About the McCartney breakup

1 view
Skip to first unread message

bessie

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 12:33:54 PM10/27/06
to
Just some stray thoughts

So I recall that when Paul left Heather she was "devastated". It
seemed that all her friends were saying she could barely cope, had lost
weight, couldn't sleep etc.etc.

So my question is ..... IF (big IF) there had been any abuse wouldn't
she be more relieved than devastated????

Message has been deleted

bessie

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 1:07:57 PM10/27/06
to

johnny b. love wrote:
> Assuming the claims she made were all true for the sake of discussion,
> she's not claiming daily battering and abuse like some families/women
> have suffered. She's mentioned 4 incidents in 4 years. This is someone
> who claims she lived on the streets at one point. So compared to the
> lifestyle, I'd say no, she wouldn't have been relieved.

She has "claimed" she lived on the streets.
She has money and a secure future, so that is not a realistic fear.
I meant she would be relieved to be away from someone who supposedly
was abusive.

Message has been deleted

bessie

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 1:40:04 PM10/27/06
to
> Not as much lifestyle and vicarious power as being "Lady McCartney"
> though.

Ah! The penney drops!
Makes perfect sense!

Dale Houstman

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 1:49:51 PM10/27/06
to

I don't really want to get involved deeply in this tabloidish, but I
will say that - if Heather had been abused - the question of her
devastation and/or relief would still not reveal as much as you might
think about the state of her marriage. Human psychology is really quite
complex - often perverse - and even the most abused person can feel
quite devastated when their abuser ups and leaves them. Sometimes,
loneliness is worse than pain, and sometimes - if there is some abuse in
the victim's background - their very notions of what constitutes love
can be quite "off track," so they will actually miss the attention.

I'm not saying this is the case in this situation, or that any abuse at
all took place, but only that the question you raised isn't that easy to
answer without further evidence.

dmh

PT 141

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 1:53:30 PM10/27/06
to
bessie wrote:
> She has "claimed" she lived on the streets.

LOFL! What street was that? Bond Street?
She seems to have taken up residence in Fleet Street, nowadays...

bessie

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 2:15:31 PM10/27/06
to

All good points, I guess it's just that is has gone from her being
"devastated" to her trashing Paul any way she can.
I never have cared for Heather, her appearance in Newfoundland really
sealed the deal (no pun intended) for me. She was combative, rude and
not well informed.

uly...@mscomm.com

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 3:39:38 PM10/27/06
to
... and embarrasing. The McCartney's joint appearance on the Larry King
Show was the most agonizing viewing experience imaginable. It was then
that I really felt their marriage was going to bust up, and soon. Paul
looked miserably embarrassed and unhappy. He kept taking Heather's hand
and squeezing it (he thought this was off camera), as if to say, "Shut
your mouth!" He was trying to contain her, but she was like a runaway
train on steroids.

Heather blabbed on and ON and rudely interrupted everyone. She came off
as hideously rude, petulant and nasty. Paul came off as extremely
unhappy and wanting out of that marriage.

bessie

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 4:48:42 PM10/27/06
to

That was the impression I got as well, you could see hum cringing!

Dale Houstman

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 5:18:47 PM10/27/06
to

bessie wrote:
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
>>bessie wrote:
>>
>>>Just some stray thoughts
>>>
>>>So I recall that when Paul left Heather she was "devastated". It
>>>seemed that all her friends were saying she could barely cope, had lost
>>>weight, couldn't sleep etc.etc.
>>>
>>>So my question is ..... IF (big IF) there had been any abuse wouldn't
>>>she be more relieved than devastated????
>>>
>>
>>I don't really want to get involved deeply in this tabloidish, but I
>>will say that - if Heather had been abused - the question of her
>>devastation and/or relief would still not reveal as much as you might
>>think about the state of her marriage. Human psychology is really quite
>>complex - often perverse - and even the most abused person can feel
>>quite devastated when their abuser ups and leaves them. Sometimes,
>>loneliness is worse than pain, and sometimes - if there is some abuse in
>>the victim's background - their very notions of what constitutes love
>>can be quite "off track," so they will actually miss the attention.
>>
>>I'm not saying this is the case in this situation, or that any abuse at
>>all took place, but only that the question you raised isn't that easy to
>>answer without further evidence.
>>
>>dmh
>
>
> All good points, I guess it's just that is has gone from her being
> "devastated" to her trashing Paul any way she can.

