handle it.
>Read Cynthia's account of the letters Yoko sent sent
>> her threatening to commit suicide if Cyn didn't let her have John.
>
>There are no such letters, or Cyn would have sold them to the tabs for a
>hefty sum. Speaking of letters, anyone with an axe to grind or a plot to
>make money off John's dead body can say anything about letters that never
>were written and you will believe them if it suits your personal theory
>of the evil Yoko.
>
Just like how handy it is that you often quote stories that can only be backed
up by dead people? John, Derek...
And btw, you have no idea what letters Cynthia has or doesn't have. Why would
she have sold them to the tabs? She hasn't sold everything she ever had. And,
overall, she's been more than gracious to Yoko as far as things she could say
in the press about her.
>> I may not be an historian, but I have a pretty firm grasp of English, and
>> believe that first-hand witnesses, especially when there are several and
>all
>> saying the same thing, are reliable.
>>
>
>You have named no first-hand witnesses, cited no documentation, and based
>your latest gossip-based attack on Yoko (via the lowest form of invasion
>of privacy, the attack based on your own fear and ignorance about mental
>illness, depression, and eccentricity) on vague references to nameless
>people.
So only those who have experienced those mental problems are allowed to make
mention of them? Is there a relation to that and your name-calling of people,
deriding them for, among other things, homosexuality and mental illness?
>
>The only thing you have a firm grasp on is your vibrator, Di.
Ah, I see you've answered my question.
Kathy
>> her threatening to commit suicide if Cyn didn't let her have John.
>
>There are no such letters, or Cyn would have sold them to the tabs for a
>hefty sum.
Actually there are letters. Quite a number of them. But there were written to
John and threatened suicide if he didn't help her financially. They had nothing
to do with Cyn other than they were written to her husband and left behind,
with other love letters between the two, for her to find much to their chagrin.
Your argument for insisting there were no letters simply because they weren't
sold to a tabloid is obviously nothing more than a weak attempt to discredit
Cyn.
> Speaking of letters, anyone with an axe to grind or a plot to
>make money off John's dead body can say anything about letters that never
>were written and you will believe them if it suits your personal theory
>of the evil Yoko.
Unless, of course, you've actually read the letters.
~K
My Dear Nemesis
But you haven't answered mine. Or addressed the ridiculous assertions of
Diana, OnoSlayer Supreme.
Francie
My Dear Nemesis
taff...@aol.comnojunk (Kathy) wrote:
> >Read Cynthia's account of the letters Yoko sent sent
> >> her threatening to commit suicide if Cyn didn't let her have John.
> >
> >There are no such letters, or Cyn would have sold them to the tabs for a
> >hefty sum.
>
> Actually there are letters. Quite a number of them. But there were written to
> John and threatened suicide if he didn't help her financially.
I have never seen any proof that such letters exist... and the scorned
ex-wife is not the most reliable analyst of love letters between her
husband and the woman who took him from her.
They had nothing
> to do with Cyn other than they were written to her husband and left behind,
> with other love letters between the two, for her to find much to their chagrin.
>
If you accept her characterisation of these "suicide threats" for
financial aid, then you're even more ignorant than I originally thought.
> Your argument for insisting there were no letters simply because they weren't
> sold to a tabloid is obviously nothing more than a weak attempt to discredit
> Cyn.
>
I didn't argue that Cyn's failure to make any money from the letters
proves they don't exist. But I still maintain if they existed, she would
have printed them in their entirety in her book. She didn't. And you have
yet to present one scintilla of proof that there is any letter
threatening suicide from Yoko to John or anybody else.
You simply don't know the facts, which are documented. Yoko Ono was
showing her own artwork internationally before John Lennon had enough
money to pay her debts. She hardly needed to threaten suicide in order to
get him to help her. He was in love with the woman, and I personally saw
his distress when Apple refused to give him enough cash to pay off her
debts. She was with him 24 hrs a day at the time, and she was happy as a
clam. Suicide was never on the menu, Kathy.
I don't need to discredit Cynthia Lennon (who has taken two other men's
names since John left her). She does a pathetic job of doing that without
any help from me.
