Yoko's betrayal of John
Usurper Tom
to heroin until he met her. Once adicted, they had wild parties in
which celebrities and record producers would come over and discuss
farting and excretia. The building superintendent at the Dakota once
confided to Jack Kirby, a local columnist and amateur Fartologist
that he had to unclog their toilet on several occasions.
Andy Warhol was present at one of their parties and reported seeing a
scaly residue floating in the clogged up toilet. Fish scales to be
precise. Fish heads were served as appetizers at said party.
John, a strict vegetarian, didn't partake of any appetizer that was
meat or a meat by product and perhaps this explains why his gas wasn't
so smelly.
Those parties would go on for hours because neither of them had to
work for a living. Yoko was living off of John's wealth (and still
is.) What would John's life have been like had he not married her? She
insisted they live in Jew York city. A fatal mistake for John.
I suppose it would have made little difference where he lived since
George, the ugly one, was attacked by a deranged satanist in his home
while living in England, home of tea sipping faggots and niggers who
talk with British accents.
Would George have liked to have had sex with Marge Helgenberger of CSI
fame? She is a strawberry blond and most men want to fuck strawberry
blondes.
Usurper Tom
TAR
Of course, this is a FORGERY.
loui
UsurperTom
> Of course, this is a FORGERY.
Thanks! I've never been forged before. What an honor!
BL Bleanie
"UsurperTom" <Usurp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1133796359.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> TAR wrote:
>
> > Of course, this is a FORGERY.
>
> Thanks! I've never been forged before. What an honor!
The honor fades quickly enough.
>
^^^indifference^^
"Usurper Tom" <fr...@spamexpire-200512.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote
in message
news:b4547514c373eacb...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
LOL.
^^^indifference^^
"TAR" <tom....@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:439432...@ix.netcom.com...
Of course who gives a fuck.
TAR
Strawberry blondes?
^^^indifference^^
dlarsson
"Usurper Tom"
What a troll ..............
fatt...@yahoo.com
I don't recall the name of it, but I do recall a movie of JohnandYoko
together which includes a shot of John talking to Yoko thru the
bathroom doorway as he is sitting on the toilet. Yes. You read right.
I am not kidding. A film of Lennon on the potty talking to his
beloved.
So the toilet talk in the above forge is not too far off . . . . .
TAR
I thought you said that she always followed him into the bathroom.
fatt...@yahoo.com
"I thought you said that she always follwed him into the bathroom."
I guess it depended on if it was a number one or number two and how
much it smelled. In this movie John was not in a public toilet but
appeared to be in a private bathroom. Yoko was a stone's throw from
the open doorway. I assume that since Yoko was so close and talking to
John as he was squeezing, he felt secure enough to poop.
McFeeley
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133935136.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Are you married?
I'm betting no.
>
fatt...@yahoo.com
How much is your wager and where do you want to place your bet?
How about it we start with, let's say, $10,000? :)
McFeeley
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133935811.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> McFeeley,
>
> How much is your wager and where do you want to place your bet?
>
> How about it we start with, let's say, $10,000? :)
Then you are just a bizarre little person. People share bathrooms when they
live together in such close quarters. But then, your grasp of the obvious
is pretty lacking with everything else, why stop at the bathroom door?
>
fatt...@yahoo.com
"Then you are just a bizarre little person. People share bathrooms when
they live together in such close quarters. But then your grasp of the
obvious is pretty lacking with everything else, why stop at the
bathroom door."
Gee, my bathroom talk must have hit a raw nerve with you. This is the
second or third sarcastic remark from you directed at me in the past
couple of days. I had hoped we had a peace treaty.
There's nothing wrong with sharing a bathroom depending on the
circumstances. However, I am not sure that John and Yoko the
millionaires lived in close quarters. Putting this aside, when was the
last time you filmed yourself on the potty and distributed it for
public view like John did? Maybe you can post a link here at rmb for
the world to see.
McFeeley
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133973881.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> McFeeley wrote,
>
> "Then you are just a bizarre little person. People share bathrooms when
> they live together in such close quarters. But then your grasp of the
> obvious is pretty lacking with everything else, why stop at the
> bathroom door."
>
> Gee, my bathroom talk must have hit a raw nerve with you.
What hits a nerve is how low you will go to criticize someone. The
complaint is so bizarre and petty it begs comment.
This is the
> second or third sarcastic remark from you directed at me in the past
> couple of days. I had hoped we had a peace treaty.
There is no peace treaty. You post stupid things you get called on it, if
not by me then someone else.
>
> There's nothing wrong with sharing a bathroom depending on the
> circumstances. However, I am not sure that John and Yoko the
> millionaires lived in close quarters. Putting this aside, when was the
> last time you filmed yourself on the potty and distributed it for
> public view like John did? Maybe you can post a link here at rmb for
> the world to see.
Yeah, that would be sweet.
I agree filming it IS bizarre and had you simply left it at that I'd have
had nothing to disagree with.
>
UsurperTom
> You post stupid things you get called on it, if not by me then someone else.
Other than Francie, who else?
McFeeley
I'm not keeping a list, Tom. You can certainly do so.
>
bessiejunejoad
Anyone who disagrees that Yoko is evil incarnate and a spawn of the
devil is automatically assumed to be Francie by Tom.
Some people never got over the Beatles break up....
McFeeley
"bessiejunejoad" <bessiej...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133985926.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> McFeeley wrote:
>> "UsurperTom" <Usurp...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1133979031.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > McFeeley wrote:
>> >
>> > > You post stupid things you get called on it, if not by me then
>> > > someone
>> else.
>> >
>> > Other than Francie, who else?
>>
>> I'm not keeping a list, Tom. You can certainly do so.
>> >
>
> Anyone who disagrees that Yoko is evil incarnate and a spawn of the
> devil is automatically assumed to be Francie by Tom.
Well, in Tom's defense, there are so many socks flying around here right now
it looks like a dryer convention.
UsurperTom
> Anyone who disagrees that Yoko is evil incarnate and a spawn of the devil is automatically assumed to be Francie by Tom.
Nice try, but Francie did attack fattush.
McFeeley
Francie attacks everyone. And fattass just goes around asking for it.
>
bessiejunejoad
Yep
UsurperTom
> Yep
OK, bessie. What does fattush do to deserve getting flamed by Francie?
Ehtue
Exists.
bessiejunejoad
Posting NOTHING but nasty negative stuff about J&Y, being blinded by
hatred and narrowmindedness
UsurperTom
> Posting NOTHING but nasty negative stuff about J&Y, being blinded by hatred and narrowmindedness
Yoko is a public figure and is fair game for criticism.
bessiejunejoad
Fine, if that is what you and fatts want to dwell on and rant on about
endlessly go right ahead. It just seems less than petty and you should
have other interests, which fatts does not seem to. All he ever posts
about is what pathetic losers J&Y were. Broadening his horizons might
get him out of the obssessive thought patterns he is stuck in.
And you can't change a thing that John did, including marrying Yoko.
You might like to believe that you know what was best for John, but I
think he was capable of making those decisions himself.
UsurperTom
> And you can't change a thing that John did, including marrying Yoko.
You're being disingenuous. Nobody has advocated going back into time
and changing John's life story.
fatt...@yahoo.com
"OK bessie. What does fattush do to deserve to getting flamed by
Francie?"
And Ehtue responded "Exists."
Yes . That sums it up.
fatt...@yahoo.com
"Fine, if that is what you and fatts want to dwell on and rant on about
endlessly go right ahead. It just seems less than petty and you should
have other interests, which fatts does not seem to. All he ever posts
about is what pathetic losers J&Y were. Broadening his horizons might
get him out of the obssessive thought patterns he is stuck in. . . "
I don't think you characterizing is fair or accurate. I comment on many
different things. And I do not always describe John as a pathetic
loser. I have defended John many times and said many nice things.
Just read my old posts.
As far as the Yoke, yes it is fair to say that I generally dislike her
and I think my criticism is fair and accurate.
bessiejunejoad
I think you missed the point
bessiejunejoad
fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> bessie wrote,
>
> "Fine, if that is what you and fatts want to dwell on and rant on about
>
> endlessly go right ahead. It just seems less than petty and you should
> have other interests, which fatts does not seem to. All he ever posts
> about is what pathetic losers J&Y were. Broadening his horizons might
> get him out of the obssessive thought patterns he is stuck in. . . "
>
> I don't think you characterizing is fair or accurate. I comment on many
> different things. And I do not always describe John as a pathetic
> loser. I have defended John many times and said many nice things.
> Just read my old posts.
Very few and far between. You are mostly angry because he offended YOUR
morals and did not keep being Beatle John. You have inferred he was
mentally ill among other things.
>
> As far as the Yoke, yes it is fair to say that I generally dislike her
> and I think my criticism is fair and accurate.
No it isnt, you wont even begin to give credence to the FACT that
Seaman ripped her and John off and went on a smear campaign against
her. Apparently that is ok in your book.
fatt...@yahoo.com
"Very few and far between. You are mostly angry because he offended
YOUR
morals and did not keep being Beatle John. "
No, not really. John at times did things to offend almost anyone's
morals, including his own. (his treatment of Julian, his getting into
fistfights, his abuse towards some women like May) In later years he
regretted some of the things he did as a young man. I admire someone
who admits to his mistakes and tries to improve but I can't say he was
perfect. If you ever read May Pang's book, you would see that on
occasion he physically attacked her. She relates another incident where
he smacked a friend over the head with a bottle nearly knocking him
out. (there are many stories related by Bob Spitz, Cynthia and others
where John for some reason would pick up a bottle and club someone with
it)
Of course, he beat the crap out of Bob Wooler at Paul's 21st birthday
party, giving him broken ribs and other injuries. I think almost any
civilized person would say this is improper behavior, and John said in
his Playboy interview that he had been a violent person who was
learning not to be violent.
"You have inferred he was mentally ill among other things."
I realize my opinion is not scientific, but one would have to blind not
to see that John had serious problems at times. However I still admire
him even though I acknowledge his weaknesses. I think the fact John
accomplished all that he did and adopted to fame as well as he did was
amazing given his mental suffering.
As far as the Yoke, yes it is fair to say that I generally dislike her
> and I think my criticism is fair and accurate.
"No it isnt, you wont even begin to give credence to the FACT that
Seaman ripped her and John off and went on a smear campaign against
her. Apparently that is ok in your book."
I am not convinced at all that Seaman ripped off JOhn or Yoko. As far
as a smear campaign, as I have said before, I believe 99% of what Fred
has to say, and I am glad he says it. Someone has to tell the truth.
Plus, if you read books by others including insiders like May Pang and
Tony Bramwell, they paint an ugly picture of the Yoke. Are all these
people lying too?
Plus, just read some of John and Yoko's own interviews. She admitted
she cheated on husband number one (Toshi) left and right and had many
abortions. She admits to encouraging John in his heroin use telling
people they turned to heroin "to celebrate ourselves as artists." Huh?
John and Yoko admit that when Yoko was pregnant and gave birth to
Sean, she told John "I took care of the baby for 9 months. Now it is
your turn." Her own interviews are damning.
McFeeley
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134103098....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
You're a real piece of work.
>
fatt...@yahoo.com
bessiejunejoad
Actually fatts you are a broken record
bessiejunejoad
fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Bessie wrote,
>
> "Very few and far between. You are mostly angry because he offended
> YOUR
> morals and did not keep being Beatle John. "
>
> No, not really. John at times did things to offend almost anyone's
> morals, including his own. (his treatment of Julian, his getting into
> fistfights, his abuse towards some women like May) In later years he
> regretted some of the things he did as a young man. I admire someone
> who admits to his mistakes and tries to improve but I can't say he was
> perfect. If you ever read May Pang's book, you would see that on
> occasion he physically attacked her. She relates another incident where
> he smacked a friend over the head with a bottle nearly knocking him
> out. (there are many stories related by Bob Spitz, Cynthia and others
> where John for some reason would pick up a bottle and club someone with
> it)
>
> Of course, he beat the crap out of Bob Wooler at Paul's 21st birthday
> party, giving him broken ribs and other injuries. I think almost any
> civilized person would say this is improper behavior, and John said in
> his Playboy interview that he had been a violent person who was
> learning not to be violent.