Again: human psychology is often beyond easy comprehension: ANY emotion
can turn to its opposite number under stress.

dmh

> I never have cared for Heather, her appearance in Newfoundland really
> sealed the deal (no pun intended) for me. She was combative, rude and
> not well informed.

Well - I must say I never had one opinion about her, and still don't. A
rebound relationship with no pre-nup. Even a fake TV psychic with a bad
Jamaican accent could have predicted the outcome without much effort...

dmh

>

Bernie Woodham

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 5:48:21 PM10/27/06
to

"johnny b. love" <rez.sol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161969282.8...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Not as much lifestyle and vicarious power as being "Lady McCartney"
> though.
>

Which is why she doesn't fit in to the Golddigger stereotype. Were she
really just a gold-digger, she would have been more than happy that they
were splitting.


SW

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 6:27:29 PM10/27/06
to

"bessie" <bessiej...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161966834.7...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
An abuser has low self esteem. I don't think Paul has that problem and abuse
is a pattern. Linda was certainly not putting up with any abuse. Its hoakum.


JA**

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 8:37:23 PM10/27/06
to

"johnny b. love" <rez.sol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161968423.0...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Assuming the claims she made were all true for the sake of discussion,
> she's not claiming daily battering and abuse like some families/women
> have suffered. She's mentioned 4 incidents in 4 years. This is someone
> who claims she lived on the streets at one point. So compared to the
> lifestyle, I'd say no, she wouldn't have been relieved.

--------------------
Heather claims she slept rough in London for four months. But stepdad
Charles says: “That never took place.”

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003202310,00.html


chippandfish

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 9:09:12 PM10/27/06
to

EASY MON
>
> >

Salvador Astucia

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 10:15:39 PM10/27/06
to
Is it possible that all the posters on this thread are actually Gerry
Zekelo, aka, "Chewwy"?

Any thoughts, Charlie? Seriously. I'm interested in your perspective
because you seem to genuinely dislike Zekelo.

Salvador Astucia

chippandfish

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 10:19:50 PM10/27/06
to

Hey, stupid..............everyone in the world is chewwy, right?

Salvador Astucia

unread,
Oct 27, 2006, 10:56:42 PM10/27/06
to

You (chippandfish) started a thread named "boo" which I changed to
"TAR's views on life". In that thread, Charlie Gauger said you were
Gerry Zekelo, aka, Chewwy. In the same thread, Donna (TAR) admitted she
was "real life friends" with you.

Were they both lying?

Salvador Astucia

terra

unread,
Oct 28, 2006, 12:29:54 AM10/28/06
to

"Salvador Astucia" <cropdu...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1162001739.3...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> Is it possible that all the posters on this thread are actually Gerry
> Zekelo, aka, "Chewwy"?

No.


>
> Any thoughts, Charlie? Seriously. I'm interested in your perspective
> because you seem to genuinely dislike Zekelo.
>

Of course I do, who doesn't? Yet...you are wrong. And you won't believe me
anyway.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

terra

unread,
Oct 28, 2006, 12:30:27 AM10/28/06
to

"Salvador Astucia" <cropdu...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1162004201.9...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

>
> chippandfish wrote:
>> Salvador Astucia wrote:
>> > Is it possible that all the posters on this thread are actually Gerry
>> > Zekelo, aka, "Chewwy"?
>> >
>> > Any thoughts, Charlie? Seriously. I'm interested in your perspective
>> > because you seem to genuinely dislike Zekelo.
>> >
>> > Salvador Astucia
>>
>> Hey, stupid..............everyone in the world is chewwy, right?
>
> You (chippandfish) started a thread named "boo" which I changed to
> "TAR's views on life". In that thread, Charlie Gauger said you were
> Gerry Zekelo, aka, Chewwy.

