May Pang's Posts

[Mack A. Damia]

Somebody was asking about her posts, and I found this in my files:

http://www.beatlefan.net/b2125419-may-pang-internet-posts.html

--

[hislop]

On 12/05/2013 3:11 PM, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>
>
> Somebody was asking about her posts, and I found this in my files:
>
> http://www.beatlefan.net/b2125419-may-pang-internet-posts.html
>

thanks for that.

I heard a long time ago John's 'fame' vocal by itself.
I can only guess if it is still possible to do that.
Others would know more. I've always known it was him doing it.
John Lennon also does vocals on Elton John's version of Lucy In The Sky
With Diamonds, though I guess people already knew that.

<paste>
>Actually, the voice that does the high, short, falsetto "fame"
>after the deep Bowie voice goes "Faaaaaame" sounds JUST like John.
>I'm sure it is.


Oh, and at the end, it's obviously John who shout/sings "What's your
name!?"


You got it!!!!!.............Thanks, May Pang
</paste>

[hislop]

On 12/05/2013 3:11 PM, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>
>

> Somebody was asking about her posts, and I found this in my files:
>
> http://www.beatlefan.net/b2125419-may-pang-internet-posts.html
>

I've said before that he seemed to lighten up in 1974 about the question
about The Beatles reforming in some way, but Paul and George were still
very busy in what they were doing. I've said before that it was likely
they would have reformed in the 80s at some point, when they were all
finished with the phases of what they had been doing..

<paste>
The Beatles getting
together was not a thing of the past with John. He actually
considered to get the other guys together and do a concert. Harry
Nilsson would have been part of it too. When they thought about it,
the realistic time and logistics were not good. This proposed
concert was to be in September 1974.
</paste>

[Fattuchus]

This is fascinating stuff. Thanks!

I wish May would return to rmb, but I doubt she would. I think the
trolls would drive her away.

[The Brooklyn Tomato Bandit]

On May 12, 3:20 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I wish May would return to rmb, but I doubt she would.  I think the
> trolls would drive her away.

Don't sell yourself short. She'd like you very much, no doubt.

[topazgalaxy]

On May 12, 1:11 am, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:

these May Pang posts are great, thanks for sharing

[c dubois]

On May 12, 1:11 am, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Thanks for this, Mack!

[The Brooklyn Tomato Bandit]

I see three posters having a busy Sunday mapped out, masturbating to
May's anti-YO posts.

Hell hath no fury like a woman kicked to the curb.

[c dubois]

On May 12, 1:11 am, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Somebody was asking about her posts, and I found this in my files:
>
> http://www.beatlefan.net/b2125419-may-pang-internet-posts.html
>

It's fascinating stuff. Thanks again.

The thing that makes me sad, reading May's posts, is not John's return
to Yoko, per se. Instead, it's May's talk about how John was always
writing songs, regularly working with other high caliber singwriters,
and often seeing his old friends (of course I'm including his firmer
bandmates). Why did it all to stop so abruptly in '75?

[Bernie Woodham]

On May 12, 4:34 pm, c dubois <curtissdub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The thing that makes me sad, reading May's posts, is not John's return
> to Yoko, per se. Instead, it's May's talk about how John was always
> writing songs, regularly working with other high caliber singwriters,
> and often seeing his old friends (of course I'm including his firmer
> bandmates).  Why did it all to stop so abruptly in '75?

I guess he got tired of his bandmates being firmer than him ;o)

(sorry, couldn't resist).

[c dubois]

Yeah, I noticed the typo after I hit send, and I thought it could have
been worse; the sentence still kind of works.

[topazgalaxy]

On May 12, 4:34 pm, c dubois <curtissdub...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sean was born on John's birthday in 1975. May Pang had mentioned at
a Beatlefest years and years ago that I attended, where she was a
guest, that John had a low sperm count. Yes this mentioned this
directly I was there. Plus Yoko's age/biological clock was ticking.
I also heard on an old John Lennon interview (aren't they all old by
now) that he and Yoko had to go to fertility doctors because of the
drugs and other issues damaging their fertility as a couple. It is
possible that having a child became very important to J and Y and
between all the medical visits, and getting clean John chose to
leave his drinking buddies and really produce a child with Yoko.

I have wondered what would have happened if J and Y had a girl.

[The Brooklyn Tomato Bandit]

On May 12, 4:44 pm, topazgalaxy <topazgal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It is possible that having a child became very important to J and Y and
> between all the medical visits, and getting clean John  chose to
> leave his drinking buddies and really produce a  child with Yoko.

Posts like that will not get you invited to any more of Gay's
parties.

He was drugged and hypnotized. Stick to the script.

[BeatleEd]

And YOU are a perfect example of why we don't have her here anymore.

[The Brooklyn Tomato Bandit]

On May 12, 5:54 pm, BeatleEd <Beatl...@imaginary.com> wrote:

> The Brooklyn Tomato Bandit <bellyfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I see three posters having a busy Sunday mapped out, masturbating to
> > May's anti-YO posts.
>
> > Hell hath no fury like a woman kicked to the curb.
>
> And YOU are a perfect example of why we don't have her here anymore.

She left because she decided she'd rather sell her stories, Special
Ed. Don't get confused.

[BeatleEd]

The Brooklyn Tomato Bandit <belly...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bullshit! But that's what they feed Brooklyn tomatoes, isn't it?

[The Brooklyn Tomato Bandit]

On May 12, 7:05 pm, BeatleEd <Beatl...@imaginary.com> wrote:
> The Brooklyn Tomato Bandit <bellyfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 12, 5:54 pm, BeatleEd <Beatl...@imaginary.com> wrote:
> >> The Brooklyn Tomato Bandit <bellyfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > I see three posters having a busy Sunday mapped out, masturbating to
> >> > May's anti-YO posts.
>
> >> > Hell hath no fury like a woman kicked to the curb.
>
> >> And YOU are a perfect example of why we don't have her here anymore.
>
> > She left because she decided she'd rather sell her stories, Special
> > Ed. Don't get confused.
>
> Bullshit!  But that's what they feed Brooklyn tomatoes, isn't it?

I wouldn't know. I just steal 'em.

From the Floyd Bennett gardens.

[Fattuchus]

On May 12, 4:34 pm, c dubois <curtissdub...@gmail.com> wrote:

Based on interviews, including ones given by Yoko herself, and other
things I read it stopped for the following reason: John and Yoko got
back together and soon thereafter, Yoko told John she was pregnant.
John was thrilled,. Yoko wasn't.

Yoko told John that she wanted to have an abortion. Yoko made a deal
with John that he could not refuse . . . ."I will have the baby to
term if you take care of the baby and let me control the family
wealthy and run the family business." They both agreed that in light
of these responsibilities, John would temporarily "retire" to be a
househusband.

[Fattuchus]

On May 12, 5:54 pm, BeatleEd <Beatl...@imaginary.com> wrote:

> The Brooklyn Tomato Bandit <bellyfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I see three posters having a busy Sunday mapped out, masturbating to
> > May's anti-YO posts.
>
> > Hell hath no fury like a woman kicked to the curb.
>
> And YOU are a perfect example of why we don't have her here anymore.