>
>
That doesnt mean he was mentally ill. You are back pedalling
> "You have inferred he was mentally ill among other things."
>
> I realize my opinion is not scientific, but one would have to blind not
> to see that John had serious problems at times. However I still admire
> him even though I acknowledge his weaknesses. I think the fact John
> accomplished all that he did and adopted to fame as well as he did was
> amazing given his mental suffering.
>
>
> As far as the Yoke, yes it is fair to say that I generally dislike her
>
> > and I think my criticism is fair and accurate.
No, it isnt.
>
> "No it isnt, you wont even begin to give credence to the FACT that
> Seaman ripped her and John off and went on a smear campaign against
> her. Apparently that is ok in your book."
>
> I am not convinced at all that Seaman ripped off JOhn or Yoko. As far
> as a smear campaign, as I have said before, I believe 99% of what Fred
> has to say, and I am glad he says it. Someone has to tell the truth.
Someone had to sasy the things you want to hear and believe. Not only
was he convicted he admitted he stole, how much more proof do you need?
>
> Plus, if you read books by others including insiders like May Pang and
> Tony Bramwell, they paint an ugly picture of the Yoke. Are all these
> people lying too?
>
I never said they were, Yoko is a real piece of work. A strange woman
with strange ideas and I dont even beging to understand her. However I
believe she deserves some respect and does not deserve to be called all
sorts of names because you dont like her.
> Plus, just read some of John and Yoko's own interviews. She admitted
> she cheated on husband number one (Toshi) left and right and had many
> abortions. She admits to encouraging John in his heroin use telling
> people they turned to heroin "to celebrate ourselves as artists." Huh?
> John and Yoko admit that when Yoko was pregnant and gave birth to
> Sean, she told John "I took care of the baby for 9 months. Now it is
> your turn." Her own interviews are damning.
WHat is so damning about that? Would you rather she lie?
You are the one whose morals are all tweaked by behaviour over 25 years
ago.
That is plain weird. And you are obssessed by this.
John cheated on Yoko and said so in his interviews, why you persist in
clinging to the myth that John was like a dog on a leash with Yoko is
beyond me, besides the fact that you think very little of him that is.
McFeeley
It's the only way he can feel good about himself, because he knows he's a
weaselly little shit.
>
fatt...@yahoo.com
"Not only was he (Seaman) convicted, he admitted he stole."
I agree he pled guilty to something . . . . . however please show me a
copy of the "confession" that he stole something. Even if he did steal
something, please show me the "confession" or other evidence of what he
stole. For example, did he steal one little item or a whole bunch of
things? I know you rely on that Playboy article, but I believe 90% is
bull crap pumped out by the Yoke PR machine.
fatt...@yahoo.com
" . . . . . . . Yoko is a real piece of work. A strange woman
with strange ideas and I dont even beging to understand her. However I
believe she deserves some respect and does not deserve to be called all
sorts of names because you dont like her. "
I agree the Yoke deserves some respect . . . . but I have the right to
criticise her here at rmb. You claim that she "does not deserve to be
called all sorts of names . . . ." Please point out where and when I
called the Yoke names. I have done so very rarely. As a matter of
fact, I have been called names many more times by you and McFeeley than
I have called all other people combined.
You are not in a good position to lecture anyone about name calling.
fatt...@yahoo.com
"John cheated on Yoko and said so in his interviews. . . . ."
Specifics please. We know JOhn cheated with May because Yoko arranged
it!! We know from May's book and other sources John did cheat (which
is awful) Please show me ONE Lennon interview where he said he
cheated. I have never read such an interview.
As a matter of fact, oddly, Yoko, in her interviews in direct response
to the Goldman book, insists that John did not cheat on her after they
were reunited.
fatt...@yahoo.com
"It's the only way he can feel good about himself, because he knows
he's a weaselly little shit."
If I'm a little shit, you must be a big drek.
bessiejunejoad
fattuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Bessie wrote,
>
> "John cheated on Yoko and said so in his interviews. . . . ."
>
> Specifics please. We know JOhn cheated with May because Yoko arranged
> it!! We know from May's book and other sources John did cheat (which
> is awful) Please show me ONE Lennon interview where he said he
> cheated. I have never read such an interview.
Ok, I'll find it and get back to you
>
> As a matter of fact, oddly, Yoko, in her interviews in direct response
> to the Goldman book, insists that John did not cheat on her after they
> were reunited.
Goldman???????? You are just grasping for straws here!
You believe entirely everything Goldman and Seaman say, and that speaks
volumes.
McFeeley
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134148230.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ouchies.
Denial. weasel, pure and total denial. You don't even acknowledge what a
piece of shit you are. You really should, you know. It's first step to
healing and all that.
>
fatt...@yahoo.com
I don't believe everything Goldman says. I don't believe much of what
Goldman says at all. I just pointed out that after Goldman's book came
out, Yoko defended herself and John by stating in response to the book
that John did not cheat on her after the were reunited. I am NOT
saying Goldman speaks the truth. I am merely giving the context of
Yoko's statement.
You claim John said in an interview that he cheated on Yoko. This seems
to contradict Yoko's statement. I would like to see John's exact quote
and the source, please.
bessiejunejoad
Oh come on, he said this about the past, he was talking about all the
crap Yoko put up with and later it turns out he screwed some woman in a
bedroom at a dinner party.
Why are you so effing obssesed? Are you MDC?
fatt...@yahoo.com
I see no reason to continue conversing with you right now Touchy
McFeeley. I thought we had a peace treaty, but I can see I was wrong.
fatt...@yahoo.com
I am not obsessed at all . . . . I am just responding to your point.
John did say that he cheated on Cynthia . . . . .
You made a statement that John said in an interview that he cheated on
Yoko. Please specify. If you can't back it up, admit it.
bessiejunejoad
Let me find it for crying out loud, I don't have it at my fingertips. I
don't keep a data sheet on Lennon with me as you seem to.
McFeeley
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134149006....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Bessie,
>
> I don't believe everything Goldman says. I don't believe much of what
> Goldman says at all. I just pointed out that after Goldman's book came
> out, Yoko defended herself and John by stating in response to the book
> that John did not cheat on her after the were reunited. I am NOT
> saying Goldman speaks the truth. I am merely giving the context of
> Yoko's statement.
No, you are heavily inferring she lied. How would YOU know whether he was
faithful after 1975 or not? Oh yeah, Goldman's source, Freddie.
bessiejunejoad
fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I see no reason to continue conversing with you right now Touchy
> McFeeley. I thought we had a peace treaty, but I can see I was wrong.
Translation : I refuse to admit I am an obssessed fan with a fixation
on proving Yoko is evil so I am taking my ball and going home.
McFeeley
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134149240.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> I see no reason to continue conversing with you right now Touchy
> McFeeley. I thought we had a peace treaty, but I can see I was wrong.
When you continue to spew your hateful arrogance, especially yesterday then
you deserve no peace, nor shall you have any. You're miserable inside and
just have to go spreading it around.
>
McFeeley
Which he won;t do anyway because he is a troll.
>
Captain Kundalini
The guy (notice I didn't say Man) is obviously a coward who doesn't know
about Karma.
"UsurperTom" <Usurp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1133796359.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> TAR wrote:
>
>> Of course, this is a FORGERY.
>
> Thanks! I've never been forged before. What an honor!
>
Jeff Kdvute
>>After "Which is your favorite album??", The
>>Yoko Problem probably ranks #2 on the list
>>of all-time boring Beatles topics. Those who
>>dislike my posts should keep right on
>>discussing it, because you'll never see a
>>word of input from me. ;)
There you go P.R., but you just discussd it just
once above.
<g>
Anyhow, I agree with you about both topics.
Jeff
--
Do you like Classical music? Have a listen to this Fantastic classical
guitarist.
MARGARET SLOVAK: New Wings
http://cdbaby.com/cd/slovak2?cdbaby=39a72e89f77787215c443a5ef5a2af54
F Parella
McFeeley wrote:
> <fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1134149006....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Bessie,
> >
> > I don't believe everything Goldman says. I don't believe much of what
> > Goldman says at all. I just pointed out that after Goldman's book came
> > out, Yoko defended herself and John by stating in response to the book
> > that John did not cheat on her after the were reunited. I am NOT
> > saying Goldman speaks the truth. I am merely giving the context of
> > Yoko's statement.
>
> No, you are heavily inferring she lied. How would YOU know whether he was
> faithful after 1975 or not? Oh yeah, Goldman's source, Freddie.
I don't remember anything in Seaman's book about Lennon cheating on Ono
after 1975.
F Parella
I'm curious as to whether Lennon made this statement as well. I've
never seen it.
UsurperTom
> I don't remember anything in Seaman's book about Lennon cheating on Ono after 1975.
I don't recall seeing it there either. John Green said that John
frequented brothels with Yoko's approval.
McFeeley
John Green said a LOT of stupid and unprovable crap. Some people actually
believe him. Amazing.
Francie
fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Usuper wrote,
>
> "OK bessie. What does fattush do to deserve to getting flamed by
> Francie?"
>
> And Ehtue responded "Exists."
>
Ehtue, always adding a dollop of condescension when talking about me or
answering a question that was directed at someone other than Himself.
>
> Yes . That sums it up.
Not quite. Plenty of stupid folk around the ng waste bandwidth
parroting obvious misstatements and 3rd or 4th generation
hearsay/gossip, but none as consistently or as often as Fattass... who
deserves the booby prize for his idiotic ways.
Francie
UsurperTom
> who deserves the booby prize for his idiotic ways.
Then you should reply to the post, not the poster.
fatt...@yahoo.com
"John Green said a LOT of stupid and unprovable crap. Some people
actually believe him . . . . . ."
How do you know he is lying?
McFeeley
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134421002.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
He said he did everything for them (like Fred does). He was the astrologer,
the divinity and tarot go to guy....I read his book... he is one big walking
ball of bullshit. Not unlike some of his believers.
>
fatt...@yahoo.com
Actually, I read his book too a while back. If I recall, Greene had
this annoying habit of writing these extremely long quotes as if he had
a tape recorder or perfect memory of what John or Yoko said. I found
that quite annoying since it was obviously contrived. However, I still
find that much of what he wrote is believable. I did not conclude as
you that "he is one big walking ball of bullshit."
McFeeley
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134424483.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Oh, so you read books too, McFeeley?
Yup. Long before you were a squirt in your daddy's eye, long before rmb
existed...I read this piece of crap.
You a big believer in the occult? John Green certainly fancied his own
abilities.
>
> Actually, I read his book too a while back. If I recall, Greene had
> this annoying habit of writing these extremely long quotes as if he had
> a tape recorder or perfect memory of what John or Yoko said.
YES! One of the most annoying things in the book and a certain indication
pointing to faked conversations. Thank you for reminding me.
I found
> that quite annoying since it was obviously contrived. However, I still
> find that much of what he wrote is believable. I did not conclude as
> you that "he is one big walking ball of bullshit."
So you think he had a hand in EVERY decision made by them in his employ,
that what he did and said were all true (as in his "readings" being on
target) and such?
Well, again, I'm not surprised you would think his wholesale making up of
conversations would only be 'annoying' instead of an *indicator* of how much
bullshit this guy was shovelling on all fronts. The exact same as Fred.
Actually I would believe Fred over this yaboo any day.
You need a new bullshit meter, yours is out of order.
>
UsurperTom
> You a big believer in the occult?
I don't believe in Tarot, but Yoko did and she paid the guy $200,000 a
year for six years.
> One of the most annoying things in the book and a certain indication pointing to faked conversations.
Green taped phone conversations which is legal. If the quotes were
fabricated, Yoko could have easily sued him for libel. Here are just
three examples of parts of "Dakota Days" that can be independently
verified. In the book, Yoko had a vacation in Cartagena with a "Dan
G." an "an exotic denizen of New York's chic and seductive art scene
who was of late more and more in Yoko's thoughts." Sam Green, the art
dealer with whom Yoko eventually had an affair, owns property in
Cartagena, Columbia. This can be confirmed in the book "Savage
Grace," by Natalie Robins. Dan G. was also identified as the art
dealer who got Yoko the Egyptian sarcophagus that she believed was
herself in a previous life.
John Green attributes the following statement to John:
"I had a friend last year. We went out, drank, talked. I looked
forward to it because it was pleasant. Then I had an opportunity to be
a real friend. I don't mean in the way I usually wind up being a
friend, not by financing a business or underwriting a loan. No money
figured into it at all. My drinking partner got sick. Very sick. He
went to the hospital and I went to see him. That's when I had the
chance to be a friend. I had the chance to stand by him while the
doctors cut out pieces of him because the sickness
was cancer, and they weren't getting it all..."
May Pang confirms in her book, "Loving John," that John had just such a
friend in Richard Ross. "One day," Pang says, "Cynthia Ross called.
She had bad news. Richard had contracted Hodgkins disease and had gone
to the hospital to have his spleen removed and to have chemotherapy
treatments..."
In a March 21, 1982 article in the Boston Globe titled "Julian on John
and Yoko" (this was before "Dakota Days" even came out), Julian
discussed Yoko's dependence on psychics.
"It was only in the last couple years I saw (Yoko's) obsession with the
psychic. Every day she'd go off from their Manhattan apartment to
confer with her medium. She'd have a tarot card reading and then tell
us what we could or couldn't do. Even when it came to business
matters, Yoko would consult her medium or card reader. If John and
Yoko were
discussing something in the middle of the night and they had to make a
decision she'd call her psychic advisors."
Paul also corroborated this in his October 1986 interview with
Musician.
"They (John and Yoko) were into all sorts of crazy stuff, stuff I don't
know the half of. A lot of people don't know the half of that. Hints
of it keep coming out in books but you never know if you can believe
them."
Q: You mean occultism?
A: All sorts. I certainly did get a postcard from Yoko saying, "Go
round the world in a southeasterly direction. It'd be good for you.
You're allowed to stop at four places."
George Martin got one of those and he said, "Would it be alright if I
go to Montserrat?" and she said, "No." Actually, John did the voyage.
John went in a southeasterly direction around the world, but we all
kind of went, "Sure, we'll go around the southeast."
Moreover, here are relevant excerpts from Paul and Linda's 1984 Playboy
interview.
Paul: Then there was the time when we had all arrived for the big
discussion meeting in the Plaza hotel in New York. There were
green-baize tables -- like the Geneva Conference it was -- with
millions of documents laid out for us to sign. George had just come
off tour, I'd flown specially from England, Ringo had flown in
specially too, I think, and...John wouldn't show up! He wouldn't come
from across the park! George got on the phone, yelled, "Take those
f*cking shades off and come over here, John!" John still wouldn't come
over. He had a balloon delivered with a sign saying, "Listen to this
balloon." It was all quite far out.
Linda: The numbers weren't right, the planets weren't right, and John
wasn't coming. Well! And it (the resolution of the Beatles' affairs)
never happened since. It's never happened. He said he was not coming
and that was it. Had we known there was some guy flipping cards on his
bed to help him make his decision, we would have all gone over
there. George blew his top, but it didn't change anything. It's
beyond words. It's mind-boggling.
bessiejunejoad
How do you know he is telling the truth?
No Freddie or Goldman quotes....
UsurperTom
the motive of her postcards to Paul McCartney and George Martin urging
them to go on directional trips. Thexcerpt below is from the
introduction to directionalist Takashi Yoshikawa's book (Feng Shui
Astrology - How to Use the Energy of Chi to Make Your Dreams Come
True). Among the people Yoko dispatched on Yoshikawa's directional
trips were John, Sean, Elliot Mintz, Sam Green and John Green.
"In 1973, John Lennon and Yoko Ono separated. Yoko, remembering that I
had predicted they would face this situation a year before it
happened, came to see me. My advice to her must have been correct, for
in 1975 she reconciled with John. The first day they were together
again, they conceived Sean. Also, they got the idea to expand their
business investments and were very successful over the next few years
expanding their fortune. For a period of about ten years, from 1973 to
1982, I advised the Lennons."
bessiejunejoad
UsurperTom wrote:
> McFeeley wrote:
>
> > You a big believer in the occult?
>
> I don't believe in Tarot, but Yoko did and she paid the guy $200,000 a
> year for six years.
>
> > One of the most annoying things in the book and a certain indication pointing to faked conversations.
>
> Green taped phone conversations which is legal.
So he says
This is hardly proof that everything Green quoted is gospel. Weak.
> In a March 21, 1982 article in the Boston Globe titled "Julian on John
> and Yoko" (this was before "Dakota Days" even came out), Julian
> discussed Yoko's dependence on psychics.
>
> "It was only in the last couple years I saw (Yoko's) obsession with the
> psychic. Every day she'd go off from their Manhattan apartment to
> confer with her medium. She'd have a tarot card reading and then tell
> us what we could or couldn't do. Even when it came to business
> matters, Yoko would consult her medium or card reader. If John and
> Yoko were
> discussing something in the middle of the night and they had to make a
> decision she'd call her psychic advisors."
We already knew this, it doesnt prove Green is telling the truth.
So what? This is old, old news.
Can't you and fatts find anything to do but obssess like MDC?
bessiejunejoad
What are you trying to prove?
Besides an unhealthy obssession with two peoples private lives whom you
never met?
McFeeley
> McFeeley wrote:
>
> > You a big believer in the occult?
>
> I don't believe in Tarot, but Yoko did and she paid the guy $200,000 a
> year for six years.
That's her flaw. That means nothing as to his veracity.
>
> > One of the most annoying things in the book and a certain indication
pointing to faked conversations.
>
> Green taped phone conversations which is legal.
*IF the person is aware of being recorded.* Federal Law. You know for a
fact he did this? No.
If the quotes were
> fabricated, Yoko could have easily sued him for libel. Here are just
> three examples of parts of "Dakota Days" that can be independently
> verified. In the book, Yoko had a vacation in Cartagena with a "Dan
> G." an "an exotic denizen of New York's chic and seductive art scene
> who was of late more and more in Yoko's thoughts."
Ah, Yoko's thoughts can be verified. Interesting.
Sam Green, the art
> dealer with whom Yoko eventually had an affair, owns property in
> Cartagena, Columbia. This can be confirmed in the book "Savage
> Grace," by Natalie Robins. Dan G. was also identified as the art
> dealer who got Yoko the Egyptian sarcophagus that she believed was
> herself in a previous life.
>
> John Green attributes the following statement to John:
>
> "I had a friend last year. We went out, drank, talked. I looked
> forward to it because it was pleasant. Then I had an opportunity to be
> a real friend. I don't mean in the way I usually wind up being a
> friend, not by financing a business or underwriting a loan. No money
> figured into it at all. My drinking partner got sick. Very sick. He
> went to the hospital and I went to see him. That's when I had the
> chance to be a friend. I had the chance to stand by him while the
> doctors cut out pieces of him because the sickness
> was cancer, and they weren't getting it all..."
>
> May Pang confirms in her book, "Loving John," that John had just such a
> friend in Richard Ross. "One day," Pang says, "Cynthia Ross called.
> She had bad news. Richard had contracted Hodgkins disease and had gone
> to the hospital to have his spleen removed and to have chemotherapy
> treatments..."
What does this have to do with ANYthing, Tom?
>
> In a March 21, 1982 article in the Boston Globe titled "Julian on John
> and Yoko" (this was before "Dakota Days" even came out), Julian
> discussed Yoko's dependence on psychics.
>
> "It was only in the last couple years I saw (Yoko's) obsession with the
> psychic. Every day she'd go off from their Manhattan apartment to
> confer with her medium. She'd have a tarot card reading and then tell
> us what we could or couldn't do. Even when it came to business
> matters, Yoko would consult her medium or card reader. If John and
> Yoko were
> discussing something in the middle of the night and they had to make a
> decision she'd call her psychic advisors."
>
> Paul also corroborated this in his October 1986 interview with
> Musician.
>
> "They (John and Yoko) were into all sorts of crazy stuff, stuff I don't
> know the half of. A lot of people don't know the half of that. Hints
> of it keep coming out in books but you never know if you can believe
> them."
>
> Q: You mean occultism?
>
> A: All sorts. I certainly did get a postcard from Yoko saying, "Go
> round the world in a southeasterly direction. It'd be good for you.
> You're allowed to stop at four places."
I am not nor have I ever said she and John were not into these things, they
were, vocally and unashamedly. MY contention is that John Greene was a con
man who took advantage of that belief and made a relationship based on his
correct (!) interpretations.
>
> George Martin got one of those and he said, "Would it be alright if I
> go to Montserrat?" and she said, "No." Actually, John did the voyage.
> John went in a southeasterly direction around the world, but we all
> kind of went, "Sure, we'll go around the southeast."
>
> Moreover, here are relevant excerpts from Paul and Linda's 1984 Playboy
> interview.
These AREN'T relevant, Tom.
>
snip
>
McFeeley
>
> fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > McFeeley wrote,
> >
> > "John Green said a LOT of stupid and unprovable crap. Some people
> > actually believe him . . . . . ."
> >
> > How do you know he is lying?
>
> How do you know he is telling the truth?
Precisely. They believe blindly, and expect others to blindly swallow the
crap? I don't think so.
McFeeley
NONE of this addresses Greene's honesty, integrity (of which few con men
have) or anything else. We all KNOW Yoko was into the arcane arts. This
doesn't even need to be established unless you just have a burning need to
say SOMEthing.
>
abe slaney
> "UsurperTom" <Usurp...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1134428505....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Here's some documentation of Yoko's belief in directionalism which was
>>the motive of her postcards to Paul McCartney and George Martin urging
>>them to go on directional trips. Thexcerpt below is from the
>>introduction to directionalist Takashi Yoshikawa's book (Feng Shui
>>Astrology - How to Use the Energy of Chi to Make Your Dreams Come
>>True). Among the people Yoko dispatched on Yoshikawa's directional
>>trips were John, Sean, Elliot Mintz, Sam Green and John Green.
>>
>>"In 1973, John Lennon and Yoko Ono separated. Yoko, remembering that I
>>had predicted they would face this situation a year before it
>>happened, came to see me. My advice to her must have been correct, for
>>in 1975 she reconciled with John. The first day they were together
>>again, they conceived Sean. Also, they got the idea to expand their
>>business investments and were very successful over the next few years
>>expanding their fortune. For a period of about ten years, from 1973 to
>>1982, I advised the Lennons."
1982?
> NONE of this addresses Greene's honesty, integrity (of which few con men
> have) or anything else. We all KNOW Yoko was into the arcane arts. This
> doesn't even need to be established unless you just have a burning need to
> say SOMEthing.
I never bought or read any of these personal accounts of the Lennons, so
I just pick it up in dribs and drabs here. Over the years you see the
same sources quoted by some of the same people and you begin to get an
idea about which ones ring true and which just don't. While UTom does
have a gossip-monger side to him, he also seems to be something of an
archivist and a completist. Lord knows he's read more books about the
Beatles and the Lennons than I would ever want to. Anyway, I do find the
comments from multiple sources on the subject of the Lennons' interest
in the occult to be of some interest.
UsurperTom
> These AREN'T relevant
They ARE relevant. Rather than trying to debunk Green's specific
claims, you get hysterical and say that if John Green says it, it can't
be true. I have posted examples of things written by Green being
corroborated independently. Paul and Linda's statements indicate that
they find some validity in "Dakota Days" ("Hints of it keep coming out
in these books," and "Had we known there was some guy flipping cards on
his bed").
UsurperTom
> 1982?
I guess he worked for Yoko for another two years after John's murder.
McFeeley
"abe slaney" <abesl...@itagain.com> wrote in message
news:_1rnf.39399$ME5....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Well, that's fine then. UT is serving a purpose by giving background for
those who need it. He is not addressing anything relevant to the
conversation at hand, so one can see where that might get frustrating if one
is the person engaged in said discussion..
>
McFeeley
> McFeeley wrote:
>
>> These AREN'T relevant
>
> They ARE relevant. Rather than trying to debunk Green's specific
> claims,
ANY claim of his ability at being clarivoyant is deBUNK.
> you get hysterical
Oh don't go all flamey on me now. No hysteria. I hated the man and his book
the day I read it decades ago, and my opinion has not changed nor do I see a
reason for it to.
He puffed up his every moment there...my God, man, all one has to do is READ
the tripe to know it's bullshit, and I -did-, and that's what I -read-, and
if you don't see it thats your problem, tough shit. But don't try to push
his crap off as gold on me or anyone else that can think because it's not,
and your mindless adherence to these gossip mongers have preyty well
destroyed any credibility you may have ever mustered. .
and say that if John Green says it, it can't
> be true.
The man is a liar, anyone who can reason can read it for themselves. Like
Goldman and Seaman and the rest of your tabloid heroes, you can never tell
what is a lie or truth. Except his ego wanking is clearly bullshit. Not
unlike yours, I am beginning to see.
I have posted examples of things written by Green being
> corroborated independently.
None of which was in dispute, therefore you were puffuing up posts with
meaningless words, as always. Focus Tommy boy, focus. You're not being
paid for verbage but relevance.
Paul and Linda's statements indicate that
> they find some validity in "Dakota Days" ("Hints of it keep coming out
> in these books," and "Had we known there was some guy flipping cards on
> his bed").
This was never in dispute, nor was it ever a secret...the Lennons were quite
open with their admiration of these things. You make it sound like you have
some huge scoop on something. C'mon. John Green was a hanger on who wrote
another tell all book, full of lies and self-glorification. Not unlike your
other buddy GG.
>
UsurperTom
> I hated the man and his book the day I read it decades ago
This is your hero worship speaking. Putting emotions beside, what
parts of John Green's book have been proven to be false?
> your mindless adherence to these gossip mongers have preyty well destroyed any credibility you may have ever mustered.
Speak for yourself! I've made many cyberfriends who appreciate my
posts in this newsgroup.
> None of which was in dispute
You claimed that John Green's book is all bullshit. However, I've
posted examples of Green being proven right.
> You're not being paid for verbage but relevance.
I was never paid shit for posting here.
> This was never in dispute, nor was it ever a secret
They specifically cited John Green's book in the excepts I posted.
> Not unlike your other buddy GG.
I don't like GG, you fucking liar.
> >
McFeeley
> McFeeley wrote:
>
>> I hated the man and his book the day I read it decades ago
>
> This is your hero worship speaking. Putting emotions beside, what
> parts of John Green's book have been proven to be false?
What have you proven to be true? Stop trying to be a big shot flamer and
simply listen to what I said: I read the book and determined it to be a
self-wanking exercise of a deluded mind. You may not agree but that's my
opinion, it was then and it will likely be for good.
This isnt about hero-worship or any other nickel theory you want to red
herring with. The man was full of shit. Period. You have no problem
believeing in all sorts of men full of shit, and in fact you revel in it, so
there are no surprises here, are there?
>
>> your mindless adherence to these gossip mongers have preyty well
>> destroyed any credibility you may have ever mustered.
>
> Speak for yourself! I've made many cyberfriends who appreciate my
> posts in this newsgroup.
I used to, Tom, I used to. Even as recently as a week ago I said I
respected what you can do, but you've justy pretty much whined your way out
of that. (I know, who needs MY respect?).
When it comes to arguing your point you turn into a weasel, a dishonest
arguer who reduces the entire subject to the absurd. Nick has called you on
it for years, but always far more harshly than I thought you ever deserved.
But maybe not. Like derek your singleminded defense of known and porven
scum goes beyond baffling to just plain troubled.
I can't be arsed with trying to be diplomatic with you, why bother?
>
>> None of which was in dispute
>
> You claimed that John Green's book is all bullshit. However, I've
> posted examples of Green being proven right.
You've posted examples of known facts, none of which had to do with him
except he mentions them in his book. "All" bullshit? Man, you really
stretch when you get that flop sweat thing going.
>
>> You're not being paid for verbage but relevance.
>
> I was never paid shit for posting here.
Well, you shouldn't be, based on the crap you're attempting to pass off.
>
>> This was never in dispute, nor was it ever a secret
>
> They specifically cited John Green's book in the excepts I posted.
Lah-dee fuckin da, Tom.. so what? That was not the issue. At least, not to
anyone else, only you I suppose.
>
>> Not unlike your other buddy GG.
>
> I don't like GG, you fucking liar.
sigh
That was low of both of us. I suggest striking the last two remarks, court
reporter.
>> >
>
Stephen X. Carter
>
> The first day they were together
>again, they conceived Sean.
Is that so?
What was the date of Elton's NY Concert, and how does that relate to Oct
9th?
--
steve.hat.stephencarter.not.com.but.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
fatt...@yahoo.com
Q: You mean occultism?
interview.
Fascinating stuff. Thanks for the post.
JohnB
Stephen X. Carter wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2005 15:01:45 -0800, "UsurperTom" <Usurp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > The first day they were together
> >again, they conceived Sean.
>
> Is that so?
>
> What was the date of Elton's NY Concert, and how does that relate to Oct
> 9th?
>
I believe they got back together after Elton's concert, so it must have
been about 40 weeks before Oct 9th.
McFeeley
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134486356.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Usurper wrote,
>
> "McFeeley wrote: > You a big believer in the occult?
>
>
> I don't believe in Tarot, but Yoko did and she paid the guy $200,000 a
> year for six years.
>
Some reason you felt it necessary to repost all this again? Too busy
reading the gossip columns to post an original thought?
>
fatt...@yahoo.com
Usurper wrote,
Thanks for this fascinating stuff. Sad to say, it shows that both John
and Yoko must have been weak people to follow this bull. I wonder if
John really believed it or not.
I wonder if Yoko did this as a means to "control" John. She knew he
depended heavily on her and would do almost anything she asked, so if
she wanted to get rid of him (like to have an affair) she would tell
him to take a trip.
One directional trip I found very significant was the one John took to
Bermuda. Remember, JOhn signed his will in November 1979, and soon
thereafter expressed an interest in sailing. Yoko encouraged him in
his interest, made the arrangements for the trip, and told John that
her directionalist thought the best direction was southwest which would
be to Bermuda. Of course, Yoko sent him there in June, during
hurricane season. John hit a fierce storm, but he and the crew
survived.
During this time Yoko was having an affair with Sam Greene, the art
dealer.
Hmmmmm. Very interesting.
fatt...@yahoo.com
his bed"). "
Excellent point. You see, if one reads enough books and enough
interviews, one sees some independent corrorating evidence.
I can see where one might be skeptical just reading Greene's book
alone. But some of what he says is independently confirmed by others.
It makes Greene more credible.
I do think he took advantage of John and Yoko. I remember reading his
book, and he made some remarks which indicated even he did not really
believe everything he was saying or doing as far as Tarot cards, but he
knew John and Yoko were naive. Clearly he was motivated by the buck as
are many people. However, I do not conclude that everything Greene
says is a lie.
UsurperTom
> Nick has called you on it for years
Don't drag Nick into this thread. I haven't had any problem with him
in years.
> Like derek your singleminded defense of known and porven scum
And you used to defend Derek. I have absolutely nothing in common with
Derek. His veneration of John and Yoko is more up to your speed.
UsurperTom
> What was the date of Elton's NY Concert, and how does that relate to Oct 9th?
Contrary to what John and Yoko said, they didn't get back together on
January 31, 1975. John was still with May when he recorded "Fame" with
David Bowie earlier that month. Yoko brought a date to the Elton John
concert.
McFeeley
> McFeeley wrote:
>
> > Nick has called you on it for years
>
> Don't drag Nick into this thread. I haven't had any problem with him
> in years.
Don't tell me how to post.
>
> > Like derek your singleminded defense of known and porven scum
>
> And you used to defend Derek. I have absolutely nothing in common with
> Derek. His veneration of John and Yoko is more up to your speed.
Whatever. You're a big baby and there is no getting around it. Pretend to
be a troll if it makes you feel better, you have little left of substance to
offer.
>
McFeeley
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134487289....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Usurper wrote,
>
>
> "They ARE relevant. Rather than trying to debunk Green's specific
> claims, you get hysterical and say that if John Green says it, it can't
>
> be true. I have posted examples of things written by Green being
> corroborated independently. Paul and Linda's statements indicate that
> they find some validity in "Dakota Days" ("Hints of it keep coming out
> in these books," and "Had we known there was some guy flipping cards on
>
> his bed"). "
>
> Excellent point. You see, if one reads enough books and enough
> interviews, one sees some independent corrorating evidence.
One sees what one wants to see and uses books to justify it.
>
> I can see where one might be skeptical just reading Greene's book
> alone. But some of what he says is independently confirmed by others.
> It makes Greene more credible.
He is no more credible than you are.
>
> I do think he took advantage of John and Yoko. I remember reading his
> book, and he made some remarks which indicated even he did not really
> believe everything he was saying or doing as far as Tarot cards, but he
> knew John and Yoko were naive. Clearly he was motivated by the buck as
> are many people. However, I do not conclude that everything Greene
> says is a lie.
No, you pick and choose your lies.
>
bessiejunejoad
Shall we leave them to their little circle jerk of Yoko then?
I still say it reeks of MDC type obssession
McFeeley
Oh I guess I finally agree.
Fat I exopect nothing from, he has the comprehension skills of a slug. But
Tom? Ase abe said yesterday, Tom is usually able to be counted on for more
than a knee jerk reaction (except, apparently, lately).
His desperate NEED to rely on the -known- WORST biographers is puzzling and
disappointing, but it is his obvious stock in trade now. He rushes into any
and all threads to defend the likes of GG, Seaman, and now Greene. He will
use any ridiculous ploy to get his bizarre fantasies of knowing some inside
scoop into the record, blinding him to what he's doing to his own
credibility.
There are SO many well researched and respected books/authors he could
utilize, but he prefers the bottom feeders. And he won't explain why. VERY
bizarre.
>
bessiejunejoad
Perhaps just a case of water seeking it's own level? I agree that it is
very odd that the bottom feeders are given so much credence by these
guys, but can't you just see them having the National Enquirer
delivered????
I was shocked at their dismissal of David Sheffs 1984 article, until I
realized just how blind they choose to be.
UsurperTom
> His desperate NEED to rely on the -known- WORST biographers is puzzling
Who died and appointed you the arbiter of Beatle biographies?
> There are SO many well researched and respected books/authors he could tilize, but he prefers the bottom feeders.
Which biographies? I've utilize almost all of them, and I haven't seen
any book contradict Fred and Green (you can't even spell his name
right). The authors Charlie demonizes can be used to supplement the
authorized biographies in order to get the bigger picture.