Nope, I never did. Your reading comprehension skills at work again.

In the same thread, Donna (TAR) admitted she
> was "real life friends" with you.
>
> Were they both lying?
>
> Salvador Astucia
>

--

TAR

unread,
Oct 28, 2006, 12:32:47 AM10/28/06
to

Still didn't grow that brain, I see. Charlie never said that
fishandchipps or chippsandfish was Chewbop. He knows that fish is NOT
Chewbop. If he thought it was, why on earth would Charlie be so
friendly with Fish? The two guys happen to like each other. You're not
thinking clearly, Sal. Not at all.

terra

unread,
Oct 28, 2006, 12:34:13 AM10/28/06
to

"TAR" <tom....@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4542DE...@ix.netcom.com...

Now THERE is news! :)

fatt...@yahoo.com

unread,
Oct 28, 2006, 8:39:06 AM10/28/06
to


IMHO, it depends. Sometimes a husband and wife love each other or get
along 90% of the time . . . . and then once or twice a year the husband
acts up or gets drunk and acts abusive hurling insults or even a slap.
There may be anger and hurt feelings for a day or two. Then,
hypothetically, the husband says "I'm so so sorry. It will never happen
again. Please forgive me." And they make up. Abuse can take
different forms and it is a matter of degree.

It could be that Heather wanted to stay married to Paul even though
their marriage, like many marriages, had good and bad. However when
Paul announced to the world he was getting a divorce and there was all
this bad press about Heather, it may have hurt her very deeply for the
moment. Once Heather realized that Paul meant business, she regrouped
and came out swinging. As the saying goes "Hell hath no fury like a
woman scorned."

fatt...@yahoo.com

unread,
Oct 28, 2006, 8:41:55 AM10/28/06
to


I didn't see the show; wish I did.

If that is the way Heather behaved in front of other people and on TV,
it makes me wonder what she is like when she is in the privacy of her
home with Paul. Most people are someone inhibited in public and "let
their hair down" at home.

fatt...@yahoo.com

unread,
Oct 28, 2006, 8:48:14 AM10/28/06
to

Yes and no. I'm not saying Heather is or is not a gold digger.
However, Heather could have been sincerely upset by the split for a
number of reasons . . . love and, heartbreak on the one hand but then
again, realizing that she would be losing a lot of wealth, power and
prestige. Once Paul dumped her, the world press dumped on her, and it
must have felt pretty awful.

I know people don't want to hear it, but I believe that is why Yoko
took John back after the Lost Weekend. She realized she would not
really "make it" on her own. She tried. Yoko's records didn't sale and
her tour was a failure. Yoko learned she needed John's public love and
approval just like Heather became powerful because of Paul's love and
approval.

IMHO Yoko resented that situation deeply . . . she wanted to be known
as a genius in her own right, so she had a love/hate relationship with
John.

I think there are some clear analogies between Paul/Heather and
John/Yoko.

fatt...@yahoo.com

unread,
Oct 28, 2006, 8:50:56 AM10/28/06
to


I meant to say "somewhat inhibited" not "someone." I was half asleep.

uly...@mscomm.com

unread,
Oct 28, 2006, 11:50:19 AM10/28/06
to
I don't see the parallels between John-Yoko and Paul-Heather. Without a
doubt both John and Paul have mommy issues because of their own mothers
dying early. John has talked about this at length. But aside from this
one angle, I don't see similarilies.

For one thing, Yoko is a *much* more formidible adversary than Heather.
Yoko is smarter, meaner, tougher, more manipulative and has more
hanger-oners who kow-tow to her. I'm not saying Heather isn't a raving
bitch, but Heather's intellect is extremely limited. She's one of the
most inarticulate fools I've ever heard in public life, excluding
athletes or rappers. Yoko is pretty clever and can manipulate others
around her. Heather is clueless.