> > Speaking of letters, anyone with an axe to grind or a plot to
> >make money off John's dead body can say anything about letters that never
> >were written and you will believe them if it suits your personal theory
> >of the evil Yoko.
>
> Unless, of course, you've actually read the letters.
>
Oh, like the one I wrote John in 1979 claiming I'd given birth to a
daughter by Paul and never bothered to tell him about it? You would
believe Giuliano no matter what I say.
Francie
James lean Dean
When I first started all this I left myself open to the fact that I could be
wrong and I still do. I'm the most open-minded person in the world. And I
must admit that a lot of the points you brought up have got me thinking
about things.
Also, what's so hard to believe about my age? I guess I must take that as a
compliment then. And I swear to you that this is my first time around here,
I can't stress this enough. I don't even like these boards! I don't like any
boards. They're like reading a review for a movie, it's all perception
really. Everyone is full of shit, including myself. Still, I find myself
posting yet again. See what a contradiction I am? Well, I came to the
conclusion that we're all walking contradictions really.
I always say I'm an old brain trapped in a young body.
My whole point is to make fun of you people who get all angry and loony.
That's why I went on and on with meaningless rant.
Well now, I came in here not giving a shit about who I'd make enemies with
and still hold to that. So you either love me or hate me, I'll be here
shouting.
w h e n i s p e a k i s c r e a m.
WHEN IS ICE CREAM?
They said Vincent van Gogh was crazy ya know ...
time will reveal my time.
#9 ?????
NAH...
#19 !!!!!!
All I know is I fancy the following...
Audrey Hepburn. Enough said. Kate Hepburn, Grace Kelly, Natalie Portman,
Julia Roberts, Julia Ormond, Ashley Judd and brunettes are ones you marry!
BEATLES, Frank Sinatra, John Lennon, Paul McCartney, Cary Grant, James Dean,
Jimmy Stewart, Dean Martin, Al Pacino, Bob Dylan, ELVIS, Jimi Hendrix,
Rolling Stones, David Bowie, Beach Boys, Blondie, Lenny Kravitz, Joni
Mitchell, Jewel, Sarah McLachlan (ADIA rocks), Tori Amos, Mozart, Van Gogh,
Picasso, Einstein, Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha, Oscar Wilde, J.D. Salinger, Ernest
Hemmingway, Edgar Allan Poe, Dr Seus
"My Dear Nemesis" <frn...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:910vhh$9p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
D 28IF
>> >There are no such letters, or Cyn would have sold them to the tabs for a
>> >hefty sum.
>>
>> Actually there are letters. Quite a number of them. But there were written
>to
>> John and threatened suicide if he didn't help her financially.
>
>I have never seen any proof that such letters exist... and the scorned
>ex-wife is not the most reliable analyst of love letters between her
>husband and the woman who took him from her.
>
>
Tsk, tsk. Just because the public at large hasn't seen it doesn't mean it
doesn't exist.
Hell, no one ever saw your legendary Jap Tart note. Must not have existed.
Sheesh!
Say, why not call Cynthia's lawyers and ask her if such letters exist? You're
good at getting in touch with people, through their lawyers.
And as far as "scorned ex-wives" go, she's as trustworthy, if not moreso, than
a scorned ex-girlfriend. She's had her stories backed up by people who were
there. She doesn't rely on dead people to corroborate her version of things.
>I didn't argue that Cyn's failure to make any money from the letters
>proves they don't exist. But I still maintain if they existed, she would
>have printed them in their entirety in her book.
Quite a stupid premise, on your part.
>You simply don't know the facts, which are documented. Yoko Ono was
>showing her own artwork internationally before John Lennon had enough
>money to pay her debts. She hardly needed to threaten suicide in order to
>get him to help her. He was in love with the woman, and I personally saw
>his distress when Apple refused to give him enough cash to pay off her
>debts. She was with him 24 hrs a day at the time, and she was happy as a
>clam. Suicide was never on the menu, Kathy.
>
You have no idea about that. We're talking about a period before you came into
the picture.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that life occurred before you
arrived on the scene and continued on after? You think the amount of time you
were on the scene sets the tone for everything that preceded and followed.
It'll be a hard fall for you when you wake up to reality and realise that you
*do not know everything that occurred in these people's lives just because you
spent some time with them for a few months.*
>I don't need to discredit Cynthia Lennon (who has taken two other men's
>names since John left her).
Jealous just because you never remarried? ;-) That's one of your lamer cuts to
someone.
>She does a pathetic job of doing that without
>any help from me.
And despite the struggling she's had to do, she's shown more restraint and
class than you could ever dream to possess.
UsurperTom
>So now you know why Rosen was a co-defendant in the Semenboy case.
>He too was sucking off the Lennon moneytit.
Yoko put Rosen on the payroll as a reward for ratting out Fred. These excerpts
are on page 4.
On August 16 (1982), I went to the Dakota to meet Sam Havadtoy, Ono's
boyfriend. I told him everything I knew. A month later I met with Ono
herself. When I agreed to let her read my personal diaries, she put me on her
payroll. The next day I loaned her 16 volumes of my journals. They covered
more than three years, from the day Seaman was hired through the day I left for
Jamaica. Ono used the information in my diaries to have Seaman arrested and to
get back her possessions. Seaman pleaded guilty to grand larceny and was
sentenced to five years' probation.
Only now, as this book goes to press, have there been discussions concerning
the return of my diaries, which Ono has held for 18 years.
END
>This is getting way too bizarre, Tom. You've got to come down from your
>tabloid wallpapered tower and touch the earth!
I don't read the Enquirer, the Star and the Globe. However, John Lennon read
those three papers religiously during the last years of his life.
Tom
UsurperTom
>And you have
>yet to present one scintilla of proof that there is any letter
>threatening suicide from Yoko to John or anybody else.
Les Anthony, John's chauffeur at the time, said that Yoko threatened suicide to
keep John away from Julian.
Tom
Doug Campbell
Johnny Moondog wrote:
>
> > One of you colors a simple statement about the importance of good
> > parenting as 'slathering rosy-red All-American bullshit all over John
> > and Yoko' and the other claims that this kind of statement is brought to
> > you by the same people who brought you the Third Reich? Hmm, no
> > self-justifying hyperbole there!
>
> I think you misunderstood. My statement was meant to address the practice of
> projecting personal values on other people, no matter how good and noble
> they may seem at the time. Diana made a blanket statement; I addressed it.
Well, projecting personal values is something people just do. It's a
natural process, and it's how shared codes of human behavior evolve.
You yourself have participated in the process by commenting as you have.
I think that's good. Nobody is neutral.
Open your eyes and ears to your environment. No parent really
> believes that they're doing a bad job. That's the problem. By the time they
> see the results of their handiwork, it's usually too late. And all people DO
> raise their children to the best of their often poor character and lousy
> intuition. The only way to break the chain is to steal these children from
> their cribs, or educate and train them before they pass their parents
> characteristics and behavior along.
What kind of education and training do you propose? I am not so hopeful
that public systems can provide what these children lack. It seems to
me one tragic fact of human life that there always have been and will be
neglectful or abusive parents; but the line between family privacy and
the public ethos is extremely sensitive, and I'd personally rather err
on the side of privacy. Anway, I didn't really intend to focus on
extreme cases where some kind of intervention is needed. I was talking
about the kind of minute-to-minute choices every parent makes regarding
what they say, how they say it, how they act, etc. That's all I meant
by 'good parenting' - ongoing attention to one's own behavior in light
of the effect you believe your actions and words will have on your child.
>
>
> It doesn't occur naturally; it's a product of civilization, and learning
> from trial-and-error. That's how everything we learn comes about, until it
> can be organized and taught. When we learn the value of change, and how to
> bring it about, we can enact the type of behavior that you are talking
> about, and pass it down to the children in such a way that they never know
> any other way. Much of what you described has already happened in many
> clans, but most certainly not all. Economics are often to blame; scarcity is
> the problem. Read Faulkner. He addresses this in many of his works.
There are some very unhappy children among the ranks of the affluent.
Yes, economic stresses can often cause family turmoil but it's also true
that parents preoccupied with maintaining some level of 'success' can be
just as neglectful. That's not news. The difference being that their
kids are running around some private school campus instead of around the
hood. They are less likely to end up in jail, or dead, but emotionally
are they really that much stronger or more mature? I've lived in both
the inner city and the affluent suburb. You wanna guess where people
seemed more neurotic? I'll give you a hint - the one where they wear
white turtlenecks! :)
>
> > You can't glorify John's devotion to raising Sean on the one hand and on
> > the other sneer at the mention of 'good parenting' simply because you
> > read in it some criticism regarding Julian. At least be consistent.
>
> You're in error, at least if you're criticizing what I wrote. I never
> mentioned Sean Lennon.
No, that was directed at Francie's comments. Thanks for your thoughtful
response, JM.
DC
Kathy
>ex-wife is not the most reliable analyst of love letters between her
>husband and the woman who took him from her.
Well, I *have* seen the proof that such letters exist so was able to analyze
them just fine without the input of the "scorned ex-wife".
>If you accept her characterisation of these "suicide threats" for
>financial aid, then you're even more ignorant than I originally thought.
I didn't write the letters, merely read enough of the ones in question to know
what they said. You can sit and argue Cyn's "characterisation" of letters you
claim don't exist all day long but *that* would be ignorant.
>I didn't argue that Cyn's failure to make any money from the letters
>proves they don't exist. But I still maintain if they existed, she would
>have printed them in their entirety in her book. She didn't.
Well, we've gone from making money by selling them to a tabloid to printing
them in their entirety in her book. I suppose that's progress. However, the
fact that she's done neither doesn't mean they don't exist. You, of all people,
should know that.
And you have
>yet to present one scintilla of proof that there is any letter
>threatening suicide from Yoko to John or anybody else.
>
I don't intend to offer one scintilla proof either. I read the letters. Take it
or leave it. If you want to read them yourself, contact the "scorned ex-wife"
and see what she says.
>You simply don't know the facts, which are documented. Yoko Ono was
>showing her own artwork internationally before John Lennon had enough
>money to pay her debts. She hardly needed to threaten suicide in order to
>get him to help her. He was in love with the woman, and I personally saw
>his distress when Apple refused to give him enough cash to pay off her
>debts. She was with him 24 hrs a day at the time, and she was happy as a
>clam. Suicide was never on the menu, Kathy.
And we are discussing a time before you were in the picture, Francie, and
before Yoko was with him 24 hrs a day.
>
>I don't need to discredit Cynthia Lennon (who has taken two other men's
>names since John left her). She does a pathetic job of doing that without
>any help from me.
Heh. Whatever...
>
>> > Speaking of letters, anyone with an axe to grind or a plot to
>> >make money off John's dead body can say anything about letters that never
>> >were written and you will believe them if it suits your personal theory
>> >of the evil Yoko.
>>
>> Unless, of course, you've actually read the letters.
>>
>
>Oh, like the one I wrote John in 1979 claiming I'd given birth to a
>daughter by Paul and never bothered to tell him about it? You would
>believe Giuliano no matter what I say.
>
This has nothing to do with you or a letter to John in 1979 or Giuliano. But
I'll assume the attempt to change the subject means a wish to avoid the actual
topic on your part.
Fair enough.
~K
My Dear Nemesis
> >ex-wife is not the most reliable analyst of love letters between her
> >husband and the woman who took him from her.
> >
> >
>
> Tsk, tsk. Just because the public at large hasn't seen it doesn't mean it
> doesn't exist.
>
> Hell, no one ever saw your legendary Jap Tart note. Must not have existed.
> Sheesh!
>
<snipped idiotic schoolgirl rant>
If you don't like the lessage or you can't deal with it, just slide into
that good ole dependable technique - snipe at the messenger.
You're not doing very well tonight, 28. I know you're on the ropes when
you start with the "she's got more class" and "can't catch and keep a
man" shit...
And it wasn't *my* hate note, it was Paul's. Yoko remembers. I remember.
Paul's not about to admit to something so sleazy and hurtful. Who're you
gonna quote, and in what book?
Diana
>> That's because Yoko blocked Julian from John the same way she did
>>with Paul
>> and others that could BREAK her hold over him so to speak. This was
>> witnessed by numerous people, not just Fred.
>
>What did she use? Hocus pocus or abracadabra? Yoko could ask of
>John to do things, but John was the one who made the choices.
Thanks to a certain person's generosity, I saw a recording of BBC-TV's "The
Real John Lennon." Cynthia said that Yoko phoned to inform her that from now
on (about 1971) Yoko would handle any communication between John and Julian,
and John would handle any communication between Yoko and Kyoko. Pretty funny
considering Kyoko had been kidnapped by Yoko's second ex-husband.
Oh, and John did not see or speak to Julian for FOUR YEARS after that phone
call.
BTW, Dennis Ferrante had some choice words about Yoko as well.
My Dear Nemesis
Now there's a profoundly insignificant source of information. At WHAT
time was that? Before they were married? Where'd he say that, in which
tabloid? Or was it in Goldman or Semenboy's book?
A driver in the front seat eavesdrops on a conversation between husband
and wife. It's none of his business, but he thinks he understands exactly
what one is saying to the other. He makes a few dollars on his memories
after the husband is murdered.
Less Than Zero.
My Dear Nemesis
taff...@aol.comnojunk (Kathy) wrote:
> <more unverifiable assertions>
>
Check the name of this thread.
Then tell me how classy you think it is for Cynthia to show letters from
John to Yoko and vice versa to a non-relative... and how long after they
were written did she show them to you?
I'd say you're the one who's trying to change the subject.
If you want to put Cyn's career up against Yoko's, or perhaps the values
she taught Julian against the values Yoko taught Sean, that's another
thread.
What's happening here is the usual suspects have come out of the woods
with a minuscule fable to prop up their "theory" of Yoko's greed and
witchery.
Have you any idea how ridiculous this quest of yours is?
Poor Cyn. Still letting herself buy sympathy with other people's love
letters from 1967. Betcha you were real sympathetic.
UsurperTom
>Where'd he say that, in which tabloid?
Les Anthony wrote an article in News of the World in 1972 about his experiences
as John's chauffeur from 1965 to 1971. He also helped John hurl a brick
through Paul's window.
>It's none of his business
Who died and anointed you the arbiter of morality and virtue?
>He makes a few dollars on his memories
>after the husband is murdered.
He wrote the article while John was still alive. Read above. It was in 1972.
Tom
UsurperTom
>Cynthia said that Yoko phoned to inform her that from now
>on (about 1971) Yoko would handle any communication between John and Julian,
>and John would handle any communication between Yoko and Kyoko.
It was in April 1970 when Yoko threatened to commit suicide after John visited
Julian. John didn't see Julian again until Christmas 1973 when John was away
from Yoko.
Tom
Kathy
>
erroneous assertions made in it.
>Then tell me how classy you think it is for Cynthia to show letters from
>John to Yoko and vice versa to a non-relative... and how long after they
>were written did she show them to you?
>
Oh please. You've gone from denying any such letters exist to questioning Cyn's
class in showing them to someone.What is it you told D28: " If you don't like
the message or you can't deal with it, just slide into that good ole dependable
technique - snipe at the messenger." ??
>I'd say you're the one who's trying to change the subject.
>If you want to put Cyn's career up against Yoko's, or perhaps the values
>she taught Julian against the values Yoko taught Sean, that's another
>thread.
This has *NOTHING* to do with Cyn's career, or the values she taught Julian or
her mothering skills vs Yoko's. And I'm not the one who has tried to move it
away from the subject I originally addressed: letters Yoko wrote to John that
threatened suicide.
>What's happening here is the usual suspects have come out of the woods
>with a minuscule fable to prop up their "theory" of Yoko's greed and
>witchery.
>
No, what you have here is someone who said you were wrong without ever
mentioning a theory of "Yoko's greed or witchery".
>Have you any idea how ridiculous this quest of yours is?
Whatever....
>
>Poor Cyn. Still letting herself buy sympathy with other people's love
>letters from 1967. Betcha you were real sympathetic.
>
Poor Francie. Grasping again and without knowing what at.
It would appear that hidden in your blurred insults that you accept the fact
that letters exist.
In which case, by all means carry on.
~K
JLW44
>Paul's not about to admit to something so sleazy and hurtful. Who're you
>gonna quote, and in what book?
>
>Francie
So what do we have here. A first hand source who has never claimed that such a
note existed, and a scorned ex-lover who claims it did.
D 28IF
>> >I have never seen any proof that such letters exist... and the scorned
>> >ex-wife is not the most reliable analyst of love letters between her
>> >husband and the woman who took him from her.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Tsk, tsk. Just because the public at large hasn't seen it doesn't mean it
>> doesn't exist.
>>
>> Hell, no one ever saw your legendary Jap Tart note. Must not have existed.
>> Sheesh!
>>
>
><snipped idiotic schoolgirl rant>
>
>
>If you don't like the lessage or you can't deal with it, just slide into
>that good ole dependable technique - snipe at the messenger.
>
ROTF!!!
Let's review, class ~
Francie has taken this thread in a direction she hadn't anticipated - she made
assertions and negative comments about Cynthia Lennon. When she was found to be
wrong, with as much evidence as anything she has offered to believe *her*
stories, she takes a swift turn, trying to knock the messenger. Which is ironic
considering what she wrote above.
Francie face it - once again, you're wrong. But instead of maturely and fairly
admitting you may be wrong, you take a swift turn and attack. What's supposed
to be a good enough measure of proof for Francie is not good enough for anyone
else.
Shall I be more detailed for those who can't follow (i.e. Franny herself?), ok.
When something like the note Paul supposedly wrote to John about Yoko is
brought up, it's supposed to be good enough for us that Franny saw it, and that
she says Yoko saw it. Yoko is hardly about to step forward and tell us this, so
we have to go with Franny's word. But when someone else has the same evidence
of something being real, does she deal with that? Nah, she takes a swipe at
Cynthia Lennon:
"Then tell me how classy you think it is for Cynthia to show letters from
John to Yoko and vice versa to a non-relative... and how long after they
were written did she show them to you?"
Notice how now the subject of, "Yoko never ever ever wrote any notes to John
threatening suicide," has now become, "Well, umm, errr, ahhh, then Cyn's a
lowlife for letting someone else see them." And she even tries to veer off
further - how long after they were written did Cyn show them to Kathy. What the
hell does that have to do with anything?
Franny, *I* brought up Cyn's class in handling all the crap John & Yoko put out
vs. Cyn's own story. The discussion you're having with Kathy about the
existence of the note has nothing to do with that. Yet, you conveniently brings
that into it, since Kathy has proved you wrong. And you, as always, can't admit
you're wrong.
And since being classy or not isn't even a good enough argument for Francie to
use, she tries to take the thread into yet ANOTHER direction - Cyn's career vs.
Yoko's. Who the hell was ever discussing that?! No one but Flailing Francie,
who has nowhere to go but begin her departure from the thread with her arms
swinging, trying desperately to hit any target possible.
"I'd say you're the one who's trying to change the subject.
If you want to put Cyn's career up against Yoko's, or perhaps the values
she taught Julian against the values Yoko taught Sean, that's another
thread."
Notice, it was *Francie* who changed the subject this time. No one else.
Reality stares her in the face and she not only blinks, she puts blinders on so
it doesn't get in the way of her parallel universe.
My Dear Nemesis
taff...@aol.comnojunk (Kathy) wrote:
>
>
> It would appear that hidden in your blurred insults that you accept the fact
> that letters exist.
I accept nothing, because no facts have been offered. Only your
insistence that you, as the only person on earth Cyn honored with a
viewing of some old letters John and Yoko left behind when they finally
got together... because that is all you have added to this thread.
You underestimate this newsgroup if you think anyone could possibly be
interested in your little spin-doctoring exercise.
It's obvious to everyone that you participate in the discussions about
Yoko only to further your irrational animus toward Yoko...
and it has absolutely nothing to do with John or the Beatles or music or
cultral history, it's just another spoonful of anti-Yoko propaganda.
All you've done is add to the Stumpheads gallery of Skirmishes Over
Nothing. And kicked more dirt into John's dead face.