Mr. Belly Flop is doing gymnastics to get attention. And I bet there
are a few people who left rmb because of unkind remarks like his. But
I have learned the best thing is to ignore
him . . . . Let him twist in the wind.

I do wish May were back here at rmb. She wrote very well and would
have some great inside information.

[Fattuchus]

On May 12, 7:05 pm, BeatleEd <Beatl...@imaginary.com> wrote:
> The Brooklyn Tomato Bandit <bellyfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 12, 5:54 pm, BeatleEd <Beatl...@imaginary.com> wrote:
> >> The Brooklyn Tomato Bandit <bellyfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > I see three posters having a busy Sunday mapped out, masturbating to
> >> > May's anti-YO posts.
>
> >> > Hell hath no fury like a woman kicked to the curb.
>
> >> And YOU are a perfect example of why we don't have her here anymore.
>
> > She left because she decided she'd rather sell her stories, Special
> > Ed. Don't get confused.
>
> Bullshit!  But that's what they feed Brooklyn tomatoes, isn't it?

LOL! Now that is funny.

[c dubois]

On May 12, 6:00 pm, The Brooklyn Tomato Bandit <bellyfl...@yahoo.com>

wrote:
> On May 12, 5:54 pm, BeatleEd <Beatl...@imaginary.com> wrote:
>
> > The Brooklyn Tomato Bandit <bellyfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I see three posters having a busy Sunday mapped out, masturbating to
> > > May's anti-YO posts.
>
> > > Hell hath no fury like a woman kicked to the curb.
>
> > And YOU are a perfect example of why we don't have her here anymore.
>
> She left because she decided she'd rather sell her stories, Special
> Ed. Don't get confused.

Her book came out well before she ever posted in RMB.

[c dubois]

On May 12, 4:44 pm, topazgalaxy <topazgal...@gmail.com> wrote:

That could be part of it, but lots of parents balance work with family
life. Look at the McCartneys with their large brood, for example. So
I don't think Sean's birth fully explains John's sudden departure from
music and social life.

Also, I wouldn't characterize all of the friendships John had during
his gime away from Yoko as drinking buddies. Harry Nilsson famously
drank a lot (though if you watch the film that came out about him that
came out a few years back, he's only got a beer on his piano at
times), but he also did "Old Dirt Road" with John and Pussycats. In
other words, it wasn't just oartying between them.

[c dubois]

Yes, I've read that Yoko insisted John had to care for Sean once he
was born. I've also heard there were nannies...lots of them.

[BeatleEd]

c dubois <curtis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> She left because she decided she'd rather sell her stories, Special
>> Ed. Don't get confused.
>
> Her book came out well before she ever posted in RMB.
>

Please don't let facts get in the way of a good bashing.

He's taken the path of least resistance - "Attack the messenger when you
don't like the message" - and allowed himself to pick and prod at Ms. Pang,
most likely due to some form of Asia-phobia.

[BeatleEd]

c dubois <curtis...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, I've read that Yoko insisted John had to care for Sean once he
> was born. I've also heard there were nannies...lots of them.

Do any of you feel that John felt guilty over his lack of parenting with
Julian, and that might have led him (at least in part) to his desire to
take an active role in raising his second son?

[c dubois]

On May 13, 12:42 pm, BeatleEd <Beatl...@imaginary.com> wrote:

Yes, I think that's true. (In spite of John's dismissive remarks
about Julian to David Sheff.)

[jtees4]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 22:11:15 -0700, Mack A. Damia
<mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>Somebody was asking about her posts, and I found this in my files:
>
>http://www.beatlefan.net/b2125419-may-pang-internet-posts.html

Good stuff. It would be great if folks talked about and quoted in
online forums came in and spoke for themselves more often.
*************
Some of my music:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=789610

[jtees4]

I have just finished reading 4-5 books about the Beatles, and some non
Beatle music books that were partly about The Beatles. One thing that
was said by a few different people, was that John's raising Sean was
really John mostly alone in his bedroom and Sean being raised by
staff. I don't know what's true, but more than one person said it.

[Fattuchus]

On May 13, 12:42 pm, BeatleEd <Beatl...@imaginary.com> wrote:

I believe John had certain emotional issues. IMO he was "macho" and
violent as a young man, and sometimes mistreated women (as he
admitted). When he met Yoko, he did feel happier and
more secure, and I think he reflected on some of his past
transgressions such as his virtual abandonment of Julian. So, yes, I
think he was involved with Sean partly because Yoko insisted on it
and partly because he realized he made a mistake by not being there
for Julian.

[Fattuchus]

From what I have read, Sean was cared for by staff, but I do believe
John was also an important part of Sean's life.

[thewalruswasdanny]

> I wish May would return to rmb, but I doubt she would. I think the
>
> trolls would drive her away.

May won't return to RMB..will message you via FB!!

Danny

[jtees4]

I agree. He definitely was an important part of Sean's life. To me, it
just seems that you always hear about John Lennon being a "house
husband" as if he were staying home and raising Sean like he was doing
it alone. I'm glad he took a huge interest in Sean, I only wish he had
tried harder with Julian.

[jtees4]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 16:42:55 GMT, BeatleEd <Beat...@imaginary.com>
wrote:

I don't actually think it was guilt, I just think he was at a
different place in his life and careers. And of course Yoko was in
charge and would have kicked his ass.

[Fattuchus]

O
>
> >Do any of you feel that John felt guilty over his lack of parenting with
> >Julian, and that might have led him (at least in part) to his desire to
> >take an active role in raising his second son?
>
> I don't actually think it was guilt, I just think he was at a
> different place in his life and careers. And of course Yoko was in
> charge and would have kicked his ass.

As I said before, Yoko wanted an abortion. She agreed to have the
baby only if John took care of him.

[c dubois]

Yoko has explicitly admitted to that -- not long ago, in fact, which
must have been weied for Sean.

[c dubois]

On May 14, 4:59 pm, jtees4 <jte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 16:42:55 GMT, BeatleEd <Beatl...@imaginary.com>
> wrote:

>
> >c dubois <curtissdub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Yes, I've read that Yoko insisted John had to care for Sean once he
> >> was born.  I've also heard there were nannies...lots of them.
>
> >Do any of you feel that John felt guilty over his lack of parenting with
> >Julian, and that might have led him (at least in part) to his desire to
> >take an active role in raising his second son?
>
> I don't actually think it was guilt, I just think he was at a
> different place in his life and careers. And of course Yoko was in
> charge and would have kicked his ass.
> *************
> Some of my music:http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=789610

I have the sense that John was actually very happy with his career
prior to Yoko's pregnancy. Walls and Bridges went to #1. "Whatever
Gets You Thru the Night" went to #1. "Number 9 Dream" went to...#9.
He received a hero's welcome onstage with Elton John. Equally
important, I think, for him, was getting the mess of STINYC, radical
politics, and the "angry John" propounded in certain interviews behind
him. (Tony King, I believe encouraged and helped with this.) His
career was in a good place and I think he know it. My guess is the
oregnancy took him by surprise.

[Fattuchus]

The pregnancy did take him by surprise, but from what I read, at first
John did not think that would mean he had to sacrifice his career.
What I bet took him by surprise was
Yoko telling him she wanted an abortion. After all, John was very
happy to be back to Yoko and was undoubtedly thrilled at the thought
of having a baby. So for John, the
additional surprise was the decision to put his career on hold so he
could spend time with Sean.