Also, John is weaker psychologically than Paul and more easily run
around by women. The proof of this seems to be that Paul escaped from
bitch Heather after only 4 years, John stayed with Queen Yoko for 12
years. He was too emotionally beholden to Yoko to dump her, Paul at
least saw the light. Why it took him 4 years is odd, but it's to his
credit that Heather is now toast.

Salvador Astucia

unread,
Oct 28, 2006, 12:52:50 PM10/28/06
to

terra wrote:
> "Salvador Astucia" <cropdu...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:1162004201.9...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > chippandfish wrote:
> >> Salvador Astucia wrote:
> >> > Is it possible that all the posters on this thread are actually Gerry
> >> > Zekelo, aka, "Chewwy"?
> >> >
> >> > Any thoughts, Charlie? Seriously. I'm interested in your perspective
> >> > because you seem to genuinely dislike Zekelo.
> >> >
> >> > Salvador Astucia
> >>
> >> Hey, stupid..............everyone in the world is chewwy, right?
> >
> > You (chippandfish) started a thread named "boo" which I changed to
> > "TAR's views on life". In that thread, Charlie Gauger said you were
> > Gerry Zekelo, aka, Chewwy.
>
> Nope, I never did. Your reading comprehension skills at work again.

Charlie, you can't take it back. You stated that Chippandfish was Gerry
Zekelo.

fatt...@yahoo.com

unread,
Oct 28, 2006, 1:27:22 PM10/28/06
to


You raise some good points. I don't know much about Heather so I can't
say whether or not Yoko is a more formidable adversary. Overall, Yoko
does seem to be quite intelligent and was highly educated; however she
has said and done some stupid things over the years. No one is perfect.

I was focusing on a narrow issue. Specifically, I think both Heather
and Yoko are ambitious and desire great wealth and power. I think this
self interest drew them to their marriages as opposed to true,
unconditional love. I don't think Yoko would have gone after John if
he was a poor schmoe; I don't think Heather would have been interested
in Paul if he were an average Joe.

I also think that to an extent they are or were both jealous of their
respective husband's fame and felt resentful at times because they felt
they had to compete with their husband's Beatles past. Both Heather
and Yoko see themselves as deserving of world acclaim. They could not
appreciate why the world did not love them just as much as their
husbands. I think this ego centric attitude put a strain on their
marriages. They competed with their husbands rather than gladly
standing in the background cheering them on to success.

The differerence is John tended to hate conflict (as described by his
ex wife Cyn) so he tended to give in and allow himself to be dominated.
John IMHO even did things to damage his career and make himself less
marketable by submerging himself into JohnandYoko. If promoting Yoko
made her happy even if it meant John's records did not sell, he did it.

Paul, on the other hand, was more ambitious and is stronger emotionally
and was (thank goodness) able to stand up to his wife.

Salvador Astucia

unread,
Oct 28, 2006, 2:27:19 PM10/28/06
to
<snip>

TAR wrote:
> Still didn't grow that brain, I see. Charlie never said that
> fishandchipps or chippsandfish was Chewbop.

He definitely suggested that the thread, BOO (Oct. 25), was started by
Gerry Zekelo (aka, Chewbop, aka, Chewwy). And he further indicated that
Zekelo had forged the screen name to give the impression that he was
your so-called friend, Jim (fish), the guy who left the newsgroup on
Oct. 23.

> He knows that fish is NOT Chewbop.

My point exactly. Charlie and others believe Fish is Jim. And they know
that Fish/Jim announced he would no longer post to r.m.b on Oct. 23.
Then two days later, on Oct. 25, someone seems to be Jim/fish starts a
thread named BOO. Charlie indicated that Gerry Zekelo (aka, Chewbop,
aka, Chewwy) had forged "fish" (whose real name is apparently Jim
something). It was either a forgery, or your friend Jim is a liar and
started a thread two days after he said he was leaving the newsgroup.

