Linda Comments on Francie in RS
Nyarlathotep
On June 21, 1973, Rolling Stone ran a Paul Gambaccini-conducted
interview with Paul & Linda McCartney. Towards the end of this piece,
Gambaccini & Linda have the following exchange:
PG: What did you feel when you heard about the girl who wrote
about her affair with Paul?
LM: She should flatter herself; she got one good lay. I'd never
write about my sex life.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
d.
<nyarla...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On June 21, 1973, Rolling Stone ran a Paul Gambaccini-conducted
> interview with Paul & Linda McCartney. Towards the end of this piece,
> Gambaccini & Linda have the following exchange:
>
> PG: What did you feel when you heard about the girl who wrote
> about her affair with Paul?
>
> LM: She should flatter herself; she got one good lay. I'd never
> write about my sex life.
>
Heh heh heh. All right, Linda!
Thanks for posting this one, Ny. I knew this was out there, and the it's been
paraphrased for me before, but I've never seen the actual quote.
From this brief comment I get the strong impression Linda was well familiar with
what Francie wrote about Paul's, um, manly prowess. Even though they always
claimed they didn't read what was written about them, comments like these
indicate otherwise.
--
northcut at mindspring dot com
Three ornaments of wisdom: abundance of knowledge, a number of precedents,
to employ good counsel -the Triads of Ireland
Popavalium Andropov
"Nyarlathotep" <nyarla...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8rj3km$1p9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> On June 21, 1973, Rolling Stone ran a Paul Gambaccini-conducted
> interview with Paul & Linda McCartney. Towards the end of this piece,
> Gambaccini & Linda have the following exchange:
>
> PG: What did you feel when you heard about the girl who wrote
> about her affair with Paul?
>
> LM: She should flatter herself; she got one good lay. I'd never
> write about my sex life.
hey nylar, isn't it time you went for your blue rinse and blow dry right
about now?
LOL! got to love the stack of 70s RS that nlyar keeps right next to his
stack of 70s/80s playboys. all for the articles of course......:)
reinh...@my-deja.com
> interview with Paul & Linda McCartney. Towards the end of this piece,
> Gambaccini & Linda have the following exchange:
>
> PG: What did you feel when you heard about the girl who wrote
> about her affair with Paul?
>
> LM: She should flatter herself; she got one good lay. I'd never
> write about my sex life.
>
Ouch! Great quote, Ny. And according to Franks, that "one good lay"
wasn't even all that good!
Nyarlathotep
reinh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8rj3km$1p9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Nyarlathotep <nyarla...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On June 21, 1973, Rolling Stone ran a Paul Gambaccini-conducted
> > interview with Paul & Linda McCartney. Towards the end of this
piece,
> > Gambaccini & Linda have the following exchange:
> >
> > PG: What did you feel when you heard about the girl who wrote
> > about her affair with Paul?
> >
> > LM: She should flatter herself; she got one good lay. I'd
never
> > write about my sex life.
> >
>
> Ouch! Great quote, Ny. And according to Franks, that "one good lay"
> wasn't even all that good!
But that hasn't stopped her from fixating on it for some 32 years!
Good to see you, Reinhart. BTW, I found some *even better* stuff
in mid-70s Rolling Stone articles today, but I've decided to keep it on
ice for a while.
Popavalium Andropov
>, I found some *even better* stuff in mid-70s Rolling Stone articles
today, but I've decided to keep it on
> ice for a while.
heh, am i the only one who gets a picture of this twisted old fruit holed up
in his dark room laciviously wringin his sticky little fingers over a
yellowing stack of RS and playboys, all the while planning his "next move"
in the terribly important campaign against........*gasp*.....publicists and
their clients?
LOL!
Francie's Ghost
"d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
> From this brief comment I get the strong impression Linda was well familiar with
> what Francie wrote about Paul's, um, manly prowess. Even though they always
> claimed they didn't read what was written about them, comments like these
> indicate otherwise.
>
>
First of all, my research shows that Linda's remark was not made as part of
an interview with Paul and Linda, but rather, was an off-the-cuff retort to a
reporter who caught her off guard. The piece was not an interview, but only a
half page long story covering the McCartneys' L.A. visit to record "Red Rose
Speedway". If you check the record, you'll find that Nylar his reported the
context incorrectly.
Second, Linda's comment indicates nothing more than a knowledge of the
chapter of Body Count dealing with the spring and summer of 1968. The
question posed by the reporter didn't ask how she felt about the book, but
how she felt about Schwartz's having written anything at all about the
relationship with Paul. Those who knew Linda during the early years of her
marriage to Paul consistently say she defended her husband (and her right to
fend off competitors and "Linda-haters") like a fierce mama lion. She made no
further comment about Schwartz, or her book, for the rest of her life. To do
so would have been contrary to McCartney's policy of avoiding any discussion
on this subject.
fgw
--
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
"Everybody has a heart... except *some* people." (Bette Davis, ALL ABOUT EVE)
d.
<franc...@excite.com> wrote:
> In article <northcut-1FC217...@news.giganews.com>,
> "d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From this brief comment I get the strong impression Linda was well
> > familiar with what Francie wrote about Paul's, um, manly prowess. Even though they
> > always claimed they didn't read what was written about them, comments like these
> > indicate otherwise.
> >
> >
>
> First of all, my research shows that Linda's remark was not made as part of
> an interview with Paul and Linda, but rather, was an off-the-cuff retort to
> a reporter who caught her off guard. The piece was not an interview, but only
> a half page long story covering the McCartneys' L.A. visit to record "Red
> Rose Speedway". If you check the record, you'll find that Nylar his reported the
> context incorrectly.
There isn't really any context in this instance. The format of the article is
meaningless. Gambaccini asked a simple question and Linda gave a simple answer.
If Linda had elaborated and Ny had edited that out, then that would have made a
difference, but *my* research indicates that what he posted is exactly what's in
the magazine.
> Second, Linda's comment indicates nothing more than a knowledge of the
> chapter of Body Count dealing with the spring and summer of 1968.
Did I imply otherwise? ;)
> question posed by the reporter didn't ask how she felt about the book, but
> how she felt about Schwartz's having written anything at all about the
> relationship with Paul.
Well of course that's what he asked her - if there had been nothing in the book
about her husband, why would he have brought it up in the first place?
> Those who knew Linda during the early years of her
> marriage to Paul consistently say she defended her husband (and her right
> to fend off competitors and "Linda-haters") like a fierce mama lion.
That says a lot for her love and her loyalty.
> She made no further comment about Schwartz, or her book, for the rest
> of her life.
Yes, she was a class act, that Linda.
> To do so would have been contrary to McCartney's policy of
> avoiding any discussion on this subject.
He's a class act, that Paul.
Nyarlathotep
> "d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From this brief comment I get the strong impression Linda was well
familiar with
> > what Francie wrote about Paul's, um, manly prowess. Even though
they always
> > claimed they didn't read what was written about them, comments like
these
> > indicate otherwise.
> >
> >
>
> First of all, my research shows that Linda's remark was not made as
part of
> an interview with Paul and Linda, but rather, was an off-the-cuff
retort to a
> reporter who caught her off guard. The piece was not an interview, but
only a
> half page long story covering the McCartneys' L.A. visit to record
"Red Rose
> Speedway". If you check the record, you'll find that Nylar his
reported the
You're full of it. The bit I've provided is true to the
(interview) form of the original piece. The reason, incidentally, that
I provided the specific issue in which Linda's comments on Schwhoretz
appear is so that interested parties can check for themselves.
Nyarlathotep
UsurperTom
>If Linda had elaborated and Ny had edited that out, then that would have made
>a
>difference
Like what Derek did to Mark Shipper's quote in the USA Today article.
Tom
Diana
> Good to see you, Reinhart. BTW, I found some *even better* stuff
>in mid-70s Rolling Stone articles today, but I've decided to keep it on
>ice for a while.
Not for too long, I hope!
- - - - -
A loving person lives in a loving world.
A hostile person lives in a hostile world.
Everyone you meet is your mirror.
-- Ken Keyes, Jr.
Diana
> PG: What did you feel when you heard about the girl who wrote
>about her affair with Paul?
>
> LM: She should flatter herself; she got one good lay. I'd never
>write about my sex life.