[M C hammered]

Well mebbe takerin caya of Sean din't take THAT mush time, an mebbe
they had plenty of assitermince. BUT...that erfute's nuthin. Cuz
there's sumfin yer fergettin. Bread, people, bread! John was bakerin
bread! Thats a-why he was so busy he couldn't make no moe music.
Bakin bread fer Sean an Yoke an Uncle Elliot (whose hand I shook and
whose face I looked into...orange skin people, orange metallic cotton
pickin skin!) So thats what he was up to. Yoke couldn't bake the
firkin bread cause she was sellerin so many firkin COW's.

Awrite?

Gottit?

Good.

Nuff said.

[c dubois]

On May 15, 12:55 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Here's the problem. If Yoko wanted John to give up music to watch
after Sean (and even that "Private Years" article in Rolling Stone
admitted Yoko "imposed" this new life on John), why was she constantly
sending him off alone on all those odd trips?

[RichL]

"c dubois" <curtis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c9a08d6b-bfc1-435d...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

As far as I can tell from what I've read, "sending him off alone on all
those odd trips" is a fiction fabricated by the anti-Yoko set.

To the extent there were any "odd trips", John went because he wanted to go.

[c dubois]

On May 17, 7:08 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "c dubois" <curtissdub...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Tell me what you've read on the subject.

[Fattuchus]

Good point. If you read the Fred Seaman book, one reason was so she
could have an affair; the other was so she could detox from heroin.

IIRC Ringo had made some statement that she was trying to get him to
"grow up."

Yoko herself said that when he was alive she wanted to be apart from
him. After he died she wanted to be with him.

[Fattuchus]

On May 17, 7:08 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "c dubois" <curtissdub...@gmail.com> wrote in message

John did follow his wife's advice and suggestions, but there can be no
question there were times Yoko told John he should make these trips
for various reasons i.e. it would be good luck, her directionalist or
tarot card reader said so, etc. There were times Yoko wanted to be
apart from him. She said so herself in an interview.

[UsurperTom]

On May 18, 10:02 am, c dubois <curtissdub...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Tell me what you've read on the subject.

Rich should at least read on the subject before he comments on it.

[Bernie Woodham]

On May 12, 4:34 pm, c dubois <curtissdub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> The thing that makes me sad, reading May's posts, is not John's return
> to Yoko, per se. Instead, it's May's talk about how John was always
> writing songs, regularly working with other high caliber singwriters,
> and often seeing his old friends (of course I'm including his firmer

> bandmates)...

I've chosen to respond to this thread because it seems most
appropriate to stick this in here. This is a segment of a documentary
on Albert Goldman's book. In this segment, at the specific time in
the video, Bob Spitz and May Pang are juxtaposed.

Spitz talks about pop star biographers in general and gives May as an
example. May seems to be defending her account of the Elton John after
show party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m19El1wEssg#t=3m59s

This supports my view of all these biographies -- you cannot take them
to heart. The biographers themselves have to many ulterior motives.
Albert Goldman certainly. But all of the others too.

You can read all the biographies and walk away knowing nothing about
any of the people you've just read about.

[RichL]

"Bernie Woodham" <birnh...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:a897662b-362d-4324...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

Yes, but you do learn a little bit (more than you'd like to) about the
people who wrote about the people you've just read about.

[Fattuchus]

When John was with May, I read that he saw Julian several times during
that 18 month period. I agree he should have been a better father to
Julian when John was a Beatle.
However, we should consider: 1. he did not really want to marry
Cynthia and felt "trapped" 2. life was crazy during Beatlemania
and 3. John was psychologically damaged and probably
did not know how to be a father at the time.

[Fattuchus]

IMO, if a similar story is told over and over again by different
"insiders" the story is more likely to be true. For example, Yoko's
domineering influence on John has been mentioned in books and
interviews by May Pang, Linda McCartney, Julian Lennon, Pete Shotton,
John himself, etc.

Furthermore, a statement in a bio may seem hard to believe, but
sometimes such "fairytales" are supported by other "proof" such as an
interview given by John or Yoko. For example, if years ago some
supposed biographer had written that Yoko wanted an abortion when she
was pregnant with Sean, but decided to keep the baby if John agreed to
give her control of his money . . . . I would have said "what!!?" But
Yoko admitted this in interviews.

[topazgalaxy]

On May 13, 12:42 pm, BeatleEd <Beatl...@imaginary.com> wrote:

Yes, I believe that is an accurate statement.
Also IIRC, Cynthia became pregnant before John married her. In other
words he may have married Cyn because it was the right thing to do,
not because he loved her enough to want to be married to her.
IIRC Julian was not a planned child. Now compare that to Sean. I
believe that John really did want to have a child with Yoko (in
contrast to the sitiuation with Cyn). When Sean came into the world
he was thrilled and I do think he wanted a second chance at
fatherhood
It is such a terrible irony that both Sean and John lost their fathers
at about the same age. And they had the same birthday (John and Sean)

[topazgalaxy]

After he died, her actions indicated that she wanted to be on the
world stage and all of a sudden she discovered how to use rock and
roll to help achieve that.
He may have been very dependent on Yoko when he was alive, and maybe
Yoko did not really enjoy that kind of partner

[RichL]

"Fattuchus" <fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:05c8eafd-ef0a-4b96...@h13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

> IMO, if a similar story is told over and over again by different
> "insiders" the story is more likely to be true.

"If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." -- J. Goebbels

[Fattuchus]

On May 20, 2:05 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Fattuchus" <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

I am familiar with that quote, but that is not what I am saying. I am
saying that if three or four independent people observe the same
thing, IMO it makes the evidence stronger.

Julian described his father as a "manipulated lost soul." In her
Playboy interview, Linda McCartney made some remark about John losing
himself or supressing his personality (I cannot
recall the exact quote). Pete Shotton said John "wanted to be
dominated." Bill Harry described John as having some mommy complex.
These people all knew John; they all noticed
the same personality issues.

[UsurperTom]

On May 20, 2:15 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> if three or four independent people observe the same thing, IMO it makes the evidence stronger.

As usual, Rich is in no position to call of these sources "liars."

[Nooffa Subject]

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches" - Mike Godwin, 1990

[topazgalaxy]

On May 20, 2:05 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Fattuchus" <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

Ms Magazine: to Yoko: do you own any pets?

Yoko: just my husband John

=============================================================================================

Said John: “I just have one hope: that I die before Yoko does because
we have become so much of an equation together that I don’t think I
would have the strength to go on without her. Oh, I don’t mean I would
commit suicide; I just mean life would be so empty. I hope I die
before Yoko, because if Yoko died I wouldn’t know how to survive. I
couldn’t carry on.”

[Nil]

On 20 May 2013, topazgalaxy <topaz...@gmail.com> wrote in
rec.music.beatles:

> Ms Magazine: to Yoko: do you own any pets?
>
> Yoko: just my husband John

It's called a joke. Humorless ones like yourself wouldn't get it, of
course.

> Said John: "I just have one hope: that I die before Yoko does
> because we have become so much of an equation together that I
> don�t think I would have the strength to go on without her. Oh, I
> don�t mean I would commit suicide; I just mean life would be so
> empty. I hope I die before Yoko, because if Yoko died I wouldn�t
> know how to survive. I couldn�t carry on."

It's called devotion. Those like you who obviously don't love anyone
deeply won't get it, of course.

[Bernie Woodham]

On May 20, 5:04 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > You can read all the biographies and walk away knowing nothing about
> > any of the people you've just read about.
>
> IMO, if a similar story is told over and over again by different
> "insiders" the story is more likely to be true.  For example, Yoko's
> domineering influence on John has been mentioned in books and
> interviews by May Pang, Linda McCartney, Julian Lennon, Pete Shotton,
> John himself, etc.
>

I will grant, that if you create a timeline, take notes and read all
of those books in a syntopical manner, you can come to a conclusion on
what there seems to be a consensus on. But that is not what most
people do, and it is certainly not what you do:

"Some of the opinons I have and comments I've made are based on May's
own book. Some posters here don't want to believe it. I happen to
like her books very much and I find what she says credible."

--- Fattuchus ---

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.beatles/msg/74e799ff038b6065?hl=en&dmode=source

> Furthermore, a statement in a bio may seem hard to believe, but
> sometimes such "fairytales" are supported by other "proof" such as an
> interview given by John or Yoko.  For example, if years ago some
> supposed biographer had written that Yoko wanted an abortion when she
> was pregnant with Sean, but decided to keep the baby if John agreed to
> give her control of his money . . . . I would have said "what!!?"  But
> Yoko admitted this in  interviews.

Give me a reference to that interview.

[c dubois]

On May 20, 2:15 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Right. There will often be conflicting accounts about famous people.
But this doesn't mean truth is unknowable. It means you have to
evaluate the sources' credibility and consistency and see what can be
corroborated, etc. For example, May Pang says John and Yoko did not
get back together the night of the Elton John show. Elliot Mintz says
they did. May Pang was there; Mintz wasn't. EJ's cohort Bernie
Taupin has said things consistent with Pang's account and he has no
reason to lie; Mintz is Yoko's paid PR consultant. I've also read
Yoko's date for the show was that session guitarist she was in love
with. What, did she and this guy and John indulge in a threesome?
I'll take May's account in this case.

[RichL]

"UsurperTom" <Usurp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:252c0547-53f3-4cd9...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

Didn't you say once that you were a student of history in college? How do
you think the kiss-and-tell books that you so overwhelmingly favor over
other, more legitimate sources stack up against the standards that you were
taught in terms of historical research?

[RichL]

"Fattuchus" <fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:af65b330-a46d-4dd5...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

> On May 20, 2:05 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Fattuchus" <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:05c8eafd-ef0a-4b96...@h13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > IMO, if a similar story is told over and over again by different
>> > "insiders" the story is more likely to be true.
>>
>> "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." -- J. Goebbels
>
> I am familiar with that quote, but that is not what I am saying. I am
> saying that if three or four independent people observe the same
> thing, IMO it makes the evidence stronger.
>
> Julian described his father as a "manipulated lost soul."

Julian was resentful of his father ignoring him.

> In her
> Playboy interview, Linda McCartney made some remark about John losing
> himself or supressing his personality (I cannot
> recall the exact quote).

I'd like to see the exact quote as well as the context.

> Pete Shotton said John "wanted to be
> dominated." Bill Harry described John as having some mommy complex.
> These people all knew John; they all noticed
> the same personality issues.

Pete Shotton and Bill Harry weren't psychiatrists, and they certainly didn't
know John as well as the other Beatles did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[Bernie Woodham]

Fine May Pang was at the show, Mintz was not.

Taupin was at the show and says "things consistent with Pang's
account." You don't specify what things. You also say Taupin "has no
reason to lie". How do you know that? How do you know that Taupin
isn't just sympathetic to Pang and doesn't see the truth as being as
important as giving Pang moral support?

Elton John was also there; I'm sure you won't deny that. Elton
himself states that this was the night that John and Yoko got back
together. Does that mean Elton is a liar?

You try to reinforce your take on all this by making it seem
ridiculous that this could happen because Yoko had a date. How do you
know that the date she had was all that serious of a relationship?
How can you really evaluate what that relationship was all about?

[RichL]

"Bernie Woodham" <birnh...@insightbb.com> wrote in message

news:9f2bdee3-1b27-49ae...@v9g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

Elton is in on the conspiracy, don'cha know?

[c dubois]

If he really says that, then yes, I'd say he's probablyat lying --
albeit probably out of deference to the John and Yoko myth.

> You try to reinforce your take on all this by making it seem
> ridiculous that this could happen because Yoko had a date. How do you
> know that the date she had was all that serious of a relationship?
> How can you really evaluate what that relationship was all about?

Her date was David Spinozza. Her interest in him directly preceded
her split from John in 1973.

[Bernie Woodham]

Which shows your bias.

> > You try to reinforce your take on all this by making it seem
> > ridiculous that this could happen because Yoko had a date. How do you
> > know that the date she had was all that serious of a relationship?
> > How can you really evaluate what that relationship was all about?
>
> Her date was David Spinozza.  Her interest in him directly preceded
> her split from John in 1973.

So how does inform you about what their relationship was about? How
do you know they were in love? How do you know this wasn't just a
passing interest?

Again, how do you know Bernie Taupin didn't have reason to lie?

Also, Bob Spitz was at Elton John's party after the show. He says
Lennon was verbally and physically abusive to May Pang. Now, May Pang
did not deny that Bob Spitz was at the show, so how can you rule out
Spitz's take on the evening?

[Fattuchus]

On May 20, 4:35 pm, topazgalaxy <topazgal...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Ms Magazine:  to Yoko:  do you own any pets?
>
> Yoko: just my  husband John
>
> =============================================================================================
>
> Said John: “I just have one hope: that I die before Yoko does because
> we have become so much of an equation together that I don’t think I
> would have the strength to go on without her. Oh, I don’t mean I would
> commit suicide; I just mean life would be so empty. I hope I die
> before Yoko, because if Yoko died I wouldn’t know how to survive. I
> couldn’t carry on.”

Rather sad.

Compare that quote by John to his advice to Astrid after Stu died that
she has to make a choice to go on living or to die . . . . There the
message was "Be strong, life goes on."

I wonder what the reaction would be if Paul called Linda a pet. Or if
Michele Obama called her husband a pet.

[Fattuchus]

On May 20, 5:46 pm, Nil <redno...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:


>
> > Said John: "I just have one hope: that I die before Yoko does
> > because we have become so much of an equation together that I
> > don’t think I would have the strength to go on without her. Oh, I
> > don’t mean I would commit suicide; I just mean life would be so
> > empty. I hope I die before Yoko, because if Yoko died I wouldn’t
> > know how to survive. I couldn’t carry on."
>
> It's called devotion. Those like you who obviously don't love anyone
> deeply won't get it, of course.

The point you seem to be missing is that John was serious. He made a
number of similar statements, playing the role of the worthless
doormat. This was a man who was the leader of the
Beatles, one of the most famous entertainers in the world. He gave
this all up to become Mrs. Yoko Ono.

You call that devotion. I call it pitiful.

[Fattuchus]

On May 20, 6:05 pm, Bernie Woodham <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 5:04 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > You can read all the biographies and walk away knowing nothing about
> > > any of the people you've just read about.
>
> > IMO, if a similar story is told over and over again by different
> > "insiders" the story is more likely to be true.  For example, Yoko's
> > domineering influence on John has been mentioned in books and
> > interviews by May Pang, Linda McCartney, Julian Lennon, Pete Shotton,
> > John himself, etc.
>
> I will grant, that if you create a timeline, take notes and read all
> of those books in a syntopical manner, you can come to a conclusion on
> what there seems to be a consensus on.  But that is not what most
> people do, and it is certainly not what you do:
>
> "Some of the opinons I have and comments I've made are based on May's
> own book.  Some posters here don't want to believe it.  I happen to
> like her books very much and I find what she says credible."
>
> --- Fattuchus ---
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.beatles/msg/74e799ff038b6065...

>
> > Furthermore, a statement in a bio may seem hard to believe, but
> > sometimes such "fairytales" are supported by other "proof" such as an
> > interview given by John or Yoko.  For example, if years ago some
> > supposed biographer had written that Yoko wanted an abortion when she
> > was pregnant with Sean, but decided to keep the baby if John agreed to
> > give her control of his money . . . . I would have said "what!!?"  But
> > Yoko admitted this in  interviews.
>
> Give me a reference to that interview.

I'll do better. I'll give you two references.

First of all, Yoko admitted she wanted an abortion during an interview
she gave (in Great Britain) a few years ago that was available on the
internet. She said that John was very upset, so she did not have the
abortion. IIRC during that interview, when she said she wanted an
abortion, the host of the show gasped. IIRC Yoko did not mention at
that time that she demanded to control John's money.

The second reference is a wonderful book by Keith Badman called The
Beatles Off the Record. I've discussed it here at rmb before. This
is a great Beatles book. It has two volumes. This set is a collection
of interesting and sometimes embarrassing and weird quotes by the
Beatles and Beatles related people. The books are organized
chronologically and feature direct quotes from press conferences, news
paper interviews, film, etc. I will see if I can dig up the book
page, exact quote, etc.

[Fattuchus]

On May 20, 6:06 pm, c dubois <curtissdub...@gmail.com> wrote:


> On May 20, 2:15 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 2:05 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Fattuchus" <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:05c8eafd-ef0a-4b96...@h13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > IMO, if a similar story is told over and over again by different
> > > > "insiders" the story is more likely to be true.
>
> > > "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." -- J. Goebbels
>

>

> Right.  There will often be conflicting accounts about famous people.
> But this doesn't mean truth is unknowable.  It means you have to
> evaluate the sources' credibility and consistency and see what can be
> corroborated, etc.  For example,  May Pang says John and Yoko did not
> get back together the night of the Elton John show.  Elliot Mintz says
> they did.  May Pang was there; Mintz wasn't.  EJ's cohort Bernie
> Taupin has said things consistent with Pang's account and he has no
> reason to lie; Mintz is Yoko's paid PR consultant.  I've also read
> Yoko's date for the show was that session guitarist she was in love
> with.  What, did she and this guy and John indulge in a threesome?
> I'll take May's account in this case.

Exactly.

[Fattuchus]

On May 20, 6:43 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Fattuchus" <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:af65b330-a46d-4dd5...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 20, 2:05 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "Fattuchus" <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:05c8eafd-ef0a-4b96...@h13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > IMO, if a similar story is told over and over again by different
> >> > "insiders" the story is more likely to be true.
>
> >> "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." -- J. Goebbels
>
> > I am familiar with that quote, but that is not what I am saying. I am
> > saying that if three or four independent people observe the same
> > thing, IMO it makes the evidence stronger.
>
> > Julian described his father as a "manipulated lost soul."
>
> Julian was resentful of his father ignoring him.
>
> > In her
> > Playboy interview, Linda McCartney made some remark about John losing
> > himself or supressing his personality (I cannot
> > recall the exact quote).
>
> I'd like to see the exact quote as well as the context.
>

Fair enough. Boy, you and Bernie are keeping me busy!

[Fattuchus]

On May 20, 6:43 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Fattuchus" <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:af65b330-a46d-4dd5...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 20, 2:05 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "Fattuchus" <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:05c8eafd-ef0a-4b96...@h13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > IMO, if a similar story is told over and over again by different
> >> > "insiders" the story is more likely to be true.
>
> >> "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." -- J. Goebbels
>
> > I am familiar with that quote, but that is not what I am saying. I am
> > saying that if three or four independent people observe the same
> > thing, IMO it makes the evidence stronger.
>
> > Julian described his father as a "manipulated lost soul."
>
> Julian was resentful of his father ignoring him.
>
> > In her
> > Playboy interview, Linda McCartney made some remark about John losing
> > himself or supressing his personality (I cannot
> > recall the exact quote).
>
> I'd like to see the exact quote as well as the context.

Here is a link to the interview. I think it was in 1984. If you
don't like my link, just google "Paul and Linda McCartney playboy."

I must warn you that much of it is very sad since Paul and Linda
discuss John's death.

http://courses.music.indiana.edu/rock/paulint.html

Paul and Linda's comments about John's personality changing are
similar to comments made by Pete Shotton, Julian and others. He was
dominated.
John even wrote a song about losing himself on Lennon Anthology.

[topazgalaxy]

On May 20, 5:46 pm, Nil <redno...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:

> On 20 May 2013, topazgalaxy <topazgal...@gmail.com> wrote in

I read that article years ago in Ms Magazine. There is a sexism in
the "humor". Especially because along with the interview was a
illustration showing a giant Yoko walking an animal like a dog, on
a leash. The animal was a 6 legged insect with the head of John
Lennon. Frankly, for a magazine that was on the front lines for
equality, I was disappointed to say the least.

The quote from John may be devotion, may be an unhealthy
dependency. I prefer the Simon DeBeauvoir concept of marriage ,
not the concept of marriage where one person is truly dependent on
another.

[Fattuchus]

On May 20, 6:05 pm, Bernie Woodham <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 5:04 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > You can read all the biographies and walk away knowing nothing about
> > > any of the people you've just read about.
>
> > IMO, if a similar story is told over and over again by different
> > "insiders" the story is more likely to be true.  For example, Yoko's
> > domineering influence on John has been mentioned in books and
> > interviews by May Pang, Linda McCartney, Julian Lennon, Pete Shotton,
> > John himself, etc.
>
> I will grant, that if you create a timeline, take notes and read all
> of those books in a syntopical manner, you can come to a conclusion on
> what there seems to be a consensus on.  But that is not what most
> people do, and it is certainly not what you do:
>
> "Some of the opinons I have and comments I've made are based on May's
> own book.  Some posters here don't want to believe it.  I happen to
> like her books very much and I find what she says credible."
>
> --- Fattuchus ---
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.beatles/msg/74e799ff038b6065...

>
> > Furthermore, a statement in a bio may seem hard to believe, but
> > sometimes such "fairytales" are supported by other "proof" such as an
> > interview given by John or Yoko.  For example, if years ago some
> > supposed biographer had written that Yoko wanted an abortion when she
> > was pregnant with Sean, but decided to keep the baby if John agreed to
> > give her control of his money . . . . I would have said "what!!?"  But
> > Yoko admitted this in  interviews.
>
> Give me a reference to that interview.

Please see this discussion.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.beatles/browse_thread/thread/c919c7f6d0f5edc7/c8691cd267774e61?hl=en&q=keith+badman+abortion&lnk=ol&

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.beatles/msg/2016c6fe8907d702?hl=en&dmode=source

The book is by Keith Badman. It is called The Beatles Off the Record,
Volume 2. Page 177.

I have the book somewhere . . . . Heaven knows where.

If you are interested in Beatles interviews, statements, I recommend
the set. There are some funny, unusual and outrageous things in
there. You get to see a side of the Beatles (especially John)
that is very different from the goody goody public relations stuff
Brian Epstein had put out.

[Fattuchus]

On May 20, 6:43 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Fattuchus" <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

In her
> > Playboy interview, Linda McCartney made some remark about John losing
> > himself or supressing his personality (I cannot
> > recall the exact quote).
>
> I'd like to see the exact quote as well as the context.
>
> > Pete Shotton said John "wanted to be
> > dominated."  Bill Harry described John as having some mommy complex.
> > These people all knew John; they all noticed
> > the same personality issues.
>
> Pete Shotton and Bill Harry weren't psychiatrists, and they certainly didn't
> know John as well as the other Beatles did.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Shotton and Harry are not shrinks, granted. But Pete and John were
very close friends for years. Pete and John became friends when they
were about 8 or 9 years old. Pete was in the original Quarrymen.
He knew John longer than Paul, George or Ringo.

[Bernie Woodham]

Saying that you read it on the internet somewhere is not a reference.

[Bernie Woodham]

> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.beatles/browse_thread/thread...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.beatles/msg/2016c6fe8907d702...

>
> The book is by Keith Badman.  It is called The Beatles Off the Record,
> Volume 2.  Page 177.
>
> I have the book somewhere . . . . Heaven knows where.
>
> If you are interested in Beatles interviews, statements, I recommend
> the set.  There are some funny, unusual and outrageous things in
> there.  You get to see a side of the Beatles (especially John)
> that is very different from the goody goody public relations stuff
> Brian Epstein had put out.

That in no way says this:

"Yoko wanted an abortion when she was pregnant with Sean, but decided
to keep the baby if John agreed to give her control of his money."

The interview you quote has her saying that she wants to be the
breadwinner.

You have her saying "I get control of the money."

Very different statements.

[Fattuchus]

If you read interviews and articles from the time, being a
"breadwinner" meant that John "retired" from music, Yoko "retired"
from art/music, and Yoko controlled John's money to make
"investments," with the help of lawyers, accountants, soothsayers,
astrologers and Tarot card readers. So she invested in cows, real
estate, Egyptian art, etc. This is mentioned in their own interviews,
the book
by Fred Seaman, etc.

Yoko was never the breadwinner of the family when John was alive; her
art and music did not sell, and she resented this. (You can read that
in her Playboy interview). Being a breadwinner for
Yoko meant controlling the family money and investing it, spending it,
hiring people, etc. And that is what she did. Yoko took an interest
in Sean when John died.

Yoko did not want to care for Sean; she did not want to be a
traditional mother in any sense of the word, and she wanted an
abortion. She passed off any parental role to John and the servants.

[Fattuchus]

On May 20, 6:05 pm, Bernie Woodham <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote:

> On May 20, 5:04 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > You can read all the biographies and walk away knowing nothing about
> > > any of the people you've just read about.
>
> > IMO, if a similar story is told over and over again by different
> > "insiders" the story is more likely to be true.  For example, Yoko's
> > domineering influence on John has been mentioned in books and
> > interviews by May Pang, Linda McCartney, Julian Lennon, Pete Shotton,
> > John himself, etc.
>
> I will grant, that if you create a timeline, take notes and read all
> of those books in a syntopical manner, you can come to a conclusion on
> what there seems to be a consensus on.  But that is not what most
> people do, and it is certainly not what you do:
>
> "Some of the opinons I have and comments I've made are based on May's
> own book.  Some posters here don't want to believe it.  I happen to
> like her books very much and I find what she says credible."
>
> --- Fattuchus ---
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.beatles/msg/74e799ff038b6065...

>
> > Furthermore, a statement in a bio may seem hard to believe, but
> > sometimes such "fairytales" are supported by other "proof" such as an
> > interview given by John or Yoko.  For example, if years ago some
> > supposed biographer had written that Yoko wanted an abortion when she
> > was pregnant with Sean, but decided to keep the baby if John agreed to
> > give her control of his money . . . . I would have said "what!!?"  But
> > Yoko admitted this in  interviews.
>
> Give me a reference to that interview.

Here is a reference from 2007:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-461071/John-Yoko-saved-heroin-addiction-greedy-drug-dealer.html

[Fattuchus]

On May 21, 3:40 am, Bernie Woodham <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 2:52 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:


>
> > > On May 20, 5:04 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > You can read all the biographies and walk away knowing nothing about
> > > > > any of the people you've just read about.
>

>

> > > "Some of the opinons I have and comments I've made are based on May's
> > > own book.  Some posters here don't want to believe it.  I happen to
> > > like her books very much and I find what she says credible."
>
> > > --- Fattuchus ---
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.beatles/msg/74e799ff038b6065...
>
> > > > Furthermore, a statement in a bio may seem hard to believe, but
> > > > sometimes such "fairytales" are supported by other "proof" such as an
> > > > interview given by John or Yoko.  For example, if years ago some
> > > > supposed biographer had written that Yoko wanted an abortion when she
> > > > was pregnant with Sean, but decided to keep the baby if John agreed to
> > > > give her control of his money . . . . I would have said "what!!?"  But
> > > > Yoko admitted this in  interviews.
>
> > > Give me a reference to that interview.
>
> > I'll do better.  I'll give you two references.
>
> > First of all, Yoko admitted she wanted an abortion during an interview
> > she gave (in Great Britain) a few years ago that was available on the
> > internet.  She said that John was very upset, so she did not have the
> > abortion.  IIRC during that interview, when she said she wanted an
> > abortion, the host of the show gasped.  IIRC Yoko did not mention at
> > that time that she demanded to control John's money.
>
> Saying that you read it on the internet somewhere is not a reference.

I have not had a chance to listen to all of this yet. It think it is
Desert Island Discs, 2007.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b007nc7n

[Fattuchus]

Start listening at about 28 or 29 minutes.

[WillyShears]

On 5/12/13 12:11 AM, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>
>
> Somebody was asking about her posts, and I found this in my files:
>
> http://www.beatlefan.net/b2125419-may-pang-internet-posts.html
>

I noticed this BeatleManiac test on that site. I only scored
a 18%, but I disagree with that . I should score much higher.
I believe the questions should each be weighted, but that
would be a strongly subjective exercise. The very first question
should count for 51% of one's score. The other 49 questions
could each count for 1%.
http://www.beatlefan.net/test.html
Willy

[WillyShears]

On 5/13/13 11:03 AM, c dubois wrote:
> On May 13, 5:05 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 12, 4:34 pm, c dubois <curtissdub...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>> On May 12, 1:11 am, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Somebody was asking about her posts, and I found this in my files:
>>
>>>> http://www.beatlefan.net/b2125419-may-pang-internet-posts.html
>>

>>> It's fascinating stuff. Thanks again.
>>
>>> The thing that makes me sad, reading May's posts, is not John's return
>>> to Yoko, per se. Instead, it's May's talk about how John was always
>>> writing songs, regularly working with other high caliber singwriters,
>>> and often seeing his old friends (of course I'm including his firmer
>>> bandmates). Why did it all to stop so abruptly in '75?
>>
>> Based on interviews, including ones given by Yoko herself, and other
>> things I read it stopped for the following reason: John and Yoko got
>> back together and soon thereafter, Yoko told John she was pregnant.
>> John was thrilled,. Yoko wasn't.
>>
>> Yoko told John that she wanted to have an abortion. Yoko made a deal
>> with John that he could not refuse . . . ."I will have the baby to
>> term if you take care of the baby and let me control the family
>> wealthy and run the family business." They both agreed that in light
>> of these responsibilities, John would temporarily "retire" to be a
>> househusband.
>
> Yes, I've read that Yoko insisted John had to care for Sean once he
> was born. I've also heard there were nannies...lots of them.
>
If all that is true, what a Witch. Wicked Witch of the Far East.
Willy

[c dubois]

On May 20, 9:10 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Bernie Woodham" <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote in message

Rich, what conspiracy. do you refer to?

[c dubois]

I didn't say Yoko and David were in love. I believe she was much more
serious about the relationship than he was. This belief is based on
May's book (she and her friend.Arlene witnessed Yoko's pursuit of
David) and some publications like Rolling Stone that kept up with John
and Yoko during their split.

> Again, how do you know Bernie Taupin didn't have reason to lie?

I don't know with absolute certainty that he was telling the truth.
But until now, no one's suggested he's a liar; his comments don't
benefit him in any way; and they are vonsistent with other first hand
accounts. These are reasonable grounds for believing.him.

If you want to say he's a liar, the burdon is on you to support that
claim.

[c dubois]

I want to make a general comment on the shape this thread is taking,
and thisthe is nottoday directed at anythe one person. I am happy to
name is sources and explain my reasoning -- so long as my
correspondents are sincere (and do not just throw stuff out to derail
the conversation) and equally courteous.

That is, if you're going to demand sources, at least be consistent and
be prepared to name your sources. If you're going to say you've
extensively researched John's Bermuda voyage, don't wet your pants and
go mute when you're asked for specifics. If you're going to demand
that I present my arguments in the form of categorical syllogisms (why
would anyone do that?, have a believable answer ready to the question
of why you do not hold yourself to the same standard.

[Nil]

On 21 May 2013, topazgalaxy <topaz...@gmail.com> wrote in
rec.music.beatles:

> I read that article years ago in Ms Magazine. There is a sexism in
> the "humor".

Horseshit. It's a joke. An exaggeration. Irony. Things you obviously
have no acquaintance with. The only sexism in it is what you have
chosen to put into it.

> Especially because along with the interview was a
> illustration showing a giant Yoko walking an animal like a dog, on
> a leash. The animal was a 6 legged insect with the head of John
> Lennon. Frankly, for a magazine that was on the front lines for
> equality, I was disappointed to say the least.

What does that have to do with anything, except to validate your bias?

> The quote from John may be devotion, may be an unhealthy
> dependency.

"May" be, eh? Thank you for your insightful analysis. You have
certainly opened many eyes today with your wisdom.

> I prefer the Simon DeBeauvoir concept of marriage ,
> not the concept of marriage where one person is truly dependent on
> another.

You are a flawless being who exists on a higher plane than humanity.
That's why we look to you for the truth.

[who?]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 10:53:05 AM UTC-5, c dubois wrote:
> On May 12, 6:00 pm, The Brooklyn Tomato Bandit <bellyfl...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> > On May 12, 5:54 pm, BeatleEd <Beatl...@imaginary.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > The Brooklyn Tomato Bandit <bellyfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > I see three posters having a busy Sunday mapped out, masturbating to
>
> > > > May's anti-YO posts.
>
> >
>
> > > > Hell hath no fury like a woman kicked to the curb.
>
> >
>
> > > And YOU are a perfect example of why we don't have her here anymore.
>
> >
>
> > She left because she decided she'd rather sell her stories, Special
>
> > Ed. Don't get confused.
>
>
>
> Her book came out well before she ever posted in RMB.

The point is that why should she post here for free when
she can get paid by selling a new book, or get paid to
speak?

[UsurperTom]

On May 20, 6:31 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> How do you think the kiss-and-tell books that you so overwhelmingly favor over other, more legitimate sources

Which books do you claim are "kiss-and-tell"? What are the "more
legitimate sources" you're referring to? You probably can't even name
any since you haven't read them.

[topazgalaxy]

On May 21, 12:38 pm, Nil <redno...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:

Your never ending contempt for some of the people in this group is
funny.
I get it. Yoko gets to define -- in your world view-- what sexism is
to her, but if I define something as sexist, well "topaz is biased."

Your contempt for any criticism of Yoko from me and Fatts only adds
to her title "the teflon widow". In your world view, nothing
critical can stick to her.

Thanks for making me laugh.


If mutual dependency is your concept of an ideal marriage, hey, that
is your decision. Good luck with that one.











> On 21 May 2013, topazgalaxy <topazgal...@gmail.com> wrote in

[Nil]

On 21 May 2013, topazgalaxy <topaz...@gmail.com> wrote in
rec.music.beatles:

> On May 21, 12:38�pm, Nil <redno...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
>
> Your never ending contempt for some of the people in this group
> is funny. I get it. Yoko gets to define -- in your world view--
> what sexism is to her, but if I define something as sexist, well
> "topaz is biased."

Where in this topic did Yoko Ono say anything about sexism? You brought
it up.

Your bias is well documented here.

> If mutual dependency is your concept of an ideal marriage, hey,
> that is your decision. Good luck with that one.

If people's devotion to each other bothers you so much, hey, enjoy your
loveless isolation up there on your silver cloud.

[topazgalaxy]

On May 21, 2:11 pm, Nil <redno...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
> On 21 May 2013, topazgalaxy <topazgal...@gmail.com> wrote in

> rec.music.beatles:
>
> > On May 21, 12:38 pm, Nil <redno...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Your never ending contempt for some of the people in  this group
> > is funny. I get it. Yoko gets to define -- in your world view--
> > what sexism is to her, but if I define something as sexist, well
> > "topaz is biased."
>
> Where in this topic did Yoko Ono say anything about sexism? You brought
> it up.

In this thread Yoko did not say anything on sexism.
However in other Yoko threads, she has raised the issue of sexism and
it has been mentioned, and AFAIK you never criticized that. For
example some time ago there was a thread where a reporter asked her
something along the lines of is she still going to live at the
Dakota, and John had been murdered in front of that building, and she
said the question was sexist.
AFAIK you have allowed Yoko (in other discussions ) to define, in her
view, that something is sexist. So you should give other people,
including me, the same choice.

> Your bias is well documented here.
>
> > If  mutual dependency  is your concept of an ideal marriage, hey,
> > that is your decision.  Good luck with that one.
>
> If people's devotion to each other bothers you so much, hey, enjoy your
> loveless isolation up there on your silver cloud.