> If he thought it was, why on earth would Charlie be so
> friendly with Fish?

Which fish? The real one, or the forged one--the one Charlie suggested
was forged by Gerry Zekelo?

> The two guys happen to like each other. You're not
> thinking clearly, Sal. Not at all.

I don't get the impression that Charlie likes Gerry Zekelo.

Salvador Astucia

uly...@mscomm.com

unread,
Oct 28, 2006, 2:44:12 PM10/28/06
to
Excellent points about Heather and Yoko. There's absolutely no doubt
you're right when saying, "I think both Heather and Yoko are ambitious

and desire great wealth and power."

I think Yoko was more into the power/publicity angle since she was
wealthy to begin with. Heather was not wealthy but wanted the glamour
and fame of marrying a Beatle. When the dumb fool realized the
photographers and fans only cared about Paul and not her, she went
nuts. Imagine the ego of marrying Paul and expecting the attention to
be on her? What delusions of grandeur.

I also completely agree that both Heather and Yoko were jealous of
their husbands. It seems Heather took this jealousy to a new level
because she is incredibly naive, stupid and uneducated. Yoko was
certainly angry and jealous of John's iconic status but was clever
enough to attempt to hide this envy. Yoko simply was more adroit at
manipulation and public image control. She had better handlers and ass
kissers, people like Elliot Mintz.

"Both Heather and Yoko see themselves as deserving of world acclaim."

Good point. I've always disliked Yoko intensely, but in a way, she has
more of a claim to fame and attention than Heather. Why? At least Yoko
was part of the Beatles history: she was in the studio for three
albums, she watched and participated in their disintegration, she was
present at many group meetings and was essentially a witness to
history. Even if most Beatles fans detest her, we can't deny that she
hung around during some huge moments in the lives of the Beatles.

On the other hand, clueless Heather famously said she knew nothing
about the Beatles and cared nothing about them. On a BBC radio
interview someone called in and mentioned Brian Epstein and Heather
said, "Brian who?" Why advertise such spectacular stupidity? Why not
have an interest in your husband's past and knowing about Brian would
be part of that. So Heather has no claim to any fame other than being
married to an ex-Beatle and marrying him three decades after their
demise. It wouldn't surprise me at all to hear her say something like,
"Ringo who?"

fatt...@yahoo.com

unread,
Oct 28, 2006, 8:51:30 PM10/28/06
to

uly...@mscomm.com wrote:
> Excellent points about Heather and Yoko. There's absolutely no doubt
> you're right when saying, "I think both Heather and Yoko are ambitious
> and desire great wealth and power."


Thanks.


>
> I think Yoko was more into the power/publicity angle since she was
> wealthy to begin with. Heather was not wealthy but wanted the glamour
> and fame of marrying a Beatle. When the dumb fool realized the
> photographers and fans only cared about Paul and not her, she went
> nuts. Imagine the ego of marrying Paul and expecting the attention to
> be on her? What delusions of grandeur.


Plus I do think she liked the money. I am not giving her the "gold
digger "label yet (although perhaps I am splitting hairs) but I think
she liked the money too.


>
> I also completely agree that both Heather and Yoko were jealous of
> their husbands. It seems Heather took this jealousy to a new level
> because she is incredibly naive, stupid and uneducated. Yoko was
> certainly angry and jealous of John's iconic status but was clever
> enough to attempt to hide this envy. Yoko simply was more adroit at
> manipulation and public image control. She had better handlers and ass
> kissers, people like Elliot Mintz.

Yoko attempted and still attempts to hide her jealousy and her true
agenda; however people close to John and Yoko saw through this. That is
one reason, for example, she does what she can to surpress Fred Seaman
and his book. That is one reason, to give another example, she did
what she could to go after poor Jack Douglas. Yoko attempts to hurt
people who speak out against her self centered, manipulative ways.