Way to go, Linda!
Diana
address!)> writes:
>heh, am i the only one who gets a picture of this twisted old fruit holed up
>in his dark room laciviously wringin his sticky little fingers over a
>yellowing stack of RS and playboys, all the while planning his "next move"
>in the terribly important campaign against........*gasp*.....publicists and
>their clients?
<::smashing up mixture of Prozac and Valium to add to Nick's tea::>
Susan
>He's a class act, that Paul.
I agree d., Paul is a class act, but perhaps Paul's reasoning for not
commenting about Fabby is more out of shame than class.
Francie's Ghost
> <franc...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <northcut-1FC217...@news.giganews.com>,
> > "d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From this brief comment I get the strong impression Linda was well
> > > familiar with what Francie wrote about Paul's, um, manly prowess. Even though they
> > > always claimed they didn't read what was written about them, comments like these
> > > indicate otherwise.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > First of all, my research shows that Linda's remark was not made as part of
> > an interview with Paul and Linda, but rather, was an off-the-cuff retort to
> > a reporter who caught her off guard. The piece was not an interview, but only
> > a half page long story covering the McCartneys' L.A. visit to record "Red
> > Rose Speedway". If you check the record, you'll find that Nylar his reported the
> > context incorrectly.
>
> There isn't really any context in this instance.
There is always a context, d. You simply can't bring yourself to admit it in
this instance.
The format of the article is
> meaningless. Gambaccini asked a simple question and Linda gave a simple answer.
The format in which a quotation is presented is very important if one knows
the difference between an article and an interview.
> If Linda had elaborated and Ny had edited that out, then that would have made a
> difference, but *my* research indicates that what he posted is exactly what's in
> the magazine.
>
Not exactly, not verbatim, he didn't.
> > Second, Linda's comment indicates nothing more than a knowledge of the
> > chapter of Body Count dealing with the spring and summer of 1968.
>
> Did I imply otherwise? ;)
>
>
Yes you did. You inferred from linda's statement (an isolated quote in an
otherwise quoteless piece) that Linda read what was written about her (?)
which she did not.
JLW44
>> of her life.
>
>Yes, she was a class act, that Linda.
>
Why would she consistently comment over something that happened over 30 years
ago. She commented back then and that was more than enough. To repeatedly bring
it up would be silly.
Popavalium Andropov
"Diana" <amara...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001006023956...@nso-fv.aol.com...
> "Popavalium Andropov" <sle...@sleepy.com (warning! warning! this is a fake
> address!)> writes:
>
> >heh, am i the only one who gets a picture of this twisted old fruit holed
up
> >in his dark room laciviously wringin his sticky little fingers over a
> >yellowing stack of RS and playboys, all the while planning his "next
move"
> >in the terribly important campaign against........*gasp*.....publicists
and
> >their clients?
>
> <::smashing up mixture of Prozac and Valium to add to Nick's tea::>
LOL! real people don't need prozac.
if ever there was a drug made to order for the oprah set of over medicated
over indulged self absorbed classic american loser, it's prozac.
but in any case, i'm glad you recognise, and feel the need to refute, my
little visualisation, diana.....:)
Popavalium Andropov
>
> > PG: What did you feel when you heard about the girl who wrote
> >about her affair with Paul?
> >
> > LM: She should flatter herself; she got one good lay. I'd never
> >write about my sex life.
>
> Way to go, Linda!
>
to rmb........:)
Popavalium Andropov
"Susan" <Mrs-...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:14429-39D...@storefull-141.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Thanks for the post Nyar.
>
> >He's a class act, that Paul.
>
> I agree d., Paul is a class act,
heh, how would you know what a "class act" is, susan?
Francie's Ghost
Nyarlathotep <nyarla...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8rjff0$asa$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Francie's Ghost <franc...@excite.com> wrote:
> > In article <northcut-1FC217...@news.giganews.com>,
> > "d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From this brief comment I get the strong impression Linda was well
> familiar with
> > > what Francie wrote about Paul's, um, manly prowess. Even though
> they always
> > > claimed they didn't read what was written about them, comments like
> these
> > > indicate otherwise.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > First of all, my research shows that Linda's remark was not made as
> part of
> > an interview with Paul and Linda, but rather, was an off-the-cuff
> retort to a
> > reporter who caught her off guard. The piece was not an interview, but
> only a
> > half page long story covering the McCartneys' L.A. visit to record
> "Red Rose
> > Speedway". If you check the record, you'll find that Nylar his
> reported the
> > context incorrectly. <snip>
>
> You're full of it.
Ah, that brilliant repartee of yours, so stimulating... not.
The bit I've provided is true to the
> (interview) form of the original piece.
Then post the entire thing and we'll all judge for ourselves whether it's an
interview or a straight piece on Wings in L.A.
I dare you.
--
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
"Everybody has a heart... except *some* people." (Bette Davis, ALL ABOUT EVE)
larr
1. I thought Francie said she "lived" with Paul for a time. I think of
living with someone as more than an "affair".
2. Linda talks about "one good lay".
First of all, if a "lay" is a sexual event, living with someone
typically implies *more* than one sexual episode. Perhaps she meant it
in the sense of Paul the "person" being the "lay"?
Secondly, Linda says th "lay" was "good" but I understand that
Francie did not portray her sexual experience with Paul as being
particularly "good".
So Linda's portrayal of Paul and Francie's relationship really doesn't
line up very well with the info Francie presented. "Lovely Linda" doing
her share of rationalizing? A wife's privilege I suppose.
lar
In article <8rj3km$1p9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Nyarlathotep <nyarla...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On June 21, 1973, Rolling Stone ran a Paul Gambaccini-conducted
> interview with Paul & Linda McCartney. Towards the end of this piece,
> Gambaccini & Linda have the following exchange:
>
> PG: What did you feel when you heard about the girl who wrote
> about her affair with Paul?
>
> LM: She should flatter herself; she got one good lay. I'd never
> write about my sex life.
>
d.
franc...@excite.com wrote on 10/6/00 4:59 AM:
> In article <northcut-B6D462...@news.giganews.com>,
> "d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> In article <8rjff0$asa$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Francie's Ghost
>> <franc...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <northcut-1FC217...@news.giganews.com>,
>>> "d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From this brief comment I get the strong impression Linda was well
>>>> familiar with what Francie wrote about Paul's, um, manly prowess. Even
>>>> though they
>>>> always claimed they didn't read what was written about them, comments like
>>>> these indicate otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> First of all, my research shows that Linda's remark was not made as part of
>>> an interview with Paul and Linda, but rather, was an off-the-cuff retort to
>>> a reporter who caught her off guard. The piece was not an interview, but
>>> only
>>> a half page long story covering the McCartneys' L.A. visit to record "Red
>>> Rose Speedway". If you check the record, you'll find that Nylar his reported
>>> the
>>> context incorrectly.
>>
>> There isn't really any context in this instance.
>
> There is always a context, d. You simply can't bring yourself to admit it in
> this instance.
What I meant was, the context is totally irrelevant to this situation.
> The format of the article is
>> meaningless. Gambaccini asked a simple question and Linda gave a simple
>> answer.
>
> The format in which a quotation is presented is very important if one knows
> the difference between an article and an interview.
I repeat: to know how the article was presented does nothing to alter the
content or meaning of Linda's comment, therefore it's irrelevant.
>> If Linda had elaborated and Ny had edited that out, then that would have made
>> a difference, but *my* research indicates that what he posted is exactly
>> what's in the magazine.
>>
>
> Not exactly, not verbatim, he didn't.
I wonder if Ny would mind posting the entire piece.
>>> Second, Linda's comment indicates nothing more than a knowledge of the
>>> chapter of Body Count dealing with the spring and summer of 1968.
>>
>> Did I imply otherwise? ;)
>>
>>
>
> Yes you did. You inferred from linda's statement (an isolated quote in an
> otherwise quoteless piece) that Linda read what was written about her (?)
> which she did not.
I inferred no such thing. That's not even what Gambaccini asked her. I
inferred from her answer that she read what you wrote about *Paul*, not you.
And she refuted it, which was certainly her right. :)
- d.
Jeremy Boob
yyyyyaaaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnnn
I mean, this 'quote' has been around the block many times. It's old
news. One comment, from almost 30 years ago.
Who cares?
d.
10/6/00 9:39 AM:
>
> In article <8rj3km$1p9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Nyarlathotep <nyarla...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> On June 21, 1973, Rolling Stone ran a Paul Gambaccini-conducted
>> interview with Paul & Linda McCartney. Towards the end of this piece,
>> Gambaccini & Linda have the following exchange:
>>
>> PG: What did you feel when you heard about the girl who wrote
>> about her affair with Paul?
>>
>> LM: She should flatter herself; she got one good lay. I'd never
>> write about my sex life.
> Maybe I'm a bit confused about this but:
>
> 1. I thought Francie said she "lived" with Paul for a time. I think of
> living with someone as more than an "affair".
What do you call it then? Francie shacked with Paul for about six weeks
before he asked her to leave.
> 2. Linda talks about "one good lay".
> First of all, if a "lay" is a sexual event, living with someone
> typically implies *more* than one sexual episode. Perhaps she meant it
> in the sense of Paul the "person" being the "lay"?
Yes, I think you got it, sweetie. Good work.
> Secondly, Linda says th "lay" was "good" but I understand that
> Francie did not portray her sexual experience with Paul as being
> particularly "good".
>
> So Linda's portrayal of Paul and Francie's relationship really doesn't
> line up very well with the info Francie presented.
> "Lovely Linda" doing
> her share of rationalizing? A wife's privilege I suppose.
I believe you're missing the point entirely, by about 1,000,000 miles. Do
*you* speak so literally as you're assuming Linda did, or is English not
your first language?
In the two little sentences Linda is actually saying the following:
- acknowledging that Francie wrote catty, cruel comments about Paul's
sexual prowess
- suggesting that Francie only did so because Francie is bitter and bitchy
- refuting Francie's assertion that Paul was a dud when it came to sex
- and stating that someone like Francie should flatter herself that she
even got to sleep with him at all.
Mee-ow. But I can't say that I think Francie didn't have it coming to her.
"Rationalizing"? "A wife's privilege"? Whatever ...
- d.
larr
<nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> in article 8rkkme$6qq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com, larr at la...@mail.com wrote on
> 10/6/00 9:39 AM:
> >
> > In article <8rj3km$1p9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Nyarlathotep <nyarla...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> On June 21, 1973, Rolling Stone ran a Paul Gambaccini-conducted
> >> interview with Paul & Linda McCartney. Towards the end of this piece,
> >> Gambaccini & Linda have the following exchange:
> >>
> >> PG: What did you feel when you heard about the girl who wrote
> >> about her affair with Paul?
> >>
> >> LM: She should flatter herself; she got one good lay. I'd never
> >> write about my sex life.
>
> > Maybe I'm a bit confused about this but:
> >
> > 1. I thought Francie said she "lived" with Paul for a time. I think of
> > living with someone as more than an "affair".
>
> What do you call it then? Francie shacked with Paul for about six weeks
> before he asked her to leave.
>
> > 2. Linda talks about "one good lay".
> > First of all, if a "lay" is a sexual event, living with someone
> > typically implies *more* than one sexual episode. Perhaps she meant it
> > in the sense of Paul the "person" being the "lay"?
>
> Yes, I think you got it, sweetie. Good work.
heh heh, I love affectionate encouragement :-)
>
> > Secondly, Linda says th "lay" was "good" but I understand that
> > Francie did not portray her sexual experience with Paul as being
> > particularly "good".
> >
> > So Linda's portrayal of Paul and Francie's relationship really doesn't
> > line up very well with the info Francie presented.
> > "Lovely Linda" doing
> > her share of rationalizing? A wife's privilege I suppose.
>
> I believe you're missing the point entirely, by about 1,000,000 miles. Do
> *you* speak so literally as you're assuming Linda did, or is English not
> your first language?
Gee, I guess it's the strong "techie" streak showing up. We can be a
little literal you know. ;-)
>
> In the two little sentences Linda is actually saying the following:
>
> - acknowledging that Francie wrote catty, cruel comments about Paul's
> sexual prowess
> - suggesting that Francie only did so because Francie is bitter and bitchy
> - refuting Francie's assertion that Paul was a dud when it came to sex
> - and stating that someone like Francie should flatter herself that she
> even got to sleep with him at all.
>
> Mee-ow. But I can't say that I think Francie didn't have it coming to her.
> "Rationalizing"? "A wife's privilege"? Whatever ..
>
> - d.
Thanks d. I love it when people speak straight english.
cheers, lar
--
Whaaa ...?
Nyarlathotep
"d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> in article 8rk493$qk8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com, Francie's Ghost at
> franc...@excite.com wrote on 10/6/00 4:59 AM:
>
> > In article <northcut-B6D462...@news.giganews.com>,
> > "d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
admit it in
> > this instance.
>
> What I meant was, the context is totally irrelevant to this situation.
>
> >> meaningless. Gambaccini asked a simple question and Linda gave a
simple
> >> answer.
> >
one knows
> > the difference between an article and an interview.
>
> I repeat: to know how the article was presented does nothing to alter
the
> content or meaning of Linda's comment, therefore it's irrelevant.
>
have made
> >> a difference, but *my* research indicates that what he posted is
exactly
> >> what's in the magazine.
> >>
> >
>
> I wonder if Ny would mind posting the entire piece.
Everything you're saying here is right, D. Francie is just spewing
BS in a sad attempt to muddle things.
I'll post the entire piece later today.
Susan
>shacked with Paul for about six weeks
>before he asked her to leave.
In the book I just read it said Fabby stayed with him for three weeks,
and that he was through with her in four. In either case, she was just
an affair that he regretted at the time and has probably forgotten
about.
jennie...@my-deja.com
romp with Bruce Springsteen?!! (XXXxxx
Tom Hartman
>
> I inferred no such thing. That's not even what Gambaccini asked her. I
> inferred from her answer that she read what you wrote about *Paul*, not you.
> And she refuted it, which was certainly her right. :)
>
Hang in there d.....;)
Francie's Ghost
> franc...@excite.com wrote on 10/6/00 4:59 AM:
>
> >
> > Yes you did. You inferred from linda's statement (an isolated quote in an
> > otherwise quoteless piece) that Linda read what was written about her (?)
> > which she did not.
>
> I inferred no such thing.
You are so fullashit I can't even believe it.
Here's what you said: "Even though they always claimed they didn't read what
was written about them, comments like these indicate otherwise."
THEY (PAUL & LINDA) always claimed THEY (Paul and Linda) didn't read what was
written about THEM. Linda's remark to RS was regarding the question, "What do
you think about the girl who wrote about her affair with Paul?"
You are truly a moron, and this is a moronic discussion with no other purpose
but to keep your coven amused. No one else is interested, no one gives a
shit, and you are totally out of your skull when you interpret and spin out
one statement of Linda McCartney's into an entire tabloidesque commentary on
my affair with him.
Please, get help...
freds...@my-deja.com
> "d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > in article 8rk493$qk8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com, Francie's Ghost at
> > franc...@excite.com wrote on 10/6/00 4:59 AM:
> >
> SNIP
>
> > >
> > > Yes you did. You inferred from linda's statement (an isolated
quote in an
about her (?)
> > > which she did not.
> >
> > I inferred no such thing.
>
> You are so fullashit I can't even believe it.
>
read what
> was written about them, comments like these indicate otherwise."
>
what was
> written about THEM. Linda's remark to RS was regarding the question,
"What do
> you think about the girl who wrote about her affair with Paul?"
>
> You are truly a moron, and this is a moronic discussion with no other
purpose
> but to keep your coven amused. No one else is interested, no one gives
a
> shit,
Well, you obviously do, otherwise you wouldn't be wasting your time
obsessively spin-doctoring the facts (which, as always, speak loudly &
clearly...)
and you are totally out of your skull when you interpret and
spin out
> one statement of Linda McCartney's into an entire tabloidesque
commentary on
> my affair with him.
LOL! There ain't much to 'interpret'. It's obvious that Linda had
total contempt for you & regarded you as a sad & pathetic ex-groupie.
But then again, we don't really need Linda's quote to reach that
conclusion...
sirmu...@my-deja.com
Francie's Ghost <franc...@excite.com> wrote to d.:
>...and you are totally out of your skull when you interpret and spin
>out one statement of Linda McCartney's into an entire tabloidesque
>commentary on my affair with him.
Well, it looks like the game of charades is over, it's about time. Do
you think this helped your credibility here? I don't. Let's see, what
else did you have to say to d.;
> You are so fullashit I can't even believe it.
Was she the one pretending to be someone else?
>(snip bits of venom)
> You are truly a moron, and this is a moronic discussion with no other
purpose
> but to keep your coven amused.
d. has gone easy on you from what I've seen in the past, I've never
seen her call you anything like that. Linda's comment doesn't look good
for you, does it?
> No one else is interested, no one gives a shit, and you are totally
>out of your skull when you interpret and spin out one statement of
>Linda McCartney's into an entire tabloidesque commentary on
> my affair with him.
Lots of people are interested in what Linda had to say. I've never
considered kiss & tell authors to be a class act either. Perhaps if you
didn't write about sex with Paul you might have even gotten a small
footnote in their book, instead of zip.
> Please, get help...
You can say that again.
Jim
itsybit...@webtv.net
commenting on it?
Asira
d.
> In article <B6035E92.83C4%nort...@mindspring.com>,
> "d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > in article 8rk493$qk8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com, Francie's Ghost at
> > franc...@excite.com wrote on 10/6/00 4:59 AM:
> >
> SNIP
>
> > >
> > > Yes you did. You inferred from linda's statement (an isolated quote in
> > > an otherwise quoteless piece) that Linda read what was written about
> > > her (?) which she did not.
> >
> > I inferred no such thing.
>
>
> You are so fullashit I can't even believe it.
>
> Here's what you said: "Even though they always claimed they didn't read
> what was written about them, comments like these indicate otherwise."
>
> THEY (PAUL & LINDA) always claimed THEY (Paul and Linda) didn't read what
> was written about THEM.
Earlier, you were complaining that Nyarlahotep posted the Linda Mac quote out of
context. Now, you turn right around and quote me out of context. Before the
sentence you requoted above I wrote: "From this brief comment I get the strong
impression Linda was well familiar with what Francie wrote about Paul's, um,
manly prowess." Context, Frannie, context.
> Linda's remark to RS was regarding the question, "What
> do you think about the girl who wrote about her affair with Paul?"
And her remarks, which I feel answer the question nicely, indicate that she was
well familiar with what you wrote about him. Why do you have such a problem
with this idea?
> You are truly a moron, and this is a moronic discussion with no other
> purpose but to keep your coven amused. No one else is interested, no one gives a
> shit, and you are totally out of your skull when you interpret and spin out
> one statement of Linda McCartney's into an entire tabloidesque commentary
> on my affair with him.
Well, Frannie-lou, please tell me how you interpret what she said. In my
opinion, she's *not* saying, "Oh, **FRANCIE**!! What a cool chick. I wish I
could meet her and hang out with her. We'd have *so* much to talk about!" In
fact, I think she's saying just the opposite.
Your mileage may vary, of course ...
--
northcut at mindspring dot com
Three ornaments of wisdom: abundance of knowledge, a number of precedents,
to employ good counsel -the Triads of Ireland
Diana
>In the book I just read it said Fabby stayed with him for three weeks,
>and that he was through with her in four. In either case, she was just
>an affair that he regretted at the time and has probably forgotten
>about.
He probably would've been able to forget about it had a book not been published
about it.
toad
<franc...@excite.com> wrote:
> Second, Linda's comment indicates nothing more than a knowledge of the
> chapter of Body Count dealing with the spring and summer of 1968.
Well, it indicates that Linda was aware of a chapter of a book having
been written by someone who had shared Paul's house and bed. It doesn't
indicate she ever actually read the chapter.
The
> question posed by the reporter didn't ask how she felt about the book, but
> how she felt about Schwartz's having written anything at all about the
> relationship with Paul.
Quite possibly correct.
Those who knew Linda during the early years of her
> marriage to Paul consistently say she defended her husband (and her right to
> fend off competitors and "Linda-haters") like a fierce mama lion.
People who love others have this tendency.
She made no
> further comment about Schwartz, or her book, for the rest of her life. To do
> so would have been contrary to McCartney's policy of avoiding any discussion
> on this subject.
Or might have been simply the expression of the social mores of
Linda's class and times, in which civilized people did not discuss what
went on behind the bedroom door. Paul has never discussed any of his past
lovers, nor has jane Asher. Thus, it may not be a policy, but a civilized
value.
toad
toad
> Maybe I'm a bit confused about this but:
>
> 1. I thought Francie said she "lived" with Paul for a time. I think of
> living with someone as more than an "affair".
Actually, living with someone may not even rise to the level of an affair.
> 2. Linda talks about "one good lay".
> First of all, if a "lay" is a sexual event, living with someone
> typically implies *more* than one sexual episode. Perhaps she meant it
> in the sense of Paul the "person" being the "lay"?
A "lay" may be either one sexual event, or may describe the
characteristic skill and success of one person who lays others. Linda
may have been using the term in the second sense.
> Secondly, Linda says th "lay" was "good" but I understand that
> Francie did not portray her sexual experience with Paul as being
> particularly "good".
If Linda was using the term in the second sense, there is no
contradiction between Ms Schwartz's experience and Linda's statement.
Paul was, in Linda's experience, a good lay. With others, he may not have
been. The possibility exists that Linda honestly had no idea that Paul
could be other than a good lay, and assumed that whatever her experience
had been, so had all his lovers' experiences been. Linda may have been
too innocent to realize that even a good lay needs a little inspiration.
toad
d.
<franc...@excite.com> wrote:
> In article <20001006195636...@nso-fb.aol.com>,
> amara...@aol.com (Diana) wrote:
> > Mrs-...@webtv.net (Susan) writes:
> >
> > >In the book I just read it said Fabby stayed with him for three weeks,
> > >and that he was through with her in four. In either case, she was just
> > >an affair that he regretted at the time and has probably forgotten
> > >about.
> >
> > He probably would've been able to forget about it had a book not been
> > published about it.
> >
> >
>
> What book are you referring to now, Miss Sunny Side Down? "Blackbird"?
I think she's referring to your book. Please don't berate her for not
mentioning that it's only one chapter that mentions McCartney. It's the thought
that counts.
Jamie
> Francie's Ghost <franc...@excite.com> wrote, totally out of her skull:
>
> > No one else is interested, no one gives a
> > shit, and you are totally out of your skull when you interpret and spin out
> > one statement of Linda McCartney's into an entire tabloidesque commentary on
> > my affair with him.
>
> Wow! These coincidences are just getting SPOOKY, now. Not only did
> Francie and her Ghost Writer both know Paul and John during 1968, but
> they both had affairs with Paul?????
Not only that, gondola bob, but apparently Francie's Ghost Writer also wrote a
book for Rolling Stone in the early 70's, was of the "same class and times" as
Linda McCartney, and revealed that "We had the pill." Wow, FGW must be one stupid
guy, taking a birth control pill meant for women.
I'm just as SHOCKED as you are at these amazing coincidences, gb.
--
~Jamie
itsybit...@webtv.net
Whatever Linda said, *context* or no context, she had a right to say it.
And more, if she had wanted to.
As to Francie/Ghostie, I think George said it best in AHDN: She's a
drag. A well-known drag. You turn the sound down on her and say rude
things.
Asira
itsybit...@webtv.net
>"this"?
Well, if you must know...I meant "this" thread!
Asira
Diana
> No one else is interested, no one gives a shit, and you are totally
>out of your skull when you interpret and spin out one statement of
>Linda McCartney's into an entire tabloidesque commentary on
> my affair with him.
"...on MY affair with him"? Fun time's over, Francie.
>Lots of people are interested in what Linda had to say. I've never
>considered kiss & tell authors to be a class act either.
::shaking my head:: Hopeless.
>> Please, get help...
>
>You can say that again.
>>
>> > Please, get help...PLEASE.
Francie, if one person tells you you need help, ignore it. If 2 or 3 tell you
you need help, *maybe* it's time to think about it. But when the numbers start
heading into double-digits, for heaven's sake, GET HELP.
Francie's Ghost
amara...@aol.com (Diana) wrote:
> Mrs-...@webtv.net (Susan) writes:
>
> >In the book I just read it said Fabby stayed with him for three weeks,
> >and that he was through with her in four. In either case, she was just
> >an affair that he regretted at the time and has probably forgotten
> >about.
>
> He probably would've been able to forget about it had a book not been published
> about it.
>
>
What book are you referring to now, Miss Sunny Side Down? "Blackbird"?
.
> Everyone you meet is your mirror.
>
>
Everyone? Boy, you must have really cracked up when you met Fred Semen!
--
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
"Everybody has a heart... except *some* people." (Bette Davis, ALL ABOUT EVE)
Francie's Ghost
Francie's Ghost
cl...@cornell.edu (toad) wrote:
> In article <8rjff0$asa$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Francie's Ghost
> <franc...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > Second, Linda's comment indicates nothing more than a knowledge of the
> > chapter of Body Count dealing with the spring and summer of 1968.
>
> Well, it indicates that Linda was aware of a chapter of a book having
> been written by someone who had shared Paul's house and bed. It doesn't
> indicate she ever actually read the chapter.
>
Yes. "A knowledge of" a chapter in a book is not the same as having actually
read said book. Exactly.
> The
> > question posed by the reporter didn't ask how she felt about the book, but
> > how she felt about Schwartz's having written anything at all about the
> > relationship with Paul.
>
I am still waiting for the posting of this entire article. [Author's Note:
Rolling Stone were my publishers in 1972. I made many friends during the 2
years. We all shared in our hatred and respect for the Boss Weener. Excuse
me, Wenner.]
You may be interested to learn that Linda Eastman's byline appeared in the
teen magazine HULLABALLOO in 1967. The article was called "My Night With Mick
Jagger: He Was All Lips". A friend of mine who worked at RS during the 70's
called me to tell me about it when she picked up on Linda's little blurt.
Danny Fields explained it all to me in his seductive telephone interview. He
confirmed a lot of things inadvertently. But then he hadn't bothered to read
Body Count...
>
> Those who knew Linda during the early years of her
> > marriage to Paul consistently say she defended her husband (and her right to
> > fend off competitors and "Linda-haters") like a fierce mama lion.
>
> People who love others have this tendency.
>
People who are afraid their husband might want to fuck somebody else also
have this tendency. Usually adult men are capable of remaining faithful
without guard duty help from their faithful mates.
> She made no
> > further comment about Schwartz, or her book, for the rest of her life. To do
> > so would have been contrary to McCartney's policy of avoiding any discussion
> > on this subject.
>
> Or might have been simply the expression of the social mores of
> Linda's class and times,
Linda Epstein/Eastman and I are from the same class and the same times. She
was a well known starfucker, I was not. The social mores of the time were
expressed thusly: If it feels good, do it. And then there's the sexual
revolution which took place between 1964 and the early 80s when AIDS entered
the picture. We had the pill (altho Linda apparently wasn't into it), and the
freedom to do whatever the hell we felt like doing.
in which civilized people did not discuss what
> went on behind the bedroom door. Paul has never discussed any of his past
> lovers, nor has jane Asher. Thus, it may not be a policy, but a civilized
> value.
>
> toad
>
Are you not the same poster who wrote the inspirational account of your
casual meeting with the Head Threetle at a charity do? Am I confusing you
with someone whose life has been transformed by simply hearing a Wings tune
in the elevator?
fgw
Francie's Ghost
"d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> In article <8rlr9f$6bt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Francie's Ghost
> <franc...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <20001006195636...@nso-fb.aol.com>,
> > amara...@aol.com (Diana) wrote:
> > > Mrs-...@webtv.net (Susan) writes:
> > >
> > > >In the book I just read it said Fabby stayed with him for three weeks,
> > > >and that he was through with her in four. In either case, she was just
> > > >an affair that he regretted at the time and has probably forgotten
> > > >about.
> > >
> > > He probably would've been able to forget about it had a book not been
> > > published about it.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > What book are you referring to now, Miss Sunny Side Down? "Blackbird"?
>
> mentioning that it's only one chapter that mentions McCartney. It's the thought
> that counts.
>
How could you think Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm was referring to BC? It
doesn't say Schwartz "stayed" with McC for three weeks... or have you
forgotten to check your xerox copy of Chapter 8, dorothy?
And then there's always LENNON IN AMERICA... perhaps that's the one. And "The
Love You Take" and "Yesterday" and "Beatles Diary" (Miles) and SHOUT! and....
Nyarlathotep
Francie's Ghost <franc...@excite.com> wrote:
> Linda Epstein/Eastman and I are from the same class and the same
times. She
> was a well known starfucker, I was not. <snip>
Although you certainly strove to attain that status.
d.
<franc...@excite.com> wrote:
> You may be interested to learn that Linda Eastman's byline appeared in the
> teen magazine HULLABALLOO in 1967. The article was called "My Night With
> Mick Jagger: He Was All Lips".
I think that's pretty funny, myself. :) So you're saying Linda wrote a
kiss-and-tell about Mick. Any idea what she said? Anything like "He's not gay,
he just doesn't like to fuck very much"? Or that he looked like a gay flasher.
> A friend of mine who worked at RS during the 70's
> called me to tell me about it when she picked up on Linda's little blurt.
Did y'all get a nice giggle about it?
> Danny Fields explained it all to me in his seductive telephone interview.
> He confirmed a lot of things inadvertently. But then he hadn't bothered to
> read Body Count...
Not read "Body Count"! Well, anyone who hasn't read "Body Count" is obviously
illiterate.
[snip]
> > > She made no further comment about Schwartz, or her book, for the rest of her life.
> > > To do so would have been contrary to McCartney's policy of avoiding any
> > > discussion on this subject.
> >
> > Or might have been simply the expression of the social mores of
> > Linda's class and times,
>
> Linda Epstein/Eastman and I are from the same class
Your parents were millionaires?
> and the same times. She was a well known starfucker, I was not.
Right. You were an obscure starfucker. A little less obscure these days, but
not by much.
> The social mores of the time were expressed thusly: If it feels good, do it. And then there's the sexual
> revolution which took place between 1964 and the early 80s when AIDS
> entered the picture. We had the pill (altho Linda apparently wasn't into it),
Neither was Paul, according to "Body Count," so they probably made a good
couple.
> and the freedom to do whatever the hell we felt like doing.
Including betrayal of confidence, right?
> > in which civilized people did not discuss what
> > went on behind the bedroom door. Paul has never discussed any of his
> > past lovers, nor has jane Asher. Thus, it may not be a policy, but a
> > civilized value.
> >
> >
>
> Are you not the same poster who wrote the inspirational account of your
> casual meeting with the Head Threetle at a charity do? Am I confusing you
> with someone whose life has been transformed by simply hearing a Wings tune
> in the elevator?
A lot can be learned by understanding life's subtler pleasures.
d.
<franc...@excite.com> wrote:
> In article <northcut-425398...@news.giganews.com>,
> "d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > In article <8rlr9f$6bt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Francie's Ghost
> > <franc...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <20001006195636...@nso-fb.aol.com>,
> > > amara...@aol.com (Diana) wrote:
> > > > Mrs-...@webtv.net (Susan) writes:
> > > >
> > > > >In the book I just read it said Fabby stayed with him for three
> > > > >weeks,
> > > > >and that he was through with her in four. In either case, she was
> > > > >just
> > > > >an affair that he regretted at the time and has probably forgotten
> > > > >about.
> > > >
> > > > He probably would've been able to forget about it had a book not been
> > > > published about it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What book are you referring to now, Miss Sunny Side Down? "Blackbird"?
> >
> > I think she's referring to your book. Please don't berate her for not
> > mentioning that it's only one chapter that mentions McCartney. It's the
> > thought that counts.
> >
>
> How could you think Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm was referring to BC? It
> doesn't say Schwartz "stayed" with McC for three weeks... or have you
> forgotten to check your xerox copy of Chapter 8, dorothy?
Actually, since you were following up to Diana's post, I assumed you were
talking to her. My apologies.
Francie's Ghost
Nyarlathotep <nyarla...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8rltr4$863$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Francie's Ghost <franc...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > Linda Epstein/Eastman and I are from the same class and the same
> times. She
> > was a well known starfucker, I was not. <snip>
>
> Although you certainly strove to attain that status.
>
One rockstar among the many artists, writers, teachers and trust fund babies
does not indicate a desire to fuck more rockstars. Schwartz strove to become
more independent, not more notorious. You'll note she made no public
appearances relating to the Beatles between 1973 and 1999.
fgw
"Everybody has a heart... except *some* people." (Bette Davis, ALL ABOUT EVE)
D 28IF
>One rockstar among the many artists, writers, teachers and trust fund babies
>does not indicate a desire to fuck more rockstars. Schwartz strove to become
>more independent, not more notorious. You'll note she made no public
>appearances relating to the Beatles between 1973 and 1999.
>
>fgw
>
Ah, but did you appear at various Rupert Holmes fests?
Bradchevy
>Linda Epstein/Eastman and I are from the same class and the same times. She
>was a well known starfucker, I was not.
That's right. You were an UNKNOWN starf*cker. Paul McCartney, Gordon Liddy,
Mr. Pina Colada....
Nobody would have ever heard of you otherwise.
sirmu...@my-deja.com
Francine has been pretty pathetic for some time now. It looks like
you're starting to get the idea. It's hard to feel compassion for
someone like her.
Now that the book has come out and she is nowhere to be found in it,
she appears to be striking out at the world. I had never heard of
Francine Schwartz when I got here, and people that read their book in
the future won't either.
She had little credibility going for her before this Ghost sham and now
she's taken care of that. The toxic agent of RMB...and she revels in it.
Sad, pathetic, comical, fabrical.
Jim
Swimmin' In A Hot Pool Of WomanNeed
"this"?
-John W.
Rare Beatles sound files at: http://www.egroups.com/files/johnscloset/
and http://www.egroups.com/files/johnscloset2/
The Friendly Drelb
"Swimmin' In A Hot Pool Of WomanNeed" <du...@noreply.com> wrote in message
news:39DEAF...@noreply.com...
heh, yeah its like, "where have these fukin people been"?.............:)
Diana
> Linda Epstein/Eastman and I are from the same class and the same times. She
> was a well known starfucker, I was not.
You're right. Linda was well-known and you're not.
- - - - -
A loving person lives in a loving world.
A hostile person lives in a hostile world.
Everyone you meet is your mirror.
-- Ken Keyes, Jr.
JLW44
>>more independent, not more notorious. You'll note she made no public
>>appearances relating to the Beatles between 1973 and 1999.
>>
Now why would she. She had nothing to sell.
DStern
> In article <northcut-1FC217...@news.giganews.com>,
> "d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From this brief comment I get the strong impression Linda was well
familiar with
> > what Francie wrote about Paul's, um, manly prowess. Even though they always
> > claimed they didn't read what was written about them, comments like these
> > indicate otherwise.
> >
> >
>
> First of all, my research shows that Linda's remark was not made as part of
> an interview with Paul and Linda, but rather, was an off-the-cuff retort to a
> reporter who caught her off guard. The piece was not an interview, but only a
> half page long story covering the McCartneys' L.A. visit to record "Red Rose
> Speedway". If you check the record, you'll find that Nylar his reported the
> context incorrectly.
>
> Second, Linda's comment indicates nothing more than a knowledge of the
> chapter of Body Count dealing with the spring and summer of 1968. The
> question posed by the reporter didn't ask how she felt about the book, but
> how she felt about Schwartz's having written anything at all about the
> relationship with Paul. Those who knew Linda during the early years of her
> marriage to Paul consistently say she defended her husband (and her right to
> fend off competitors and "Linda-haters") like a fierce mama lion. She made no
> further comment about Schwartz, or her book, for the rest of her life. To do
> so would have been contrary to McCartney's policy of avoiding any discussion
> on this subject.
>
> fgw
>
> --
> http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
>
> "Everybody has a heart... except *some* people." (Bette Davis, ALL ABOUT EVE)
>
>
The Walrus was Danny
> before he asked her to leave.
That's when her suitcase went over the wall.
Danny
reinh...@my-deja.com
Nyarlathotep <nyarla...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8rj622$3jr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> reinh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <8rj3km$1p9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Nyarlathotep <nyarla...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On June 21, 1973, Rolling Stone ran a Paul
Gambaccini-conducted
> > > interview with Paul & Linda McCartney. Towards the end of this
> piece,
> > > Gambaccini & Linda have the following exchange:
> > >
> > > PG: What did you feel when you heard about the girl who
wrote
> > > about her affair with Paul?
> > >
> > > LM: She should flatter herself; she got one good lay. I'd
> never
> > > write about my sex life.
> > >
> >
> > Ouch! Great quote, Ny. And according to Franks, that "one good
lay"
> > wasn't even all that good!
>
> But that hasn't stopped her from fixating on it for some 32
years!
>
> Good to see you, Reinhart. BTW, I found some *even better* stuff
> in mid-70s Rolling Stone articles today, but I've decided to keep it
on
> ice for a while.
>
No, no! Please share it NOW!
Susan
>stayed with him for three weeks, and >that he was through with her in
four. In
>either case, she was just an affair that
>he regretted at the time and has
>probably forgotten about.
>>Miss Sunny Side Down? "Blackbird"?
Well no Ms. Fabrication, I read it in a book called *McCartney*, by
Chris Salewicz.
I'll print up the entire text in regards to your affair with Paul:
It was to an empty house that he returned when he came back to England:
Jane Asher was on a British provincial tour with the Bristol Old Vic.
Within days he had encountered a female playmate to substitute for Jane
until her return: Francie Schwartz, one of the many supplicants for
Apple largesse at 3 Savil Row, somehow contrived to wangle her way into
an audience with Paul, and thence into his bed. For three weeks this
casual but mutually convenient arrangement continued. But then Jane
suddenly returned home, her season having been unexpectedly cut short.
"The eyes and ears of the world" was how Paul described the obsessive
girl fans, later immortalized in a George Harrison song as the "Apple
Scruffs," who shadowed the every movement of the Beatles. He should
have heeded his own precise perception in so defining them, for when one
of the girls, Margo Stevens (such a regular at Paul's gates that she was
permitted by Rosie the housekeeper to take Martha the sheepdog for
walks), frantically pressed the entryphone to warn Paul that Jane was
coming up to the front door, he didn't believer her. "Ah, pull the
other one."
Inside the house Jane found Francie Schwartz, wearing only Paul's
dressing gown. A short while later the girls outside saw Jane rush out
and drive off. Then they saw her mother arrive, and leave with what
were obviously Jane's possessions. A month later on a BBV-TV talk show,
Jane publicly announced that her engagement had ended, but that is was
not she who had broken it, which of course she hadn't.
Unsurprisingly, rife as it was with bad karma, Paul's romance with
Francie Schwartz soon fizzled out. <snip>
Ok I was wrong about the four weeks, he chucked your suitcase after
three.
Derek's Girl
A very poor source of info you've got there, *Susan*. Jane never saw me
the day she came over. I wasn't wearing anything, I was in bed. Paul
jumped out and threw on his flasher coat when she knocked politely on the
bedroom door.
Jane's morning visit came after her mother had come to pack her things
(with my help the second time), so Jane knew Paul had someone else living
with him the day she came over unannounced.
And as several posters have mentioned, it was Linda who got chucked out
according to Paul.
Finally, I've posted my passport, which shows I entered the UK the first
week of April 68 and left August 28th. So pick your "three weeks" and
guess how long we were actually living together. He first made love to me
the day after his brother's wedding, and he took me home to meet his dad
in July after he asked me to move in with him.So even if the nights I
spent with him in the studio don't count, I lived with the man for three
months. Not three weeks.
This is all very old stuff and I guess that's all you have left in your
pathetically inadequate arsenal.
Poor little fool... obsess away.
Francie
--
"Everybody has a heart... except *some* people." (Bette Davis, ALL ABOUT
EVE)
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
Life After Paul McCartney:Coda
The Friendly Drelb
"Susan" <Mrs-...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10239-39...@storefull-145.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> >In the book I just read it said Fabby
> >stayed with him for three weeks, and >that he was through with her in
> four. In
> >either case, she was just an affair that
> >he regretted at the time and has
> >probably forgotten about.
>
> >>What book are you referring to now,
> >>Miss Sunny Side Down? "Blackbird"?
>
> Well no Ms. Fabrication, I read it in a book called *McCartney*, by
> Chris Salewicz.
>
> I'll print up the entire text in regards to your affair with Paul:
susan , get a life already will you.
you know, an existence in which your own life and loves matter more than a
total stangers?
it's a "concept", i know, but hell, you're like the Rikky Lake of RMB
The Walrus was Danny
> according to Paul.
LOL! Macca would call his missus "An American Groupie" in his
autobiography!! What nonesense. And here's another clue for you all The
Suitcase was Franks.
Danny
Susan
Fabby, you really believe that everyone is obsessed with you, Fabby,
please tell this to Dr. Wilber next time you see her. You asked where I
got the three week time frame from and I told you...you're wellcome.
You are the obsessed one, living off of your 3 week affair for over 30
years now, that's pathetic.
If you hadn't been such a neurotic, you probably could have been a more
successful groupie and followed up your affair with Paul with someone
much better than G. Gorden Liddy. You really hit rock bottom to be a
Liddy groupie, what a repulsive thought, but a match made in heaven.
I hope Paul didn't strain himself chucking your suitcase.
Nyarlathotep
Francie's shacking up with G. Gordon Liddy is just surreal. She
must've been out of her mind and/or craving humiliation when she knelt
for Liddy. I wonder if she feigned indignance the next morning over
Liddy's Watergate thefts?
jennie...@my-deja.com
enlighten me. Francie had a 'fling' with Paul McCartney. Does it matter
if it lasted 3 days or 3 weeks or whatever? Why is it such big news?
It's documented that she did indeed have the affair, so be it. It's long
been over and done with, but I'm sure while she was living it, Francie
had the time of her life. Why try to take that away from her? So what if
Paul tossed her out, she still had that time with him. Hell, if she can
make a few bucks off it, more power to her. I fail to see all the
controversy.
Nyarlathotep
Jennie, no one disputes that Francie's had her flings with Paul &
G. Gordon Liddy. The debates over Francie usually concern her pretense
to having inspired &/or cowritten many of the Beatles' songs -- also her
more absurd & grandiose characterizations of Ono's status as an
"artist."
huzzlewhat
<shooby...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> And as several posters have mentioned, it was Linda who got chucked out
> according to Paul.
Paul only ever identified the woman with the suitcase as an American, as
far as I know. Do you have a source in which Paul specifically identifies
her as Linda?
Hazel
--
"And Stella the little fairy wore a little hat, that she
could see through! And Mary the little fairy wore a
little shawl, that kept her warm."
UsurperTom
>Do you have a source in which Paul specifically identifies
>her as Linda?
Albert Goldman said so and Barry Miles was one of Goldman's sources.
Tom
Jeremy Boob
rest. Yoko IS considered an 'artist' around the world. It's a fact.
It just is. You can't change that or fault Francie because YOU don't
like her art. I know, a lot of people don't. Doesn't matter. People
who don't like Picasso do not diminish his status as an artist. Same
here.
Nyarlathotep
Jeremy Boob <jerem...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > Jennie, no one disputes that Francie's had her flings with Paul
&
> > G. Gordon Liddy. The debates over Francie usually concern her
> pretense
> > to having inspired &/or cowritten many of the Beatles' songs -- also
> her
> > more absurd & grandiose characterizations of Ono's status as an
> > "artist."
> >
> I can only dispute the last assertion as I have no knowledge of the
> rest. Yoko IS considered an 'artist' around the world. It's a fact.
> It just is. You can't change that or fault Francie because YOU don't
> like her art. I know, a lot of people don't. Doesn't matter. People
> who don't like Picasso do not diminish his status as an artist. Same
> here.
Oh, I agree that there are lots of people who consider Ono an
artist.
I don't, however, buy into the notion that "Ono is one of the
greatest artists of the century." That's an example of the big lie, as
far as I'm concerned; it's on par with the BS about Ono inventing punk
rock. Further, I don't buy into the suggestion that Ono's attendence at
some Whitney Museum soiree is evidence that she has achieved the status
as one of the century's greatest artists.
huzzlewhat
usurp...@aol.com (UsurperTom) wrote:
Albert Goldman. I see. But the question still stands. Is there a source
in which Paul specifically identifies the woman who was thrown out as
Linda, as the previous poster stated?
Hazel
Ehtue
>>Yoko IS considered an 'artist' around the world. It's a fact.
>> It just is. You can't change that or fault Francie because YOU don't
>> like her art. I know, a lot of people don't. Doesn't matter. People
>> who don't like Picasso do not diminish his status as an artist. Same
>> here.
>
> Oh, I agree that there are lots of people who consider Ono an
>artist.
>
> I don't, however, buy into the notion that "Ono is one of the
>greatest artists of the century." That's an example of the big lie, as
>far as I'm concerned; it's on par with the BS about Ono inventing punk
>rock. Further, I don't buy into the suggestion that Ono's attendence at
>some Whitney Museum soiree is evidence that she has achieved the status
>as one of the century's greatest artists.
Okay. And from that we can assume that you'll keep your negative comments about
Yoko limited to those posts that proclaim her as "one of the century's greatest
artists"?
Hoping,
-Ehtue
Ehtue
>> >Do you have a source in which Paul specifically identifies
>> >her as Linda?
>>
>> Albert Goldman said so and Barry Miles was one of Goldman's sources.
>
>Albert Goldman. I see. But the question still stands. Is there a source
>in which Paul specifically identifies the woman who was thrown out as
>Linda, as the previous poster stated?
I've not seen a Paul reference to a specific person (or even a reference to a
reference of a Paul reference of a specific person).
-Ehtue
Steve Hawk
Albert Goldman is a known liar.
And please don't call the remaining Beatles the Threetles.
Steve
"life is very short and there's no time for fussing and fighting my friend."
http://artists2.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Steve_Hawk/
Steve Hawk
I don't hate Yoko, but I don't like her or her art and music. IMO, I think
she helped cause a darkness to come over the Beatles. I still wish she
wouldn't have become involved with John. As I said, I'm not disparaging her,
but I PERSONALLY am sad that she was part of the story.
UsurperTom
>And please don't call the remaining Beatles the Threetles.
Who started calling them that in the first place? I prefer the Band Formerly
Known as the Beatles.
Tom
Steve Hawk
> Steve Hawk wrote:
>
>> And please don't call the remaining Beatles the Threetles.
>
> Who started calling them that in the first place? I prefer the Band Formerly
> Known as the Beatles.
> Tom
Thank you, Tom. :)
Diana
>> her as Linda?
I'm looking through the summer 1968 of Barry Miles' "A Diary." There's no
mention of any suitcase. Linda didn't move in with Paul until the end of
October -- long after Francie left. Does that help figure out the timing?
- - - - -
Though lovers be lost love shall not
And death shall have no dominion.
-- Dylan Thomas
jennie...@my-deja.com
> I don't hate Yoko, but I don't like her or her art and music.
Just goes to show that opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one and
thinks everyone elses stinks. (XXXxxx
Dale Houstman
"Nyarlathotep" <nyarla...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8s3bvs$hs7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
necessarily correlate with the validity of that belief. Supposedly a very
large percentage of Americans now believe that there are such things as
UFOs. Maybe it's the fluoride?
If 78% of your neighbors tell you the man fixing your car is a mechanic and
you see him installing a distributor in your glove compartment, is it all
right for you to mention that he is not a mechanic, or should majority
opinion carry the day at your expense.
Art is not a popularity contest at any rate: Van Gogh sold one painting (to
his brother) while he was alive, while scores of academic hacks were
proclaimed artists, and their paintings were hung (like thieves) in the
houses of the nation. Still, they're hacks and he's the artist.
Ono is a hack with an attitude.
BTW: although many people may say - if asked - that Ono is an artist -
because what little else is there to say about this woman of little
accomplishment - the fact remains that most people couldn't name an Ono
artwork, or even describe her general approach if you held a gun against
their little boy's head. This the same mistake one might make if you said
that Thomas Jefferson and Bill Clinton were of the same stature, because
lots of people voted them President.
It's merely a lunkheaded fallacy.
dmh
Derek's Girl
Ah. Tweedledum replies to Tweedledee.
You are the lunkheads.
Francie
--
"Everybody has a heart... except *some* people." (Bette Davis, ALL ABOUT
EVE)
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
Life After Paul McCartney:Coda
huzzlewhat
(Ehtue) wrote:
That's what I thought, too ... and why the whole thing confused me. As
far as I've read, Paul has never referred to the woman in question as
anything other than "an American groupie."
Since Barry Miles didn't identify the woman in his own book, I'm thinking
that Goldman probably didn't get his information that it was Linda from
Miles. Given Goldman's tendency to put the most negative spin possible on
anything, it's more likely that he assumed, and reported it as fact, imo.
The Walrus was Danny
You and me both sister. She has *no* talent...and she can't sing.
> she helped cause a darkness to come over the Beatles. I still wish she
> wouldn't have become involved with John. As I said, I'm not disparaging
her,
> but I PERSONALLY am sad that she was part of the story.
Oh I'll a lot further than that Steve. Yoyo was a major contribution to the
break up of the fabs..weedling her way into JLs life (and money), spreading
the poison ending up with her sitting in on each and every session..even to
the point of bringing a bed into the studio. Shall I go even further..well
would the fabs have split if there would have been no Yoyo? Let's imagine
there's no Yoyo, it's easy if you try..like Lennon never went to the Indica
in 66, and in fact Yoyo didn't ever exist..would the fabs have split in
1970?
I have my doubts.
Danny
Lord Tim Brent
<thewalru...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Oh I'll a lot further than that Steve. Yoyo was a major contribution to the
>break up of the fabs..weedling her way into JLs life (and money), spreading
>the poison ending up with her sitting in on each and every session..even to
>the point of bringing a bed into the studio. Shall I go even further..well
>would the fabs have split if there would have been no Yoyo? Let's imagine
>there's no Yoyo, it's easy if you try..like Lennon never went to the Indica
>in 66, and in fact Yoyo didn't ever exist..would the fabs have split in
>1970?
>
>I have my doubts.
>
>Danny
>
Klein and Eastman would have ensured the split-up and lawsuits.Yoko
was of no part in the break-up.
Tim
--------------------
Duchy Of Grand Fenwick
The Church Beatle will now pass among you.
No foreign coins please.
Nyarlathotep
Don't hold your breath. I'm going to continue to make critical
statements re: Ono as the FACTS warrant.
Nyarlathotep
Steve Hawk <haw...@blazenet.net> wrote:
> Steve Hawk<haw...@blazenet.net> written on 10/11/00 11:42 PM
>
> I don't hate Yoko, but I don't like her or her art and music. IMO, I
think
> she helped cause a darkness to come over the Beatles. I still wish she
> wouldn't have become involved with John. As I said, I'm not
disparaging her,
> but I PERSONALLY am sad that she was part of the story.
I hear you, Steve.
Nyarlathotep
>
>
she
> > wouldn't have become involved with John. As I said, I'm not
disparaging
> her,
> > but I PERSONALLY am sad that she was part of the story.
>
to the
> break up of the fabs..weedling her way into JLs life (and money),
spreading
> the poison ending up with her sitting in on each and every
session..even to
> the point of bringing a bed into the studio. Shall I go even
further..well
> would the fabs have split if there would have been no Yoyo? Let's
imagine
> there's no Yoyo, it's easy if you try..like Lennon never went to the
Indica
> in 66, and in fact Yoyo didn't ever exist..would the fabs have split
in
> 1970?
>
> I have my doubts.
You're not the only one, Danny. And let's not forget that Ono
poisoned John's mind with regard to the value of the music he & his
fellow Beatles had been creating. She insisted to John that the Beatles
music was "simple music" with "ba-ba-ba-ba" rhythms. She told him that
her "music" (never mind that she couldn't carry a tune) was
"revolutionary." And poor uncritical JL, with his low self-esteem,
succumbed to her BS.
Nyarlathotep
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
> >
> > artist.
> >
> > I don't, however, buy into the notion that "Ono is one of the
> > greatest artists of the century." That's an example of the big lie,
as
> > far as I'm concerned; it's on par with the BS about Ono inventing
punk
> > rock. Further, I don't buy into the suggestion that Ono's
attendence at
> > some Whitney Museum soiree is evidence that she has achieved the
status
> > as one of the century's greatest artists.
> >
Superb points, DMH!
nowhere man
> I'm going to continue to make critical
> statements re: Ono as the FACTS warrant.
that's one thing you're just about right out of Nylon...FACTS.
Indeed, you never had any in the first place. Your anti-Yoko crusade day
after day, week after week, month after month, etc is running a bit thin.
One would be forgiven for thinking that you had an axe to grind.
Will
Lord Tim Brent
<nyarla...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <39e5bc37$2...@news.telinco.net>,
> "The Walrus was Danny" <thewalru...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
>> > I don't hate Yoko, but I don't like her or her art and music.
>>
>> You and me both sister. She has *no* talent...and she can't sing.
>>
>> > she helped cause a darkness to come over the Beatles. I still wish
>she
>> > wouldn't have become involved with John. As I said, I'm not
>disparaging
>> her,
>> > but I PERSONALLY am sad that she was part of the story.
>>
>> Oh I'll a lot further than that Steve. Yoyo was a major contribution
>to the
>> break up of the fabs..weedling her way into JLs life (and money),
>spreading
>> the poison ending up with her sitting in on each and every
>session..even to
>> the point of bringing a bed into the studio. Shall I go even
>further..well
>> would the fabs have split if there would have been no Yoyo? Let's
>imagine
>> there's no Yoyo, it's easy if you try..like Lennon never went to the
>Indica
>> in 66, and in fact Yoyo didn't ever exist..would the fabs have split
>in
>> 1970?
>>
>> I have my doubts.
>
> You're not the only one, Danny. And let's not forget that Ono
>poisoned John's mind with regard to the value of the music he & his
>fellow Beatles had been creating. She insisted to John that the Beatles
>music was "simple music" with "ba-ba-ba-ba" rhythms. She told him that
>her "music" (never mind that she couldn't carry a tune) was
>"revolutionary." And poor uncritical JL, with his low self-esteem,
>succumbed to her BS.
So Klein is blameless?
Nyarlathotep
Tim, just how do you purport to derive *that* from my comments re:
Yoko?
UsurperTom
>Linda didn't move in with Paul until the end of
>October -- long after Francie left. Does that help figure out the timing?
In "Many Years From Now," Miles said that Linda moved in with Paul in
September. Paul and Linda went to New York to pick up Heather on October 21.
They returned to London on Halloween. Maybe Linda's suitcase was tossed
between September and October.
Tom
Derek's Girl
Linda *officially moved in* with Paul at the end of October. (Source:
Laura Gross) She flew over in September after Paul returned from his trip
to Sardinia with Kathy Ross and Maggie the waitress. If any suitcase was
tossed (which I seriously doubt there was; Paul made it up to cover
something else, no doubt) it would have been hers. The wall was high, and
no one who brought a suitcase into the house could be considered an
unnameable "American groupie". I think Paul was having us on with that
quip. Linda was named in TIME as "the Park Avenue Groupie".
What interests me is Diana's phrasing. If a month (the period that passed
between my exit and Linda's first night at Cavendish) is such a long
time, then how is three months _in residence_ so *brief* and momentary,
it merits no consideration?
--
"Everybody has a heart... except *some* people." (Bette Davis, ALL ABOUT
EVE)
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
Life After Paul McCartney:Coda
Steve Hawk
>
>> I don't hate Yoko, but I don't like her or her art and music.
>
> Just goes to show that opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one and
> thinks everyone elses stinks. (XXXxxx
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
I didn't say everyone else's stinks. Sounds like you do with that comment.
Steve Hawk
>
>> I don't hate Yoko, but I don't like her or her art and music.
>
> Just goes to show that opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one and
> thinks everyone elses stinks. (XXXxxx
Also, I don't have a problem if other people like Yoko. Maybe I would if I
knew her, but at this point I don't. I was only stating my opinion of how I
feel, and if others feel differently, that's fine.
Yuri
> >And please don't call the remaining Beatles the Threetles.
>
Right after (TV) Anthology, I think I saw a Life magazine cover using
that name. Offensive as that may be, it applies to any record made with less
than all four members of the band.
Susan & Francie, thank you for an entertaining exchange.