Dependency on one's spouse is not really devotion. I believe we
define J and Y's marriage differently. I believe that is where we are
disagreeing.
If is my understanding that there were times that John hit Yoko .
That is not devotion. But he still could be dependent.


I had mentioned Simone DeBouvoir's ideal description of marriage in
one of my earlier posts-- you seemed to disagree with it. I believe
Yoko would be more in favor of Simone DeBouvoir's concept of
marriage.

[RichL]

"UsurperTom" <Usurp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0fb4eaa3-e567-4979...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

Hunter Davies' book is good. I'd put Philip Norman's in the carefully
researched category as well, though his pro-John prejudices show through.
I'm eagerly awaiting Lewishon's bio.

On the technical side, Andy Babiuk's book is great, though it may not be of
interest to non-musicians.

Tacky? Peter Brown. Extremely poorly researched? Bob Spitz. Highly
biased? Seaman. Tabloid trash? Goldman.

Now, how do you think the kiss-and-tell books that you so overwhelmingly
favor over other, more legitimate sources stack up against the standards
that you were taught in terms of historical research?

[RichL]

"c dubois" <curtis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:10ce225c-ebb0-4a7c...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

It's a joke, son.

[RichL]

"Fattuchus" <fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5dcbdd87-ac1d-4d5d...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

There's nothing in the interview about John being "dominated". Linda's
comments are in reply to Paul's comments about competition between him and
John songwriting-wise, and he seems to resent the fact that John "changed"
when he met Yoko. And oddly enough, Linda (later in the interview) is
talking essentially of "losing herself" to Paul.

[RichL]

"Fattuchus" <fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:a5e4d9fd-f70c-4cda...@z10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

In a sense, yes, but John and Pete weren't as close aroundthe time John met
Yoko as they had been before.

[Bernie Woodham]

You make it sound like she was a greedy wastrel, but as I understand
it, she did quite well. So who are you to accuse?

> with the help of lawyers, accountants, soothsayers,
> astrologers and Tarot card readers.  So she invested in cows, real
> estate, Egyptian art, etc.

and more apartments in the Dakota which are worth quite a bit now.

I think it would be ignorant not to have the help of accountants and
lawyers when you are dealing with that kind of money. I don't believe
that Lennon could have done that. So, he was lucky to have her.

As to the "soothsayers, astrologers and Tarot card readers", you
know there are a lot of people who use those sort of services for a
variety of reasons. It doesn't mean she was basing investment
decisions on them. Axl Rose has been known to use a psychic to screen
potential employees, roadies and techies etc. But nobody thinks he
actually based his hiring decisions on that.

Reagan's wife had astrologers in the White House.

You know, to this day there are people who consult ancient religious
texts like the Bible and the talmud. Isn't that horrible???

> This is mentioned in their own interviews,
> the book
> by Fred Seaman, etc.

Another think about these interviews, I think those are largely
publicity pieces. When you take them so literally you are misleading
yourself. When the Beatles first came to the states the press made it
pretty easy for them. You could read all the interviews up until the
breakup and never discover that their tours were orgies.

But, with Lennon's Jesus comments and later McCartney's LSD
confessions, they learned the game had changed and they had to bluff
the press. If you honestly believe John and Yoko's every word in
those interviews you are living in a fantasy land.

>
> Yoko was never the breadwinner of the family when John was alive; her
> art and music did not sell, and she resented this. (You can read that
> in her Playboy interview).  Being a breadwinner for
> Yoko meant controlling the family money and investing it, spending it,
> hiring people, etc.  And that is what she did.  Yoko took an interest
> in Sean when John died.
>

If you can learn to earn millions off of your millions that is being a
breadwinner. I don't believe Lennon was cut out for that. Yoko seems
to have proven she was. But what you are doing is making her sound
like a parasite because she decided to make the investment decisions.
I don't see your complaint at all.

> Yoko did not want to care for Sean; she did not want to be a
> traditional mother in any sense of the word, and she wanted an
> abortion.  She passed off any parental role to John and the servants.

So what? That seems to be more and more of a trend in American
society. So, I guess you're saying that Yoko was indeed in the
forefront of a lot of things.

[Bernie Woodham]

On May 21, 8:59 am, c dubois <curtissdub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 10:56 pm, Bernie Woodham <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > You try to reinforce your take on all this by making it seem
> > > > ridiculous that this could happen because Yoko had a date. How do you
> > > > know that the date she had was all that serious of a relationship?
> > > > How can you really evaluate what that relationship was all about?
>
> > > Her date was David Spinozza.  Her interest in him directly preceded
> > > her split from John in 1973.
>
> > So how does inform you about what their relationship was about?  How
> > do you know they were in love?  How do you know this wasn't just a
> > passing interest?
>
> I didn't say Yoko and David were in love.  I believe she was much more
> serious about the relationship than he was.  This belief is based on
> May's book (she and her friend.Arlene witnessed Yoko's pursuit of
> David) and some publications like Rolling Stone that kept up with John
> and Yoko during their split.
>

So, you are using May Pang to evaluate Yoko's relationship? And you
don't see a problem with that? And you still want to think you're
being objective.

> > Again, how do you know Bernie Taupin didn't have reason to lie?
>
> I don't know with absolute certainty that he was telling the truth.
> But until now, no one's suggested he's a liar; his comments don't
> benefit him in any way; and they are vonsistent with other first hand
> accounts.  These are reasonable grounds for believing.him.
>
> If you want to say he's a liar, the burdon is on you to support that
> claim.
>
>

No sir. YOU are saying he had no reason to lie. The burden of proof
lies with you. The only grounds you have for believing him is that
his story supports your bias. I'm simply saying you have no way of
knowing.

You are the one who has to prove Elton John as a liar, because you
have come out and said he is.

>
>
> > Also, Bob Spitz was at Elton John's party after the show.  He says
> > Lennon was verbally and physically abusive to May Pang.  Now, May Pang
> > did not deny that Bob Spitz was at the show, so how can you rule out
> > Spitz's take on the evening?

And the above is something you are ignoring.

[Bernie Woodham]

I'm glad this isn't directed to me, because I don't think it makes
much sense in that situation.

[UsurperTom]

On May 21, 7:22 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> how do you think the kiss-and-tell books that you so overwhelmingly favor over other, more legitimate sources stack up against the standards that you were taught in terms of historical research?

For the record, I like Hunter Davies' book. As for Davies, on May 2,
2008 in the thread titled "Paul's arrest in Japan and John," when I
mentioned that Paul called John "a maneuvering swine" in a private
conversation with Hunter Davies in May 1981 that Davies published four
and a half years later against Paul's wishes, you replied that it was
hearsay. You were totally unaware that Paul always acknowledged that
he made the remark which is common knowledge among fans who have read
up on Beatle history. When some posters pointed this out to you, you
retreated instead of admitting your mistake. You obviously never read
Davies if you didn't know that well-known fact.

I don't believe you read most of the books you just mentioned and
you're relying on what was told to you by others about some of these
books. Furthermore, I've read lots of interviews and contemporary
articles in the press about the subjects of this newsgroup. I've also
met and known people who knew the Beatles.

[Fattuchus]

Bravo.