Fortunately, Yoko cannot control the critics. So when she gets
involved in a show about John (Lennon the Musical) there were a number
of independent critics out there who correctly pointed out that this
show was really a vehicle to promote Yoko. One critic called the show
Yoko centric. Another critic said it was a show about her huge ego.

The same can be said for certain other projects . . . such as Memories
of John and, to a lesser extent, the new Lennon documentary.


> "Both Heather and Yoko see themselves as deserving of world acclaim."
>
> Good point. I've always disliked Yoko intensely, but in a way, she has
> more of a claim to fame and attention than Heather. Why? At least Yoko
> was part of the Beatles history: she was in the studio for three
> albums, she watched and participated in their disintegration, she was
> present at many group meetings and was essentially a witness to
> history. Even if most Beatles fans detest her, we can't deny that she
> hung around during some huge moments in the lives of the Beatles.


You are too kind. If you read Yoko's interviews, it is true she was
around during the Beatles recording sessions, disintegration, etc.
However instead of being grateful, Yoko's attitude has consistantly
been a disdainful yawn or statements to the effect that she was stifled
in her creativity.


> On the other hand, clueless Heather famously said she knew nothing
> about the Beatles and cared nothing about them.

I think Yoko and Heather are similar in this regard. Yoko is in an
even weaker position because she is much older than Heather. Yoko has
claimed she never really heard of the Beatles even though she lived in
New York for many years. I find that almost hard to believe. I recall
one interview where Yoko was told that the Beatles had played at Shea
Stadium and she responded something like "Why would the Beatles be at a
baseball field." When someone explained to her that they had huge
concerts, Yoko responded that she performed at Carnegie Hall. (as if
her perforamance meant anything to anyone other than the 100 or 200
people who attended)

Heather has an excuse because she is so young and I believe spent some
time in Eastern Europe.

On a BBC radio
> interview someone called in and mentioned Brian Epstein and Heather
> said, "Brian who?" Why advertise such spectacular stupidity? Why not
> have an interest in your husband's past and knowing about Brian would
> be part of that. So Heather has no claim to any fame other than being
> married to an ex-Beatle and marrying him three decades after their
> demise. It wouldn't surprise me at all to hear her say something like,
> "Ringo who?"

To me, I can forgive ignorance to an extent. However it seems to me
Heather is more than ignorant . . . she just doesn't care.

John and Yoko claim that Yoko had heard of Ringo . . . but that is
because Ringo supposedly means apple in Japanese, so the name stuck in
her mind.

Salvador Astucia

unread,
Oct 28, 2006, 11:01:51 PM10/28/06
to
uly...@mscomm.com wrote:
> Excellent points about Heather and Yoko. <snip>

Huh? Heather and Yoko are two doors down on the right.

(back to previous post)

Angie...@hotmail.com

unread,
Oct 28, 2006, 11:29:47 PM10/28/06
to

Oh, she was horrible. She basically called the premier of Newfoundland
a liar and wouldn't listen to anything he said. She had her mind made
up, and she constantly interupted him. She acted like a two year old
having a tantrum. Paul looked horrified.

I don't like the seal hunt, but I felt like I'd rather go club some
seals than be on the same side of the issue as this mad woman.

Angie

Salvador Astucia

unread,
Oct 29, 2006, 12:08:33 AM10/29/06
to

TAR wrote:
> Still didn't grow that brain, I see. Charlie never said that
> fishandchipps or chippsandfish was Chewbop. He knows that fish is NOT
> Chewbop. If he thought it was, why on earth would Charlie be so
> friendly with Fish? The two guys happen to like each other. You're not
> thinking clearly, Sal. Not at all.

Charlie never said what? Fish? Fishandchips? Chewbop? This guy is not
that guy?

Time to up your meds, Donna. You're coming unglued bigtime.

Salvador

http://www.jfkmontreal.com

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages